Leadership by George Washington

The Right to Bear Arms, Government Tyranny, and the Second Amendment

2011-12-25T00:00:00.000-08:00

The Right to Bear Arms, Government Tyranny, and the Second Amendment

James Hodges, Ph.D. and Cynthia Hodges, J.D., LL.M., M.A.

America’s Founding Fathers framed the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) to protect people’s natural and inalienable rights. Such rights are described in the Declaration of Independence as being those rights endowed by the Creator. As such, they cannot be taken away. Albert Gallatin explained in 1789 that “[t]he whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.”

The Bill of Rights identifies the right to keep and bear arms as being one of these inalienable rights of citizens. The right to bear arms has a long history. In Blackstone's 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England, Henry St. George Tucker declared that “the use of arms for self defense and self-preservation was among the absolute rights of individuals.”

The Subcommittee on the Constitution agreed in a 1982 report that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right of Americans. The Supreme Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) held that the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present.

Defense Against Government Tyranny

The Founders feared government tyranny because, as Patrick Henry put it, liberty has been destroyed most often by the tyranny of rulers. Daniel Webster noted that men in governance may “promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." George Mason reasonably feared “the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people.”

Aristotle wrote in Politics that oligarchs and tyrants “mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.” Rulers will, according to Tucker, try to confine the “right of self-defense within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction" (Henry St. George Tucker, Blackstone's 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England).

James Burgh observed that "the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved" (Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604). Thus, according to Noah Webster, "before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed” (Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787). Not surprisingly, when Great Britain decided to enslave America, “the British Parliament was advised...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them" (quoting George Mason).

The right to keep and bear arms is "the palladium [safeguard] of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them" (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution). "[T]o preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms" (Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, 53, 1788). George Washington extolled the importance of firearms in his address to the 1st session of Congress:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes...

Thomas Jefferson asserted that "the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" (Thomas Jefferson Papers, p. 334, 1950). According to Alexander Hamilton, "[i]f the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government."

Several Founders wrote of the importance of maintaining an armed citizenry. Thomas Jefferson felt strongly that "[n]o free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334) Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, agreed that "the people are not to be disarmed of their weapons." Samuel Adams even pushed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Phila. Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789).

James Monroe was assured that, if the right to keep and bear arms was “well defined, and secured against encroachment, it [would be] impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny." James Madison felt confident that "Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed."

Protecting the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect the individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, to protect himself, his family, and his freedoms, against infringement by either state, federal, or local government.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The exact meaning of the text was disputed for many years. Finally, the Supreme Court held in Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. This right is protected from infringement by federal, state or municipal government.

Conclusion

The Second Amendment protects the inalienable right of Americans to bear arms from infringement by state, federal, or municipal governments.

REFERENCES

Rich Mason, “Why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Important to You,” 1999, available at http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/articles/rkba_important.asp.

“Quotes on Firearms Rights,” available at http://catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html.

“REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, Second Session,” February 1982, available at http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm.

“The Right to Bear Arms,” available at http://www.c4cg.org/guns.htm.

“The Right To Keep And Bear Arms - Quotes,” available at http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.php.

“U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment,” available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02.

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

Federal Income Tax: 2nd Plank of Communism

2011-11-12T13:14:00.000-08:00

The following is an excerpt from chapter four of NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY by Gary Allen with Larry Abraham, 1971. In this excerpt, the authors discuss the federal income tax, which forms the 2nd plank of communism according to Karl Marx Communist Manifesto. The tax serves as a mechanism to relieve Americans of their wealth and redistribute it to the banking Elite. For more information on the federal income tax, please see "The Federal Income Tax: Unconstitutional as Applied," by Cynthia Hodges, J.D., LL.M., M.A.

_____________________________________________

... Two months prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the conspirators had created the mechanism to collect the funds to pay the interest on the national debt. That mechanism was the progressive income tax, the second plank of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto which contained ten planks for SOCIALIZING a country...

The best way for the Insiders to eliminate this growing Competition was to impose a progressive income tax on their competitors while writing the laws so as to include built-in escape hatches for themselves. Actually, very few of the proponents of the graduated income tax realized they were playing into the hands of those they were seeking to control. As Ferdinand Lundberg notes in The Rich And The Super-Rich:

"What it [the income tax] became, finally, was a siphon gradually inserted into the pocketbooks of the general public. Imposed to popular huzzas as a class tax, the income tax was gradually turned into a mass tax in a jiujitsu turnaround."

The Insiders' principal mouthpiece in the Senate during this period was Nelson Aldrich, one of the conspirators involved in engineering the creation of the Federal Reserve and the maternal grandfather of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. Lundberg says that "When Aldrich spoke, newsmen understood that although the words were his, the dramatic line was surely approved by 'Big John [D. Rockefeller]… '" In earlier years Aldrich had denounced the income tax as "communistic and socialistic," but in 1909 he pulled a dramatic and stunning reversal. The American Biographical Dictionary comments:

"Just when the opposition had become formidable he [Aldrich] took the wind out of its sails by bringing forward, with the support of the President [Taft], a proposed amendment to the Constitution empowering Congress to lay income taxes."

Howard Hinton records in his biography of Cordell Hull that Congressman Hull, who had been pushing in the House for the income tax, wrote this stunned observation:

"During the past few weeks the unexpected spectacle of certain so-called 'old-line conservative' [sic] Republican leaders in Congress suddenly reversing their attitude of a lifetime and seemingly espousing, through ill-concealed reluctance, the proposed income-tax amendment to the Constitution has been the occasion of universal surprise and wonder."

The escape hatch for the Insiders to avoid paying taxes was ready. By the time the Amendment had been approved by the states (even before the income-tax was passed), the Rockefellers and Carnegie foundations were in full operation..

The conspirators now had created the mechanisms to run up the debt, to collect the debt, and (for themselves) to avoid the taxes required to pay the yearly interest on the debt. Then all that was needed was a reason to escalate the debt. Nothing runs up a national debt like a war. And World War I was being brewed in Europe...

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

Federal Reserve is a private corporation - Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982)

2011-11-12T12:02:00.000-08:00

Lewis v. United States is a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case that held that the Federal Reserve is an independent, privately owned, locally controlled corporation and not a government agency.

For more information about the FED, please see:

FED Up: Founding Fathers, the Banking System, and the Federal Reserve

Thomas Jefferson on Banking Tyranny

And for ideas about how to fight back:

End banking tyranny: starve the beast

680 F.2d 1239

United States Court of Appeals,

Ninth Circuit.

