Justplainbill's Weblog

July 31, 2015

Still Blind to the Costs of Illegal Immigration, by Bruce S. Thornton [c]

Still Blind to the Costs of Illegal Immigration
July 31, 2015 11:12 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
What really explains Trump’s rapid climb to the top of the polls.

by Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine
Photo via FPM

Photo via FPM

Donald Trump’s blunt and clumsy comments about illegal immigration sparked the usual firestorm of criticism from the well heeled of both parties. Particularly vocal were those Republicans who think that an amorphous, make-believe category comprising “Hispanics” or “Latinos” will vote Republican if only Republican meanies like Trump would stop insulting them by complaining about illegal aliens. As usual, willful ignorance or blindness about the costs of illegal immigration underwrites these dubious ideas.

Trump’s comments about crimes committed by illegal aliens, for example, were attacked by the usual denial and obfuscation. Various statistics, some mixing illegal and legal immigrants, were touted as showing illegal criminal activity was proportionately less than that of the native-born. But as Brietbart reported, while illegal aliens are 3.5% of the population, based on federal sentencing data they represent 12% of murder convictions. Add state crime data, and according to an analysis at American Thinker illegals commit 10 times more murders than do citizens.

Murder obviously gets the most attention, especially after a five-time deported illegal alien felon in San Francisco gunned down Kate Steinle in broad daylight. Yet the champions of the “path to citizenship” typically ignore the less spectacular disorderly behavior of the sort rife in regions with large concentrations of illegal aliens like the San Joaquin Valley. Driving under the influence or while intoxicated, driving without insurance, perpetrating hit-and-run accidents, discarding garbage and trash along roads, disregarding laws and codes covering construction, animal control, restaurants, and sanitation, breaking into homes and cars, stealing copper wire from farm pumps––all these quality of life infractions have increased as more illegal aliens have settled in the Valley.

In other words, the “broken windows” theory of policing that many conservatives are criticizing New York mayor Bill di Blasio for attacking––the idea that cracking down on minor quality of life crimes creates a sense of enforced public order that deters more serious crimes––is nowhere to be found in many parts of the rural San Joaquin Valley. The social costs of this breakdown in civic order, of course, are born by those––law-abiding Americans of whatever ethnicity–– tied by tradition or necessity to these Valley towns. And the economic costs are paid by every state and federal taxpayer whose billions of dollars––$20 billion a year in some estimates–– fund the costs of unpaid emergency room visits, criminal prosecution and incarceration, highway mayhem, illegal welfare benefits, schools crowded with the English deficient, and fraudulent social security disability payments.

Nor is it true, as the race industry hacks claim, that such criticism merely reflects bigotry or racism against the oppressed brown “other.” The Mexican-American legal immigrants of the sort I grew up with in the 50s and 60s suffer today just as much from this influx of peoples from cultures with very different mores and attitudes towards law, relationships to legal authority, and civic obligations. Yes, America in the past took in many other ethnic groups and nationalities with similar differences that often caused social problems. But back then, immigrants were faced with a brutal trade-off: change your cultural habits, learn and obey American law, political principles, and social customs, and speak English. If not, go back home, or pay a price for your refusal. No one had a right to come to America and then demand that Americans adjust their culture and mores to those of the newcomer.

That old mechanism of assimilation has been broken. The triumph of multiculturalism and its evil twin “diversity” have taught many immigrants, legal and illegal alike, that they should not have to assimilate, that their culture is just as good or even superior to America’s, and that political and civic institutions must adapt to their culture and language. Organized lobbies like La Raza and LULAC institutionalize such separatism, demanding all the privileges and boons of living in a liberal democracy ruled by law, at the same time they counsel their clients to resist endorsing and practicing the very culture that underwrites their freedom. Rather than a privilege to be earned, American citizenship and its advantages are considered justified reparations for all the historical sins Americans have inflicted on their southern neighbors. Add a porous border with Mexico continually refreshing the old country’s culture with new arrivals, and the obstacles to transforming illegal immigrants into Americans make the “path to citizenship” rhetoric a pipe dream.

Of course, there are millions of illegal immigrants who don’t commit crimes other than the first one of crossing the border. They don’t illegally receive welfare benefits––though their children born here can and do. No doubt many would become good citizens, and want their children and grandchildren to become more American. The problem is that no one touting “comprehensive immigration reform” can lay out for us a specific program for sorting out the potential good Americans from the murderers, welfare cheats, and thugs. It’s so much easier politically just to confuse illegal with legal immigration, indulge Emma Lazarus “nation of immigrants” sentiments, and scold critics that they are keeping Republicans from winning millions of voters.

Trump’s rapid climb to the top of the polls, at least for now, reflects a widespread anger with establishment Republicans who refuse to tell the truth about the costs of illegal immigration. Trump’s fans are sick of their reasonable complaints being dismissed as the bigotry or stupidity of “crazies,” as John McCain called them, or as the bitter tantrums of the narrow-minded fearful of change. They are very much like the New Yorkers of the 70s, who finally had enough of bums, punks, criminals, hookers, welfare freeloaders, and all the other detritus that made New York the dystopia of Taxi Driver and Death Wish.

Those New Yorkers got Mayor Rudy Giuliani and a police force empowered to restore civic order by enforcing the law. Those today fed up with the costs of illegal immigration disorder and violence, or the virtual nullification of federal law wrought by “sanctuary cities,” get insulted and ignored by their own party. Is it any surprise that they are supporting a politician who, for all his political opportunism, takes their anger seriously and promises to do something about it?

[Secession and The Heartland Plan. Review the intermediate argument for secession elsewhere on this blog.]

Advertisements

June 30, 2015

The Black Dilemma, Ian Duncan of The Baltimore Sun [nc]

The Black Dilemma – Baltimore Sun Editorial 5-30-15

The Black Dilemma

Ian Duncan, The Baltimore Sun , May 30, 2015

�The Baltimore Sun� is definitely not known as a Conservative newspaper, so this very well written assessment of the situation in the USA comes as something of a surprise.

The Black Dilemma

“For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites.

The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedmans Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap. To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to Racism. Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.

Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of. There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing.

Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And blacks never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.

Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn’t mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.

But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege.

But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country’s violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.

The experiment has failed. Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white racism. The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess.
*They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior. They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the racism of others – but by their own hatred of non-blacks.*

Our leaders don’t seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. *They don’t understand that white people aren’t out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity.* The elites explain everything with racism, and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point.”—

“You can’t legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government doesn’t first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they don’t have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

Ian Duncan
The Baltimore Sun , May 30, 2015

May 6, 2015

Protestors: Y’all are now “On Notice”

Protestors: Y’all are now “On Notice”
Posted: 6 May 2015

Not too long ago, a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania state employee stood in front of a polling place, cudgel in hand, cursing Whites, declaring that Blacks must rise up and kill all White babies or they will “kill us,” and Holder & Obama, and now Lynch, have declared that this is Free Speech pursuant to the 1st Amendment. Now, as a matter of law, since this man was a state employee, killing White babies and White Genocide, by virtue of the legal concept, “under color of law”, are now the official policies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The concept of “under color of law” was used to allow the deep pockets of state governments to be invaded by Civil Rights Activists when county sheriffs or municipal police departments sicced dogs or cudgeled protestors back in the day when discrimination was considered unacceptable.

The very idea that a private citizen should not be allowed to hire a private venue to hold an artistic contest under protection of the 1st Amendment, and should be held accountable for the acts of terrorists, is, to say the very least, confusing. The cowardly idea that we should be silent because, in the case of Islam, whatever point we want to make will lead to a violent confrontation is an indictment of those who propose it as to cowardice.

Speaking the truth is more important than this absurd posturing that, ‘well, if it may lead to violence, you must remain silent or be accountable for the result’. If this position be acceptable to Americans, then we Americans would not be. The Founders of this Nation knew by 1772 that their continued demands for the Rights of Englishmen were leading to a violent confrontation.

Here is an unpleasant truth: Mohammed was a pedophile. He liked and married seven-year-old girls.

Here is another unpleasant truth: there are over 109 verses in the Qur’An calling for violence, beheading, lying to infidels, slavery, rape of slaves, that all Christians and Jews are the sworn enemies of Islam, and a calling to arms against all unbelievers. (List available at: http://www.justplainbill.wordpress.com.)

Here is another unpleasant truth: there is no such thing as radical Islam. All Islam is the same. There are two proofs. The first Proof is that there has never been a Reformation since the original recital. The second proof is that any Muslim Cleric may declare a Fatwah applying to all 1.4 Billion Muslims at any time, effective immediately, to end all violence, yet none have been issued.

The people in Texas have an indisputable, irrevocable 1st Amendment Right, to hold a private, non-violent, artistic contest in a private venue on any subject so chosen, the same as those who promoted the Mapplethorpe Exhibit, where defecating on the American Flag, and using the American Flag as a floor mat, were considered Free Speech, even though there was considerable, albeit restrained, counter-protest.

If the anti-Texas posturing were acceptable, then from now own, as shown by the recent college student flag defiling causing a violent reaction by a veteran, all flag defilers are on notice that they will be held personally responsible for all subsequent violence.

Therefore, from now on, all protestors are on notice, that if there is any violent counter to whatever it is that they are protesting, the violence and destruction therefrom is the legal liability of the initial protestors.

April 4, 2015

thereligionofpeace.com [nc]

TheReligionofPeace.com
Guide to Understanding Islam

What does the
Religion of Peace
Teach About…

Violence

Question:

Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

Summary Answer:

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today’s Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad’s own martial legacy – and that of his companions – along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from “fitna” which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”

Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).

Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”

Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward ” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse). Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill in his cause.

Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”

Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”

Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”

Quran (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…”

Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”

Quran (8:65) – “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”

Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:14) – “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “healing” the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam “superior over all religions.” This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”

Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today’s devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”

Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” How does the Quran define a true believer?

Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)

Quran (21:44) – “We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”

Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.” Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.

Quran (47:35) – “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”

Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ in verse 16.

Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way” Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “battle array” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Quran (61:10-12) – “O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn – Eternity [‘Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.” This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

Quran (66:9) – “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at AnsweringIslam.org

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Bukhari (52:256) – The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Bukhari (52:65) – The Prophet said, ‘He who fights that Allah’s Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause. Muhammad’s words are the basis for offensive Jihad – spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today.

Bukhari (52:220) – Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’

Abu Dawud (14:2526) – The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527) – The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”

Muslim (1:30) – “The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”

Bukhari (52:73) – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords’.”

Bukhari (11:626) – [Muhammad said:] “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.”

Muslim (1:149) – “Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”

Muslim (20:4645) – “…He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!”

Muslim (20:4696) – “the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'”

Muslim (19:4321-4323) – Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: “They are of them (meaning the enemy).”

Muslim (19:4294) – “When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him… He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war… When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

Bukhari 1:35 “The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed).”

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.” Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us” The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Tabari 17:187 “‘By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.’ And they returned to their former religion.” The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: – Lest anyone think that cutting off someone’s head while screaming ‘Allah Akbar!’ is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” Muhammad’s instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 – “Embrace Islam… If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship.” One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad’s armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.

Additional Notes:

Other than the fact that Muslims haven’t killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam’s most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier “Meccan” verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, then things change.

Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran plainly says. They reach subjectively for textual context across different suras to try and mitigate the harsher passages. Even though the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, Muslim apologists speak of the “risks” of trying to interpret the verses without their “assistance.” Like many religious people, they want the text to fit their pre-established moral framework.

Far from being mere history or theological construct, the violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni’s bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam’s Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today’s Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.

So ingrained is violence in the religion that Islam has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion’s most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death. The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to attack in self-defense, this is an oxymoron that is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.

Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad’s deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as “same day marriage”).

One of Islam’s most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: “In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.” Elsewhere, he notes: “Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the ‘homeland of Islam’ diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.”

The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], “The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.”

Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time,” tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule – bound only by the capacity for success. (source)

Muhammad’s failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or ‘Apostasy wars’). Then, within the closer community, early Meccan converts battled later ones. Hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad’s own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter – a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others’ throats to this day.

The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare…) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

This is what makes the Quran’s verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them – outside of opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam’s holiest book either speaks to Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it’s little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community – even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam’s most respected philosophers, understood that “the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force”, many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran’s near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity – preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance – because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to learn that the evidence of the Quran and the bloody history of Islam are very much in contradiction to this.

Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the “culture”, claiming that the father was merely following “the religion” and saying that the couple had to “discipline their daughter or lose respect.” (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious “holy pilgrimage” to Mecca by the Saudi king – without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.

There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally… and too many others who couldn’t care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.

TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page

© 2006-2016 TheReligionofPeace.com. All rights reserved.

December 31, 2014

Confessions of a Public Defender, Michael Smith Esq., from “Face to Face with Race” [nc]

It may help explain Ferguson. This was one of the stories in Face to Face with Race.

http://www.amren.com/features/2014/05/confessions-of-a-public-defender/

Confessions of a Public Defender

Michael Smith, American Renaissance, May 9, 2014

Still liberal after all these years.

I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.

I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.

As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.

The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black. All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.

Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down. They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving, and crowding the halls.

When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself. At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.

A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation. Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.

At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date. They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.

Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.

Black men often try to trip me up and challenge my knowledge of the law or the facts of the case. I appreciate sincere questions about the elements of the offense or the sentencing guidelines, but blacks ask questions to test me. Unfortunately, they are almost always wrong in their reading, or understanding, of the law, and this can cause friction. I may repeatedly explain the law, and provide copies of the statute showing, for example, why my client must serve six years if convicted, but he continues to believe that a hand-written note from his “cellie” is controlling law.

The risks of trial

The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.

Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.

Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Often the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, and the chances of conviction are high. The defendant is better off with a plea bargain: pleading guilty to a lesser charge and getting a lighter sentence.

The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video. Etc.

If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. It is my firm belief many black are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others. They simply cannot understand how the facts in the case will appear to a jury.

This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.

My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

No fathers

As a public defender, I have learned many things about people. One is that defendants do not have fathers. If a black even knows the name of his father, he knows of him only as a shadowy person with whom he has absolutely no ties. When a client is sentenced, I often beg for mercy on the grounds that the defendant did not have a father and never had a chance in life. I have often tracked down the man’s father–in jail–and have brought him to the sentencing hearing to testify that he never knew his son and never lifted a finger to help him. Often, this is the first time my client has ever met his father. These meetings are utterly unemotional.

Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenaged mother. Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan. When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.

Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.

The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.

The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some–and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp–don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care. This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person–me–who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.

Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.

The black men who become my clients also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support. When I learn that my 19-year-old defendant does not work or go to school, I ask, “What do you do all day?” He smiles. “You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

If you tell a black to dress properly for trial, and don’t give specific instructions, he will arrive in wildly inappropriate clothes. I represented a woman who was on trial for drugs; she wore a baseball cap with a marijuana leaf embroidered on it. I represented a man who wore a shirt that read “rules are for suckers” to his probation hearing. Our office provides suits, shirts, ties, and dresses for clients to wear for jury trials. Often, it takes a whole team of lawyers to persuade a black to wear a shirt and tie instead of gang colors.

From time to time the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. What the media only hint at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.

Stats

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

At one time our office was looking for a motto that defined our philosophy. Someone joked that it should be: “Doesn’t everyone deserve an eleventh chance?”

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.

My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

December 9, 2014

Dick Lamm, former Gov of Colorado (pre-weed) [nc]

AMERICAN SUICIDE

Isn’t it rather amazing how a past Governor of Colorado can focus and zero
in on a major issue facing this State of California.—and now the U.S.

Wherever you stand on this issue, please take the time to read this; it
should wake you from your slumber on this important truth.

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his
thoughts are particularly poignant.

Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington,
D.C., filled to capacity with many of America’s finest minds and leaders. A
brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Davis Hansen talked about
his latest book, “Mexifornia”, explaining how immigration – both legal and
illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would
march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American
Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a
stunning speech on how to destroy America.

The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the
destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that America is
too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is
not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time.
Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that
‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit
suicide.’â€

“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said.

“FIRST, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual
and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the
tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and
cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it
is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour
Lipset, put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bicultural
societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and
tragedy.’ Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of
national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not
independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an
ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons,
Corsicans and Muslims.”

Lamm went on:

“SECOND, to destroy America, invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage
immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all
cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an
article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely
to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is
out of bounds.”

“THIRD, we could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much
effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin
Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our
own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not
by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated
ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only
tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’ Lamm said, “I would encourage
all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the
melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to
ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing
their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“FOURTH, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least
educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated,
and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass
have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

“My FIFTH point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and
business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic
identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all
minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the
majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure
on the majority placation.”

“My SIXTH plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and
promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would
stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are
mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing
each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most
historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation
together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they
belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature;
and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic
games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these
bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and
geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E.
Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the
emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will “Balkanize”
America as surely as Kosovo.

“NEXT TO LAST, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk
about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar
to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed
thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate.
Having made America a bi-lingual/bi-cultural country, having established
multi-culturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of
‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration
laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for
America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant
symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the LAST minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound
silence followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis
Hanson’s book ‘Mexifornia.’ His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to
destroy America If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read
that book.”

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud
above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew
that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly,
darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being
suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our
educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that
practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’
American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a
Third World in America. Take note of California and other states. To date,
ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George
Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the
Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and
“Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the
conference that our nation, and the future of this great democracy, is
deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration
monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire
and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this on
just as I did for you. NOTHING is going to happen if you don’t!

“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a
nation gone under” – Ronald Reagan

December 7, 2014

From 1939, Thanks to Butch and www.vonmises.org [c]

Hard to believe this was written in 1939.

The Criminality of the State

http://mises.org/library/criminality-state

·

·

DECEMBER 29, 2006Albert Jay Nock

TAGS Big GovernmentWar and Foreign PolicyInterventionism

[This essay first appeared in The American Mercury in March 1939.]

As well as I can judge, the general attitude of Americans who are at all interested in foreign affairs is one of astonishment, coupled with distaste, displeasure, or horror, according to the individual observer’s capacity for emotional excitement. Perhaps I ought to shade this statement a little in order to keep on the safe side, and say that this is the most generally expressed attitude.

All our institutional voices — the press, pulpit, forum — are pitched to the note of amazed indignation at one or another phase of the current goings-on in Europe and Asia. This leads me to believe that our people generally are viewing with wonder as well as repugnance certain conspicuous actions of various foreign States; for instance, the barbarous behavior of the German State towards some of its own citizens; the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian State; the ruthless imperialism of the Italian State; the “betrayal of CzechoSlovakia” by the British and French States; the savagery of the Japanese State; the brutishness of the Chinese State’s mercenaries; and so on, here or there, all over the globe — this sort of thing is showing itself to be against our people’s grain, and they are speaking out about it in wrathful surprise.

I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, “Well, what do you expect?” — what rational answer could they give? I know of none.

Polite or impolite, that is just the question which ought to be put every time a story of State villainy appears in the news. It ought to be thrown at our public day after day, from every newspaper, periodical, lecture platform, and radio station in the land; and it ought to be backed up by a simple appeal to history, a simple invitation to look at the record. The British State has sold the Czech State down the river by a despicable trick; very well, be as disgusted and angry as you like, but don’t be astonished; what would you expect? — just take a look at the British State’s record! The German State is persecuting great masses of its people, the Russian State is holding a purge, the Italian State is grabbing territory, the Japanese State is buccaneering along the Asiatic Coast; horrible, yes, but for Heaven’s sake don’t lose your head over it, for what would you expect? — look at the record!

That is how every public presentation of these facts ought to run if Americans are ever going to grow up into an adult attitude towards them. Also, in order to keep down the great American sin of self-righteousness, every public presentation ought to draw the deadly parallel with the record of the American State. The German State is persecuting a minority, just as the American State did after 1776; the Italian State breaks into Ethiopia, just as the American State broke into Mexico; the Japanese State kills off the Manchurian tribes in wholesale lots, just as the American State did the Indian tribes; the British State practices large-scale carpetbaggery, like the American State after 1864; the imperialist French State massacres native civilians on their own soil, as the American State did in pursuit of its imperialistic policies in the Pacific, and so on.

In this way, perhaps, our people might get into their heads some glimmering of the fact that the State’s criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation — that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose.

No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient. In the last analysis, what is the German, Italian, French, or British State now actually doing? It is ruining its own people in order to preserve itself, to enhance its own power and prestige, and extend its own authority; and the American State is doing the same thing to the utmost of its opportunities.

What, then, is a little matter like a treaty to the French or British State? Merely a scrap of paper — Bethmann-Hollweg[i] described it exactly. Why be astonished when the German or Russian State murders its citizens? The American State would do the same thing under the same circumstances. In fact, eighty years ago it did murder a great many of them for no other crime in the world but that they did not wish to live under its rule any longer; and if that is a crime, then the colonists led by G. Washington were hardened criminals and the Fourth of July is nothing but a cutthroat’s holiday.

The weaker the State is, the less power it has to commit crime. Where in Europe today does the State have the best criminal record? Where it is weakest: in Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Monaco, Andorra. Yet when the Dutch State, for instance, was strong, its criminality was appalling; in Java it massacred 9,000 persons in one morning which is considerably ahead of Hitler’s record or Stalin’s. It would not do the like today, for it could not; the Dutch people do not give it that much power, and would not stand for such conduct. When the Swedish State was a great empire, its record, say from 1660 to 1670, was fearful. What does all this mean but that if you do not want the State to act like a criminal, you must disarm it as you would a criminal; you must keep it weak. The State will always be criminal in proportion to its strength; a weak State will always be as criminal as it can be, or dare be, but if it is kept down to the proper limit of weakness — which, by the way, is a vast deal lower limit than people are led to believe — its criminality may be safely got on with.

So it strikes me that instead of sweating blood over the iniquity of foreign States, my fellow-citizens would do a great deal better by themselves to make sure that the American State is not strong enough to carry out the like iniquities here. The stronger the American State is allowed to grow, the higher its record of criminality will grow, according to its opportunities and temptations. If, then, instead of devoting energy, time, and money to warding off wholly imaginary and fanciful dangers from criminals thousands of miles away, our people turn their patriotic fervor loose on the only source from which danger can proceed, they will be doing their full duty by their country.

Two able and sensible American publicists — Isabel Paterson, of the New York Herald Tribune, and W.J. Cameron, of the Ford Motor Company — have lately called our public’s attention to the great truth that if you give the State power to do something for you, you give it an exact equivalent of power to do something to you. I wish every editor, publicist, teacher, preacher, and lecturer would keep hammering that truth into American heads until they get it nailed fast there, never to come loose. The State was organized in this country with power to do all kinds of things for the people, and the people in their short-sighted stupidity, have been adding to that power ever since. After 1789, John Adams said that, so far from being a democracy of a democratic republic, the political organization of the country was that of “a monarchical republic, or, if you will, a limited monarchy”; the powers of its President were far greater than those of “an avoyer, a consul, a podesta, a doge, a stadtholder; nay, than a king of Poland; nay, than a king of Sparta.” If all that was true in 1789 — and it was true — what is to be said of the American State at the present time, after a century and a half of steady centralization and continuous increments of power?

Power, for instance, to “help business” by auctioning off concessions, subsidies, tariffs, land grants, franchises; power to help business by ever encroaching regulations, supervisions, various forms of control. All this power was freely given; it carried with it the equivalent power to do things to business; and see what a banditti of sharking political careerists are doing to business now! Power to afford “relief” to proletarians; and see what the State has done to those proletarians now in the way of systematic debauchery of whatever self-respect and self-reliance they may have had! Power this way, power that way; and all ultimately used against the interests of the people who surrendered that power on the pretext that it was to be used for those interests.

Many now believe that with the rise of the “totalitarian” State the world has entered upon a new era of barbarism. It has not. The totalitarian State is only the State; the kind of thing it does is only what the State has always done with unfailing regularity, if it had the power to do it, wherever and whenever its own aggrandizement made that kind of thing expedient. Give any State like power hereafter, and put it in like circumstances, and it will do precisely the same kind of thing. The State will unfailingly aggrandize itself, if only it has the power, first at the expense of its own citizens, and then at the expense of anyone else in sight. It has always done so, and always will.