John L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant,

UNITED STATES of America, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 80-5905.

Submitted March 2, 1982.Decided April 19, 1982.As Amended June 24, 1982.

Opinion

POOLE, Circuit Judge:

On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (theAct), 28 U.S.C. s 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976). Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries “caused by the negligent or wrongful actor omission” of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. 28 U.S.C. ss 1346(b), 2671. “Federal agency” is defined as:

the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States.

28 U.S.C. s 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a FederalReserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under s 2671.

There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the “detailed physical performance” and “day to day operation” of that entity. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 528, 93 S.Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L.Ed.2d 121 (1973). Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation, Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956),Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F.Supp. 955 (W.D.Okla.1962), aff'd per curiam, 326 F.2d 971 (10th Cir. 1963), whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S.Ct. 1085, 6 L.Ed.2d 235 (1961), *1241 Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F.Supp. 955, and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d at 345. Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the FederalReserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. s 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. s 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. ss 341-361.

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activities without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine.

H.R. Report No. 69, 63 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as “wholly owned” government corporations under 31 U.S.C. s 846 nor as “mixed ownership” corporations under 31 U.S.C. s 856, a factor considered in Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status*1242 of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. ss 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. Cf. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S.Ct. 1085, 6 L.Ed.2d 235 (1961) (court held land redevelopment agency was federal agency for purposes of theAct in large part because agency received direct appropriated funds from Congress.)

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. s 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their ownclaims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys, e.g., Banco De Espana v. Federal ReserveBank of New York, 114 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1940); Huntington Towers v. Franklin National Bank, 559 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1977); Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981), and they have never been required to settle tort claimsunder the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. s 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a “public official” under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting “for or on behalf of the Government.” S. Rep. No. 2213, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1962), reprinted in (1962) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3852, 3856. See 18 U.S.C. s 201(a). The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is “substantial federal involvement” in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.

The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 499 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1974), after remand, 520 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1975); Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. Register of Deeds, 288 Mich. 120, 284 N.W. 667 (1939). The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102, 62 S.Ct. 1, 5, 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941);Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d 174, 178 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 964, 100 S.Ct. 450, 62 L.Ed.2d 376 (1979). The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.

Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Improvement District, 657 F.2d 183, 185 n.2 (8th Cir. 1981), Cf. Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956). State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. *1243 Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 294 U.S. 229, 235, 55 S.Ct. 705, 708, 79 L.Ed. 1408 (1955). Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 815, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1976, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), United States v. Logue, 412 U.S. 521, 527-28, 93 S.Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L.Ed.2d 121 (1973).

Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. s 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the “important governmental function” test and concluded that the term “Federal Government” in the Service ContractAct must be “liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purposes of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government.” Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term “federal agency” for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX:  UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED

2011-10-15T20:37:00.000-07:00

A tax is a charge, a pecuniary burden, for the support of government. 1 The federal income tax applies to certain income and to certain entities. It is not unlimited in its scope and application. The Internal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.” or “Code”) imposes a tax on the “taxable income” of “taxpayers.” 2

Income “is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.” 3 However, Congress is not authorized to tax as "income" every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive. 4 A tax on gross revenue, such as the federal income tax, taxes both capital and income, and is, therefore, not an income tax. 5 Insofar as it taxes capital, it is a direct tax that must be apportioned, the Sixteenth Amendment notwithstanding. 6 “Taxable income” is all gain from activities that are within the authority of the federal government to tax. The federal income tax “cannot be applied to any income which Congress has no power to tax.” 7 The right to work is an example of an activity that is outside of federal taxation authority because it is a fundamental right. 8

The federal income tax is also limited as to whom it applies. It only applies to “taxpayers,” and not to “nontaxpayers.” 9 26 U.S.C. § 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of certain individuals, such as 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.

Direct Versus Indirect Taxes

The federal government can lay two types of taxes: direct taxes and indirect taxes. 10 “Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights.” 11 A direct tax is laid on a person or on property, including income from real estate and personal property. 12 “[D]irect taxes have been limited to taxes on land and appurtenances, and taxes on polls, or capitation taxes.” 13

Direct taxes are subject to the Constitutional restraint of apportionment, the Sixteenth Amendment notwithstanding. 14 The U.S. Constitution art. I, § 2, cl. 3 mandates that “...direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...” In addition, Art. I, § 9, cl. 4. “[n]o Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken...”

In contrast, “indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange."15 It is voluntary upon and avoidable by the citizen, i.e. the tax can be avoided if one chooses not to engage in the taxed activity. 16 “[T]he requirement to pay such taxes [excises (indirect tax)] involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking.” 17

Indirect taxes, including excise taxes, are required by the Constitution to be uniformly laid. 18 The Constitution Art. I, § 8, cl. 1 declares that “[t]he Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...and Excises... but all...Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...” “Uniformity of taxation” is defined by Ballentine’s Law Dictionary as “[a] general principle that taxes should be levied in accord with some reasonable system of apportionment...it means that such taxes may only be levied with geographical uniformity...requiring the same plan and the same method to be operative throughout the United States.” 19

The federal income tax can be characterized as an indirect tax or an excise. An excise tax (or privilege tax) is a tax “laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.” 21 The first income tax, which was enacted in 1861, imposed a tax on all income derived from property. It was generally considered to be an indirect excise tax on the use of the property for gain. The tax was referred to in Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) as an excise tax. 22

...[T]he 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... 23

Taxable Income

The Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1, imposes a tax on “taxable income.” 24 “[I]ncome’ may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined...” 25 Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920) attempted to refine this definition by adding “provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale conversion of capital assets...” 26 The definition of income “imports... 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.” 27

The Court has rejected “the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts -- everything that comes in -- are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income,’ and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.” 28 Income is “not gain accruing to capital, not growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value... severed from capital however invested or employed and coming in, being ‘derived’, that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal - that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description...” 29

“...[A] mere conversion of capital assets [is] not to be treated as income.” 30 In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920), Defendant United States treated Plaintiff’s stock dividends as income. The Plaintiff paid under protest, and then sued the Defendant to recover the tax contending that, in imposing such a tax, the Revenue Act of 1916, ch. 463, 39 Stat. 756, et seq., violated U.S. Constitution Article I, § 9, Clause 4, and Article I, § 2, Clause 3, which require direct taxes to be apportioned according to population. The Court held that by treating the dividends as income, the Defendant had failed to correctly appraise the term “income” as used in the Sixteenth Amendment, because the mere issuance of a stock dividend made the Plaintiff no richer than before, and was thus, not gain or profit. 31 The Court explained that “...the stock dividend in question cannot be reached by the Income Tax Act, and could not, even though Congress expressly declared it to be taxable as income, unless it is in fact income.” 32 The Court held that

...[N]either under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916 [successor of the 1913 income tax], in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment. 33

In order to be income, there must first be a gain or profit. Wages and salaries are not “income” within the meaning of the Constitution. A man's labor is his property, or the capital. 34 Capital is not income, and is, therefore, not taxable as income. 35 The purchase price for the labor, which requires time and energy, is his wage. The wage-earner trades a wage in return for labor. This is a quid pro quo exchange and not a “profit.”