The idea that the State is a social institution, and that with a fine upright man like Mr. Chamberlain at the head of it, or a charming person like Mr. Roosevelt, there can be no question about its being honorably and nobly managed — all this is just so much sticky flypaper. Men in that position usually make a good deal of their honor, and some of them indeed may have some (though if they had any I cannot understand their letting themselves be put in that position) but the machine they are running will run on rails which are laid only one way, which is from crime to crime. In the old days, the partition of CzechosLovakia or the taking-over of Austria would have been arranged by rigmarole among a few highly polished gentlemen in stiff shirts ornamented with fine ribbons. Hitler simply arranged it the way old Frederick arranged his share in the first partition of Poland; he arranged the annexation of Austria the way Louis XIV arranged that of Alsace. There is more or less of a fashion, perhaps, in the way these things are done, but the point is that they always come out exactly the same in the end.

Furthermore, the idea that the procedure of the “democratic” State is any less criminal than that of the State under any other fancy name, is rubbish. The country is now being surfeited with journalistic garbage about our great sister democracy, England, its fine democratic government, its vast beneficent gift for ruling subject peoples, and so on; but does anyone ever look up the criminal record of the British State? The bombardment of Copenhagen; the Boer War; the Sepoy Rebellion; the starvation of Germans by the post-Armistice blockade; the massacre of natives in India, Afghanistan, Jamaica; the employment of Hessians to kill off American colonists. What is the difference, moral or actual, between Kitchener’s democratic concentration camps[ii] and the totalitarian concentration camps maintained by Herr Hitler? The totalitarian general Badoglio[iii] is a pretty hard-boiled brother, if you like, but how about the democratic general O’Dwyer[iv] and Governor Eyre[v]? Any of the three stands up pretty well beside our own democratic virtuoso, Hell Roaring Jake Smith,[vi] in his treatment of the Filipinos; and you can’t say fairer than that.

As for the British State’s talent for a kindly and generous colonial administration, I shall not rake up old scores by citing the bill of particulars set forth in the Declaration of Independence; I shall consider India only, not even going into matters like the Kaffir war or the Wairau incident in New Zealand. Our democratic British cousins in India in the Eighteenth Century must have learned their trade from Pizarro and Cortez. Edmund Burke called them “birds of prey and passage.” Even the directors of the East India Company admitted that “the vast fortunes acquired in the inland trade have been obtained by a scene of the most tyrannical and oppressive conduct that was ever known in any age or country.” Describing a journey, Warren Hastings wrote that “most of the petty towns and serais were deserted at our approach”; the people ran off into the woods at the mere sight of a white man. There was the iniquitous salt monopoly; there was extortion everywhere, practiced by enterprising rascals in league with a corrupt police; there was taxation which confiscated almost half the products of the soil.

If it be said that Britain was not a sister democracy in those days, and has since reformed, one might well ask how much of the reformation is due to circumstances, and how much to a change of heart. Besides, the Black-and-Tans[vii] were in our day; so was the post-Armistice blockade; General O’Dwyer’s massacre was not more than a dozen years ago;[viii] and there are plenty alive who remember Kitchener’s concentration camps.

No, “democratic” State practice is nothing more or less than State practice. It does not differ from Marxist State practice, Fascist State practice, or any other. Here is the Golden Rule of sound citizenship, the first and greatest lesson in the study of politics: you get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things for you carries with it the equivalent power to do things to you. A citizenry which has learned that one short lesson has but little more left to learn.

Stripping the American State of the enormous power it has acquired is a full-time job for our citizens and a stirring one; and if they attend to it properly they will have no energy to spare for fighting communism, or for hating Hitler, or for worrying about South America or Spain, or for anything whatever, except what goes on right here in the United States.

Editor’s Notes

[i] Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg (November 29, 1856 – January 1, 1921) was a German politician and statesman who served as Chancellor of the German Empire from 1909 to 1917. He was particularly upset by Britain’s declaration of war following German violation of Belgium’s neutrality in the course of her invasion of France, reportedly asking the departing British Ambassador Goschen how Britain could go to war over a “mere scrap of paper” (the Belgian Neutrality Treaty of 1839).

[ii] Horatio Herbert Kitchener (24 June 1850 – 5 June 1916) was an Irish-born British Field Marshal, diplomat and statesman. During the Second Boer War (1899–1902), Kitchener’s policy was to destory Boer farms and move civilians into concentration camps whose conditions led to wide opprobrium in Britain and Europe.

[iii] General Pietro Badoglio succeeded Benito Mussolini as Prime Minister of Italy (Provisional Military Government), from July 25, 1943 to June 18, 1944.

[iv] Sir Michael Francis O’Dwyer (April 1864 – March 13, 1940), was Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab from 1912 to 1919, where he oversaw the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre on April 13, 1919. According to official figures, 379 unarmed civilians were killed by Gurkha troops. Unofficial estimates place the figure much higher, at perhaps 2,000, with many more wounded. In the wake of the massacre O’Dwyer was relieved of his office.

[v] Edward John Eyre (5 August 1815 – 30 November 1901) was an English land explorer of the Australian continent and a controversial Governor of Jamaica, where he ruthlessly suppressed the Morant Bay Rebellion, and had many black peasants killed. He also authorized the judicial murder of George William Gordon, a mixed-race member of the colonial assembly who was suspected of involvement in the insurrection. These events created great controversy in Britain, leading to calls for Eyre to be arrested and tried for Gordon’s murder. John Stuart Mill organized the Jamaica Committee — comprised of such classical liberals as John Bright and Herbert Spencer — calling for his prosecution. Eyre was twice charged with murder, but the cases never proceeded.

[vi] General Jacob Hurd Smith (1840–1918) was a veteran of the Wounded Knee massacre and well known among Indian campaigners. As brigadier general in charge of the Samar campaign in the Philippine-American War (1899–1913), Smith became infamous for his orders to “kill everyone over the age of ten” and make the island “a howling wilderness.” He was dubbed “Hell Roaring Jake” Smith, “The Monster”, and “Howling Jake” by the newspapers.

[vii] The term “Black and Tans” refers to the Royal Irish Constabulary Reserve Force, which was one of two paramilitary forces employed by the Royal Irish Constabulary from 1920 to 1921, to suppress revolution in Ireland by targeting the IRA and Sinn Féin.

[viii] On March 13, 1940 — one year after Nock published this essay — Punjabi revolutionary Udham Singh shot O’Dwyer dead in Caxton Hall in London as an act of revenge for the massacre.

[Both “The Albany Plan Re-Visited” and TAPR 2nd Edition, solve this problem in the section on Federal Authority and Citizenship. Of the three ways to curtail this form of federal criminality, only Secession may be peaceful. The other two require an armed revolution or insurrection as one, and the other is conquest by an outside force. Both are violent, bloody, and expensive. Secession.]

November 21, 2014

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 [nc]

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act 1952
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

November 20, 2014

1862 Quote by Dr. Henley of SC, how prophetic is this?

“If they (the North) prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its power from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God, and when all the checks and balances of the constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism. The progress of regulated liberty on this continent will be arrested, anarchy will soon succeed, and the end will be a military despotism, which preserves order by the sacrifice of the last vestige of liberty. They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions; they future fortunes of our children, and of this continent, would then be determined by a tyranny which has no parallel in history.” ~Dr. James Henly Thornwell of South Carolina, In Our Danger and our Duty, 1862

[Secession.]

November 11, 2014

Standardized Testing IS the norm!

Standardized Testing
Posted: 11 November 2014

On 4 November 2014, in Missouri, we had several constitutional amendments to pass or refute. Amendment 3 dealt with a state-wide educational mandate that would allow the state government to apply standards, via standardized testing, across the state in order to provide educational uniformity among students pre-K – 12. It also provided for requiring accountability for learning to the teachers, and restricted tenure as well as requiring uniform standards to teacher accreditation. Further, it allowed for the termination of incompetent teachers.

It failed to pass by close to ~80% against and ~20% for.

You should review two earlier posts at this time. One starts with an article posted by Yahoo News, which demonstrates the low level of journalism as well as how poor and substandard the educational system is, my comments at the end are important to both of these posts, and the other is the earlier posted White Paper to the Missouri Senate on Education and Entrepreneurship.

Standardized testing as toxic to education is one of the greatest politico-union hoaxes ever perpetrated on a long-suffering taxpayer. Pay close attention to the FACTS.

The first thing that y’all need to know is that standardized testing was and is an irrefutable fact of the lecture-response form of teaching. Lecture-response is universal throughout the pre-K – 12 American Educational System. Read the White Paper for more. The second thing that you need to know is that there are two forms of textbooks for pre-K – 12. The next time that you see your child, look closely at her textbook.

Open it, look at the publisher’s page, and it probably has a Chicago publisher listed as the publishing company. That is correct, wherever you are in the U.S.A., the odds are that the publisher of your kids’ textbook is the same as everywhere else in the U.S.A., and the publisher is in Chicago. Yupper, everyone HAS THE SAME TEXT BOOK! Now, look at the content.

The book is broken down into modules, sections, and chapters that coincide with the school year. So much for “lesson plans”, when the textbook is designed with internal lesson plans. Oh? Look carefully at the questions at the end of each piece.

Keep in mind, now, that the entire country uses THE SAME TEXTBOOK.

Now, the next time that you attend a P.T.A. meeting, ask to look at THE TEACHER’S textbook. Same publisher and ALMOST the same contents. Look closely at the parts of the book immediately AFTER the questions in your kids’ book.

Do not be shocked. In the teacher’s copy, not only are all of those questions answered, but there are whole paragraphs with what the teacher should be concentrating on, with what questions to ask to guide the students to the correct answer, AND there are suggested TEST QUESTIONS! Where do you think teachers get their test questions?

Yupper, ALL TEACHERS GET THEIR TESTS FROM THE QUESTIONS IN THE SAME TEACHERS’ EDITION OF THE SAME TEXTBOOK! THERE IS ONLY STANDARDIZED TESTING!

So why the argument against standardized testing when no matter where you are, the teachers MUST “teach to the (same) test”?

    The state will only use the same questions to make up the test in the first place; so no matter what, they MUST ‘teach to the test’! Could it be that it takes the granting of the actual grade AWAY from the teacher? Does it mean no more tokens, no more pets, and no more free passes to “minorities”? Does it mean that there will be a true LEVEL playing field, that FAVORITISM will now be ELIMINATED?

    AND, does it mean that incompetent teachers will be exposed for what they are and now vulnerable to replacement with competent teachers?

    Now, a little history lesson: until The Johnson Administration and its “Great Society”, New York City had one of the best public school systems in the U.S.A. The New York Public School System REQUIRED standardized testing at several grades until it was, magically by judicial decree, made racist, and therefore discriminatory. Until The Johnson Administration, the teachers were NOT unionized, tenure was limited, and a teacher did NOT need a Master’s Degree, to teach or to get tenure. Teachers and students did not fear for their lives in any of the schools in New York City in 1960. Parents were involved, teachers were involved, and except for a very few, students were involved.

    During The Clinton Administration, Hilly-Billy wanted Congress to forgive student debt and allow grants for university students taking teaching degrees. What they found out, once the people got involved, was that for every teaching position, there were 2 ½ accredited and licensed teachers!

    Why so many people with teaching licenses, compared to so few jobs?

    Class size in the 1950’s, when kids learned to read, write, and do arithmetic, was between 25 and 35. Now the teachers complain about a class size of 15 and our dropout rate is higher now than it was in 1960.

    Teachers were not required to have an M.Ed. within 10 years of getting their license, or be fired. Why, when if you look at the teachers’ textbook in grades pre-K – 8, is not an Associates’ Degree adequate? Why shouldn’t there be standardized testing and teacher accountability? Keeping in mind, of course, that STANDARDIZED TESTING is already in place and will remain in place for as long as the lecture & response teaching methodology exists.

    Who actually benefits from the current situation? Student? Parent? Teacher?

November 7, 2014

Californicates the rest of the U.S.A., CA grants illegals driver’s licenses [nc]

California plans to issue 1.4 million driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants under new law
Published November 07, 2014
FOX 40

undocumented cali.jpg

California (FOX 40) – California Division of Motor Vehicles is preparing for roughly 1.4 million new driver’s license applicants after Jan. 1.

That’s when Assembly Bill 60, or the Safe and Responsible Drivers Act, goes into effect.

FOX40 spoke with a Maria Rodriguez, an undocumented immigrant living in West Sacramento who plans to apply for a license under the new law.

“It’s the best thing that could have happened to us in California. We’ve been waiting for it for many, many years,” Rodriguez said.

To prepare for all of the new applicants, the Department of Motor Vehicles has hired about 900 new employees and opened several temporary offices across the state.

The DMV is encouraging all eligible applicants to start preparing for their drivers tests early.

When Nevada adopted a similar law, about 90 percent of undocumented immigrants failed the written exam.

Undocumented immigrants will go through the same steps everyone else does to get a license.

They’ll take a written and vision test, if they pass they’ll get their permit then they’ll take a behind-the-wheel test and if they pass that, they will get a license but theirs will look a little bit different than everyone else’s.

On the front, it will say “Federal Limits Apply.” On the back it reads: “This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes” and that it can only be used as a license to drive.

The requirements are: proof of California residency, fingerprints and proper identification.

“Our challenge has been to identify documents that are produced by other countries that are secure enough. That means that they verify that the person who is getting them is actually the person who is applying for them,” California DMV spokesperson Armando Botello said.

The DMV believes a licensed driver equals a safer driver.

“We strongly believe that by having more people with a driver’s license and having gone through the whole process, the roads will be somehow safer in California,” Botello said.

The law has an outspoken opponent.

Don Rosenberg’s son was hit and killed by an undocumented immigrant driver in 2010. Last summer, Rosenberg was the only person to testify against AB60 at the capitol.

Safety is his big concern.

“There’s no evidence that giving drivers test to anyone – not necessarily people here illegally but giving drivers licenses to anyone makes the roads safer and makes them better drivers and to the contrary the evidence is overwhelming that it doesn’t,” Rosenberg said.

Rosenberg feels undocumented immigrants are not experienced enough to drive, and says because the DMV’s written test is offered in 10 languages, he fears they will not be able to read and understand signs on the road.

Maria Rodriguez says the language barrier won’t be an issue for her because she speaks perfect English. Getting a license will give her the freedom to drive her kids around without worry.

“Even though they would not give driver’s licenses, there`s still people like me driving out there, so they`re still gonna do it. As a matter of fact, just give something good to the people that deserve it, that will really take advantage of it,” Rodriguez said.

Like it or not, starting after January first, Maria Rodriguez and roughly 1.4 million others can begin the process of becoming licensed to drive.

California will become the 11th state to allow undocumented immigrants to get drivers licenses.

It will cost the standard amount of $33. Like all drivers, undocumented immigrants are required to have insurance.

They must provide proof of residency and ID. The DMV still has not released the list of documents accepted to prove identity.

A DMV spokesperson expects the list to be released in the coming weeks.

Read more news at FOX 40

November 6, 2014

The Catholic Church and other Charitable Organizations [c]

[It’s not only The Catholic Church, it is also B’Nai B’Rith, and the Protestant Christian churches and charities. Before Obamacare, more than 40% of all hospital beds in the USA, were ‘charitable’ hospital beds, meaning, as I posted in the post on the healthcare hoax, provided by non-government charities, mostly religious. Go review the other post. Until Obamacare, every human being within the geographical confines of the United States of America, had free access to healthcare simply by showing up at one of these hospitals. Charitable institutions provide the bulk of services for those truly in need. Government through extortion covers the rest. Keep in mind that many of the newly elected US Senators and Representatives got into office pledging to repeal Obamacare. Watch what goes on, and consider the following, and keep in mind that the founders were opposed to these socialist tendencies. All that it takes to understand what limitations were placed on the federal government, is to read two books: The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalist Papers, publishing/ purchasing info is on the book list posted herein.]

The Catholic Church

Good Morning Folks, Here is an interesting piece that I received from a friend. Please read and figure out the consequences.

I AM NOT A CATHOLIC, BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE READ BY ALL AMERICANS ASAP!

This for all denominations, not just Catholics, Protestants & Jewish people

Catholic Church

Charity Hospital run by the Sisters of Charity in New Orleans, along with the Upjohn Company, developed the plasma system in the 1930’s that savd so many lives in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and in the Middle East now.

During the Civil War most of the nurses were nuns.

Even if you are not Catholic, this is eye opening:

When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no hospitals.

Today, one out of five people in this country receive their medical care at a Catholic hospital

When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no schools.

Today, the Catholic Church teaches 3 million students a day, in its more than 250 Catholic colleges and universities, in its more than 1200 Catholic high schools and its more than 5000 Catholic grade schools.

Every day, the Catholic Church feeds, clothes, shelters and educates more people than any other organization in the world.

The new Obama Health Mandate could end all this, and the tax payers would have to make up the loss.

Also, all Catholic adoption services will come to an end…a human disaster.

There are more than 77 million Catholics in this country.

It takes an estimated 50 million Catholic votes to elect a president.

I am asking all of you to go to the polls in 2014, and be united in replacing all Senators and Reps with someone who will respect the Catholic Church, all Christians, and all religions with perhaps, the exception of Islam

Mr. President, you said, “The USA is not a Christian Nation”.

You are wrong!!!

We are a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian values, allowing all religions in America to worship and practice freely….

Something that Islam will never do.

Oh, by the way, on MUSLIM HERITAGE in America….

Have you ever been to a Muslim hospital, heard a Muslim orchestra, seen a Muslim band march in a parade, know of a Muslim charity, ever seen Muslims shaking hands with a Muslim Girl Scout, or ever seen a Muslim Candy Striper volunteering in a hospital?

Have you ever seen a Muslim do much of anything that contributes positively to the American way of life?

PLEASE DON’T KEEP THIS—PLEASE SEND IT OUT TO YOUR LIST.

Let’s circulate this to as many as possible. And remember this at the elections coming up in 2014 and 2016.

October 16, 2014

Thomas Jefferson vs Islam/ The Term Leatherneck (USMC), from Bud [nc]

An interesting read.

Here is a little history. Including how the term ‘Leatherneck’ came to be . .

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago,
the United States had declared war on Islam, and Thomas Jefferson led the charge!
At the height of the eighteenth century, Muslim pirates were the terror
of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic. They
attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant
ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment
and wrote heart breaking letters home, begging their government and
family members to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors
demanded.

These extortionists of the high seas represented the Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis,
Morocco, and Algiers – collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast –
and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American
Republic.

Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had
been under the protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. declared
its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States
were protected by France. However, once the war was won, America had to
protect its own fleets. Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy.
Beginning in1784, seventeen years before he would become president, Thomas
Jefferson became America’s Minister to France. That same year, the
U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in
the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the Barbary States,
rather than engaging them in war.

In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships,
and the Dey of Algiers demanded an unheard-of
ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and simple case of extortion,
and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further
payments. Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a
coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states
into peace. A disinterested Congress decided to pay the
ransom.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain
to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved
American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards
America, a nation with which they had no previous
contacts.

The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had
answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it
was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have
acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and
duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found,
and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every
Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations,
as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including
George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only
further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years, the American
government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American
ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to
over twenty percent of the United States government annual revenues in
1800.

Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being
sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha
of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000
plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming. That changed
everything.

Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms,
what he could do with his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting
down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the
United States.
Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit.
Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a
naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but having watched his
nation be cowed by Islamic thuggery for long enough, decided that it was
finally time to meet force with force.

He dispatched a squadron
of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the
Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget. Congress
authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and
goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of
precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify”.

When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and
acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will
and the might to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to
Tripoli.
The war with Tripoli lasted for four more
years, and raged up again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine
Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the
Marine Hymn, They would forever be known as “leathernecks” for the
leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from
being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy
ships.

Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified
doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson
quite deeply. America had a tradition of religious tolerance, the
fact that Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion
the world had ever seen. A religion based on supremacism, whose
holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers
was unacceptable to him. His greatest fear was that someday this
brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the
United States.
This should bother every American. That the Islams
have brought about women-only classes and swimming times at
taxpayer-funded universities and public pools; that Christians, Jews,
and Hindus have been banned from serving on juries where Muslim
defendants are being judged, Piggy banks and Porky Pig tissue dispensers
have been banned from workplaces because they offend Islamist
sensibilities. Ice cream has been discontinued at certain Burger
King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to the
Arabic script for Allah, public schools are pulling pork from
their menus, on and on in the news papers….

It’s death by a thousand cuts, or inch-by-inch as some refer to it,
and most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day across
America. By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate
what is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamists adapt to
our own culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a
politically correct knife, and helping to further the Islamists agenda.
Sadly, it appears that today’s America would rather be politically
correct than victorious.

Any doubts, just Google Thomas Jefferson vs the Muslim World

Happy Remembering!

September 22, 2014

Feds & CA grant illegals drivers licenses [c]

It took a while, but the federal government late last week finally signed off on the California Department of Motor Vehicles’ design for driver’s licenses for people in the country illegally.
The inevitable reaction to such accommodations is to say, deport them all. But that’s not going to happen. –

The cards, which will be issued beginning Jan. 1, will have the phrase “federal limits apply” on the front. The Department of Homeland Security rejected the initial design, which would have placed a small mark on the front and add to the back the sentence: “This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes.” So the new version will be less subtle than backers had hoped (Ted Rall explores that here, and in the cartoon above).

It’s a reasonable compromise. The editorial board last year endorsed the state’s move under AB60 to issue licenses to immigrants in the country illegally who learn the rules of the road and pass a driver’s test, among other requirements. The September editorial said:

“That would bring California in line with at least nine other states that have adopted similar measures. Since 1993, most immigrants living here illegally have been barred from obtaining California licenses (except for some young people who qualify for temporary federal work permits).

“Already, critics of AB 60 are arguing that providing driver’s licenses to people who are in the United States illegally rewards them for breaking the law. But that’s putting politics before common sense.
cComments

What “shadows”…?!?! They are getting Drivers Licenses for crying out loud. The only shadows they are hiding in are the ones provided by Lib blowhards!
joesand128
at 2:04 PM September 22, 2014

Add a comment See all comments
5

“AB 60 doesn’t condone illegal immigration. Rather, it recognizes the argument made by some law enforcement officials, including Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, that we are all safer if those immigrants who are currently driving without a license are taught to operate a car safely and are tested to ensure that they meet the same standards as other drivers. Licenses will also deter hit-and-run accidents by taking away one of the chief incentives to flee the scene.”

It’s a smart move for the state, and for the country. Since that editorial, the number of issuing states has increased to 11, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Ensuring that immigrants in the U.S. illegally know how to drive safely does not reward them for violating the immigration laws. Rather, it helps make the roads safer for all of us.

The inevitable reaction to such an accommodation is to say, deport them all. But that’s not going to happen. Nor should it. DHS estimates there are at least 11.5 million immigrants in the country illegally – equal to the population of Ohio – which the New Republic estimated earlier this year (based on a Center for American Progress report) would cost $216 billion to deport, compared with DHS’ annual budget of $60 billion.

And if those here illegally were rounded up and sent home, the effect on the economy would be around $260 billion a year, the libertarian Cato Institute estimated based on the assumption of 8.3 million immigrants living here illegally and working in the country.

At some point Congress must find a way to bring these immigrants out of the shadows while creating disincentives for future such immigration. No easy task, I know. But the status quo appeals to no one, and the nation can’t deport them all. We need a common sense approach. While pragmatism is hard to find in Congress these days, we still should demand it.

[Thanks to US Constitution Article IV, the ACLU, La Raza, and other “it discriminates against a minority” diversity proponents, the “undocumented worker” hologram will, after a court challenge to the 9th Circuit, then SCOTUS affirming that it is discriminatory and therefore must be removed, all illegal aliens will automatically become voters and citizens. Establish residency in CA, get a standard driver’s license, move to another state, and use the standard CA DL as proof of citizenship, register to vote, and own the country.

I have written about this for years, just look through the various posts.