The next issue is to determine what is “taxable.” The common usage for the term "taxable" is “able to be taxed,” i.e., within the authority of a government to tax. Any law enacted by Congress must be based on a power enumerated in the Constitution.” 36 Article I, § 8 grants the federal government the authority to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” McCulloch established three principles: 1) “the power to tax is co-extensive with the jurisdiction of the taxing authority,” 2) “all things outside of that jurisdiction are exempt from taxation by the taxing authority,” and 3) “the jurisdiction of a sovereignty extends to all things that exist by its authority or are introduced with its permission.” Because of the Tenth Amendment, which states that “’[t]he powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States respectively, or, to the people,’ [t]he government of the United States... can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution...” 37 The Tenth Amendment states that “[t]he 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.” “It is the high duty and function of [the Court]... 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.” 38

In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company, 259 U.S. 20, 42 S.Ct. 449 (1922), the Court struck down a federal tax on the employment of children, holding that the federal government could not tax those activities that were under the sole and exclusive realm of the States. 39 Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44, 42 S.Ct. 453 (1922) struck down a federal tax on grain contracts, reiterating the principle that State sovereignty cannot be invaded through a so-called exercise of taxing authority.

Another example of an activity outside federal jurisdiction is the practice of law, which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the State. 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.” 40 Because the practice of law is within that “sphere of action where the authority of the national government may not intrude,” 41 it is outside the taxing authority of the federal government and not subject to the federal income tax. 42

Fundamental rights are also outside of the federal government’s authority to tax, as they are not granted by the federal government, but by the “Creator.” 43 They are protected and secured by the Constitution. 44 One of these rights is the right to pursue happiness, which means “the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation." 45

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. 46

“[T]he 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.” 47 Personal liberty rights and Fifth Amendment property rights include the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor. 48 “The right to ... sell labor is part of the liberty protected by [the 14th] amendment.” 49 “The liberty mentioned in [the 14th] amendment means ... to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation.” 50 “Included in the right of personal liberty…is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money and other forms of property.” 51

The property that every man has is his personal labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable…to hinder his employing [it]…in what manner he thinks proper... is a plain violation of the most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him... 52

In Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884) and Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), the Court recognized the right to work as a fundamental right and part of the freedom to pursue happiness. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625 (1923), the Court held that the term “liberty” “denotes ... the right of the individual to contract [and] to engage in any of the common occupations of life.” 53 The right to work is a basic and fundamental right that the federal government may not impinge.

If revenue stems from the exercise of a fundamental right, then it is exempt from federal excise taxation because it is outside the taxing authority of the federal government. 54 “The individual... cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing... [T]he individuals' right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.” 55 These natural rights cannot be taxed because “the power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment.” 56

The Court has held that fundamental rights cannot be abridged by taxation. For example, the Court struck down a Virginia poll tax in Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079 (1966) for being a tax on the right to vote. 57 In Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), the Court struck down an excise tax on publishers of newspapers and magazines as an abridgment of a fundamental right, namely the freedom of speech. The Court stated that

[F]reedom of speech and of the press are rights of...fundamental character, safeguarded by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by state legislation,... The word "liberty" contained in that amendment embraces... the right to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties as well. 58

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870 (1943) struck down a license fee for distributing religious material door to door because it abridged the freedom of speech, press and religion. 59 The Court did so because

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. 60

Effect of the Sixteenth Amendment on the Federal Taxation Authority

The Sixteenth Amendment states: “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.” The impetus for the Sixteenth Amendment was Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and T. Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894), which challenged the Income Tax Act of 1894. This act imposed a tax on income from real estate and investments. The Court held it to be a direct tax, which was invalid because it was not apportioned. In response, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted in 1913 to overrule Pollock. However, the Supreme Court seems to have overruled Pollock in so far as it held that state bond interest is not immune from a nondiscriminatory federal tax. 61 Because the federal income is more properly characterized as an indirect tax, the Sixteenth Amendment has little, if any, effect on it. This is because the Constitutional requirements of apportionment and enumeration only affect direct taxes, not indirect. 62 Even if the federal income tax is found to be a direct tax, the Sixteenth Amendment still does not authorize a tax on a salary. 63

The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to eliminate all occasion for an apportionment of direct taxes because of the source from which the income came, -- a change in no wise affecting the power to tax but only the mode of exercising it. 64 “[T]he Sixteenth Amendment did not confer any additional authority to tax on the federal government, and ... 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.” 65 “[T]he conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation” is “erroneous.” 66 Neither did the Sixteenth Amendment “extend the taxing power to new subjects, [it] merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income.” 67 In holding that the Sixteenth Amendment did not grant new powers to Congress, the Brushaber Court stated:

It is clear on the face of this text [16th Amendment] 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 [16th] Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. 68

The Court did not recognize federal authority to lay a direct tax not requiring apportionment.

We are of opinion... that the confusion ... 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, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. (b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes “from whatever source derived,” the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment. (c) As the right to tax “incomes from whatever source derived” for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and preexisting provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment... 69

Therefore, an unapportioned direct tax such as the income tax still cannot be legal. 70

Several cases reinforce the Brushaber opinion that the Sixteenth Amendment did not grant Congress any additional power of taxation. The Court held in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), that

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... 71

In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918), a federal income tax on the net revenue of a corporation involved in international shipping was upheld. The Court opined that

The Sixteenth Amendment... has no real bearing and may be put out of view... [I]t 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. 72

As should be clear by now, “[t]he sixteenth [amendment] does not justify the taxation of persons or things previously immune... it does not extend taxing power to new or excepted citizens… it is intended only to remove all occasions from any apportionment of income taxes among the states...” 73

In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the Court held that a stock dividend was not to be included in the government's definition of income subject to the tax. The Court explained 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. “[N]either under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder.” 74 The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretative regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

The effect of the Sixteenth Amendment was not to extend the federal taxing power to new people or subjects, but rather to remove the necessity for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income. 76 The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a tax on a salary. 77 There is no federal authority to lay an unapportioned direct tax, which is how the federal income tax is applied. Such a tax is not legal. 78

The Federal Income Tax Code

The Federal Income Tax is laid upon “taxable income” of certain parties under 26 U.S.C. § 1. Therefore,
only “taxable income” is subject to the federal income tax, which was discussed above.

In addition, the Federal Income Tax does not apply to everyone. “[[T]he revenue laws] relate to
taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for
nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.”79

Subtitle A of the Tax Code designates partners as liable for the taxes on income of a partnership. 80 Foreign corporations are also liable for payment of the “Branch profits tax” imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 884. 26 U.S.C. § 1461 states that “[e]very person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter [Chapter 3] is hereby made liable for such tax...”81 Chapter 3 deals with “Withholding Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations.” Therefore, “the liable party in this instance is anyone withholding tax on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.” Subtitle C identifies the only other party that is liable for the income tax. 26 U.S.C. § 3403 states: “The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter [Chapter 24 – Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages]...” 82 For the purposes of Chapter 24, “the term ‘employer’ means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person.” 83 An employee “...includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ‘employee’ also includes an officer of a corporation.”

84 Therefore, the employer of an “employee” as defined by 26 USCS § 3401(c) is liable for the payment of the tax as stated in 26 USC § 3403.

One may conclude that the only parties liable for the income tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 1 are 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.

Conclusion

The federal income tax only applies to the “taxable” income of “taxpayers.” “Taxable income” has been found to mean all gain from activities that are within the authority of the federal government to tax. Revenue made from working is exempt from the federal income tax because the right to work is a fundamental right. The federal government does not have authority to tax the exercise of a fundamental right. Therefore, revenue made from working is not “taxable income.” The Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize a tax on fundamental rights; it did not authorize a tax on salaries. 85

In addition, the federal income tax only applies to “taxpayers,” and not to “nontaxpayers.” A “taxpayer” is “any person subject to any internal revenue tax. ” 86 Taxpayers are 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. Nontaxpayers are not required to pay the federal income tax.

Cynthia Hodges, J.D. LL.M., M.A.

Attorney at Law, Edmonds, WA [Website]

Footnotes

¹ United States v. R.R. Co., 84 U.S. 322, 326.

² 26 U.S.C. § 1 states: "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...”; “The term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.” 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14).

³ Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 41, 34 S.Ct. 136 (1913).

⁴ Murphy v. IRS, 373 U.S. App. D.C. 143, 460 F.3d 79, 87 (D.C. Cir. 2006). See also Burk-Waggoner Oil Ass'n v. Hopkins, 269 U.S. 110, 114 (U.S. 1925) (“Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact.”)

⁵ See Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326, 344-45, 30 L. Ed. 1200 (1887); State Tax on R. Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284, 21 L. Ed. 164 (1872); Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U.S. 217, 35 L. Ed. 994 (1891).

⁶ See U.S. CONST. amend. XVI (“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.”); U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 3, and U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 4.

⁷ William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 174 (1918).

⁸ See Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 762, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884).

⁹ Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585, 589, 200 Ct. Cl. 31, 37 (1972).

¹⁰ Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363, 369 (1904); Pollock v. Farmers' L, & T. Co., 157 U.S. 557, 558.

¹¹ Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 47 (1900),

¹² See Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. at 149. See also Springer v United States, 102 US 586, 26 L Ed 253 (1880) (direct taxes are capitation or poll taxes levied without regard to property, profession or other circumstances; direct taxes can be levied on land); Pollock v Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 US 429, 39 L Ed 759, 15 S Ct 673 (1895) (direct taxes are taxes levied directly on personal property because of ownership).

¹³ Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 at 544.

¹⁴ Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 13l; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. at 153; U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 3.

¹⁵ Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. at 47.

¹⁶ Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines an indirect tax as “...a tax other than one imposed directly upon property according to its value, for example, an occupation tax. Foster & Creighton Co. v Graham, 154 Tenn 412, 285 SW 570, 47 ALR 971, 975 ...a tax paid by a person who can shift the burden to another person or who is not under legal compulsion to pay.”

¹⁷ Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. at 151 ( “...[E]xcises are generally treated as embracing the indirect forms of taxation contemplated by the Constitution").

¹⁸ Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 13. See also Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 153 (“The Constitution contains only two limitations on the right of Congress to levy excise taxes; they must be levied for the public welfare and are required to be uniform throughout the United States...Congress must impose indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity.”)

¹⁹ See Knowlton, 178 U.S. at 106.

²⁰ See Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 11, 16-19, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916); In re Stern, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 14960 at *2 (4th Cir. 1997); Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 543 (1868) (“[P]ersonal property, contracts, occupations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax”); United States v. Gaumer, 972 F.2d 723, 725 (“Brushaber and the Congressional Record excerpt [pages 2578-81 of the Congressional Record of March 27, 1943] do indeed state that for constitutional purposes, the income tax is an excise tax.”)

²¹ Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911); American Airways, Inc. v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880 (D. Tenn. 1932),

²² See Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 15-17.

²³ Id. at 16-17.

²⁴ 26 U.S.C. § 1 states: "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...”

²⁵ Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

²⁶ Macomber, 252 U.S. at 207. But see Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430 (1955) (“...the definition [of income in Macomber] served a useful purpose. But it was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions.”)

²⁷ Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918).

²⁸ Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918).

²⁹ Macomber, 252 U.S at 207.

³⁰ Doyle at 184-5.

³¹ See Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 213.

³² Macomber at 202.

³³ Id. at 219.

³⁴ Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 US 746, 757 (1884).

³⁵ O'Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79, 84 (1996) (“a restoration of capital was not income; hence it fell outside the definition of ‘income’ upon which the law imposed a tax.”)

³⁶ United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000).

³⁷ Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113, 124 (1871) (overruled in part by Graves v. New York, 306 U.S. 466 (1939)) (Graves v. New York overrules Collector v. Day “so far as [it] recognize[s] an implied constitutional immunity from income taxation of the salaries of officers or employees of the national or a state government or their instrumentalities”).