BTW, we DO have the resources to kick them all out. Just enforce the laws, especially Mazzoli 1986, and E-Verify!

Secession, before Sylvia Thompson’s prophecy becomes reality.

Secession.]

September 17, 2014

Ending the State’s “Security” Monopoly, from Butch [c]

[There is too much truth in this to not have posted it. As the author points out, the true source of security failure is the political class. I agree with a bunch of what is here, but not all, yet do not feel any need to put any comment of mine beyond this, and, I wouldn’t be a police officer (LEO=Law Enforcement Officer) for almost anything in the world! God Bless All of You!]

http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014/09/call-anti-police-ending-states-security.html

Monday, September 15, 2014
Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State’s “Security” Monopoly

Dale Brown (center) with Garrett Ean and Pete Eyre.

|”How would things be different,” muses Dale Brown of the Detroit-based Threat Management Center, “if police officers were given financial rewards and commendations for resolving dangerous situations peacefully, rather than for using force in situations where it’s neither justified nor effective?”

Brown’s approach to public safety is “precisely the opposite of what police are trained and expected to do,” says the 44-year-old entrepreneur. The TMC eschews the “prosecutorial philosophy of applied violence” and the officer safety uber alles mindset that characterize government law enforcement agencies. This is because his very successful private security company has an entirely different mission – the protection of persons and property, rather than enforcing the will of the political class. Those contrasting approaches are displayed to great advantage in proto-dystopian Detroit.

“We’ve been hired by three of the most upscale neighborhoods in Detroit to provide 24/7 security services,” Brown proudly informed me during a telephone interview. “People who are well-off are very willing to pay for Lamborghini-quality security services, which means that our profit margin allows us to provide free services to people who are poor, threatened, and desperate for the kind of help the police won’t provide.”

“Unlike the police, we don’t respond after a crime has been committed to conduct an investigation and – some of the time, at least – arrest a suspect,” Brown elaborates. “Our approach is based on deterrence and prevention. Where prevention fails, our personnel are trained in a variety of skills – both psychological and physical – to dominate aggressors without killing them.”

Police typically define their role in terms of what they are permitted to do to people, rather than what they are required to do for them. Brown’s organization does exactly the reverse, even when dealing with suspected criminals.

To illustrate, Brown refers to an incident from a security patrol in which he encountered a black teenager “who was walking in a neighborhood at about 3:00 a.m. dressed in a black hooded sweatshirt, doing what is sometimes called `the drift’ – it was pretty clear he was up to something.”

Rather than calling the police – who, giventheir typical four-hour response time, wouldn’t have arrived soon enough to be of any help, as if helping were part of their job description – Brown took action that was both preventive and non-aggressive.

“I told him, `There are criminals here who might rob you, so you’ll get free bodyguard service anytime you’re in the neighborhood,’” Brown related to me. “I also asked for his name and personal information for a `Good person file’ that would clear him with the cops next time he decided to go jogging in a black hoodie a three in the morning. He didn’t have to give me that information, of course, but he told me what I needed to know – and we’ve never seen him there again.”

Brown and his associates take a similar approach to dealing with minor problems that usually result in police citations that clog court dockets and blight the lives of harmless people.

“When we see someone who is drunk or otherwise intoxicated, we offer to take their keys and call their families to get them home,” he reports. “This way we keep them safe from harm – and, just as importantly, protect them from prosecution. Again, everything we do is the opposite of what the police do. If you have a joint in your pocket, the cops will be all over you – but if you’re facing actual danger, they’re nowhere to be found, and aren’t required to help you even if they show up.”

That contrast is most visible in confrontations with potentially dangerous people. Brown’s company receives referrals to provide security for people who face active threats, such as victims of domestic violence. One representative case involved a young mother whose daughter had been abducted by a violent, abusive father with a lengthy criminal history. The child was rescued and reunited with her mother without guns being drawn or anybody being hurt.

For reasons of accountability and what the private sector calls “quality assurance,” Brown and his colleagues recorded that operation, as they document nearly everything else they do. However, they weren’t playing to the cameras. The same can’t be said of the Detroit PD SWAT team that stormed the home of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones at midnight in May 2010 while filming the assault for a cable television program.

Officer Joseph Weekley, who burst through the door carrying a ballistic shield and an MP5 submachine gun, shot and killed Aiyana, who had been sleeping on the living room couch. By the time she was killed terrified little girl had already been burned by a flash-bang grenade that had been hurled into the living room.

The home was surrounded with toys and other indicia that children resided therein, and neighbors had pleaded with the police not to carry out the blitzkrieg. The cops did arrest a suspect in a fatal shooting, but he resided in a different section of the same building. In any case, the suspect could have been taken into custody without a telegenic paramilitary assault – if the safety of those on the receiving end of police violence had been factored into the SWAT team’s calculations.

Owing in no small measure to public outrage, Weekly has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and careless discharge of a weapon resulting in death. A jury deadlocked on the charges in July 2013. Weekley now faces a second trial that will produce a conviction only if the prosecution can overcome the presumption that the officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable. This is a function of the entirely spurious, and endlessly destructive, doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which protects police officers from personal liability when their actions result in unjustified harm to the persons or property of innocent people.

Lost Angel: Aiyana.

The rationale behind qualified immunity is the belief that absent such protection competent and talented people wouldn’t enlist as peace officers. In practice, however, qualified immunity merely emboldens incompetent and vicious police officers.

“Police should be subject to exactly the same laws and liabilities that the rest of us face,” contends Brown. “If we don’t have perfect reciprocity, then police should be held to a higher standard of accountability than the rest of the citizenry. If they commit criminal acts that result in injury or death, police should do double the time that a `civilian’ would face, because they’re supposed to be professionals.”

As private sector professionals, Brown observes, “we have double accountability – first to our clients who pay us, and then to the criminal justice system and civil courts if we do something wrong. And because the police usually see us as competitors, they are very eager to come after us if we screw up. But in all the years we’ve been working, we’ve had no deaths or injuries – either to our clients or to our own people – no criminal charges, and no lawsuits.”

Not only do Brown and his associates operate without the benefit of “qualified immunity,” they are required to expose themselves to physical risk on behalf of their clients – something that police are trained to avoid.

“For police officers, going home at the end of the shift is the highest priority,” Brown observes. “For us it can’t be. When we’re hired to protect a client, his home, his business, his family, we’ve made a choice to put the client’s safety above our own, and to make sure that he or she gets home safely at the end of the day.”

When people seek help from the police, Brown points out, they’re inviting intervention by someone who has no enforceable duty to protect them, but will be rewarded for injuring them or needlessly complicating their lives.

“Let’s examine this logically,” Brown begins. “What is this human being – the police officer – going to get out of becoming involved in your troubles? Will be he rewarded for helping you to solve them, especially if this involves a personal risk? Would solving your problem be worth getting injured or killed?”

“We’re dealing with a basic question of human motivations,” Brown continues. “Police are not required to intervene to protect you – there is a very long list of judicial precedents proving this. They’re actually rewarded for not intervening. Here, once again, I emphasize that Threat Management is not comparable to the police. We follow exactly the opposite approach. People don’t have to work with Threat Management, but if they choose to, that’s what we expect of them.”

Some critics of TMC and other private security firms insist that their personnel cannot match the qualifications and experience of government-employed police officers. That objection wildly overestimates the professional standards that must be met in order for an individual to become a government-licensed purveyor of privileged violence.

“An individual can become a police officer in six months,” Brown points out. “Can you become a doctor or an EMT in six months? Is there any other profession in which employees can become `qualified’ to make life-and-death decisions on behalf of other people after just a few months of training?”

By way of supplementing Brown’s point: In Arkansas, an applicant can become a police officer in a day, and work in that capacity for a year, without professional certification of any kind. However, to become a licensed practicing cosmetologist, an applicant must pass a state board examination and complete 2,000 hours of specialized training. For an investment of 600 hours an applicant can qualify to work as a manicurist or instructor.

While Arkansas strictly regulates those who cut hair or paint nails in private, voluntary transactions, it imposes no training or licensing standards whatsoever on armed people who claim the authority to inflict lethal violence on others. This is not to concede that there is any way one human being can become legitimately “qualified” to commit aggressive violence against another.

“Law enforcement attracts a certain personality type that is prone to narcissism and aggression,” Brown asserts, speaking from decades of experience. “People like that get weeded out from our program very early. We protect innocent people from predators, and we can’t carry out that mission by hiring people who are predatory themselves. Our people receive extensive training in firearms and unarmed combat techniques, but they’re also taught to look at all humans as members of the same family. The question we want them to ask themselves is – in what circumstances would you shoot, or otherwise harm a member of your family? They’re trained to apply that standard in all situations involving a potential use of force. People who can’t think that way aren’t going to fit in with our program.”

Brown emphatically agrees that the phenomenon called “police militarization” is a huge and growing menace, but insists that the core problem is “not the military hardware, or the other trappings of militarization, but the system itself. Police agencies attract the wrong kind of people and then tell them, `You’re like God’ – they get to impose their will on others and use lethal force at their discretion. And when someone who is really golden shows up – that is, an ethical, conscientious person who wants to protect the public – they get redirected into a role that will minimize their influence for good by people who are worried about their own job security.”

“Ideally, the best approach would be to abolish the current system and start over,” Brown concludes. “But the very least we should demand would be total equity and complete accountability – which would mean, as a starting point, doing away with this idea of `qualified immunity.’ Police are citizens, and they should be governed by the same laws that apply to all citizens. No exceptions, no special protections.”

Several studies have shown that there are between three and four times as many private peace officers – such as security guards, armored truck drivers, and private investigators – as sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. That fact demonstrates that the security market is completely unserved by government law enforcement agencies. This shouldn’t be surprising, since – as I have observed before – police agencies serve the interests of those who plunder private property, and thus can’t be expected to protect it.

Police personnel practice aggressive violence from the shelter of “qualified immunity.” The absence of such protection doesn’t deter talented, motivated people such as Dale Brown and his associates – and others providing similar services in Houston, Oakland, and elsewhere — from seeking employment as private security officers who actually accept personal risk to protect property.

Why not abolish qualified immunity for all security personnel? Critics of that proposal might protest that this would undermine the state’s monopoly on the provision of “security” by requiring its employees to compete on equal terms with the private sector. Which is precisely the point.

September 11, 2014

The Cryer Memo/ The illegality of the personal income tax, by T.K. Cryer, J.D. [nc]

The Cryer Memo:

THE
MEMORANDUM
Researched and Written by Tommy K. Cryer, J.D.
Filed in support of his Motion to Dismiss
Tax Evasion Charges Filed Against Him
in
United States v. Tommy K. Cryer
No. 06-50164-01
Western District of Louisiana
Shreveport Division
THE
MEMORANDUM
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
BIO 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 6
ARGUMENT AND LAW 7
Tax Laws Subject to Strict Construction 8
THE INCOME TAX LAW DOES NOT ‘PLAINLY AND CLEARLY LAY’ ANY TAX UPON DEFENDANT’S REVENUE
The Internal Revenue Code does not “Plainly and Clearly Lay” any liability for an income tax on defendant. 11
The Internal Revenue Code does not “Plainly and Clearly Lay” a tax on any of defendant’s revenues. 21
DEFENDANT’S REVENUES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL TAXATION BY EXCISE
The Federal Taxing Power 41
The income tax is an excise 61
Defendant’s activities and revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation as being outside the taxing authority of the federal government 68
Defendant and his revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation because they are within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the State 70
Defendant’s revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation because the activity is the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, and, therefore, outside the taxing authority of the federal government 74
Defendant’s revenues do not constitute “income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment” and the Constitution 88
2

BIOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Tommy K. Cryer
Attorney at Law
4348 Youree Dr.
Shreveport, LA 71105
CryerLaw@aol.com
Ph. (318) 865-3392
Personal:
Born Lake Charles, LA, September 11, 1949
Married (1) Carolyn Fisher, dec’d.
(2) Bettye “Dee Dee” Woodard
Education:
Sam Houston High School, Moss Bluff, LA, 1967, third in class, American Heritage Award, Continental Oil Scholarship, T. H. Harris Scholarship, JFK Memorial Scholarship, Civitan Award; Activities: Football letterman, FBLA, Beta Club, Drama Club founder and Literary Rally.
McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA, B.A. 1970 (Psychology, Sociology, Military Science & Pre-Law), 3.4 GPA (Note: Multi-major degree in three years)
LSU Law School, Baton Rouge, LA, J.D. 1973, Honor Graduate, Order of the Coif
Inducted LSU Law School Hall of Fame, 1987.
Military:
Honorably Discharged, Captain, U. S. Army, Adjutant General Corps.
Professional:
Louisiana Constitutional Convention, 1973, Special Advisor and Draftsman (Declaration (Bill) of Rights, Municipalities)
Hargrove, Guyton, Ramey & Barlow, Shreveport, LA, 1973-1975; Oil & Gas, Oil & Gas Transmission (including extensive work in expropriation), Corporate, Estate, Estate Planning, Trusts, Personal Injury and others.
Private Practice, Shreveport, LA, 1975 – Practice has included virtually every aspect of the law, both criminal and civil, with clientele consisting of numerous individuals, families and 3
businesses (including many third generation clients) whose varied needs have provided experience and expertise across an extremely broad spectrum.
Litigation in all courts, including pro hoc vice appointments to try cases in New York, California and Texas.
Extensive trial experience, bench and jury, and appellate experience including Louisiana Supreme Court, in which have been privileged to successfully advocate numerous cases forging new law (two of which were significant enough that the legislature overturned them within one year).
Civic Activities:
Shreveport Jaycees (exhausted rooster), Board of Directors, Legal Counsel, Chaired numerous projects
Caddo Heights United Methodist Church, Board of Trustees 1974-1980
Shreveport Optimist Club, Board of Directors
Past Master, W. H. Booth Lodge #380, F & AM
Past Master, First Masonic District Lodge
Louisiana Grand Lodge, Law & Jurisprudence Committee; Board of Charities and Benevolences; Education Committee; Certified Instructor; Lecturer at numerous Grand Master’s Seminars across the state
Scottish Rite Bodies, Shreveport Valley, 32°
El Karubah Shrine, Shreveport, LA
Past President, Shreveport High Twelve Club
Chairman, Shreveport Republican PAC, 1991-3, Delegate 1992 State Republican Convention; oversaw and consulted for eleven campaigns, left office 11 and 0. (no longer active in politics)
Personal Interests:
Study of History and Constitutional Law
Hunting and Fishing
Woodworking
Licensed Pilot, Multi-engine Land
4
CAVEAT:
THIS MEMORANDUM WAS PREPARED AND WRITTEN FOR ONE SPECIFIC CASE AND MAY NOT APPLY TO OTHERS.
IT IS NOT OFFERED AS LEGAL ADVICE NOR AS A LEGAL OPINION RELATIVE TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE PARTY IN THIS CASE AND FOR THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THIS PARTICULAR PROCEEDING.
THE READER SHOULD OBTAIN INDEPENDENT ADVICE FROM A LICENSED ATTORNEY BEFORE RELYING ON THE APPLICABILITY OF ANY AUTHORITIES CITED HEREIN INSOFAR AS THEY MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY TO THE READER.
THIS MATERIAL IS NOT COPYRIGHTED AND REPRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION IS NOT ONLY AUTHORIZED, BUT ENCOURAGED, PROVIDED THAT THE FOREGOING CAVEAT IS INCLUDED WITH ANY SUCH REPRODUCTION AND/OR DISTRIBUTION, WHETHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. 06-50164-01
V.
JUDGE: HICKS

TOMMY K. CRYER, Defendant MAGISTRATE: HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF
DEFENDANT’S FOURTH MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 25, 2006, the government filed herein an indictment charging defendant, TOMMY K. CRYER, hereinafter “Cryer”, with two counts of tax evasion, alleging that during the years 2000 and 2001 Cryer had received taxable income but had knowingly and willfully failed to timely file tax returns for said years and that, as an “affirmative act” of evasion Cryer had failed to file tax returns for the Tommy K. Cryer Trust, which, the indictment claims, had received taxable income, thereby (presumably) concealing income and misleading the Internal Revenue Service, hereinafter IRS, into believing that Cryer had no income for the years 2000 and 2001, all in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201.
Defendant now files this motion pursuant to Rule 12(b) to dismiss both counts of the indictment, with prejudice, on the basis that as a matter of law revenues received by him are not taxed or taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax laws and regulations thereunder promulgated, nor are any revenues received by him within the powers of the federal government to tax and that the revenues received by him are exempt from taxation by excise under the Constitution of the United States and that, therefore, an essential element of the charges, a “tax due and owing”, is absent in this case.
ARGUMENT AND LAW
There are three essential elements to the crime of tax evasion, namely (1) willfulness; (2) existence of a tax deficiency; and (3) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax. Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, at 351, 85 S.Ct. 1004, at 1010 (1965); United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Dack, 747 F.2d 1172, at 1174 (7th Cir. 1984); and United States v. Mal, 942 F.2d 682, at 687 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v.Silkman, 156 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 1998). See also Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, at 361, 78 S.Ct. 311 (1958). Mr. Cryer strenuously denies all three elements, but the absence of any one element constitutes a defense and is fatal to the charge.
Reserving all rights and objections to the indictment previously raised, it is respectfully submitted that there is, as a matter of law, no tax deficiency due and owing by defendant.
TAX LAWS SUBJECT TO STRICT CONSTRUCTION
Tax laws are clearly in derogation of personal rights and property interests and are, therefore, subject to strict construction, and any ambiguity must be resolved against imposition of the tax. In Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914), the Supreme Court clearly acknowledged this basic and long-standing rule of statutory construction:
“Tax statutes . . . should be strictly construed, and, if any ambiguity be found to exist, it must be resolved in favor of the citizen. Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, 374; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold, 198 F. 199, 201, aff’d 201 F. 918; Parkview Bldg. Assn. v. Herold, 203 F. 876, 880; Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N.Y. 51, 57.”
(Id at p. 265, emphasis added)

Again, in United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 44 S.Ct. 69 (1923), the Supreme Court clearly stated at pp. 187-88:
“On behalf of the Government it is urged that taxation is a practical matter and concerns itself with the substance of the thing upon which the tax is imposed rather than with legal forms or expressions. But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153.” (emphasis added)
This rule of strict construction against the taxing authority was reiterated in Tandy Leather Company v. United States, 347 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1965), where Judge Hutcheson of our 5th Circuit eloquently and unequivocally proclaimed at p. 694-5:
“. . . In ruling as he did, that the taxpayer had the obligation to show that sales of the articles in suit were not subject to the excise taxes collected, the district judge was misled by the erroneous contention of the tax collector into misstating the rule of proof in a tax case. This is: that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid.

“The Government’s claim and the judge’s ruling come down in effect to the proposition that the state of construction of appellants’ kits had reached such an advanced level that the tax levied on the finished products could be collected on their sale, though none had been clearly laid thereon by statute. Shades of Pym and John Hampden, of the Boston tea party, and of Patrick Henry and the Virginians! There is no warrant in law for such a holding. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at p. 153, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211. In 51 American Jurisprudence, “Taxation”, Sec. 316, “Strict or Liberal Construction”, supported by a great wealth of authority, it is said:
‘Although it is sometimes broadly stated either that tax laws are to be strictly construed or, on the other hand, that such enactments are to be liberally construed, this apparent conflict of opinion can be reconciled if it is borne in mind that the correct rule appears to be that where the intent of meaning of tax statutes, or statutes levying taxes, is doubtful, they are, unless a contrary legislative intention appears, to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer or citizen. Any doubts as to their meaning are to be resolved against the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer. * * *’

“The judgment was wrong. It is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for plaintiffs and for further and not inconsistent proceedings.” (emphasis is the Court’s) See also: Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 38 S.Ct. 53, 153 (1917); Royal Caribbean Cruises v. United States, 108 F.3d 290 (11th Cir. 1997); B & M Company v. United States, 452 F.2d 986 (5th Cir. 1971); Kocurek v. United States, 456 F. Supp. 740 (1978); Norton Manufacturing Corporation v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 829 (1968); Grays Harbor Chair and Manufacturing Company v. United States, 265 F. Supp. 254 (1967); Russell v. United States, 260 F. Supp. 493 (1966).
Thus, as we enter into the labyrinth of the Internal Revenue Code and its related regulations, we must do so mindful of the hornbook rule that tax laws are strictly construed and that when the letter of the law is subject to more than one interpretation, it must be construed against the imposition of the tax, the rule of interpretation of taxes being:
“that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid.” Tandy Leather Company, supra, at 694. (emphasis added)

THE INCOME TAX LAW DOES NOT “PLAINLY AND CLEARLY LAY” ANY TAX UPON DEFENDANT OR HIS REVENUE

The Internal Revenue Code does not “Plainly and Clearly Lay” any liability for an income tax on defendant.
The Income Tax Law, Subtitle A of Title 26, United States Code, imposes a tax on the taxable income of certain individuals in § 1:
“26 U.S.C. § 1. Tax Imposed.
“(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of —
“(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
“(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
. . .
“(b) Heads of households
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
. . .
“(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads
of households) “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
. . .
“(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table: . . .”
(emphasis added)

but this section does not designate anyone as liable for the payment of the tax.
It should be noted at this point that titles and headings, such as “Married individuals and surviving spouses filing joint returns” and “Heads of households” are not part of the law and have absolutely no legal effect. 26 U.S.C. § 7806. Therefore, the actual statute commences with “There is hereby imposed . . .” The imposition of the tax is on taxable income, only, not on any person or entity. In contrast, see 26 U.S.C. § 884, discussed more fully infra, which does impose a tax on an entity.
Subtitle A does, however, designate partners as liable for the taxes on income of a partnership, but only in their “individual” capacities (26 U.S.C. § 701) while certain partnerships are declared liable for excess recapture of credits (26 U.S.C. 704).
Foreign corporations are specifically designated as the party liable for payment of the “Branch profits tax” imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 884 (which, incidentally, does impose the tax on “any foreign corporation”).
The only other party that is identified in the income tax law as liable for the payment of any income tax is revealed in 26 U.S.C. § 1461:

“Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
“Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.”
(emphasis added)