³⁸ Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20, 37 (1922).

³⁹ Id.

⁴⁰ Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company, 259 U.S. 20, 38. See also South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 511 (1988) (“We use ‘the Tenth Amendment’ to encompass any implied constitutional limitation on Congress' authority to regulate state activities, whether grounded in the Tenth Amendment itself or in principles of federalism derived generally from the Constitution.”)

⁴¹ Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U.S. 679, 685.

⁴² See Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Bar, 377 U.S. 1, 6 (1964) (states have broad powers to regulate the practice of law within their borders); Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217, 222 (1967) (stating “That the States have broad power to regulate the practice of law is, of course, beyond question”).

⁴³ See Butchers' Union Co., 111 U.S. at 756-7 (“’...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...”)

⁴⁴ Fundamental rights are protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments. See Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41 (1915); Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 172 (1908).

⁴⁵ Butchers' Union Co., 111 U.S. at 757 (“Among these inalienable rights,... is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.”) See also Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 at 370 (fundamental rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

⁴⁶ Butchers' Union Co., 111 U.S. at 762 (concurring opinion). See also Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 590 (1897) (“It is true that these remarks were made in regard to questions of monopoly, but they well describe the rights which are covered by the word ‘liberty’ as contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.”)

⁴⁷ “...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV Sect. 1; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41 (1915). See also Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590, 596 (1917) (“The Fourteenth Amendment protects the citizen in his right to engage in any lawful business.”)

⁴⁸ “No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...” U.S. CONST. amend. V. See also A. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40, 44 (1934) ( in some instances, the due process of law clause contained in the Fifth Amendment is a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution); Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 172 (1908).

⁴⁹ Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 173 (1908).

⁵⁰ Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589 (1897).

⁵¹ Coppage v. Kansas, 236 US 1 (1915) (overruled in part). See also Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 173 (1908).

⁵² Butchers’ Union Co., 111 US 746 at 756-757 (quoting Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10).

⁵³ Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625 (1923).

⁵⁴ See McCulloch, 17 U.S. at 429; 1940 Code of Federal Regulations § 19.22(b),

⁵⁵ Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 813, 819 (1930).

⁵⁶ Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 112, 63 S.Ct. 870 (1943).

⁵⁷ Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665, 86 S.Ct. 1079 (1966).

⁵⁸ Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936).

⁵⁹ Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Fourth Motion to Dismiss Indictment at 63, Cryer (No. 06-50164-01).

⁶⁰ Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108.

⁶¹ See South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 524 (1988).

⁶² U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 3 (“...direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...”); See U.S. CONST. art. § 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.”)

⁶³ Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, 263 (1920) (overruled in part). See also United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 567 (2001) (overruled Evans insofar as it holds that the Compensation Clause forbids Congress to apply a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory tax to the salaries of federal judges).

⁶⁴ Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. at 261 (overruled in part by United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001)).

⁶⁵ Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 36.

⁶⁶ Brushaber at 10-11.

⁶⁷ Macomber, 252 U.S. at 206.

⁶⁸ Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 17-18.

⁶⁹ Brushaber at 11.

⁷⁰ Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 11.

⁷¹ Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 at 112-13.

⁷² Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172-73 (1918).

⁷³ Evans v. Gore, 253 US 245 (1920) (overruled in part by United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001))

⁷⁴ Macomber, 252 U.S. at 219.

⁷⁵ Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 133 F.2d 575, 579 (8th Cir. 1943) (citing Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S. Ct. 189, 64 L. Ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570; M. E. Blatt Co. v. United States, 305 U.S. 267, 59 S. Ct. 186, 83 L. Ed. 167).

⁷⁶ Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. at 206.

⁷⁷ Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, 263 (overruled in part by United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001) (Hatter overrules “Evans insofar as it holds that the Compensation Clause forbids Congress to apply a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory tax to the salaries of federal judges.”) (The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax on the salary of federal judges).

⁷⁸ Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 11 (1916).

⁷⁹ Economy Plumbing and Heating Co., 470 F. 2d at 589, 200 Ct. Cl. at 37; A “taxpayer” is a person subject to any internal revenue tax 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14).

⁸⁰ Partners are only in their "individual" capacities. Id. at 8 (citing 26 U.S.C. § 701, which states: “A partnership as such shall not be subject to the income tax imposed by this chapter. Persons carrying on business as partners shall be liable for income tax only in their separate or individual capacities.”)

⁸¹ 26 U.S.C. § 1461.

⁸² 26 U.S.C. Sec. 3403.

⁸³ 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d).

⁸⁴ 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c).

⁸⁵ Evans, 253 U.S. 245.

⁸⁶ 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14).

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

End banking tyranny: starve the beast

2011-10-13T12:31:00.000-07:00

Thomas Jefferson once warned that

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Now that we find ourselves in the position of being relieved of our wealth by the big banks, what can be done to fight back short of "refreshing the Tree of Liberty?" One strategy may be to starve the banks by withdrawing our money from them. The following strategy of passive resistance could be easily (and safely) implemented by everyone.

1) Use Treasury-minted dollar coins as much as possible.

The Treasury mints coins and does not charge interest to the American taxpayer. When the Federal Reserve (a consortium of private banks) prints paper currency, it charges interest for its "service." Printing paper currency is contrary to the Founding Fathers intent in the Constitution. Art. I sect. 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to coin money, not print it. The Founding Fathers experienced the collapse of the Continental, a paper currency, so they wanted to avoid that from happening again. Art. I sect. 10 states that states may only accept gold and silver in payment of debts The Constitution grants the government enumerated powers, and printing money is not one. By using coins. one deprives the Federal Reserve of interest payments, cutting into its profit margin.

Coins are preferable to paper currency because they have some intrinsic value based on their metal content. For example, pre-1983 pennies are worth twice as much as their face value based on their copper content.

Finally, if the currency is ever devalued, coins are usually untouched. A thousand dollar bill could be knocked down to $10 or even $1 over night, but the coins will stay the same and therefore, maintain their purchasing power.

2) Use credit cards as little as possible.

Banks get 3% in fees from merchants every time a purchase is made with a credit card. In addition, if the cardholder does not stay current on his or payments, he or she is paying additional amounts to banks, keeping them fat and happy. Withdrawing this source of income from the banks will cut into their bottom line.

Another negative aspect of credit cards is that they inflate the currency supply each time they are used. America is at risk of a hyper-inflationary depression due to the Federal Reserve's policies, including quantitative easing, so inflating the currency even more may accelerate a hyper-inflationary event.

Finally, using credit cards allows every purchase to be tracked, which some view as an invasion of privacy.

3) Move money out of the corporate banks and into credit unions or out of the banking system completely.

Banks engage in fractional reserve lending based on the amount of currency in their accounts. They charge fees to lend that money. The less money is in their clients' accounts, the less money they can lend, and the fewer fees they can collect.

4) Buy gold and/or silver.

Gold and silver are hard money and act as a store of value. They are a method to protect oneself from inflation because they maintain their purchasing power. It also eliminates one's counter-party risk.

Gold and silver are seen as the "enemy" by governments because they constrain spending. (See "Gold and Economic Freedom" by Alan Greenspan.

JP Morgan and HSBC have large naked short positions in silver. If everyone would buy at least one ounce of physical silver and take it out of the supply, those two banks would be forced to cover their positions. It may be enough to drive them into the ground. (See Max Keiser's "Crash JP Morgan, Buy Silver" campaign).

By withdrawing money from the banks, such as by using coins and credit unions, not using credit cards, and buying gold and silver, the people may peacefully restore balance in the system and free themselves from banking tyranny.

Cynthia Hodges, J.D., LL.M., M.A.

Attorney at Law

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

Signing the Constitution: September 17, 1787

2011-09-16T14:06:00.000-07:00

"Signing the Constitution: September 17, 1787" by Dr. James P. Hodges was published in the Edmonds Beacon on September 16, 2010. Please click on the images below to enlarge them. The article can also be viewed as a PDF [LINK].

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

Beyond the Cherry Tree: The Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

by Dr. James Hodges

George Washington on the Illuminati

2011-09-05T14:45:00.000-07:00

George Washington warned in a 1798 letter to Rev. G.W. Snyder that the Illuminati and Jacobins had spread to the United States. In the letter, he wrote it was too obvious to question that some individuals and founders of the Free Masonic lodges had the objective of spreading the "diabolical tenets" and "pernicious principles" of the Illuminati and Jacobins in the USA. Washington felt the goal was to separate the people from their government.

George Washington to Rev. George Washington Snyder, October 24, 1798 -- Transcription

Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798.

Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into.

It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.

My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time.

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

Beyond the Cherry Tree: The Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

by Dr. James Hodges

The “Horrid and Unnatural Rebellion” of Daniel Shays

2011-07-04T18:44:00.000-07:00

The “Horrid and Unnatural Rebellion” of Daniel Shays

James Hodges, Ph.D. and

Cynthia Hodges, J.D., LL.M., M.A.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned

from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance? …

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time

with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

~ Thomas Jefferson

The smoke of the Revolutionary War had scarcely cleared when desperate economic conditions in Massachusetts led patriot veteran Revolutionary War soldiers and farmers to peacefully protest excessive state taxes and corrupt state government in 1786. Shays' Rebellion began when 2,000 armed men blockaded the Springfield, Massachusetts courthouse. The uprising showed that when citizens band together, they can successfully win concessions from the government.

_____________________________________________

In the first years of peacetime following the Revolutionary War, the future of society was threatened by strangling debt that aggravated the depressed economy of the postwar years. Ruinous inflation afflicted the entire nation as the currency became almost worthless. The value of the Continental currency fell to a low of four thousand dollars in paper money to one ounce of silver. The situation became so dire that George Washington complained it took a wagonload of money to buy a wagonload of goods.

The central government that had been set up by the Articles of Confederation had trouble paying overdue wages owed to veterans, so it delayed paying the benefits it had promised. State governments, pleading poverty, paid the state militia with IOU’s, promising to redeem them later. Many veterans were forced to sell their IOUs to speculators for immediate cash. Wealthy Tories bought the IOUs, paying pennies on the dollar from desperate veterans. Speculators redeemed the IOUs at face value for silver specie, plus 6% interest, profiting off of the backs of patriots.

Massachusetts may have suffered more than any other colony. It suffered under a staggering $14 million debt and a shortage of specie. Heavy land taxes undermined the fragile financial structure of the hill towns. Destitute farmers often had to borrow money to re-establish their farms after fighting the Revolution. Due to inflation and poor economic conditions, they often lost their farms to foreclosure for failure to pay debts and crushing taxes. Farmers grew indignant as they watched furniture, grain and livestock sold off for much less than their value. Foreclosed farms were confiscated and often sold at one-third of their true value. With the loss of their means of making a livelihood, farmers often landed in debtors prison. Terrible economic conditions combined with apathetic public officials who were “thieves, knaves, and robbers” left the people feeling they had no choice but to take matters into their own hands.

Protests began to break out in 1786, to which the Massachusetts legislature retaliated by suspending habeas corpus, albeit temporarily. It imposed heavy poll and property taxes, amounting to one third of the total income of the people, and imposed new and higher court costs. Foreclosures mounted, and the shadow of debtors’ prison continued to cast a pall. Many citizens of western Massachusetts began to question the benefits of independence. A few even blamed the patriot leaders of 1776 for deluding them. Cheers for King George III were heard once again in towns that a few years before had cursed his name. As the economic and political crisis of the 1780’s deepened, unrest spread. Angry protests erupted.

Reform-minded citizens called “Regulators” met in several western counties during the summer of 1786. They drafted resolutions that they sent to the Massachusetts legislature calling for a variety of reforms. They petitioned for a reduction of court fees, reduction of salaries for state officials, issuance of paper money, relocation of the state capital from Boston (where it was deemed too susceptible to the influence of eastern commercial interests) to a western city, reduction of taxes, redistribution of the tax load, postponement of foreclosures, and fewer imprisonments for debtors. Unfortunately, the legislators were not only unreceptive to their grievances, but were actually enraged.

Some of the Regulators were Revolutionary War veterans who knew from experience that the people could unseat a tyrannical government by force of arms. Potential leaders could be recruited from former Revolutionary War officers in the Bay State. The first leader to be chosen was Luke Day, “the master spirit of the insurrection.” Day was a former brevet major in the Continental Army. He had both the inclination and the experience necessary to lead a rebellion, but the reluctant rebel, Captain Daniel Shays of Pelham, assumed command.