“This chapter” is “Chapter 3 – Withholding Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations”. Thus the liable party in this instance is anyone withholding tax on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.
There are no other references in Subtitle A (the income tax law) to anyone being liable for the tax imposed by § 1 other than those: partners (but only in their “individual” capacity); certain large partnerships in certain excess credit situations; foreign corporations; and those withholding taxes on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.
There is only one other party that is identified as being liable for the income tax, but to find that party we have to journey outside the realm of the income tax law to “Subtitle C – Employment Taxes”, where we find:
“Sec. 3403. Liability for tax
“The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter [“Subtitle C – Employment Taxes; Chapter 24 – Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages”], and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)
Thus, the only persons being assigned any liability for the income tax imposed by § 1 are those five instances — partners, certain large partnerships, foreign corporations, withholders of taxes on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations and those employers required by Chapter 24 of Subtitle C to withhold taxes on employees.
The absence, or near absence, of a statutory provision specifying exactly who is liable for a tax imposed is not customary. 26 U.S.C. §§ 2032A and 2056A specifically state who is liable for the Estate Tax; 26 U.S.C. § 3102(b) specifically states who is liable for the FICA tax;: 26 U.S.C. § 3202 specifically states who is liable for the Railroad Retirement Tax; 26 U.S.C. § 3505 specifically imposes liability for Employment Taxes; 26 U.S.C. §§ 4002 and 4003 specify not only who is primarily liable, but who is secondarily liable for the Luxury Passenger Automobile Excise Tax. See also: 26 U.S.C. §§ 4051 and 4052 (Heavy Trucks and Trailers Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4071 (Tire Manufacture Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4219 (Manufacturers Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4401 (Tax on Wagers); 26 U.S.C. § 4411 (Wagering Occupational Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4483 (Vehicle Use Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4611 (Tax on Petroleum); 26 U.S.C. § 4662 (Tax on Chemicals); 26 U.S.C. § 4972 (Tax on Contributions to Qualified Employer Pension Plans); 26 U.S.C. § 4980B (Excise Tax on Failure to Satisfy Continuation Coverage Requirements of Group Health Plans); 26 U.S.C. § 4980D (Excise Tax on Failure to Meet Certain Group Health Plan Requirements); 26 U.S.C. § 4980F (Excise Tax on Failure of Applicable Plans Reducing Benefit Accruals to Satisfy Notice Requirements); 26 U.S.C. § 5005 (Gallonage Tax on Distilled Spirits); 26 U.S.C. § 5043 (Gallonage Tax on Wines); 26 U.S.C. § 5232 (Storage Tax on Imported Distilled Spirits); 26 U.S.C. § 5364 (Tax on Wine Imported in Bulk); 26 U.S.C. § 5418 (Tax on Beer Imported in Bulk); 26 U.S.C. § 5703 (Excise Tax on Manufacture of Tobacco Products); and 26 U.S.C. § 5751 (Tax on Purchase, Receipt, Possession or Sale of Tobacco Products), to name a few. Considering the “standard in the drafting of taxation laws industry”, particularly in view of the requirement of strict construction, the limitation of liability to those five instances cannot be assumed to have been an oversight. In this instance the only ones liable are those specifically named as liable, just as in any other tax provision.
In United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 77 S.Ct. 1138 (1957), the Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of a “pick-up man” in a numbers game operation. Calamaro had been convicted of failure to pay an occupational tax, imposed not only on persons who are subject to the excise tax on being “engaged in the business” of wagering, but also on those who are “engaged in receiving wagers” on behalf of one subject to the excise tax.
Although the “pick-up man”, Calamaro, was the person who actually received the money from the players, handed out the betting slips to the players and was acting on behalf of the “banker”, the Supreme Court held that the he was not one who “engaged in receiving wagers” because “receiving wagers” meant accepting or entering into the wager, not receiving the money for the wager. See also Griffin v. United States, 588 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1979); Fine v. United States, 206 F.Supp. 520 (Colo. 1962); Drake v. United States, 355 F.Supp. 710 (ED Mo. 1973); and United States v. Mobil Corp, 543 F. Supp. 507 (ND Tex. 1981) (26 U.S.C. 6001 and 26 CFR 31.6001 stating records “shall at all times be available for inspection” by revenue officers did not permit IRS blanket access, without warrant or summons, to browse through employee W-4’s).
In Calamaro, the government cited a parallel regulation that more clearly included the “pick-up” man as one who “engaged in receiving wagers”, which the Supreme Court effortlessly dismissed: “Finally, the Government points to the fact that the Treasury Regulations relating to the statute purport to include the pick-up man among those subject to the § 3290 tax, and argues (a) that this constitutes an administrative interpretation to which we should give weight in construing the statute, particularly because (b) section 3290 was carried over in haec verba into § 4411 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. We find neither argument persuasive. In light of the above discussion, we cannot but regard this Treasury Regulation as no more than an attempted addition to the statute of something which is not there. As such the regulation can furnish no sustenance to the statute. Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446-447. Nor is the Government helped by its argument as to the 1954 Code. The regulation had been in effect for only three years, and there is nothing to indicate that it was ever called to the attention of Congress. The re-enactment of § 3290 in the 1954 Code was not accompanied by any congressional discussion which throws light on its intended scope. In such circumstances we consider the 1954 re- enactment to be without significance. Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431. Calamaro, supra, at 358-9 (emphasis added)

See also, Water Quality Ass’n v. United States, 795 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1986), where, citing and quoting Calamaro, the court added at p. 1309: “It is a basic principle of statutory construction that courts have no right first to determine the legislative intent of a statute and then, under the guise of its interpretation, proceed to either add words to or eliminate other words from the statute’s language. DeSoto Securities Co. v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 1956); see also 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.38 (4th ed. 1984). Similarly, the Secretary has no power to change the language of the revenue statutes because he thinks Congress may have overlooked something.” (emphasis added)
There is no dispute, nor does the government otherwise contend, that defendant, Mr. Cryer, is not a partner in any partnership, is not a large partnership, nor is he a foreign corporation. Mr. Cryer is not required to withhold any taxes on a nonresident alien nor on any foreign corporation, nor is he required by Chapter 24 of Subtitle C to withhold taxes on any fees he receives. Accordingly, the only way the income tax law could be interpreted as imposing any liability for income tax upon Mr. Cryer is by inference or implication. “But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer.” Merriam, supra.
If the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, even considering those outside the Income Tax Law (Subtitle A) fail to “plainly and clearly” lay liability for the tax upon Mr. Cryer, then they cannot be given that effect through strained interpretations, implication or inference. Nevertheless, the government claims that Mr. Cryer owes income taxes “though none had been clearly laid thereon by statute. Shades of Pym and John Hampden, of the Boston tea party, and of Patrick Henry and the Virginians! There is no warrant in law for such a holding.” Tandy Leather, supra.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that there is no statute that renders Mr. Cryer liable for an income tax, and, therefore, he is not so liable. Absent a lawful liability for taxes, the essential element, liability for a tax deficiency, is lacking in this case as a matter of law, and, accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice. 20
The Internal Revenue Code does not “Plainly and Clearly Lay” a tax on any of defendant’s revenues.
The same rigid rule of strict construction laid down by the Supreme Court in Billings, Merriam, Gould and Calamaro, supra, applies to the question of what is taxed as well as who is made liable for the tax.
Our second foray into the labyrinth begins as the first, with § 1, which imposes a tax “on taxable income.” The first order of business is to determine the definition of the terms in order to define the scope of the tax. However, the first observation is stunning. Although the first 1,564 sections of the Internal Revenue Code are devoted to the Income Tax, the term “income”, the very subject of the tax, is not defined. Nor is the term defined in any of the related regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department. Nor is the term “taxable” defined in the Code or regulations.
The closest thing we have to definitions of “income” and “taxable” are all qualified, “hybrid”, definitions, income linked with another term. Thus when a body of statutory law fails to provide a definition of a term, we must use its customary meaning. Turning to dictionaries, we find: 21
Webster’s Dictionary:
Income. “A gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor”
(emphasis added)
Black’s Law Dictionary:
Income. “The return in money from one’s business, labor or capital invested; gains, profits or private revenue.”
(emphasis added)
and, since federal law provides no definition, we look to other laws:
Louisiana Civil Code:
“Art. 551. Kinds of fruits
“Fruits are things that are produced by or derived from another thing without diminution of its substance.
“There are two kinds of fruits; natural fruits and civil fruits.
“Natural fruits are products of the earth or of animals.
“Civil fruits are revenues derived from a thing by operation of law or by reason of a juridical act, such as rentals, interest, and certain corporate distributions.” (emphasis added) 22

In the Code we find hybrid definitions for “ordinary income” and “gross income”:
“26 U.S.C. § 64. Ordinary Income Defined.
“For purposes of this subtitle, the term “ordinary income” includes any gain from the sale or exchange of property which is neither a capital asset nor property described in section 1231(b). Any gain from the sale or exchange of property which is treated or considered, under other provisions of this subtitle, as “ordinary income” shall be treated as gain from the sale or exchange of property which is neither a capital asset nor property described in section 1231(b).”

and

“26 U.S.C. § 61. Gross Income Defined.
“General Definition — Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income [income means income] from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; . . .” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

While the significance or import of the phrase “from whatever source derived” will be more fully discussed below, it is important at this point to at least note that the phrase “from whatever source derived” is tracked from the Sixteenth Amendment, which provided that an income tax could not be classified as a direct tax by virtue of the source of that income. Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916); Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 36 S.Ct. 281 (1916); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278 (1916) This Amendment was adopted in order to overrule Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and T. Co., 157 U.S. 537, 15 S.Ct. 673 (1895), which held that a tax on income derived from property burdened the property and was, therefore, a direct property tax subject to the requirement of apportionment. Therefore, the reference to “from whatever source derived” is not an indication that Congress may tax any income from any source, but is only an indication that an income tax (and a tax only on income) is not to be classified as a direct tax, subject to the requirement of apportionment, by virtue of the source of the income. This is not to say that the tax is to be applied and charged against all income without regard to its source.

The 16th Amendment did not expand the scope of Congress’ power to tax (Brushaber, Stanton, Tyee, supra et al.), thus although the source of income is no longer a factor in determining whether the tax is direct or indirect, neither the jurisdiction of the federal government nor its taxing authority was enlarged to include authority to tax activities and privileges that it could not have taxed before the 16th Amendment. Source of income, then, is still a factor in determining the scope of the taxing authority of the federal government. (See discussions of Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916); McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819); and others, infra) As we will see, those factors were also taken into consideration in the determination of taxable income in the Code and regulations.
The obvious common usage for the term “taxable”, although not readily found in Websters, is “able to be taxed”, i.e., within the authority of a government to tax.
And finally, we have the hybrid definition of “taxable income”:

26 U.S.C. § 63. Taxable Income Defined.
(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

Thus, when we combine the definitions we have, now, we have:
Income = gains, profits, from capital, labor or both
Taxable = within the authority of the government to tax

Thus, “taxable income” would be all gain [from activities that are within the authority of the federal government to tax] derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined from whatever source [that is within the authority of the federal government to tax] derived, and including certain enumerated items such as gains, or profits, from compensation for services, minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
“Whatever” does not identify those sources that are within the authority of the federal government to tax, but in checking the index under “Income Tax” we find “sources” and we also find “within the U.S.” In order to determine what income is taxable the index of the Code designates the starting point as 26 U.S.C. § 861:
26 U.S.C. § 861. Income from Sources within the United States.
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:
[This section goes on to list items of gross income, but does not define source nor does it specify any sources. Following the statutory text, however, we are referred to the Code of Federal Regulations:] “CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
“General regulations, see 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-1.
“. . . .
“Computation of taxable income from sources within U.S. and from other sources and activities, see 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8.” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

So, now our journey into the labyrinth continues into the Code of Federal Regulations:
“26 C.F.R. § 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.
“(a) Categories of income.
Part I (section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax. These sections explicitly allocate certain important sources of income to the United States or to areas outside the United States, as the case may be; and, with respect to the remaining income (particularly that derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the United States), authorize the Secretary or his delegate to determine the income derived from sources within the United States, either by rules of separate allocation or by processes or formulas of general apportionment. The statute provides for the following three categories of income:
“(1) Within the United States. The gross income from sources within the United States, consisting of the items of gross income specified in section 861(a) plus the items of gross income allocated or apportioned 27 to such sources in accordance with section 863(a). See 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.861-2 to 1.861-7, inclusive, and 26 C.F.R. § 1.863-1. The taxable income from sources within the United States, in the case of such income, shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and 863(a), the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any other expenses, losses, or deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. See 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.861-8 and 1.863-1.” (emphasis added)

There are two distinct provisions contained in this regulation that warrant our attention. First, the section informs us that §§ 861 et seq. are to be used to determine taxable income, but, equally significant, is, second, that besides the deductions of expenses, losses and other deductions referred to in 26 U.S.C. § 63 (taxable income = gross income less deductions), we are now made aware that there are either items or sources of income that CANNOT be (as opposed to “are not”) included in gross income to begin with. The inescapable conclusion from this revelation is that not all income is includable in gross income, reaffirming our previous discussion of “from whatever source derived” as being reflective of the 16th Amendment’s prohibition of considering the source in classifying the income tax as anything other than an excise, rather than defining the scope of the tax to include “each and every” source. 28
Now, in order to determine which sources can be considered in determining taxable income and, conversely, which sources cannot be included in gross income to begin with, § 1.861-1(a)(1) directs us to § 1.861-8:
“26 C.F.R. § 1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities.
“(a)In general — (1) Scope. Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States after gross income from sources within the United States has been determined.
[This again confirms that gross income from within the U.S. “whatever” sources derived is not necessarily subject to federal taxation. “Taxable” income, therefore, must be something less than all income from within from “whatever” source. Therefore, some sources within the United States are taxable and some sources within the United States are NOT taxable.]
“Sections 862(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources without the United States after gross income from sources without the United States has been determined. This section provides specific guidance for applying the cited Code sections by prescribing rules for the allocation and apportionment of expenses, losses, and other deductions (referred to collectively in this section as deductions”) of the taxpayer. The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections.” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

So, what does paragraph (f)(1) of this section identify as those specific sources and activities that determine whether income is taxable?
“(f) Miscellaneous matters —
“(1) Operative sections. The operative sections of the Code which require the determination of taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources or activities and which give rise to statutory groupings to which this section is applicable include the sections described below.
“(i) Overall limitation to the foreign tax credit.
“(ii) [Reserved]
“(iii) DISC and FSC taxable income.
“(iv) Effectively connected taxable income. Nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations engaged in trade or business within the United States….
“(v) Foreign base company income.
“(vi) Other operative sections. The rules provided in this section also apply in determining – –
“(A) The amount of foreign source items of tax preference under section 58(g) determined for purposes of the minimum tax;
“(B) The amount of foreign mineral income under section 901(e);
“(C) [Reserved]
“(D) The amount of foreign oil and gas extraction income and the amount of foreign oil related income under section 907;
“(E) [Reserved] [The tax base for citizens entitled to the benefits of § 931 and the § 936 tax credit of a domestic corporation which has an election in effect under §936 – – deleted by amendment]
“(F) [Reserved] [The exclusion for income from Puerto Rico for residents of Puerto Rico – – deleted by amendment]
“(G) The limitation under section 934 on the maximum reduction in income tax liability incurred to the Virgin Islands;
“(H) [Reserved] [Income derived from Guam – – deleted by amendment]
“(I) The special deduction granted to China Trade Act corporations
under section 941;
“(J) The amount of certain U.S. source income excluded from the subpart F income of a controlled foreign corporation under section 952(b);
“(K) The amount of income from the insurance of U.S. risks under section 953(b)(5) [dealing with foreign corporations];
“(L) The international boycott factor and the specifically attributable taxes and income under section 999; and
“(M) The taxable income attributable to the operation of an agreement vessel under section 607 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, and the Capital Construction Fund Regulations thereunder (26 CFR, part 3). See 26 CFR 3.2(b)(3).” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

These sources, then, are what remains after deducting those items that “cannot” “be allocated to some item or class of gross income”. 26 CFR § 1.861-1
Whence came this acknowledgement that not all income, “from whatever source derived”, is to be included in gross income?
Prior to 1954, the income tax was levied upon “net income”. Gross income was, pursuant to the preceding act, the 1939 Code, determined in accordance with the 1940 regulations, of which § 19.22(b)-1 provided:
“(b) Exclusions from gross income — The following items shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter:
“Sec. 19.22(b)-1. Exemptions—Exclusions from gross income—Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income. These items, however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified. No other items are exempt from gross income except (1) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government; (2) those items of income which are exempt from tax on income under the provisions of any Act of Congress still in effect: and (3) the income exempted under the provisions of section 116. Since the tax is imposed on net income, the exemption referred to above is not to be confused with the deductions allowed by section 23 and other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to be made from gross income in computing net income. As to other items not to be included in gross income, see sections 112 and 119 [the predecessor of the current 1.861-1 et seq.] . . . ”
(emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

The previous regulations for the income tax laws contained similar, if not identical, acknowledgements that not all income is Constitutionally taxable by the federal government (early versions referred to exempt income being that which is not taxable by the federal government “under fundamental law”).
The admission made in these regulations is nothing less than shocking. Gross income is defined in the 1939 Code § 22(a) as virtually everything. Code § 22(b) lists some exemptions, like tax free interest and life insurance. But then the government admits, mumbling up its sleeve, that some of those things listed in § 22(a) are also exempt because they are, “under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government.” If some of those items are not taxable, then why include them in gross income in the first place?
Not to make light of the gravity of the matter before the Court, but the best way to illustrate the import of this revelation is to imagine a new game show: Welcome to another exciting episode of “What’s My Tax” with your host, Manny Hauls. Our contestant today is John Q. Public! Are you up there John? Well, COME ON DOWN! Now, as you can see, Johnny, we have an array of doors here, salaries, compensation for services, rents, dividends, interest, and. . .well, there are too many for us to read them all off, but you can see them.
Now, Johnny, as you can see, we’ve already marked some of those doors for you, like “life insurance” over there, “tax-free interest” back here, just to get you started, but here’s the good news: Some of these other doors are actually Constitutionally EXEMPT! That’s right, Johnny, EXEMPT! So here’s the deal: You pick one of the doors, and if that door is correct, you get an EXEMPTION!! and you get to keep the money we aren’t allowed to take. How’s that for a prize? (audience cheers)
But here’s the catch: If you choose the wrong door, Beulah the chimp will blow her horn and you get the booby prize: INTEREST and PENALTIES!! (audience goes “Aawwww”) This would be funny if it were not true.
Similarly, in the 1939 Code itself, there is a clear indication that not all income is Constitutionally taxable income, notwithstanding the 16th Amendment and its “from whatever source derived” phrase. § 115(f)(1) and (h)(2) of the 1939 Code provide:
“(f) (1) GENERAL RULE—A distribution made by a corporation to its shareholders in its stock or a right to acquire its stock shall not be treated as a dividend to the extent that it does not constitute income to the shareholder within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
. . .
“(h) EFFECT ON EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF DISTRIBUTION OF STOCKS—The distribution (whether before January 1, 1939, or on or after such date) to a distributee by or on behalf of a corporation of its stock or securities, of stock or securities of another corporation, or of property or money, shall not be considered a distribution of earnings or profits of any corporation . . .
“(2) if the distribution was not subject to tax in the hands of such distributee because it did not constitute income to him within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution or because exempt to him under section 115(f) of the Revenue Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 712, or a corresponding provision of a prior Revenue Act.” (emphasis added)

Thus, prior to 1954 the tax was imposed on “net income” and although the Code and the regulations did not disclose what income is beyond the ability of the federal government to tax, nor did they disclose what income is not included within the meaning of “income” in the 16th Amendment, at least it did disclose that some items or sources of income are exempt from taxation.
While the citizen seeking to understand what was expected of him would have to conduct a great deal of legal research to identify the limits of the federal taxing authority and to determine what income is and is not included within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, at least he was, to some extent, “on notice” to look for those exemptions.
The 1954 Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder, which was not considered to have made any significant substantive changes in the income tax law (and which, certainly, did not enlarge the Constitutional scope of federal taxation authority nor the Constitutional definition of “income”), primarily reordered and renumbered the old Code and regulations. The new Code, however, made two very significant “adjustments”.
First, the tax was now imposed on “taxable” income. While the term is defined in its hybrid form, “taxable income”, in § 63 (drawing our attention from the separate meanings of the words), when placed in context with the second major “adjustment”, the term “taxable” income becomes monumentally significant.
Second, except for 26 CFR 1.312-6, each and every reference to the Constitution, to fundamental law, to limitations on the federal taxing authority and to the Sixteenth Amendment’s meaning of “income” was purged, erased, banished from both the Code and the regulations.
The previous disclosures of Constitutional exemptions, exemptions under fundamental law, Constitutional limitations of federal taxing authority and the qualified scope of the word “income” within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment, were no longer deemed necessary. Since the imposition of the tax itself was limited by changing “net income” to “taxable” income, imposing the tax only on that income the federal government was Constitutionally entitled, able, to tax, tax-able, thereby, technically, excluding all Constitutionally exempt or excluded income from the effects of the tax. By excluding exempt and excluded income in the imposition itself, there was apparently no longer any need perceived by the government to disclose that not all income is “taxable” income.
Thus, § 861 of the Code and its parallel regulations, 26 CFR 1.861-1 et seq. are vestigial disclosures, what is left of the previous § 22(b) exemptions and § 115 qualifications of the meaning of “income”. There is, however, another vestigial remnant of those disclosures. Conducting a search of the regulations for “exempt”, we are, not surprisingly, led back to § 861, more particularly, 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii) and (iii):
“(ii) Exempt income and exempt asset defined — (A) In general. For purposes of this section, the term exempt income means any income that is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes. The term exempt asset means any asset the income from which is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal tax purposes. [Note the absence of reference to “fundamental law”, “under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government”, or “not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment”]
“(iii) Income that is not considered tax exempt.
“The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:
“(A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer (including a foreign sales corporation (FSC)) computing its effectively connected income, gross income (whether domestic or foreign source) which is not effectively connected to the conduct of a United States trade or business;
“(B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC [international or foreign sales corporation] and its related supplier, the gross income of a DISC or a FSC;
“(C) For all purposes under subchapter N of the Code, including the computation of combined taxable income of a possessions corporation and its affiliates under section 936(h), the gross income of a possessions corporation for which a credit is allowed under section 936(a); and
“(D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911 and the regulations thereunder (however, the rules of Sec. 1.911-6 do not require the allocation and apportionment of certain deductions, including home mortgage interest, to foreign earned income for purposes of determining the deductions disallowed under section 911(d)(6)).” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

Although this provision defines exempt income, it, again and still, does not identify or refer us to what those exemptions are or upon what they are based. Instead, it tells us what is NOT exempt, leading to the reasonable supposition that any income other than that which is not exempt is, or at least may very well be, “exempt, excluded or eliminated” from federal income tax.
Congress and the Treasury Department have statutorily and through regulations, respectively, acknowledged that there are limitations upon Congress’ power to tax and that there are items and sources of income that are Constitutionally exempt from taxation by the federal government. 1939 Code and 1940 regulations, supra. The present Code and regulations acknowledge that some income CANNOT be attributed to gross income; that some income is exempt from taxation; that the current Code and regulations specify those sources that CAN be included in gross income for determination of taxable income (§ 1.861-8(f)(1)) and specify those items that are not exempt (§ 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)).
Remembering that tax laws must be strictly construed and that any ambiguity must be resolved against imposition of the tax, it can, therefore, only be concluded that sources of income other than those enumerated cannot be included in gross income and that items of income other than those items of income specified as not exempt, are exempt from the federal income tax. With the sole exception of those sources specifically identified as taxable and those items specifically identified as not exempt, it cannot be said that the tax has “been plainly and clearly laid” on any other sources or items of income. Billings, Merriam, Gould, Tandy Leather, supra.
There is no dispute, nor does the government otherwise contend, that Mr. Cryer has received no income, gains, from any of the taxable sources enumerated nor has he received any non-exempt items of income specified, and, therefore, that no tax has been clearly laid on the fees received by Mr. Cryer for legal services.
It is a virtual certainty that the government will argue that there is another interpretation of the Codal and regulatory provisions detailed hereinabove, “But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer.” Merriam, supra.
If the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, even considering those outside the Income Tax Law (Subtitle A) fail to “plainly and clearly” lay a tax upon Mr. Cryer’s revenues, then they cannot be given that effect through strained interpretations, implication or inference. Nevertheless, the government claims that Mr. Cryer owes income taxes on those revenues “though none had been clearly laid thereon by statute. Shades of Pym and John Hampden, of the Boston tea party, and of Patrick Henry and the Virginians! There is no warrant in law for such a holding.” Tandy Leather, supra.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the Internal Revenue Code and regulations do not plainly and clearly impose a tax on Mr. Cryer’s revenues, and, therefore, there can be no federal income tax owed thereon. Without “plain and clear” imposition of taxes there can be no tax deficiency and that essential element, liability for a tax deficiency, is lacking in this case as a matter of law. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice.