Daniel Shays had an impressive Revolutionary War record. He had fought bravely at Bunker Hill. Ticonderoga, Saratoga, and Stony Point. Shays was even honored by receiving a ceremonial sword for meritorious service at Saratoga from the Marquis de Lafayette. After the War, he started farming in the small town of Pelham, where he was elected to various local offices. Shays learned first hand the problems that beset returning war veterans. He was forced to sell the handsome ceremonial sword that Lafayette had presented to him for cash. In 1784, he was sued for a 12-dollar debt.

With their new leader, citizen groups took up arms, hoping to “encourage” the government to treat them fairly. In late August 1786, following a Hampshire County convention at Hatfield, a gathering of 1,500 men “armed with guns, swords, and other deadly weapons, and with drums beating and fifes playing” took command of the county courthouse at Northampton and forced the judges of the Court of Common Pleas and General Sessions of the Peace to adjourn. At Great Barrington, in Berkshire County, a group of 800 stopped the court, broke open the jail and released its prisoners. At Springfield, Shays and Day closed the courthouse doors, while at Concord, less than 20 miles from Boston, Job Shattuck prevented the sitting of the Middlesex County court. By early fall, citizen groups armed with muskets or hickory clubs moved at will through the interior counties. By late November, Regulators entering into Worcester had closed the Court of Common Pleas. In early December, Shays rode in with 350 men. It became obvious that no court could meet without an army to back it up. The Worcester court gathered meekly in the Sun Tavern and immediately adjourned until January 23. The rebels then drafted a petition to the legislature for a redress of grievances and wrote in defense of their actions.

"If they have real grievances redress them, if possible;

or acknowledge the justice of them,

and your inability to do it at the moment.

If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once.

Let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand,

and every violation of the constitution be reprehended.

If defective, let it be amended,

but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

~ George Washington in a letter to Henry Lee, October 31, 1786

Massachusetts governor, James Bowdoin, and the legislature responded to the latest outbreaks with a confusing mixture of sternness, concession, and indecision. In early September 1786, the Governor issued his first proclamation, condemning the Regulators as flirting with “riot, anarchy and confusion.” In October, the legislature suspended habeas corpus. Although the government conceded to some demands by authorizing some categories of goods as legal tender for specified kinds of public and private debts, it refused to make concessions on most of the Regulators’ demands. It refused to budge on reforms in court procedures, reduction of the tax load, officials’ salaries, lawyers’ machinations, or foreclosures or debtors prisons. However, it did offer a full pardon to all rebels who agreed to take an oath of allegiance before the end of the year.

As the Regulators continued protesting through the fall of 1786, officials of other states voiced concern that the anarchy of Massachusetts might spread to the rest of the nation. John Jay complained he was “uneasy and apprehensive; more so than during the war.” Secretary of War Henry Knox, Massachusetts statesman Rufus King, and others began to have similar apprehensions. They wrote frantic letters to one another, asking for news and predicting disaster. Abigail Adams, then in London, bristled at the “ignorant and restless desperadoes,” while reports of the uprising helped prod her husband, John Adams, into writing his ponderous “Defence of the Constitutions.” By the spring of 1787, observers on both sides of the Atlantic feared for the future of the nation.

To fight the rebellion, the Massachusetts Council authorized a state army of 4,400 men and four regiments of artillery, to be drawn largely from the militia of the eastern counties where state laws were not enforced so harshly. However, Governor Bowdoin and Knox feared that the powers of state government would not be enough to withstand the protesters. They called for volunteers for the federal army. The result was an additional 1,340 troops added to the federal army of 700. The additional troops were ostensibly to be used against the Indians of the Northwest, but in a secret session, Congress acknowledged that they might be used against the Regulators.

In January 1787, Shays descended upon the government arsenal at Springfield, Massachusetts. The rebels needed guns and ammunition to fend off troops that were advancing from Boston under General Benjamin Lincoln. The militia defending the arsenal (commanded by General William Shepard) unexpectedly fired their cannon into the ranks of the advancing rebels, killing four and wounding 20. The farmer-veterans did not expect their neighbors, kinsmen and fellow veterans to fire upon them, and retreated in disarray crying “murder.”

Shays advanced on Hampshire County, where they hoped to stop the court in Springfield from convening. They also hoped to raid the federal arsenal there. Shays had planned to attack on January 25, 1787, but at the last minute, Day decided to wait until the 26th. His note informing Shays of the change was intercepted by government forces. When Shays followers moved on the afternoon of the 25th as originally planned, the government militia defending the arsenal fired cannon volleys directly into their midst (after two warnings). Three rebels fell dead in the snow, a fourth lay dying. 20 more were wounded. The rebels scattered without firing a shot.

General Lincoln discussed surrender proposals with Shays, but the rebel leader insisted on an unconditional pardon for himself and his men. Negotiations broke down as Lincoln was not authorized to grant full pardons. Shays retreated to the relative security of Petersham, a center of pro-Regulator sentiment that lay in terrain that was easier to defend.

Determined to clear his name of the stamp of cowardice gained from the Revolution, Lincoln marched his men thirty miles from Hadley to Petersham through a blinding snowstorm the night of February 3, 1787. Taken completely by surprise, the rebels were routed. 150 were captured. The rest, including Shays, escaped to the north. Lincoln then dispersed rebel nests in the Berkshires. By the end of February 1787, only a scattered resistance remained. What the state legislature had recently unfairly condemned as a “horrid and unnatural Rebellion and War … traitorously raised and levied against this Commonwealth” was over.

While the militia crushed the remnants of the rebellion, the state government drafted a series of punitive regulations. In mid-February, it issued a harsh Disqualifying Act, offering pardons to privates and noncommissioned officers, but denying them for three years the right to vote, to serve on juries, and to be employed as schoolteachers, innkeepers, or liquor retailers. The rebel officers, citizens of other states who had joined the Massachusetts uprising, former state officers or members of the state legislature who had aided the rebels, and people who had attended Regulator conventions would be tried for treason. They would be hanged upon conviction. One Shays rebel, shocked that he would be accused of treason, wrote that he “earnestly stepped forth in defense of this country, and liberty is still the object I have in view.”

The government’s vindictive measures caused widespread protest, not only from those who had sympathized with the rebel cause but from many of its active opponents as well. General Lincoln, among others, believed that such harsh reprisals would further alienate the discontented, and he wrote to General Washington that the disfranchisement of so many people would wholly deprive some towns of their representation in the legislature. New outbreaks would then occur in areas that had no other way to voice their grievances.