DEFENDANT’S REVENUES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL TAXATION BY EXCISE

The Federal Taxing Power

The Supreme Court has on countless occasions described the taxing power of the federal government as “all encompassing”, and from one standpoint it is “all encompassing”. The manner and means of exercising that “all encompassing” power of taxation are not, however, limitless. A review of the Constitutional provisions specifying those means is helpful in understanding those limitations.
Article I, § 2, cl. 3:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers… .”
Article I, § 8, cl. 1:
“The Congress shall have Power 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… .”
Article I, § 9, cl. 4:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken… .”
To these provisions has been added:
“Amendment XVI – Status of Income Tax Clarified.
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

In these provisions are incorporated the long-standing practice and understanding that all taxes must fall into one of two classes, direct or indirect, with duties, imposts and excises being considered as indirect and taxes on property or person as direct.
The limitation on direct taxes is perfectly harmonious and parallel to the intent of the framers in restricting the powers of the new federal government, keeping it at arms length from the citizens of the “Free and Independent States.”1 The gravest concern of both the States and the People was that the federal government would seek to govern the People, whether through regulation or by taxation, a role generally regarded as the exclusive realm of the States—something neither the People nor the States were willing to tolerate or permit. Congress was permitted to tax the public, but only indirectly. Any tax on person or property had to be imposed through the States, not directly upon any citizen. The States, not Congress, would then decide through what means and from what resources the tax, more like an assessment, would be paid.
[1 An understanding of the distinction between the nature of the individual and free-standing sovereignty of the States and the restricted and conditional sovereignty conferred by the Constitution is inherent in the fact that the Declaration of Independence did not establish the independence of the “United States”, but only of the “Free and Independent States.” ]

There are no Constitutional limitations upon the subject of a direct tax, and, therefore, it can honestly be said that the taxing authority of Congress is “all encompassing.” For example, Congress could pass a one dollar tax on each foot of beach frontage, but that tax would not be imposed on citizens owning beach-front property. The total amount of the tax would be calculated and then apportioned among the States, each State receiving an assessment for its apportioned share of the total, and without regard to the fact that most States have no beach frontage.
Indirect taxation, however, was limited by its definition, which excludes the taxation of person or property from its class of taxation. This form of taxation differed in more than the question of means and manner, that distinction being that every indirect tax is voluntary upon and avoidable by the citizen. Any tax upon an activity can be avoided by choosing not to engage in the taxed activity. Thus, the citizen “accedes” or “consents” to the tax by engaging in the activity that is taxed. In this vein, a tax upon the activity of breathing, being unavoidable and not, at least reasonably, within the ability of the citizen to abstain, would not be an indirect tax. While at least in theory a breathing tax could be imposed, it would have to be considered direct and apportioned among the States.
The primary issue, then, in any act of taxation by Congress is whether the tax is indirect, in which case the tax must meet the requirement of uniformity, or direct, in which case the tax must be apportioned among the states. That issue surfaced almost immediately. In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was required to address a challenge that a tax on carriages “for the conveyance of persons” was a direct tax on property, carriages. The Court, however, distinguished between a tax on the ownership of property and one on the consumption (since carriages wear out) of the property, i.e., an avoidable activity, and upheld the tax as an excise, not requiring apportionment.
In 1861 the first tax on income was enacted. It imposed a tax on all income derived from property and was generally considered and implemented as, although no formal challenge was ruled upon, an indirect excise tax on the use of the property for gain. Thus the lines of demarcation between the two taxes, primarily due to Hylton, becomes clearer. A tax on property or person is a direct tax, requiring apportionment, and a tax on privileged and avoidable activities is an indirect tax, requiring uniformity.
The questions remaining, however, are: 1) What is the scope of taxation authority of the federal government in general? And 2) What activities may be the {2 It should be noted, in passing, that the taxing authority in this instance is of a full, free-standing sovereignty, not a limited or conditional sovereignty or sovereignty by convention. } proper subject of an excise tax? No determination of the extent of the federal taxing authority can be made without first answering those two questions.
The answer to the first was not long in coming. The scope of taxing authority was first and thoroughly dealt with in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). The Supreme Court was required to define the limits of taxing authority a State2, Maryland, due to its attempt to tax the national bank, a body established by Congress. Justice Marshall, at p. 429:
“It may be objected to this definition, that the power of taxation is not confined to the people and property of a state. It may be exercised upon every object brought within its jurisdiction. This is true, But to what source do we trace this right? It is obvious, that it is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-extensive with that to which it is an incident. All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.
“The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission.” (emphasis added)

[3 This brief description of the legislative power and sovereignty of the state is found in a variety of subsequent decisions and is thus a well established principle; see Weston v. City Council of Charlston, 2 Pet. (27 U.S.) 449, 467 (1829); The Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. (29 U.S.) 514, 564 (1830); The Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop, 16 How. 369, 409 (1853); People of State of New York, ex rel. of the Bank of Commerce v. Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments for the City and County of New York, 67 U.S. 620, 632 (1863); Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 85 U.S. 5, 38 (1873); The Wheeling, Parkersburg and Cincinnati Trans. Co. v. City of Wheeling, 99 U.S. 273, 279 (1879); Society for Savings v. Coite, 73 U.S. 594, 604 (1868); Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 155, 6 S.Ct. 670 (1886); United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 438, 23 S.Ct. 478 (1903); First National Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640, 663, 44 S.Ct. 213 (1924); Detroit v. Murray Corp. of America, 355 U.S. 489, 497, 78 S.Ct. 458 (1958); ]

It should be noted that these principles are not some antiquated philosophical enunciations, but are foundational Constitutional law, in full force and effect3 and relied upon hundreds of times by our courts, even as recently as this year (See U.S. v. Reynard, 02-50476 (9th Cir. 1-12-2007)).
Also noteworthy, is that in defining the extent of the taxing authority of a sovereignty as co-extensive with its jurisdiction, and, particularly, in defining all without that jurisdiction to be exempt from that authority, we are not hearing this from one who is unsympathetic to the powers of government. Marshall was a staunch Federalist. McCulloch is best known and remembered for its expansion of federal authority and his maximal views of jurisdiction are best evidenced in this ruling, where he holds that “not delegated” does not mean “not delegated” because it does not say “not expressly delegated” (at 406) and that “necessary” does not mean “necessary” because it does not say “absolutely necessary” (at 414).
It can safely be said, then, that the recognition of a State’s power to tax, which would either exceed or at least equal that of a sovereignty by convention, as co-extensive with its jurisdiction, would be an ample standard to apply in surveying the authority of the federal government to tax. Therefore, if we proceed with this analysis on the basis of assigning to the federal government the full taxing authority, subject to the restrictions on manner and means of that taxation, of an original and free-standing sovereignty, such as a State, we can be assured that we will not be undercutting or minimizing that authority.
From McCulloch, then, we can conclude:

A. The power to tax is co-extensive with the jurisdiction of the taxing authority;
B. All things without that jurisdiction are exempt from taxation by the taxing authority; and
C. The jurisdiction of a sovereignty extends to all things that exist by its authority or are introduced with its permission.

Since the taxing authority of the federal government, then, is co-extensive with it’s jurisdiction, a survey of that jurisdiction is necessary in order to define the limits of that taxing authority. Prior to doing so, there is another bookend to the extent of taxing authority. McCulloch not only delineated and defined the area or scope over which a sovereignty may exercise its power to tax, but also defined those areas over which a sovereignty may NOT exercise its power to tax. Marshall at 431:
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. (emphasis added)

That answers the question of whether a State can tax those matters that are under the jurisdiction of the federal government and where the federal government’s authority over those matters is supreme, but what about the reverse of that issue? Who is the supreme authority over those matters within the State’s jurisdiction? The answer to that question was also provided by the Supreme Court in Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U.S. 679 (1877)4, where the Supreme Court recognized that in the areas within State jurisdiction, State law is supreme to that of the federal government. Farrington at 685:
[4 Nor is Farrington a relic of bygone days, it is still controlling Constitutional law, having been cited and followed over one hundred thirty times and as recently as 2005, See Loeffel Steel Products, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., (N.D.Ill. 01 C 9389, 7/28/2005) ]

“In cases involving Federal questions affecting a State, the State cannot be regarded as standing alone. It belongs to a union consisting of itself and all its sister States. The Constitution of that union, and “the laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land, . . . any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding;” and that law is as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and Constitution. Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Bank v. Deering, 91 U.S. 29.
“Yet every State has a sphere of action where the authority of the national government may not intrude. Within that domain the State is as if the union were not. Such are the checks and balances in our complicated but wise system of State and national polity.” (emphasis added)

Thus, just as the State’s power of taxation may not be exercised over those items within its borders where federal jurisdiction is supreme, the federal government’s authority to tax may not be exercised over those items or activities over which the jurisdiction of the State government is supreme. The principle is further reinforced by the Supreme Court again, in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company (Child Labor Case), 259 U.S. 20, 42 S.Ct. 449 (1922)5, in which case the Supreme Court struck down a federal tax on the employment of children. Chief Justice Taft, writing at p. 37: 5 Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. is still controlling Constitutional law, having been cited and followed as controlling nearly 200 times and as recently as 2005, see Simpson v. U.S., 877 A.2d 1045 (D.C. 2005)
“It is the high duty and function of this court in cases regularly brought to its bar to decline to recognize or enforce seeming laws of Congress, dealing with subjects not entrusted to Congress but left or committed by the supreme law of the land to the control of the States. We can not avoid the duty even though it require us to refuse to give effect to legislation designed to promote the highest good. The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards. In the maintenance of local self government, on the one hand, and the national power, on the other, our country has been able to endure and prosper for near a century and a half.
“Out of a proper respect for the acts of a coordinate branch of the Government, this court has gone far to sustain taxing acts as such, even though there has been ground for suspecting from the weight of the tax it was intended to destroy its subject. But, in the act before us, the presumption of validity cannot prevail, because the proof of the contrary is found on the very face of its provisions. Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the States have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word “tax” would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the States.” (emphasis added)

And in Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44, 42 S.Ct. 453 (1922), wherein the Court struck down a federal tax on grain contracts. Chief Justice Taft, again, at p. 67:
“Our decision, just announced, in the Child Labor Tax Case, ante, 20, involving the constitutional validity of the Child Labor Tax Law, completely covers this case. We there distinguish between cases like Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, and McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, in which it was held that this court could not limit the discretion of Congress in the exercise of its constitutional powers to levy excise taxes because the court might deem the incidence of the tax oppressive or even destructive. It was pointed out that in none of those cases did the law objected to show on its face, as did the Child Labor Tax Law, detailed regulation of a concern or business wholly within the police power of the State, with a heavy exaction to promote the efficacy of such regulation.” (emphasis added)

Justice Sutherland, dissenting in Burnes Nat’l Bank v. Duncan, 265 U.S. 17 (1924), a case involving a national bank’s right to appointment as executor of an estate, reminded us of this important principle at p. 26:
It is fundamental, under our dual system of government, that the Nation and the State are supreme and independent, each within its own sphere of action; and that each is exempt from the interference or control of the other in respect of its governmental powers, and the means employed in their exercise. Bank of Commerce v. New York City, 2 Black, 620, 634; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 452, et seq.; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U.S. 679, 685. “How their respective laws shall be enacted; how they shall be carried into execution; and in what tribunals, or by what officers; and how much discretion, or whether any at all shall be vested in their officers, are matters subject to their own control, and in the regulation of which neither can interfere with the other.” Tarble’s Case, 13 Wall. 397, 407-8. Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, the sovereignty of the States “can be no more invaded by the action of the general government, than the action of the state governments can arrest or obstruct the course of the national power. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 570.” (emphasis added)

Thus, the taxing authority of the federal government ends where the regulatory authority of the States begin and are, therefore, limited to those areas of activities over which the States granted the federal government authority and those lands the States granted permission to the federal government to acquire for specific purposes. Accordingly, the Constitution affords federal legislative jurisdiction over certain enumerated areas of activity and exclusive legislative jurisdiction over certain geographic areas:
Article I, § 8:
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
To borrow Money
To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the States and with Indian Tribes
To establish uniform Rules of Naturalization
To enact Laws on Bankruptcy
To coin Money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign Coin
To fix the Standard of Weights and Measures
To provide for Punishment of counterfeiting
To establish Post Offices and post Roads
To make Patent and Copyright laws
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations
To declare War, Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
To raise and support and regulate Armies and a Navy and to regulate the Militia
To call out the Militia
To govern the District of Columbia [infra]
To make laws “necessary and proper” to enforce the Constitution
Enabling Clauses:
To enforce 13th Amendment [abolition of slavery]
To enforce 14th Amendment [equal protection of the law]
To enforce 15th Amendment [right to vote]
To enforce 19th Amendment [women’s suffrage]
To enforce 23rd Amendment [prohibition of poll tax]
Exclusive legislative authority:
Article II, § 8, cl. 17:
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District [of Columbia] (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Article III, § 2:
“The congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. . .”
([bracketed material] added)
That Congress may, then, tax those activities, such as interstate commerce, foreign trade and the exercise of patent rights, would seem established under the McCulloch definition. That it may tax any and every privileged activity within those lands over which it has exclusive legislative jurisdiction is equally apparent.

The latter, however is virtually inconsequential, since the federal jurisdiction consists solely of the District of Columbia, the territories and those scattered islands of federal lands over which the States have ceded jurisdiction to the federal government, “federal enclaves”. All other territory within the country is in the States, which means they are not within the federal jurisdiction.
Most people would be surprised to learn that they do not live on United States soil and that many have been born, lived and died without ever having set foot on United States soil.
This would be a good time to review one of the regulations discussed hereinabove, more particularly, 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii):
“(iii) Income that is not considered tax exempt.
“The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:
“(A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer (including a foreign sales corporation (FSC)) computing its effectively connected income, gross income (whether domestic or foreign source) which is not effectively connected to the conduct of a United States trade or business; [Jurisdiction to regulate foreign commerce]
“(B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC [international or foreign sales corporation] and its related supplier, 56
the gross income of a DISC or a FSC; [Jurisdiction to regulate foreign commerce]
“(C) For all purposes under subchapter N of the Code, including the computation of combined taxable income of a possessions corporation and its affiliates under section 936(h), the gross income of a possessions corporation for which a credit is allowed under section 936(a); and [Exclusive legislative jurisdiction (all persons, property and activities) in territories or possessions]
“(D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911 and the regulations thereunder (however, the rules of Sec. 1.911-6 do not require the allocation and apportionment of certain deductions, including home mortgage interest, to foreign earned income for purposes of determining the deductions disallowed under section 911(d)(6)).” [Jurisdiction to regulate foreign commerce] (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

There is, however, a second area of taxation granted Congress beyond those particular activities and those federal enclaves of exclusive legislative jurisdiction, and that is in the taxation clause itself. Article I, § 8, cl. 1 grants Congress the power to lay and collect duties, imposts and excises. Duties and imposts are related to foreign trade, leaving the sole remaining grant, for internal taxation, to be excises. Thus, those activities that are included within the power to lay and collect excises would, reasonably, be implicit in the grant. The question, then, is to what extent may an excise tax be laid and collected?
6 Again, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. is controlling and Constitutional law, having been cited and followed over 600 times by virtually every court as the authoritative definition of the scope of excise taxing power.

The inquiry must begin with defining what, exactly, an excise tax is. Webster’s Dictionary defines an excise as:
Excise: obsolete Dutch excijs (now accijus), from Middle Dutch, probably modification of Old French assise session, assessment 1 : an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity 2 : any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee (emphasis added)

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an excise as:

Excise taxes are taxes “laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911); or a tax on privileges, syn. “privilege tax”. (emphasis added)

The Supreme Court, as noted by Black’s, has provided a clear and definite scope of the excise taxing authority. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)6, the Supreme Court held that:
“Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are “taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.” Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.” Flint, supra, at 151 (emphasis added)

Now we have two basic areas of internal indirect taxation authority:

1. Taxing authority that is inherent in sovereignty, i.e., “co-extensive with jurisdiction” (McCulloch, supra);
2. Authority to lay and collect excises “upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges (Flint, supra).

There is a third area of taxation authority that is not found in the Constitution, nor can any historical or traditional foundation for the taxing authority be found, but since the Supreme Court based its sanctioning of the exercise of taxation over that area as an excise, we can call it an excise of unknown ancestry. This third area of excise of unknown ancestry was established in two cases that, ironically, the Supreme Court believed would be of little significance. The fact, however, is that these cases had a profound effect on taxation in the country that accounts for many of the arcane and mysterious twists, turns and surprising dead ends in the labyrinth of past and current tax codes and regulations.
In Railroad Co. v. Collector, 100 U.S. 595 (1879), the Supreme Court was faced with a challenge to a tax on interest paid by corporations. In this particular case, however, the interest was payable to foreign bond holders. Fully aware of the fact that the foreign bond holders were outside the jurisdiction of the government and that the situs of an obligation is always that of the obligee, the Court (sort of) upheld the tax:
“That the tax was actually collected without resistance, and the present suit is brought to recover it back, is sufficient answer to the assertion that it could not be enforced.
“Whether Congress, having the power to enforce the law, has the authority to levy such a tax on the interest due by a citizen of the United States to one who is not domiciled within our limits, and who owes the government no allegiance, is a question which we do not think necessary to the decision of this case.
“The tax, in our opinion, is essentially an excise on the business of the class of corporations mentioned in the statute.
“. . .The tax is laid by Congress on the net earnings, which are the results of the business of the corporation, on which Congress had clearly a right to lay it; and being lawfully assessed and paid, it cannot be recovered back by reason of any inefficiency or ethical objection to the remedy over against the bondholder.” Railroad Co., supra, at 597-9 (emphasis added)

See also, United States v. Erie Railway Co., 106 U.S. 327 (1882).

So, now we have three areas of indirect taxation authority that the federal government can exercise, those activities within its regulatory authority and all privileged activities within those territories and federal enclaves over which it has exclusive legislative authority (McCulloch); excise taxes on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities, licensing of certain occupations and corporate privileges (Flint, supra), and, finally, the excise of unknown ancestry or authority on monies payable to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations (Railroad Co., supra).
We also have prohibited areas, those being any activities that are within the scope of the regulatory authority of the States (McCulloch, Farrington, Bailey and Hill, supra) and those activities to which the jurisdiction of the federal government may not apply, i.e., those subjects of taxation that do not exist by the federal government’s authority and are not introduced by its permission (McCulloch, supra) (with the exception, of course of monies owed nonresident aliens and foreign corporations). In other words every activity outside of those three areas of taxation authority are, in Marshall’s words, exempt from federal taxation.
The income tax is an excise
The next issue is whether the income tax is a direct tax, which can be levied on virtually anything, or an indirect tax, which can only be laid on those activities listed in Flint. In 1861 the federal government imposed a tax on income derived from property. The tax was never challenged, but was referred to by Chief Justice White in Brushaber as an excise tax. Brushaber, supra, p. 15. Prior to Brushaber, however, the nature of the income tax had come into question.
In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and T. Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), the Supreme Court held that the Income Tax Act of 1894 imposing a tax on income from real estate and investments was a direct tax, and, therefore invalid for want of apportionment. The basis of the ruling was that the tax on the revenues from real estate was a burden on the ownership of the real estate, and, hence, a tax on the property itself. The decision that the tax was direct turned on the source of the income, rather than the income itself and was not in agreement with prior Supreme Court reasoning, such as in Hylton, supra.
In response to the ruling the federal government sought an amendment to overrule the Pollock decision. Ultimately, in 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was certified as adopted. It read:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Congress immediately passed the Income Tax of 1913, imposing a tax on net income, “from whatever source derived.” The law was challenged in Brushaber v Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916), requiring the Court to determine the impact of the Sixteenth Amendment on tax authority. Chief Justice White, who had dissented in Pollock, wrote for the Court, holding that the Sixteenth Amendment did not confer any additional authority to tax and that its sole purpose and effect was to preclude the consideration of the source of income in order to reclassify the tax as a direct tax, requiring apportionment.
. 7 See Funk v. C. I. R., 687 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1982) and Miller v. U.S., 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1989)
8 See Lonsdale v. C. I. R., 661 F.2d 71, 5th Cir. 1981); but, “[I]ts enactment was not authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment.” Brushaber, supra, at 20.
9 See Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir. 1984); as opposed to Brushaber, supra, at 19.
There has been some confusion regarding the actual import of the Brushaber ruling, one court actually holding that the effect of Brushaber was to uphold the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment7(?), and another has held that Congress was given the power to tax incomes by the Sixteenth Amendment8. One court, incredibly, cited Brushaber as holding that the Sixteenth Amendment “provided the needed constitutional basis for the imposition of a direct non-apportioned income tax,”9 a proposition that the Supreme Court in Brushaber categorically rejected! The clear and unequivocal ruling of the Court in Brushaber is that the Sixteenth Amendment granted no new powers to Congress:
“It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense — an authority already possessed and never questioned — or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.” Brushaber, supra, at 17-8 (emphasis added)

nor did the Court recognize a third class of taxes, a direct tax not requiring apportionment:

“The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, . . .” Brushaber, supra, at 10-11 (emphasis added)

The effect of the Sixteenth Amendment was not to permit a direct income tax, nor to grant Congress any additional power of taxation. If that conclusion can be in any doubt from the difficulties experienced by some in understanding the Brushaber opinion, the point is reiterated in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), the Supreme Court held:
“. . . The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, . . .” Stanton, supra, at 112-3 (emphasis added)

and by the Supreme Court, again, in Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918), at p. 172-3:

“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113.” (emphasis added)

and by the Supreme Court, again, in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), at p. 206: As repeatedly held, this [the 16th Amendment] did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172-173.
(emphasis and [bracketed material] added)
10 See “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws”, by Howard Zaritsky, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, May 25, 1979, p. 3.

In a memorandum from the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, it was stated, citing both Brushaber and Stanton, supra, “Therefore, it is clear that the income tax is an ‘indirect’ tax.”10
There can be no doubt, the income tax is an indirect tax, not a property tax that is immune from direct tax apportionment, and there can be no doubt that the Sixteenth Amendment did not in any way, shape or form enlarge or enhance the taxation power of Congress. Brushaber, Stanton, Peck and Eisner, supra. It is, therefore, subject to the same limitations on taxing authority that are established hereinabove, and that is that it cannot tax person or property without apportionment (Article I, § 9, cl. 4), nor any activity that is without either the scope of federal legislative authority (McCulloch and Farrington, supra), outside the scope of excise (Flint, supra) or monies owed to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations (Railroad Co. and Erie R.R., supra). Nor does the power to tax by excise permit the federal government to tax activities that are solely within the realm of the State jurisdiction (Bailey and Hill, supra).
All of these cases, McCulloch, Farrington, Flint, Railroad Co, Bailey and Hill, are still controlling and the last word of the Supreme Court on the power of the federal government to tax. While there have been other Supreme Court cases upholding the imposition of the income tax, every one of them has been upheld against challenges by corporations and others whose activities are by definition of the excise within the taxing authority. Notwithstanding continuous taxation of income for the last 94 years, there are only two instances where the Supreme Court has ruled on the validity of the income tax with respect to anyone who is either not a corporation or otherwise within the jurisdictional and jurisprudential limitations of the federal taxing authority and in both instances it held the income tax exceeded its Constitutional scope. See Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 38 S.Ct. 158 (1918) and Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920) That question, then, remains unsettled and unanswered. The principles set forth in those cases, however, do provide the answer by defining the limits of the federal taxing authority with enough certainty to establish that defendant and the revenue he received for services personally rendered in the practice of law are not subject to that taxing authority.
11 See § 19.22(b), 1940 Code of Federal Regulations

Defendant’s activities and revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation11 as being outside the taxing authority of the federal government

Justice Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland, supra, stated without qualification or reservation, that:
It is obvious, that it [the power to tax] is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-extensive with that to which it is an incident. All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.
“The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission.” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

That principle is still the law of the land. It has never been questioned, challenged nor distinguished into an insignificant corner, much less overruled, probably due to the fact that, as Justice Marshall indicates, the principle is “obvious” and “self evident.” He also gives us a test by which to determine whether a proposed subject of taxation is within that authority, “the sovereignty of a state (not a political subdivision, but a “state”, whether it be the State of Louisiana or the State of Israel or any other sovereign) extends to everything that exists by its own authority or is introduced by its permission.”
Does defendant exist by authority of the federal government? Does he work, live, practice law by permission of the federal government? The answer to both of those questions is, undoubtedly, no. He is, therefore, not within the sovereign power of the federal government and, therefore, both he and his revenues “are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation” by the federal government.
Defendant, Mr. Cryer, is, and was during the two subject years, 2000 and 2001, engaged solely in the practice of law, under license from the State of Louisiana. He is not engaging in interstate commerce, he is not exercising any corporate privileges, he does not work or reside within the federal jurisdiction, residing and working in the State, within State jurisdiction only. Nor is he engaged in the manufacture or sale of commodities and his occupation requires no license from the federal government. And, obviously, he is not a nonresident alien or foreign corporation to whom a person in the United States owes money.
Accordingly, both Mr. Cryer and his revenues are outside the indirect taxing authority of the United States. The federal government is without authority to tax defendant’s revenues because he and his revenue are not either within the jurisdiction of the federal government nor the scope of the excise taxing authority. Therefore, Where there can be no tax, there can be no tax deficiency, an essential element of the charges against Mr. Cryer, and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice.
12 See National Federation of Republican Assemblies v. U.S., 218 F. Supp.2d 1300 (S.D.Ala. 2002)

Defendant and his revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation because they are within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the State
In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922), the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not tax those activities that were under the sole and exclusive realm of the States. This is still sound, controlling Constitutional law, and is cited as such on a regular basis, and only recently in nullifying a federal tax law that required an organization to disclose the names of its contributors of money for use by or for the benefit of candidates in state and local elections.12 Reiterating what Justice Taft wrote in Bailey at p. 37:
Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the States have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word “tax” would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the States.” (emphasis added)

Hill v. Wallace, supra, followed, reiterating the principle that the State sovereignty cannot be invaded through a so-called exercise of taxing authority. These principles are sound and valid, being in total agreement with the concepts of mutually exclusive sovereignty expressed by Justice Marshall in McCulloch. Where one government is sovereign, another cannot be, thus Maryland’s attempt to tax the United States Bank, a creation and agency created by and within the sole jurisdiction of the federal government, could not be sustained.
Farrington, supra, in 1877, made it clear that the mutually exclusive nature of sovereignty, and, via McCulloch, power to tax, was reciprocal, holding that where the State governs, it is as though the federal government does not exist. The cases holding state taxes unconstitutional insofar as they tax any interstate transaction are too numerous to list, but the same principle upon which those cases were based applies to federal attempts to tax activities that are purely within the power of the States to govern.
As Justice Marshall properly, and wisely, observes in McCulloch, at p. 431:

“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied.” (emphasis added)

The courts have repeatedly held, as Chief Justice Taft pointed out in Bailey, that where there is authority to tax, the tax must be upheld, even if the tax is intended to and does destroy its subject. However, where the subject of the tax is within the realm of another sovereignty which, within that sphere of activities, is supreme, then the tax cannot be sustained.
The practice of law is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the State, and, therefore, is outside both the jurisdiction and the taxing authority of the federal government.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged the States’ jurisdiction over the practice of law. Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964); Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217 (1967).
A review of the enumerated powers of Congress, supra, readily reveals that the regulation of the practice of law is not among those powers. Accordingly, the regulation of the practice of law is “one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the States have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment.” Bailey, supra. It is within that “sphere of action where the authority of the national government may not intrude. Within that domain the State is as if the union were not.” Farrington, supra.
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the activities and revenues derived from defendant’s law practice are exempt from federal taxation, which cannot intrude into or upon that activity. Accordingly, those revenues being exempt, there is no tax deficiency, an essential element of the charges against Mr. Cryer, and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice.
13 See § 19.22(b), 1940 Code of Federal Regulations

Defendant’s revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation because the activity is the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, and, therefore, outside the taxing authority of the federal government

Fundamental rights are those described in general terms by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. They are derived from Natural Law, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, not from the Constitution, not from the government. Such rights are inalienable and inviolable, and are not privileges that can be the subject of a tax on privileges.
Therefore, under Marshall’s definition of the scope of sovereignty, being those things that exist by its authority or are introduced by its permission, the scope of the federal government’s sovereignty cannot extend to the exercise of such rights. The right to work and engage in one’s chosen occupation is one of those fundamental rights.
A person’s freedom and ability to work is his own property, and that right cannot be taken, bought, sold or bartered away, at least not since the 13th Amendment was adopted. The Supreme Court has recognized this right as a fundamental right and part of the freedom to pursue happiness. In Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884), the Supreme Court was presented with a case involving a Louisiana statute granting exclusive and irrevocable right to operate stock-receiving and slaughter house operation to Crescent City Company. Crescent City Company had sued Butchers’ Union Co. for a restraining order in an effort to enforce its exclusive franchise. The Supreme Court held that the grant was unconstitutional because it purported to be irrevocable, ceding authority of subsequent legislative action rescinding the monopoly grant.
The case has been cited, however, more often for the premises set out in Justice Field’s Concurrence, in which he stated at p. 756:
“As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ — that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement — ‘that all men are endowed’ — not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain inalienable rights’ — that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime — ‘and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these’ — not grant them but secure them — ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ “Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, . . .
“It has been well said that, “The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. . . .” Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.” (emphasis added)

Although this opinion was a concurring opinion, Justice Field was not alone in his assessment. He was joined in his concurrence by Justice Bradley, who, joined by JJ. Harlan and Woods, also concurred, but on the basis of Field’s reasoning, stating at p. 762:
“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.” (italics, the Court’s; bold emphasis added)

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), the Supreme Court, again, recognized this fundamental right in declaring unconstitutional a statute that would force a Chinese laundry businessman out of business, holding at 370:
“But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth ‘may be a government of laws and not of men.’ For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” (emphasis added)

In Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897), the Supreme Court held invalid a Louisiana statute prohibiting a citizen from contracting outside the State for insurance on his property lying therein because it violated the liberty guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915), an Arizona statute requiring a minimum quota of citizens was declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held at p. 41: “It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the [14th] Amendment to secure. Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 762; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589, 590; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14.” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)
Again, in Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590, 37 S.Ct. 662 (1917), the Supreme Court considered a statute prohibiting employment agencies from charging fees for obtaining employment. The Supreme Court, citing and quoting Allgeyer, held:
“The liberty mentioned in that amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation.” Adams, supra, at 595 (emphasis added)

The Supreme Court was presented with a challenge by a German teacher of a Nebraska law which prohibited teaching lessons in any language other than English in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625 (1923). The Supreme Court held the law was an unconstitutional infringement on a fundamental right protected by the 14th Amendment. At p. 399 the Supreme Court stated:
“While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312; Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474.” (emphasis added)

In Massachusetts Bd. Of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S.Ct. 2562 (1976), at issue was a Massachusetts law regarding an age limit for police officers. There was no question regarding the right to pursue one’s occupation as being protected under the Constitution, but only with respect to the standard of review of the law. In objecting to the court’s application of a rational basis standard rather than a strict scrutiny test, Justice Marshall writing at 322: “Whether “fundamental” or not, “`the right of the individual . . . to engage in any of the common occupations of life'” has been repeatedly recognized by this Court as falling within the concept of liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572 (1972), quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). As long ago as Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884), Mr. Justice Bradley wrote that this right ‘is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase `pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence . . . . This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.’ Id., at 762 (concurring opinion). And in Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630 (1914), in invalidating a law that criminally penalized anyone who served as a freight train conductor without having previously served as a brakeman, and that thereby excluded numerous equally qualified employees from that position, the Court recognized that ‘all men are entitled to the equal protection of the law in their right to work for the support of themselves and families.’ Id., at 641.” “‘In so far as a man is deprived of the right to labor his liberty is restricted, his capacity to earn wages and acquire property is lessened, and he is denied the protection which the law affords those who are permitted to work. Liberty means more than freedom from servitude, and the constitutional guarantee is an assurance that the citizen shall be protected in the right to use his powers of mind and body in any lawful calling.’ Id., at 636.” (emphasis added) See also In re Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313, 10 S.Ct. 862, 34 L. Ed. 455; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937, 3 Ann.Cas. 1133; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, 31 S.Ct. 259, 55 L.Ed. 328; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357, 38 S.Ct. 337, 62 L.Ed. 772, Ann.Cas. 1918E, 593; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 42 S.Ct. 124, 66 L.Ed. 254, 27 A.L.R. 375; Adkins v.Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 43 S.Ct. 394, 67 L.Ed. 785, 24 A.L.R. 1238; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474, 86 N.E. 925, 23 L.R.A., N.S., 147, 128 Am.St.Rep. 439; Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, 47 S.Ct. 406, 71 L.Ed. 646; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468; and Wysinger v. Crookshank, 82 Cal. 588, 23 P. 54.
There is no doubt that the right to work and to pursue one’s chosen occupation is a basic and fundamental right that the federal government, and, through the 14th Amendment, the States, may not abridge. This is a right that is not owed to the federal government or the Constitution and one the federal government does not grant or permit, thus it neither exists by its authority nor is it introduced by its permission.
The taxing of fundamental rights is so repugnant to the mind, spirit and conscience of any man that even Congress has, with this exception, not undertaken to impose a tax on the exercise of those rights. Therefore there is little case law on the issue. There is, however, some illumination to be gleaned from some home-grown law. In 1934, Louisiana passed an excise tax on publishers of newspapers, magazines and other printed publications. The Supreme Court, in Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), struck the law down as an abridgement on the fundamental freedom of speech, stating:
“That freedom of speech and of the press are rights of the same fundamental character, safeguarded by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by state legislation, has likewise been settled by a series of decisions of this Court beginning with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652,666, and ending with Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 707. The word “liberty” contained in that amendment embraces not only the right of a person to be free from physical restraint, but the right to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties as well. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589.” Grosjean, supra, at 244. (emphasis added)

The Court in Grosjean pointed out, as it did in Murdock and Follett, infra, that a publishing company was not immune from all taxation, in that it could be taxed on its profits as a corporation or on its property, but this tax was an excise on “the privilege of engaging in such business” (publishing a newspaper), not on the exercise of corporate privilege nor on its property.
A license fee for distributing religious material door to door was struck down by the Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 63 S.Ct. 870 (1943) as abridging freedom of speech, press and religion. The Court stated at p. 108: 82
“The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.”

And at 112:

“the power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment.” (emphasis added) See also Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 56 S.Ct. 444 (1943); Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 64 S.Ct. 717 (1944)

Striking down a Virginia poll tax in 1966, the Supreme Court in Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079 (1966), quoted and cited United States v. State of Texas, 252 F. Supp. 234 (1966), a three-judge panel case, that said at p. 254:
“If the State of Texas placed a tax on the right to speak at the rate of one dollar and seventy-five cents per year, no court would hesitate to strike it down as a blatant infringement of the freedom of speech. Yet the poll tax as enforced in Texas is a tax on the equally important right to vote.”

There is, in addition to the repugnancy of imposing a tax on an activity that is the exercising of what is clearly a fundamental right, protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and in addition to the fact that the exercise of that fundamental right and freedom is beyond the reach of the jurisdictional arm as defined by Justice Marshall in McCulloch, still another conflict, and that is that one of the characteristics of an indirect tax is that it is voluntary in the sense that one can avoid payment of the tax by abstaining from the activity taxed. A tax that cannot be avoided by abstention from the activity is a tax on the person or property, not on the activity described. For example, if an excise on tobacco products is imposed, one can simply abstain from consuming tobacco products, avoiding the tax.
However, as was mentioned previously, if a tax were imposed on breathing, a tax that could not be avoided by abstention, or at least not without dire consequences, then such a tax would be a mandatory tax on being (remaining) alive, on one’s existence, and would, therefore, be direct, subject to apportionment.
Working, practicing one’s craft in one’s chosen occupation is, like breathing, not an avoidable activity. While one could resign himself to the life of a hobo, scraping, foraging and begging for his daily bread and living under whatever he can find resembling shelter, that option is only slightly better than abstaining from breathing.
The Supreme Court, in Brushaber, did not uphold the constitutionality of the income tax in all respects, but only in that presented to the Court. The Court left the door open for challenges in other situations where the tax would operate to tax a property (as is a fundamental right) or fall into the class of direct taxes:
“Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.” Brushaber, supra, at 16-17. (emphasis added)

Chief Justice White, obviously, could see that not all income was taxable by the federal government and anticipated that if the income tax were applied to such income that is outside the taxing authority or would in effect require the taxing of person, property or possession, the effect, or substance, not the name, or form, of the tax would be considered and that apportionment would be required, the Sixteenth Amendment notwithstanding. {14 Black’s Law Dictionary identifies “privilege tax” as a synonym for “excise tax” }
Recalling the reasoning of Justice Marshall in McCulloch, that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy”, and that “there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied.” at 431.
Applied to and paraphrased for the instant case: That the power to tax a fundamental right involves the power to destroy that right, and that there is a plain repugnance in the conferring on any government a power to control the freedoms and rights granted by another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is the most supreme sovereignty, the sovereignty and supremacy of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, are propositions not to be denied.
It is, therefore, strenuously submitted that where that “privilege tax”14 is imposed upon the exercise of a fundamental, natural right, as opposed to a privilege, to an unavoidable activity, as opposed to an optional activity, that it must be “concluded that to enforce it” against the wages and fees personally earned in the exercise of that fundamental right “would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent.”
Thus, given that the Supreme Court has made it clear that fundamental rights are not to be abridged by taxation (Grosjean, Murdock, Follett and Harper, supra), that a fundamental right is not a privilege by authority or permission of the federal government, and, therefore cannot be the proper subject of an excise (Flint, McCulloch, supra), that the right to work and engage in one’s chosen occupation is his property (Butchers’ Union, supra) and, therefore exempt from indirect taxation by the federal government (Article I, § 9, cl. 4 and McCulloch), it is respectfully submitted that the income tax, as applied (or claimed to be applied), to wages and fees personally earned, without exercise of corporate privileges, without manufacture or sale of commodities and without the lawful jurisdiction of the federal government, is clearly in violation of the Fifth Amendment in that it deprives and abridges an inviolable, fundamental right, and a violation of Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution in that it is in substance a direct tax on property, requiring apportionment.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that defendant’s revenues, deriving solely from his own labor and effort in the pursuit of his chosen occupation, is {15 See § 115, 1939 Revenue Code }exempt from taxation by the federal government and certainly exempt from indirect taxation by the federal government, and, accordingly, those revenues being exempt, there is no tax deficiency, an essential element of the charges against Mr. Cryer, and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice.
Defendant’s revenues do “not constitute income to him within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution”

In order to avoid repetition of materials already included hereinabove, a brief review of premises already established is in order:
1. The Internal Revenue Code does not define “income”;
2. Webster defines income as a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor;
3. Black’s Law Dictionary defines income as The return in money from one’s business, labor or capital invested; gains, profits or private revenue.
4. Louisiana law defines income, “fruits”, as things that are produced by or derived from another thing without diminution of its substance.
5. From 1913 through 1954, the Congress, by statute, acknowledged that some revenues are not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment (e.g., 1939 Code, § 115);
6. From 1913 through 1954 the Treasury Department in regulations acknowledged that some items are exempt from federal taxation due to either the Constitution or fundamental law and need not be included in gross income (e.g. 1940 Regulations, § 22(b));
7. Following 1954, vestigial remnants of those acknowledgements remain (26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1) and 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii) and (iii));
8. The Supreme Court, in Brushaber, kept the door open on any application of the income tax law that would impose a tax on property or person in which case the Supreme Court would look to substance rather than form and require apportionment (Brushaber, at 16-17).
We have already discussed two examples of Constitutional exemption acknowledged by the Treasury Department, those activities that are beyond the federal government’s jurisdiction and those fundamental rights that are endowed by a superior sovereignty, but what about the regulations acknowledging that some revenues “do not constitute income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution”?
If Johnny Public were to choose the door marked “wages, salaries and fees personally earned”, he would win the prize, the exemption, not only because the right to earn a living is exempt as a fundamental right, but because “‘The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. . . .’ Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.” Butchers’ Union, supra.
In addition to Webster and Black’s above, the Supreme Court weighed in on the definition of “income”, the same year the word was used in both the Sixteenth Amendment and the first version of the current imposition of a tax on income. In Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 400; 34 S.Ct. 136 (1913) the Supreme Court stated: “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.” and ” . . . And, however the operation shall be described, the transaction is indubitably ‘business’ within the fair meaning of the act of 1909; and the gains derived from it are properly and strictly the income from that business; for “income” may be defined as the gains derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, combined operations and here we have of capital and labor.” Id at p. 415 (emphasis added)
Five years later, the Supreme Court in Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918), states:
“Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of “income,” it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415: ‘Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'” Id at 184-5 (emphasis added)

As was pointed out, supra, the Court in Brushaber indicated that in the event that receipts that, if taxed, would have the effect of taxing person or property, the Sixteenth Amendment would not prevent it from applying the rule of apportionment, and one such occasion was presented in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 38 S.Ct. 158 (1918). The district court had ruled that the stock dividend was included in the government’s definition of income subjected to the tax. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court:
“But it is not necessarily true that income means the same thing in the Constitution and the act. A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used. . . .The plaintiff says that the statute as it is construed and administered is unconstitutional. He is not to be defeated by the reply that the Government does not adhere to the construction by virtue of which alone it has taken and keeps the plaintiff’s money, if this court should think that the construction would make the act unconstitutional. Id at 425 (emphasis added)

The Supreme Court did think that construction would make the act unconstitutional. The Court went on to hold that the stock dividend was a conversion of capital from one form to another, and, therefore, was not income, regardless of whether the Government’s definition included such conversions in its definition.
In another stock dividend case, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920), the Supreme Court ruled the Revenue Act of 1916 (successor of the 1913 income tax) unconstitutional insofar as it applied to stock dividends. The Court held that:
“. . . Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case (pp. 183, 185).” “Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word “gain,” which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. “Derived — from — capital;” — “the gain — derived — from — capital,” etc.

Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being “derived,” that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.” Id at 207 (italics the Court’s, bold emphasis added)
The only addition or supplement to the Supreme Court’s definition of “income” “within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment” is in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 75 S.Ct. 473 (1955).16 In that case, the Court determined that where treble damages had been awarded in a fraud claim and was paid and received, the exemplary damages, those in excess of the compensatory damages, were income and subject to taxation.
The Court in Glenshaw Glass distinguished Eisner v. Macomber, stating that the additional damages were “accessions to wealth.” In fact, however, the {16 Cited and followed in Murphy v. I.R.S., 460 F.3d 79 (D.C. Cir. 2006) } reasoning behind Eisner v. Macomber was actually no different from that in Glenshaw, in that the reason stock dividends were found not to be income is that they were not accessions to wealth, i.e., that the corporation was no worse off for the dividend nor was the stockholder any better off for the dividend.
The applicability of the Eisner definition of income to Glenshaw’s exemplary damages was apparently misunderstood because the compensatory damages were never at issue and were not regarded in the analysis. Had the Court done so, it would have realized that in order to recover three hundred percent, the plaintiff must have first incurred one hundred percent. In other words, the income was three hundred less one hundred, the one hundred being the basis, the capital, that produced a gain, profit or “accession to wealth” of two hundred. Glenshaw Glass received three hundred, but its wealth was only enhanced by two hundred. Macomber received additional shares, but his wealth was not enhanced. Whether Eisner v. Macomber or Glenshaw Glass, the measure of income is in the GAIN realized.
There is no doubt that had the government contended that all of the treble damage award in Glenshaw was income, the Court would have rejected such a position. Likewise, if the government were to contend that a widget shop owner could only deduct his shop expenses, but not his cost of goods, from his gross revenue, the Court would not stand for that, either, because that would not only be a tax on the income (gain or profit), but on the capital, as well.
Gain or profit is, without question, that portion of monies received that is above and beyond what was given up, either in property or expense, in order to receive those funds. Gross revenue less cost and overhead equals profit or gain—income. Neither the Court nor the government gave a thought to whether the compensatory damages were income, having backed those compensated damages out of the equation to begin with.
Given the understanding, then, that in order to be income there must first be a gain, or profit, we are prepared to examine whether wages, salaries and fees personally earned (hereinafter referred to collectively as “wages” in the interest of brevity), are income within the meaning of the Constitution.
The Code defines gross income as “income from . . . compensation for services”. Since income is gain, profit, then that definition is actually “that portion of compensation for services that is gain or profit.” The government’s contention is that the gain or profit is everything received for compensation for services, thus with respect to wages the government contends that gross revenue and gross income are the same. Wages are the only revenue that the government treats as equivalent to income.
A tax on gross revenue as opposed to net gain is not an income tax, but a tax on both capital and income. State Tax on R. Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284, 21 L. Ed. 164; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326, 30 L. Ed. 1200; Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U.S. 217, 35 L. Ed. 994; and since a tax on gross revenue is taxing both income and capital, insofar as the tax on capital is concerned it is not indirect nor is it ‘exempt’ from the requirement of apportionment.
The problem with wages is that, unlike every other form of “income” described in the code, the government does not permit the wage-earner to back out what he has given up in order to receive those wages. It has been established that a man’s labor is his property, the capital. Thus wages are the purchase price for that property. Any other exchange of property for money must generate a profit before it is considered income, so on what basis does the government contend that all of the money exchanged for his property must be and is profit or gain?
While many have contended that wages are not income because they are a fair and equal exchange of value for money and, therefore, a break-even transaction, that position would be difficult to maintain. The sale of a widget is, presumably, an equal exchange of value for money but such a transaction could generate income (or loss) to the seller.
To contend, however, that there is no value contributed by the seller of labor for wages, and that, therefore 100% of all wages are profit, i.e., income, is not only equally untenable, but is offensive to the senses of reason and justice.
Some may be paid far more than the true value of their effort, exertion and proficiency. Others may be paid only a fraction of the value of their labor and skill. It is impossible to determine what portion of wages is basis and what part is gain.
It is equally impossible, however, to seriously contend that all wages are received in exchange for nothing. As absurd as such a proposition sounds, that is what the government is saying when it states that the cost basis for wages is zero. If, however, the wage-earner must give up something in order to receive his wages, then the wages he receives are not free. If the wages are not free, then they are not 100% profit. Employing a Glenshaw approach, if he must first sacrifice a loss to another in order to receive the wages, then only the “exemplary” portion of his wages is income.
The remainder is capital. What the court termed “human capital” in Murphy v. I.R.S., 460 F.3d 79 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Assuming that any of the wage is above and beyond the amount of expenditure on the wage-earner’s part, a tax on the entire wage would have to be considered a tax on both the capital, the expenditure, and the profit, and would, therefore be a tax on the capital, or property, portion of the wage. This is exactly what Chief Justice White was describing when he stated that should the application of the income tax have the effect of taxing property or person, rather than profits and gains, alone, then “duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment.” Brushaber, supra.
If any portion of wages represents what the wage-earner had to give in exchange for the wages, then that portion, however minute or great, is not income, is not a gain or an accession to wealth, and, therefore, that portion is not “income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment” and would be in conflict with the Constitution to the same and identical extent as in Towne and Eisner, supra. It is a tax on gross receipts, which includes the basis or capital, and, therefore, not an income tax. Gross Receipts, Philadelphia Steamship, Grand Trunk and Brushaber, supra.
The distinction here is not one of mere form or technicality. It is a distinction of substance.
So, what does a wage-earner give up in order to receive his wages? It has been said that “When man is born his days are numbered and filled with trouble.” So, too are his work days numbered and filled with toil and exertion. The term “expending” energy is no different than “expend”iture of money or goods. The wage-earner has made an expenditure and received a wage in return.
This and every other court has on innumerable occasions suffered through the monotony of an expert witness recounting statistical and actuarial data in evaluating the remainder of a disabled plaintiff’s work life. While those witnesses usually disagree, having used different assumptions and/or data pools, the one thing upon which every one of them does agree is that the work life of any person is not infinite. We are all mortal. These experts will also agree that work life and life expectancy are rarely the same, but in both instances they are not infinite.
When a wage-earner finishes his year of labor and receives his W-2, it reflects his gross revenue, what he received, not his gross income, what he gained. It does not reflect what he gave up in exchange. He has over the year received the total shown on the W-2, and during the same year he had expended a great deal of energy and labor, he has given a year out of his work life a year out of his life expectancy to another in exchange for his wages. And, yet, the government contends that those wages were all profit, all gain, and that the basis for his earnings was $0.00. He contributed nothing to the exchange and was paid for nothing.
The obvious conflict in the government’s assessment of wages as having been paid for nothing is that if that is the case, then the wages are gratuities, gifts, not “income”. The government cannot have it both ways, to state that the wage-earner on the one hand realized earnings, or income, but on the other hand received a gift, purely gratuitous.
If we attempt to imagine the most “worthless” employment possible, one that required the absolute least amount of expenditure of effort and no knowledge or skill, we would still have to admit that no matter how much or how little such an employment paid, the employee is not paid for nothing. A night watchman, whose only requirement is that he remain in the premises overnight, is still giving up something for his wages. He is not being paid for nothing in exchange.
In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., supra, Chief Justice Taft stated “All others can see and understand this. How can we properly shut our minds to it?” Id at 37.
A few examples should demonstrate that this distinction between wages, salaries and fees personally earned is one of substance:
Example 1: Gains on Capital
Joe places $100,000 in a certificate of deposit earning 6% per annum. Joe gave up his $100,000 for a year and at the end of the year he received $106,000 of which only $6,000 would be income as defined by the act. Joe still has his original $100,000 and can ‘rent’ it out again for another year, but he pays taxes only on the $6,000 gain.

Example 2: Gains on Sales
Tom buys a widget for $1 and sells it for $2. Tom gave up $1 in order to receive $2, but only the additional $1 is considered income. Tom still has his dollar back and can purchase another widget to sell, but he pays taxes only on the $1 gain.

Example 3: Gains on Labor
Bob pays Bill $50 to unplug Mrs. Haversham’s drain for which Bob charges Mrs. Haversham $75. Bob gave up $50 in order to receive $75, but only $25 is considered income, his realized gain of $25 on Bill’s labor. Bob still has his original $50 that he can use to purchase more labor that he can sell for profit, but he pays taxes only on the $25 gain.

But what about Bill’s $50? What has Bill given up? Nothing? Bill gave up a day out of his life, he expended his effort and skill, employed the use of his working tools. Bill no longer has his day or his labor, both are spent. He cannot, even with every penny of his $50, buy another day or recover the effort he expended, yet according to the government, his $50, every bit of it, is profit, gain, accession to wealth and was received in exchange for nothing. What Bill gave up to receive his $50 was not “nothing”, it was “‘The property which every man has in his own labor, [and] as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. . . .’ Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.” Butchers’ Union, supra.
Joe recovered his $100,000, and paid no tax on it; Tom recovered his $1 and paid no tax on it; Bob recovered his $50 and paid no tax on it; but Bill can never recover his day, energy or labor, but pays tax on his gross revenue, including the value of his day, energy and labor and even if the value of that day, energy and labor exceeds the gross revenue!
We can all agree that a person’s labor is not only his property, his capital, but that it is depleted in its employment and, eventually, is exhausted and totally spent. We have two major, landmark Supreme Court decisions, still controlling law, dealing specifically with that issue, and the decisions of the Supreme Court in those two cases makes a conclusion that an income tax on wages is not an income tax, but a tax on gross receipts, taxing both income and capital, and, therefore, unconstitutional.
Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 400; 34 S.Ct. 136 (1913) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278 (1916) both dealt with challenges to a tax on profits of mining companies. The first dealt with the Corporation Tax Law of 1909 and the latter with the Income Tax Law of 1913.
The mining companies were contending with an identical issue as we have here with wages, salaries and fees personally earned. They were engaged in a business that required them to deplete their ore deposits in order to conduct that business. They not only incurred costs of operations, overhead and cost of sales, etc., they incurred the depletion of a finite, albeit of unknown quantity, capital asset. At the end of the mine’s life, all of the ore would be gone, just as at the end of our work lives, our ability to earn will be gone. Our human capital will have been exhausted, “sold out”.
The wage issue is exactly the same. Not only does one personally earning a wage, salary or fees incurring costs for tools, work clothes and other expenses, he is depleting his working life along with a goodly portion of his life itself, a finite, albeit of unknown duration, capital asset, his “most sacred and inviolable” asset.
The Supreme Court in both mining cases resolved the problem by determining that the tax, insofar as Baltic was concerned, was not an income tax at all, but a tax on the exercise of corporate privileges and the privilege of conducting mining operations that was “measured in income.”
In Stratton’s Independence, that was the case. The law in question was not an income tax, per se, but an excise on the exercise of corporate privileges, the Corporation Tax Law of 1909. The Court in Stratton’s Independence pointed out that Stratton’s was a corporation and that it was engaging in business activities that generated mining products, two of the proper objects of an excise. On that basis the Court held that the tax was not on the income of the mining operation, but rather an excise on the conducting of the business of a mining operation that was measured in income.
But in Baltic Mining, the Court was dealing with the Income Tax Law of 1913, the same law it dealt with in Brushaber and the direct statutory ancestor of our present income tax law. The tax was not a corporation or mining operations tax, it was an income tax and identified itself as such.
The Court had only two options: 1) Find that the income tax was taxing both the income and the capital and, therefore, unconstitutional, or 2) find that the income tax was taxing something else. It went with the something else. After stating the case and respective positions, the Court briefly and simply stated: “. . . independently of the effect of the operation of the Sixteenth Amendment it was settled in Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, that such a tax is not a tax upon property as such because of its ownership, but a true excise levied on the results of the business of carrying on mining operations.” Id at 114 (emphasis added)
The clear and unmistakable message here is that the only tax that could tax more than income, gross receipts without allowance of deduction for the depletion of the ore body, was a corporate or manufacture of commodities based excise tax. If the income tax could constitutionally tax income of a mining operation, which would include taxing the depletion of its ore body, then the Court would have simply said so. It did not because it could not.
In the case of wages, salaries and fees personally earned, there are no corporate privileges being exercised. The wage-earner is not (at least not for himself, See Calamaro, supra) manufacturing a commodity or conducting mining operations. All he is exercising, and exhausting in the process, is his body, mind and his God-given right to earn a living with both, all at the expense of the loss, or cession, of a good portion of his lifetime here to another in exchange for a wage.
There is no alternate subject of excise. No “something else”, as in Baltic Mining, and the only conclusion we can reach, based upon the sound, ample and still controlling principles set out in all of the Supreme Court cases referred to herein, is that any tax that taxes 100% of wages personally earned has to be taxing not only the gain the wage-earner realized, if any, but also the asset that the wage-earner gives up in exchange for those wages, salaries and fees.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that insofar as the government purports to apply the income tax law as imposing a tax on wages, salaries and fees personally earned, it is in conflict with Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and is, as so applied, unconstitutional and not entitled to enforcement.
17 See “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws”, by Howard Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, updated by John R. Luckey, research assistant, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, May 25, 1979, updated September 26, 1984, p. 8

Based upon recent cases involving claims that wages are not income there is an apparently common misconception, an erroneous understanding or belief, that the issue of whether wages, salaries and fees personally earned are “income” within the meaning of the income tax law and, particularly, “within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment”, has been settled. It has not.
One government official contends that wages are constitutionally taxable income because the Supreme Court has not found them to be otherwise.17 The same reasoning could be employed to conclude that since the Supreme Court has not found wages, salaries and fees personally earned to be lawfully and constitutionally taxable by the federal government, they are not.
Although numerous cases have been cited as supporting that misconception, a review of the cases commonly cited as such reveals that they fail to support that conclusion. The Supreme Court has never considered the issues here presented, and until it does the latest enunciations from that Court are the law of the land. The position here advanced is not only supported, but mandated, by the current and controlling pronouncements of the principles involved by that body, and no District or Circuit Court can override or negate, much less overturn those Supreme Court pronouncements.
The Court is urged to scrutinize any cases cited to the contrary, and it is suggested that a careful review of those cases mistakenly cited will, it is hoped, clarify that the issue is still in urgent need of resolution and that in the cases generally relied upon to the contrary either the court involved has not actually dealt with the issues here presented, did not have the issue before it, stated no reasoning on any dictum to that effect or is totally without weight.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that defendant’s revenues, deriving solely from his own labor and effort in the pursuit of his chosen occupation, without involvement of corporate privilege or conduct of manufacturing or sale of commodities, is in conflict with the Constitution and, therefore, invalid as so applied, and, accordingly, those revenues being excluded from taxation as such, “not constituting income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment” or of the Constitution, there is no tax deficiency, an essential element of the charges against Mr. Cryer, and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment must be dismissed, with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons hereinabove given and upon the authorities hereinabove cited it is respectfully submitted that there is and can be no tax deficiency, an essential element of the charges against defendant, and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice.

September 4, 2014

Who was Antonio West, from Earl, [c]

Th​is happened earlier this year. This would really open up a bucket of worms if I put this in the local paper

Antonio West?

Hello. Don’t recognize me?

That’s OK; I understand.

My name was Antonio West. I was the 13-month old child who was shot in the face at point blank range by two black teens, who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot.

I think my murder and my mommy’s wounding made the news for maybe a day, and then disappeared.

A Grand Jury of my mommy’s peers from Brunswick, Georgia ruled the black teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty… Too bad it was me who got the death sentence from my killers instead, because Mommy didn’t have the money they demanded.

See, my family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder wasn’t ruled a ‘hate crime’.

Oh, and President Obama didn’t take a single moment to acknowledge my murder.

He couldn’t have any children who could possibly look like me – so why should he care?

I’m one of the youngest murder victims in our great Nation’s history, but the media didn’t care to cover the story of my being killed in cold blood.

There isn’t a white equivalent of Shithead Sharpton or Jesse Jackasshole Jackson because if there was he would be branded a ‘racist’.

So no one’s rushing to Brunswick to demonstrate and demand ‘justice’ for me. There’s no ‘White Panther’ party, either, to put a bounty on the lives of the two black teens who murdered me.

I have no voice, I have no strident representation, and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller – I no longer have my life.

Isn’t this a great country?

So while you’re out seeking ‘justice for Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, please remember to seek ‘justice’ for me. Tell your friends about me, tell your families, get tee-shirts with my face on them, and make the world pay attention, just like you did for Trayvon and Michael.

I won’t hold my breath.

I don’t have to anymore!

[17 y/o Demarquis Elkins and a minor, did this. He did not acquire his weapon legally, nor register it, nor get himself a concealed carry license. Add Elkin’s unmarried momma, unmarried auntie, with whom he lived; his baby mommas; and Holder, Perez, Michelle Obama, and King Barry’s spiritual adviser Jeremiah Wright to the list.]

August 29, 2014

Injustice, by Earl, [nc]


Does anyone remember Detective Melvin Santiago? He was a Jersey City
police officer who was shot to death just a month ago, on July 13th. Santiago
was white. His killer, Lawrence Campbell, was black. Does anyone recall
Obama appearing before national television and calling for justice for
Officer Santiago’s family? Does anyone recall Eric Holder rushing to Jersey
City to see that justice was done?

How about Officer Jeffrey Westerfield. He was a Gary, Indiana police
officer who was shot to death last month on July 6th. Westerfield was white.
His killer, Carl LeEllis Blount, Jr. was black. Where was Obama? Where was
Holder?

Or Officer Perry Renn? He was an Indianapolis, Indiana police officer who
was shot to death just last month on July 5th, the day before Officer
Westerfield was killed. Officer Renn was white. His killer, Major Davis, was
black. I don’t recall any mention by Obama about the untimely death of
Officer Renn. And, I doubt that Eric Holder rushed to Indianapolis to make
sure justice was done. Or, maybe I just missed it.

Vermillion Parish Deputy Sheriff Allen Bares was gunned down by two men
just last June 23rd in Louisiana. Deputy Bares was white. His two killers,
Quintlan Richard and Baylon Taylor, were black. Was Obama outraged? Did
Eric Holder rush to Louisiana to make sure that the family of Deputy Bares
found justice?

Right here in our own state, Detective Charles Dinwiddie of the Killeen
Police Department was murdered by Marvin Lewis Guy, a black male. Officer
Dinwiddie was white. This happened on May 11th, just over two months ago. I
don’t even recall seeing anything about that on the news. Certainly,
the white citizens in Killeen didn’t take to the streets to loot and burn
businesses. Again, I don’t recall any mention by Obama or Holder.

Then, there is Officer Kevin Jordan of the Griffin, Georgia Police
Department. He was gunned down just two months ago on May 31st. Officer Jordan was black. His killer, Michael Bowman, was white. This was a white man murdering a black police officer. Where was Jesse Jackson? Where was “The Reverend” Al Sharpton? Was there looting and burning on the streets of
Griffin, Georgia? No. In fact, I don’t recall hearing about this one in the
news, as well. Why? You can draw your own conclusions.

Over the past 60 days, there have been five reported deaths of police
officers by gunshot in the US. Of those, four were white officers who were
murdered by black men. Blacks complain that white officers threaten black men more aggressively on the street.

You can draw your own conclusions on that one, as well.

​WAS IT MENTIONED THAT THE BLACK POPULATION OF THE USA IS 13%????​

August 28, 2014

Stealth Jihad, 2014 ISNA (Islamic Society of N.A.), Detroit, from Thomas More Law Center [nc]

Thomas More Law Center News Alert

Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Detroit ISNA Conference – Stealth Jihad for The Subjugation of America

ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) will be holding its annual convention in Detroit this weekend beginning Friday, August 29 and ending September 1. ISNA was designated by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, the largest terrorism financing trial in American history. A 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum introduced in that trial identified ISNA as one of its front organizations. The memorandum further stated the Brotherhood’s “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within … so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Detroit ISNA Conference – Stealth Jihad for The Subjugation of America

Astonishingly, despite ISNA’s terrorist ties, former President Jimmy Carter will be the convention’s keynote speaker. Carter, also, recently called for the legitimization of Hamas, which is listed by the US government as a terrorist organization. In addition to Carter, several other prominent non-Muslim political leaders will be speaking at the convention.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, about an hour’s drive from Detroit, commented, “The participation of these political leaders is giving the ISNA convention the cover of respectability and as a result is enabling ISNA and other the other Muslim extremists at the convention to achieve their goal of a “Grand Jihad” to subjugate America.”

An integral aspect of ISNA’s plan for the subjugation of America is to portray itself as a peaceful, mainstream charitable institution. It is part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy of “civilization jihad.” While most Americans are focused on violent jihad, civilization jihad is even more dangerous to American security. According to Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, it is “a form of political and psychological warfare that includes multi-layered cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations, propaganda and other means of insinuating Shariah gradually into Western societies.”

Erick Stakelbeck, a terrorism expert and author of the book “The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy,” compared the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy to that of “termites.” “The Muslim Brotherhood in America and really around the world are like termites. They burrow into a host society. They eat away at it until the day comes where they are ready to make their move.”

Siraj Wahhaj, one of the scheduled speakers at the conference, was the first Muslim cleric to deliver opening prayers to Congress. In his prayer he recited from the Koran and asked God to guide America’s leaders “and grant them righteousness and wisdom.” A year later, he told a Muslim audience in New Jersey that, “If only Muslims were more clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” He was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

In one of his sermons, Wahhaj said: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

Abdurahman Alamoudi conducted the Muslim Brotherhood’s most successful infiltration of our political and defense establishments. He advised Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. He penetrated and compromised our military and both the Democrat and Republican national organizations. He established the Muslim Chaplain Program for the Defense Department. He was the certifying authority for Muslim chaplains serving with the U.S. military. He appeared with President Bush at a press conference days after the 9/11 attacks. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department publicly admitted that Alamoudi was the top Al-Qaeda fundraiser in the United States. Alamoudi is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence for his terrorist related activities.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi of the Muslim Brotherhood, told a youth conference in Toledo, Ohio in 1998, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America.”

August 13, 2014

Secession: The Intermediate Argument, by and (c) Justplainbill

Secession: The Intermediate Argument
Posted: 14 August 2014
Introduction:

Fair Warning, this post is a relatively long post of several pages. It is not that I want to bore you. It is that the subject matter is not amenable to much more shortening.

When someone tells you that solving incredibly complex problems is easy or that there IS a quick solution, or they have the answer to all problems “in a nutshell,” and that person is not Jesus the Christ, then the odds are that they want you to buy something or vote them into office and “just trust them”. Think of “Hope and Change” as the mantra, yet not one reasonable suggestion is offered beyond “just trust me”.

For those uninterested in true argument or debate, there is a short post supporting the position of secession. This new post actually gives reasons, answers and the reasoned benefits of secession!

It may take a while for you to get to the end, but it is worth it if you really do want to preserve American Values. Just as an example, in the 1770’s, the supporting arguments for secession were published in pamphlets of scores of pages. As a standard academic ma-neuver, I am incorporating herein, two of the most important, Common Sense and The Rights of Man, both by Thomas Payne, by reference. Truly, y’all who are interested in free-dom, liberty, equality (ya, equality, not affirmative action or some other pseudonym for discrimination, bigotry and legalized theft – read the five virtues post for more), and pri-vate property & personal wealth, regardless of what you may think of these arguments, you should have and read more than once, both of those pamphlets.

With Dan Greenfield and Fred-on-Everything making the obvious points on Execu-tive Branch Scandals and Illegal Aliens Invading; Mark Levin and Sean Hannity professing Originialist Constitutionalism; Taxihack Depressions (on wordpress.com) reporting active black ops; Michael Savage and Glenn Beck talking Survivalism, John Beck, PhD proving visually the profound uselessness of most federal programs, and with nothing reasonable coming from “the ivy covered halls ofacademia”, except appeasement and the surrender of Western Civilization to Transnational Industrial Feudalism, occasionally called Statism, I have decided to enter as “a voice of reason,” even though this will not read as “reason” on the first or even the third reading.

This is not as emotional as you think, the conclusions are both reasonable and rea-soned.

Posted on this blog (www.justplainbill.wordpress.com) is a book list. There have been several good books, including Gasparino’s The Sellout, Jared Diamond’s Collapse, Brion McClanahan’s The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution, and Pauline Maier’s Ratification, The People Debate the Constitution, 1787 – 1788, published since the last update.

Of immediate interest, and y’all should have this anyway, is the leather-bound pock-et edition of The Constitution of the United States of America with the Declaration of Inde-pendence, FALL RIVER PRESS © 2012, NYC NY ISBN 978-1-4351-4553-5, interestingly enough, printed and bound in China. Common Sense is also available through the same publisher, in a similar leather bound booklet.

Y’all’s reference library should also have Edwin Meese III’s, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, ISBN 978-1-59698-001-3, if for no other reason than to see how the original intent of The Founders has been corrupted by the United States Supreme Court, almost since the beginning. Y’all should have it anyway as it is a comprehensive and understandable, at least to those with a 10th grade education, guide to what is NOW the law of the land as interpreted by SCOTUS, ignominiously ignored by congress, and implemented by the executive branch. As conflicted as SCOTUS has made it, Professor Maier’s work, Ratification – noted above, offsets the chaos, for those interested; otherwise, we are back to, understandably, secession, moreover, the 1776 kind of secession, too!

Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian Wars, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, de Tocqueville’s De-mocracy in America, and Freehling’s two works, Nullification, and Secession, (both having disappeared from book shelves during “The Clinton Years”), with Shelby Foote’s The Civil War: a narrative, are still the most important starting places for understanding the back-ground of why The Red States must secede.

This Secession MUST BE before the funded national debt exceeds twenty trillion U.S. dollars, (20T USD or $20,000,000,000,000.00) and the unfunded debt exceeds ninety trillion U.S. dollars (90T USD or $90,000,000,000,000.00). This debt crisis is on a national economy of less than fourteen trillion U.S dollars (14T USD or $14,000,000,000,000.00). I explain this statement later.

This is a debt to asset ratio of worse than 1:6!!!

Dodd-Franks’ asset tests (reserves) and the Basil III tests, used to determine the solvency of banks, would have declared The United States Bankrupt years ago, like Greece, closed it down, and sold off all of its assets and property, at bargain basement prices, probably less than ten cents on the dollar, to cover those debts; which is an absurdity. None-the-less, the standard that these pissant politicians apply to others, they fail to apply to themselves as they garner billions of dollars from the public treasury for themselves and their associates.

A simple glance at the accumulation of money by Nancy Pelosi, Dodd, Franks, the DNC contributor/ owners of Solyndra, and the Reid Family in Nevada, and the methods used, prove this point.

And, because of these things, we are left with Revolution/ Civil War, a Constitutional Convention, economic collapse and bankruptcy with an unemployment rate approaching 50%, delayed social implosion and its resulting anarchy to tyrannical governments, or Secession, my personal option if done before the debt becomes irre-deemable.

Argument:

I

The Preamble to The Constitution of The United States of America is NOT law. It is a statement of purpose. [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]. Notice the words emphasized by capitalization, and the sentence structure, notice that the constitution is FOR the United States. Notice that throughout the constitution, the word ‘state’ is capitalized as ‘State,’ thus proving the independence and sovereignty of each State; proving that they are not a subordinate division devised for the purposes of ease of suppression, oppression, and repression.

This is a statement of intent, not law, and not to be construed as law.

The Preamble is one of two looking glasses, through which we should be scrutinizing every activity of the federal government. If any action of the federal government does not further one of these stated interests, it should fail as violating the IXth and Xth Amendments. If those proposing such illegal actions are in federal government, those people should be deemed untrustworthy and unreliable by every citizen, and treated as such.

The second looking glass is that collection of works known as The Anti-Federalist Papers. The Anti-Federalist Papers were those arguments used against the ratification of the original seven articles. The Federalist Papers, predominantly written by Alexander Hamilton, ESQ., with contributions by James Madison, ESQ., and a handful by John Jay, ESQ., later the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is a set of circular and specious reasoning, often used to justify or explain various clauses of the constitution.

Chronologically, and logically, The Federalist Papers should be ignored as having been displaced by The Bill of Rights. The sequence of events are: failure of The Articles of Confederation, the failed Annapolis Convention, the successful Philadelphia Convention, presentation to the states for ratification, argument where initially the press pushed The Federalist Papers and suppressed The Anti-Federalist Papers, the prospect of ratification failure, and then the acceptance of The Bill of Rights as the cost of ratification. The Federalist Papers are arguments for ratification WITHOUT THE TEN AMENDMENTS of The Bill of Rights. Thus, in order to interpret this constitution, it is The Anti-Federalist Papers which must be first looked to for understanding, and The Federalist Papers to be used ONLY when they are either not in conflict with the Anti-Federalist Papers, or where the AFP’s are silent on the subject.

Thus, more than one-half of all constitutional issues decided by The Supreme Court, by The Congress, and by The Executive, have been founded on the false premises of The Federalist Papers. The methods available to correct this are either that congress review ALL of these decisions and over-rule them by legislation, and thereby face a SCOTUS revolt, this revolt based on decisions such as Holy Trinity Church, (included below), and The Federalist Papers themselves, or SCOTUS, on its own Motion review and over-rule these rulings.

The likelihood of SCOTUS emasculating itself are nil and less than nil, especially giv-en Justice Bader-Ginsburg’s recent sexist ramblings and Justice Kagen’s published igno-rance of American History.

During George Washington’s presidency, The Executive frequently declared legisla-tive bills as unconstitutional. The understanding then was that congress would reconsider what President Washington sent them and either re-write or drop the bill. President Washington frequently took the opportunity to place his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, at odds writing responses to congress, then he would pick the one that suited his point of view, and return the bill to congress with the appropriate response. Hamilton frequently trumped Jefferson, thus, the Jobber High Federalist rutted road was ridden, and not the green pathway of the Yeoman-Farmer.

Congress will do nothing to change this, as members of congress are too intimately involved in accumulating personal wealth and power under this system, I will explain elsewhere how this dysfunction functions. The likes of Jackson, Rangel, Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, &c., will do nothing to jeopardize their own personal positions, even unto total de-struction of the society around them. There is a book, Throw them All Out, which details the dirty but legal transactions involved; consider the recent rash of convictions for corruption amongst the political aristocracy and their families.

Arguments made to have another constitutional convention or add 27+ amend-ments, the amending process as defined in Article V of the constitution, fail for several reasons. The first is, as noted elsewhere on this blog, that the electoral process has failed utterly. It has been corrupted to a point beyond cure. The election of Al Franken and the corruption in Noxubee County MS are the standard and not the exceptions such that fair representation, unbiased national interest, and altruism would be non-existent at this convention. The second major defense is the same as that made in 1860: the regional interests will suppress the national ones. The cliché, “All politics are local”, is too true to be ignored.

Only through the Red States seceding are all of those bad SCOTUS decisions removed from law.

A consideration of historical context and technology intrudes at this point. When originally ratified, the congress was designated to sit for only a few months out of the year, and, that it sit several months after the polling occurs because of primitive transportation technology. In 1788, there was no electricity and the steam engine, “Fulton’s Folly”, still years away. Bluntly, there was NO SUCH THING AS A LAME DUCK SESSION as we now know it, as congress had recessed and would not return until the Spring. Recess appointments were few and far between, but understandable when congress could be months away from sitting. Only through secession will Lame Ducks and Recess Appointments be eliminated! They are too ingrained into the political corruption of both major parties to be done away with in any other fashion.

With electricity, electronics, jet transportation, I-Phones, I-Glasses, internet access, &c., the reasons for lame duck and recess appointments completely disappear. With seces-sion and a new constitution, polling can take place on the 3rd Saturday of the 1st month of each quarter; certification of the election can take place within 5 working days; and a re-striction on laws and appointments during those 5 days included in the constitution, thereby completely eliminating the egregious, self-serving, irresponsibility of passing an unwanted law or giving the wrong person an appointment, when the next government would not do those things, especially if the issues surrounding those laws and appointments are what the election was about. Think about it: John Marshall and his entire line of High Federalist SCOTUS rulings would not exist if this had been the law in 1800!

Secession cures this disease.

I-a

There are seven Articles to the 17 September 1787 Constitution of The United States of America. Before 1866, “These United States” were what we were. A Union of In-dependent Nations with each State having its own constitution, not answerable beyond those restrictions explicit in the constitution, to a Federal Government, but to its citizens, and thus free to organize and live free, unoppressed, with the right to self-realization uninhibited by those living thousands of miles away.

The Federal Government, according to the IXth and Xth Amendments,(enacted as ten of twelve proposed Amendments, currently known as The Bill of Rights, on Wednes-day, 4 March 1789), was to be a junior partner in the triumvirate of, the federal govern-ment, We The People, and The States. [Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. *** Amendment X: 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.]

The ten sections of Article I of the 1787 Constitution establish, define, and restrict the Congress of These United States of America. They create the bicarmel legislature with the “lower” house as the’ house of commons,’ or of “We The People”, and the “upper” house that of THE STATES; not that of an electoral majority of we the people on an extended appointment of exalted, and aristocratic, position.

The XVIIth Amendment effectively eviscerates Article I §3 [The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years, and each Senator shall have one Vote. … .] and clearly violates both the IXth and Xth Amendments. It reduces State Sovereignty to nil, with ONLY Nullification +/or Secession, as a response to an overbearing or out of control federal government. [Shelby Foote has a decent discussion of this in The Civil War: a narrative both in the ante-bellum section and in the section discussing the aftermath of Antietam.] One only need look to the effects of “The Dream Act” and its complete abandonment of the Southern Border and the Governor of Texas having to call up his state’s militia to attempt to protect his citizenry, their lives and their society and private property & wealth.

The discussion of the effect of reducing the senate to little more than a House of Lords, was on partisan lines, with the typical political result: In the short term, it helped the majority party, in the long term it has afflicted the taxpayer with trillions of dollars of unnecessary, unwanted, and unconstitutional burdens, both social and economic. The very effect of having this House of Lords has been constant gridlock, with, for all of the yammering on the subject, little, if any, compromise in the legislative process. The purpose of the senate as put forth in McClanahan’s book was to act as a brake on the impetuousness of the House of Representatives, AND to REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES!

With the senators elected by the general population instead of by the states’ legislatures, the senate no longer represents the States, but is now irrelevant. It reduces to near zero, the political strength of the citizens of the individual states and clumps them into a rural vs urban sewer of issue conflicts, winnable only by that group procreating the most rapidly, and, history shows us, destroying economic efficiency through socialist “safety net” programs, instead of the necessary self-reliance/ self-responsible of the Judeo-Christian Ethos.

This same purpose, protecting the interests of the States, is better served by the process of Nullification. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison saw, and agreed to this, when they wrote and put forth The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Nullification, (there is a post on this blog discussing Nullification more fully), has been used as recently as 2014 by the various states. Three examples are California nullifying federal immigration law by creating sanctuary cities, Colorado nullifying federal illicit drug laws by legalizing the recreational use of Cannabis and the 2010 rejection of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (aka PPACA or “Obamacare”) by the citizens of Missouri (by a margin of 70% – 30%).

Nullification as currently used, is another argument in favor of secession due to Article IV, [§1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And, the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved and the effects thereof. … .] Nullification is acceptable in California and Colorado, but not Missouri, ever wonder why?

Please note where and under what circumstances nullification is acceptable and not acceptable. In point of fact, legally and morally, SCOTUS should have taken this into account when ruling on various aspects of PPACA. The failure of SCOTUS to perform within the law, in and of itself, should be reason enough for secession. Due to various XVIIIth Century SCOTUS rulings, not only is tenure for life a facet of being a federal judge, but one may be suffering from dementia or extreme alcoholism, yet remain on the bench, AND THAT JUDGE OR JUSTICE’S RULINGS ARE STILL BINDING!

Thus, by their own actions, both SCOTUS and the entire senate have defeated the purpose of the constitution. Secession is the least objectionable response to such irresponsibility, to this assault on personal Faith, private property and personal wealth.

The need for the upper house to be placed, as originally intended by The Founders, back to the citizen-taxpayers of each, and every individual, INDEPENDENT, State, is shown every time a party official prevents national work from being performed. The current institution is nothing more than a millionaires’ club, with its purpose naught more than self-perpetration, and making their bubba’s rich. The “Black Hole” in Boston is an excellent example of this, as is the constant raiding of the Transportation Fund for projects like “light rail”, instead of roads and bridges, which was what the original enabling was for.

Consider further this little tidbit. The money for the Federal Transportation Fund is from a tax on gasoline. The reasoning was that since cars and trucks would be using the roads and bridges, car and truck owners should pay for the bridges and roads. Now, the gasoline tax must be raised so that members of congress can buy construction workers’ votes by spending the money on less effective projects that are more expensive like “light rail”. Interestingly enough, the 9 Aug 14 issue of The Economist, has an article on this very subject.

As to Secession, the Stanford Convention of 1814, where the New England States voted to remain in the Union, provided that The War of 1812 be ended, is only one of several secession conventions. Dr. Freehling’s work is excellent for those who actually want to research the issue. Suffice it to say that, the next secession was when Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party so controlled the federal government that the South was so heavily taxed for “economic improvement,” (canals & railroads, special loans to industry – think Solyndra), and the benefits of all of these taxes given to the Northern states, that South Carolina did hold a convention and start the secession process. Former president John Q. Adams, then a senator from Massachusetts, intervened, and South Carolina did not secede and Jackson’s Tax Law was repealed! Think Obamacare!

Shortly thereafter, the third party candidate, Abraham Lincoln got elected to the executive, and the seven Deep South states seceded. Lincoln, arguably the worst president this country has ever had, [know anybody else who not only caused a civil war costing as much as The War of 1861 did in both lives and wealth; violate the constitution so many ways through executive decree {instituted an unconstitutional raising of an army, fired on States’ militias, took and hanged innocent hostages as a means of controlling citizens in occupied territories, instituted a draft without an act of congress, created an income tax specifically prohibited by the constitution – not made legal in this country until 3 February 1913 with the questionable ratification of the XVIth Amendment, invaded the Sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia, piratically boarded British commercial vessels and kidnapping private citizens under the protection of The Crown, and on and on} – BTW, Lincoln freed NO slaves, the XIIIth Amendment did that, and the discussion by his own cabinet as to the constitutionality of his Emancipation Proclamation shows it to be unconstitutional as it is not allowed even within the executive’s war powers, AS IT DEALS WITH THE CONFISCATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY W/O DUE PROCESS (!!!), AN ISSUE ALREADY DECIDED BY SCOTUS, Scott vs Sanford, THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY!!!], in direct violation to the constitution, congress was NOT in session, started to raise a Standing Army and threatened to “cross” Virginia with it in order to put down the legally seceding states.

Virginia and the three border states, then held secession conventions and decided to secede from the union. For the results of Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts, I direct your attention back to Mr. Foote’s excellent work. His discussion of how Missouri did not secede yet Lincoln’s general, Frèmont, invaded anyway, treating Missourians as subjugated serfs, the treatment of occupied territories by such union generals as Butcher Butler in New Orleans and the confiscation of private property sold for personal gain, are enlightening, to say the least.

Point being, secession was and is legal. Further proof, is that in 1854, then Repre-sentative from Illinois, that same A. Lincoln, made a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives declaring so, and that he understood the law to be so. And, consider that although called The American Revolution of 1776, it was, in both fact and law, a secession from the Hanoverian Crown!

A last point on Article I, the “just and proper” enabling clause, is always interpreted through the dark glass of the specious Federalist Papers. Since it has been shown that it should be viewed through both The Preamble and The Anti-Federalist Papers, every case that has supported this clause’s use to over-reach and extend federal authority, should be made null and void. Only through secession can all of those laws and SCOTUS decisions be removed.

I – b

Ok, here’s the simple view and clearly why the federal government must be limited to federal issues ONLY!!

A Congressman from Detroit wants special tax privileges for certain constituents. Lady Speaker wants an extension to an Interstate to go over land to which she and her husband have options to buy. They swap votes, each voting for the other’s special situation. The result:
A special section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), based on the section of the constitution stating that the congress should be doing things to help commerce and science, is amended to include that any money lost from the start-up of a Hip-Hop/ Rap Record Label, shall be written off the investor’s Gross An-nual Income at 50:1. Thus, for every dollar lost on said record label start-up, the investor can take off $50.00 of income. The result is a boom of record labels in Detroit, creating proprie-tary jobs for in-laws, family, and friends, an economically mis-direction of economic resources, and an incredibly favorable tax break for those specific investors.

Balancing this congressional support for advancing commerce and science, Madame Speaker, knowing months in advance of the public exactly where the unnecessary Interstate extension will go, exercises her options to buy hundreds of acres of land at $180/acre, and then sells it to The Department of Transportation for $1,800/acre.

Both the Congressman from Detroit and the Congresswoman from San Francisco, have personally, AND LEGALLY, profited from these acts of congress. We, the taxpayers, have lost. We have lost in the one case by being over-charged for the land, and in the other in that those “losses” have reduced the “investors’” tax payments.
Is this simple enough for you?

II

Article II establishes, defines, authorizes, and restricts, The Executive Branch.

In a full-blown argument including Article II, discussion of presidential over-reach, appointing of bubba’s, failure to enforce the law, &c., would be gone into. However, with all of the public discussion, or lack thereof, regarding The Obama Administration and its scandals, its appointments of racists and bigots such as Perez and Holder; scandals such as NSA spying on US citizens, the IRS, Benghazi, Hillary & Kerry, the dropping of the New Black Panther Voting Violation law suit, its failure to enforce the Mississippi Federal Court Decision regarding the Sheriff of Noxubee County, the as yet unexhausted abuse of the military, the continuing exercise of executive authority to change passed legislation without returning to the legislature for a re-write, the “Dream Act” executive order, the deaths of Federal Agents by foreigners, &c. I see no such need. The only way to re-write The Executive and get rid of all of the entrenched civil servants like Lois Lerner, is through secession.

Let us be more clear: Obama has appointed over three dozen ACLU and La Raza attorneys to the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, how impartial will they be, when J. Christian Adams’ book Injustice: the Obama Justice Department, already shows how bad things are in the DoJ. The evidence mounts.

And, as to the whole civil service, the over One Million of Them, what shall be done now? How many of them are Lois Lerners?

Bluntly, if even one is a Lois Lerner, the integrity of the whole system fails. Only se-cession cures the cancer of the Obamacratic Bureaucracy. Or, do you really think that Lois Lerner was (she got to retire with full pension and benefits) the only rotten apple in the bureaucracy, or that only the IRS, NSA, CIA, SSA, HUD, OPM, NLRB, ACE, Medicare, and the VA, are the only really bad federal agencies? Mmm, wait a minute, doesn’t that leave ONLY the Military as honest? And, hasn’t Obama fired so many generals and admirals that the only people appointed to flag positions are those with good records on gender, race, and affirmative action, pretty much leaving combat skills out of the promotion equation? Or, did I miss something in the recent speech by The Commandant of The Marine Corps (Barry, the P is silent!) condemning current Executive Policies?

III

The failure of The Supreme Court of the United States, created by Article III, to follow even the most basic of The Rules of Contract and Statutory Construction, that every person who has completed their first year of law school, not only understands the rule but the WHY the rule exists reasoning, is, in and of itself, reason to secede. The failure to follow the most simple of the rules of law, proves beyond any doubt that The Federal Judiciary is incapable of being impartial, of rendering a constitutionally grounded ruling, or even of acting on the surface in a non-partisan, reasoned judgmental manner.

When PPACA was ruled constitutional as a tax and CJ Roberts declared that the duty of SCOTUS is not to make law, but to interpret law in accordance with the intent of congress, he was correct. That he completely ignored the affirmed and boldly broadcast intent of congress, was NOT correct. Madame Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, had declared openly, and had printed in The Congressional Record, the official source and record of congressional intent, that there was not to be a severability clause in PPACA. She said outright that PPACA was an all or nothing bill, and was to be an all or nothing law. When SCOTUS ruled one iota of the law unconstitutional, the will of congress was that then the entire law was to be unconstitutional!

But there is so much more!

The chain of Marshall Cases beginning with Marbury vs Madison, (~1803) all in vio-lation of a clear reading of the constitution, has as its purpose a re-write of the constitution along High Federalist lines, and gives SCOTUS a higher footing than the other two branches, when the original intent was that it be the least of the three branches. The overt end of that line is the following, and it is still law, Shepardize it if you like. It has been “restricted” and “narrowed” but never the less, it is still good law. The covert end of these rulings has not been reached. The gross failure to follow the simplest of the rules of construction, the severability clause, proves SCOTUS is still seeking absolute dominance over government.

Rector, et al, Holy Trinity Church vs United States
143 US 457 (1892)
“(@ 12 SCT 511) It must be conceded that the act of the corporation is within the letter of (the law) … (@ 12 SCT 512) It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often as-serted, and the Reports are full of cases illustrating its application. This is not the substitution of the will of the judge for that of the legislator; for frequently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of the circum-stances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the particular act.”

Emphasis added.

It is important to note the historical context of this decision, especially with the court using the illogical reasoning that it expresses above.
In 1892 there was a Federal Labor law that stated that no enterprise could em-ploy a foreigner for any position whatsoever in these United States if there was an American able and willing to do that job.
Holy Trinity Church is the Episcopal Church located at Wall & Church Streets in New York City. It was originally Anglican a.k.a. Church of England (C of E), but, as did most Anglican Churches in 1776, vote to distance itself from The Crown. Holy Trinity Church is where Alexander Hamilton is buried. It is where the power elite of old families of New York City, and the early Federalists, belonged, worshipped, and congregated. It is where the business people attended. Currently, it owns ALL of the land from Wall Street south and collects all of the rents therefrom. As a church, it pays no taxes but supports various politicians and approved charities.
In 1888, Holy Trinity Church decided to employ a new bell ringer. The Elders de-cided to hire a German to do it. They did in fact know that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of New Yorkers ready, willing and able to do the job. They did not care, and they did in fact know that they were breaking the law, at least according to the syllabus.
And, the Supremes decided to keep John Marshall’s usurpation of power alive and well, the Constitution of the United States notwithstanding.

[page taken from The Albany Plan Re-Visited © 2012 William S. Klocek]

IV

Article IV is one of the most egregiously and violently violated articles of the constitution. [§1 Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Act, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof. §2 The Citizens of each State be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. … . §3 New States … . §4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government, and shall protect each of them from Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.]

(I must pause and catch my breath every time that I proofread this essay when I get to this point. Ah-ha, not better, should probably go get a scotch & water, no ice.)

Just a little bit here, as once you read the very few points that I make, y’all will be putting forth many more of your own, and realize that secession is the least bloody way of getting rid of this.

For decades, the only two places an American could get a divorce were Mexico and the State of Nevada. For Nevada, you went to Reno, rented a room for six weeks to establish CITIZENSHIP through meeting the residency requirements, then filed for a “no fault” divorce and it was routinely granted. Ta-da! The divorce became good worldwide!!!

First problem, as SSA and Medicaid became rights, the residency requirement limit-ing access to State Aid, was dissolved by SCOTUS, as residency requirements somehow infringed on a magically implied constitutional right to mobility. This issue as a national issue is still unresolved.

Second problem, now that California and New York have decided to grant Illegal Aliens driver’s licenses, these new license holders may now travel legally everywhere within the federal jurisdiction, regardless of the rights and laws of the other 48 states. Note also the invasion all along our Southern border and how the feds are not protecting our citizens.

Third problem, these NY & CA driver’s licenses are Legal Acts within the meaning of Article IV. THEY ARE NOW USABLE AS GOVERNMENT ISSUED LICENSES, WHICH MAY BE USED TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN ALL 50 STATES!!! Think that I’m joking? Look at how the ACLU and La Raza have prevented the use of photo ID’s to register to vote and as proof of citizenship at voting precincts. Magically, to denote citizenship or lack thereof on these licenses will, by federal court ruling, be discrimination, thus, all driver’s licenses MUST be the same, and thus, automatic amnesty and FULL citizenship!

Now, consider this, if any State pass a law that CA or NY licenses are not valid forms of identification, do you really think that the NAACP, La Raza, or the ACLU, will sit idly by? What federal court won’t declare such a law unconstitutional simply on a clear reading of Article IV???

Do I really need to go into the problems with PPACA, abortion laws, right to work laws, DMV laws, tax laws, landlord-tenant laws, &c.? Or do you think that you can pick up your local paper, or listen to your local talk radio, and see the problems with how Article IV has been interpreted and abused? Hasn’t Breitbart reported more than a dozen illegal alien crimes this week alone, including child molestation and vehicular manslaughter?

V

I’m going to pass on the rest of the articles, except to point out that Article V is the amending article, and the post on this blog regarding how The XIVth Amendment has never been ratified pretty much covers all of that, and Article VI §1 is about debts made before the constitution was ratified, but that Article VI §2 is the so often abused and intentionally misinterpreted “supremacy” clause. As pointed out earlier, this clause should be viewed through the two glasses of the preamble and the AFP, and has not been. Article VII is that this constitution shall go into effect as between them when nine of the 13 STATES ratify it.

VI

I should probably go into the amendments, there are 27 of them, but there are only a few of immediate concern. We are constantly talking about The 1st Amendment, which deals with various freedoms including that of religion and assembly. One point, it applies to rules and laws made by The Federal Government and was put in to specifically prevent the feds from doing things like the PPACA forcing people to pay taxes that violate their religious beliefs. Keep in mind that Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had State religions into the 1840’s. Those states collected taxes that paid for the salaries of preachers and their estates, so much for the supremacy clause and freedom of religion.

The 2nd Amendment as intended by The Founders gives non-felons the right to bear arms. A quick look at the time and how The Minute Men were formed, organized, supplied, and supported, proves this without any doubt. However, for those of you who do not believe this, elsewhere is a complete essay on the federal law that defines the militia. Simply put, ALL healthy males, except for a very limited set of exemptions – primarily the “essential” personnel groups of federally elected officials and certain bureaucrats- between the ages of 16 and 48 (the ages may have changed as I haven’t looked since I wrote the original essay), are The Militia. Ya, and some women, too, but you need to read the law to see who. AND, each and every member of this militia is supposed to know basic drill/ The Landing Party Manual, a basic knowledge of infantry tactics, basic marksmanship, and to have and maintain a RIFLE! Yupper, Federal Law states this! Under this federal law, who among you are un-convicted felons?

And, a quick aside as to a peculiar point of history and The 2nd Amendment: After Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, the hatred between the races, as pointed out by Shelby Foote’s book, caused by The Emancipation Proclamation, caused the creation of the KKK, which went about keeping the former slaves in check, mostly through violence, particularly murder. The National Rifle Association was created to buy arms, GIVE THEM to former slaves, and train them in their use, so that they may protect themselves from such terrorism.

Last point in here, the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments are the ‘criminal rights’ amendments. Originally designed to protect ALL citizens from the over-reach of the federal judiciary and congress, they have been misinterpreted to protect only criminals. Think about it, only criminals are granted Due Process. PPACA is a tax that the taxpayer cannot individually challenge. YOU CANNOT challenge the feds when the IRS takes everything away through a mistake. YOU CANNOT challenge the feds when the DEA breaks into your home when they meant to break in next door. YOU CANNOT challenge the EPA when they declare that all standing water is protected by The Clean Air Act, thus they have authority on your driveway even though that puddle will evaporate. Under The Patriot Act, you cannot challenge a warrantless search. And, the list goes on and on.

Epilogue and Conclusion

There are other things to consider, but with all of the above, where else can you go? National Bankruptcy, Civil War, a perverted Constitutional Convention, Anarchy to Tyranny, or Secession, which one is actually reasonable and workable?

But what benefits derive from secession?

1

The first and most urgent benefit from a Red State Secession is that of immediate and complete control over the National Debt.

The Red States will take 1/3rd of the debt, or a projected $6T, leaving the industry heavy and, if allowed to be, completely energy independent blue states with $12T. No real change is apparent at this point. OH! COME LOOK AND SEE!!! The $83T of UNFUNDED DEBT immediately disappears through operation of Contract Law through rescission and novation!!! Simply put, because the legal entity known as The United States of America dis-appears, except for the total national debt, all contracts and promises made by it also dis-appear. Magic! Harry Potter couldn’t do it better. Don’t believe me? Consider how when someone dies, his estate pays off what debt it can, but once unprotected assets are used up, the rest of the debt is simply written off. Here, the new entities, blue and red, accept their proportionate share of that debt, but, as in death, all of the deceased’s promises are vacated as un-executable.

Thus, there is NO MORE unfunded debt. Magic!

2

Next, as noted many times above, all of the laws and court decisions of The Union are no longer applicable to The Red States. And, because of the secession, The Blue States MUST review ALL of those laws and decisions for current applicability to them! Gosh and Golly, two win-win situations in a row, I wonder if there are any more to be had.

3

The Red States will write a new constitution. One applicable to the Times! One that will include electricity, electronics, medicine, &c. in it. This convention would have over 238 years of U.S. AND WORLD HISTORY to guide it. It could start with The Albany Plan, The Virginia Plan, The New York Plan, The Heartland Plan, and The Rhode Island Plan as well as Hagehot’s British Constitution as initial proposals, and then put together a truly workable federal government that would leave local issue to the locals, and make certain that the new federal government dealt ONLY WITH FEDERAL ISSUES. Hmm, three good reasons in a row.

4

By secession, the economic circumstances of North America would change almost instantly for the better. Yupper, Canada, The Red States, The Blue States, Mexico, Central America, and The Caribbean would instantly become the most dynamic economic machine through the forced renegotiation of all trade agreements. The XL Pipeline would immedi-ately be started, Pass Christian MS, Pascagoula MS, Tampa FL, Vera Cruz MX, Hispaniola, and Cuba, could start building new, environmentally safe, refineries. NAFTA would be re-done to require uniform enforcement. Unemployment should drop to 3% average throughout the entire region while labor force involvement should jump to 69%. Nuclear Fusion plants would be planned and built. A standardized rail system from Point Barrow to Panama City Panama would be built. Stabilization of currency would be immediate.

5+

How much more do you want? Taxation would be rationalized and evened out. Education throughout would be standardized and equalized. Private property and wealth would be protected, which could be done now if only the various governments would im-plement the laws currently on the books.

6+

Borders would be closed and protected. An intelligent and uniform foreign policy would be emplaced.

7+

More? How about true freedom of religion? How about being protected against terrorist attacks, like the Boston Marathon, by terrorists, instead of useless assaults on our persons by an ineffective TSA?
Secession, secession, secession, and secession BEFORE THE NATIONAL DEBT GOES PAST $18t AND THE UNFUNDED $83T

Secession!

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.