In token concession to its critics, the state legislature appointed a special commission of three men to determine the fate of rebels not covered by the Disqualifying Act in March 1787. General Lincoln served on the commission, and under his moderating influence, it pardoned 790 participants. In the meantime, county courts captured and tried any rebel leaders they could find. In Hampshire County, six men were sentenced to death for their part in the uprising, while in Berkshire County, eight men got the death penalty. Many others were imprisoned or fined.

The April 1787 election that followed revealed the depth of public support for the Regulators and the disapproval of the government’s actions. In the gubernatorial election that year, John Hancock overwhelmingly defeated Governor Bowdoin. 160 of the 222 members of the legislature and 13 members of the 24-man senate lost their seats. Perhaps to prove a point, the voters chose men who had actively participated in the rebellion, including Josiah Whitney, who had recently served 16 days in the Worcester jail.

Within the next few months, the new legislature repealed the Disqualifying Act, reprieved all men under sentence of death —some on the very steps of the gallows— and even Daniel Shays (although he and a few other leaders were still precluded from holding civil and military offices in the state). The legislature enacted long-range reforms, thereby addressing the complaints expressed by the Regulators. For example, it extended the law that permitted the use of certain personal and real property in payment of debts, imposed a lower and more equitable tax schedule, released most debtors from prison, and eased foreclosures laws.

Thomas Jefferson believed that “the spirit of resistance to government is … valuable on certain occasions.” The “horrid and unnatural Rebellion” of Daniel Shays proved that citizens can - if necessary - successfully join forces to win concessions from a tyrannical government.

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

Cynthia Hodges is an attorney practicing in the Seattle area. Please visit her website.

Stripping Us of Our Rights: DHS, Naked Body Scanners, and the Fourth Amendment

2011-03-17T15:15:00.000-07:00

Stripping Us of Our Rights:

DHS, Naked Body Scanners, and the Fourth Amendment

Cynthia Hodges, J.D., LL.M., M.A.

Naked body scanners and invasive “enhanced pat-downs” at airport checkpoints have caused a public uproar for invading travelers’ privacy. Now, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is deploying roving Z Backscatter Vans (ZBVs) equipped with mobile backscatter x-ray scanners to sneak a peek under pedestrians’ and motorists’ clothing. Such searches could violate a person’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

ZBVs’ primary purpose is to image vehicles and their contents. DHS describes the scanners as “a walk through x-ray screening system” that allow for “covert inspection of moving subjects.” The technologies they use, backscatter imaging technology and active millimeter wave systems, cannot only peer into cars to reveal hidden objects, but can also see under clothes and into buildings.

Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), has called ZBVs “one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.” These “mobile strip search devices” allow the government to search under one’s clothing without one’s consent - or even knowledge. In this case, the technology used is the digital equivalent of a full-blown search. These searches may violate the Fourth Amendment, which limits police conduct by forbidding unreasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment’s purpose is to safeguard the privacy of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a warrant before conducting a search. Without prior judicial approval, a search is per se unreasonable unless the failure to comply with judicial process is excused by exigent circumstances.

An intrusion upon constitutionally guaranteed rights must be based on more than the good faith of the officer or an inarticulate hunch. A police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts that reasonably warrant an intrusion on a person’s rights. The facts must be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the time of the search lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that the search was appropriate? If not, then the search is illegal.

The scope of a search must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances that made it permissible. If there are exigent circumstances, the search must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies that justify the search. If a police officer has a reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, he may search for weapons, but the search must be limited to that which is necessary to discover weapons. The Supreme Court has found that an officer may conduct a carefully limited search of a person’s outer clothing to search for weapons in cases where the officer observes unusual conduct that led him to reasonably conclude that criminal activity was afoot and that the person may be armed and dangerous. However, the Court also said the officer first had to identify himself as a policeman before conducting the search.

In the case of ZBVs, advanced technology enables police to secretly view private activities. Such activities are not stripped of Fourth Amendment protection. Obtaining information from a constitutionally protected area, such as the interior of a house, using sense-enhancing technology constitutes a search entitled to Fourth Amendment protection - at least where the technology is not in general public use, as is the case with ZBVs. If the police do not have a warrant and there are no exigent circumstances making the search reasonable, such as suspicious behavior, the police are engaging in an unlawful search.

The courts are ultimately responsible for guarding against lawless police conduct by excluding the fruits of illegal searches from evidence at criminal trials. This exclusionary rule is not only meant to deter illicit police conduct, but also serves to ensure judicial integrity. Courts are not to be made a party to illegal invasions of Constitutional rights by permitting government to benefit from such invasions.

References

Mike Adams, “TSA, DHS plan massive rollout of mobile surveillance vans with long-distance X-ray capability, eye movement tracking and more,” March 06, 2011, available at http://www.naturalnews.com/031603_surveillance_police_state.html

Andy Greenberg, “Documents Reveal TSA Research Proposal To Body-Scan Pedestrians, Train Passengers,” Forbes, March 2 2011, available at http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/03/02/docs-reveal-tsa-plan-to-body-scan-pedestrians-train-passengers

Andy Greenberg, “Full-Body Scan Technology Deployed In Street-Roving Vans,” Forbes, August 24, 2010, available at http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans

Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27 (2001)

Samantha Murphy, “TSA aimed to put body scanners in public places,” The Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011, available at http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/0304/TSA-aimed-to-put-body-scanners-in-public-places

Samantha Murphy, “Lawsuit Filed Over Airport Scanner Privacy, Health Concerns,” TechNewsDaily, August 6, 2010, available at http://www.technewsdaily.com/lawsuit-filed-over-airport-scanner-privacy-health-concerns-0993

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 188 S.Ct. 1868 (1968)

____________________

Cynthia Hodges is a practicing attorney in Washington State. Please visit her website.

Example of Effective Leadership: George Washington

2011-03-15T11:57:00.000-07:00

The make or break moment that defines a leader is when s/he transitions from personally performing tasks to supervising others. George Washington set himself apart as an outstanding leader in the following ways.

Washington formulated a vision of the ideal future, which he balanced against short-term goals. To fulfill his vision, he developed a mission statement of the action steps that had to be taken. He shared these with his team so that they would feel a joint ownership and accept responsibility for accomplishing the goals.

Washington was aided in making tough and timely decisions by seeking advice from others. He would carefully consider their opinions, then make a decision. Once he reached a decision, he rarely changed it unless unusual circumstances warranted a revision. He avoided being indecisive, which is fatal to effective leadership. No one trusts an indecisive leader.

Washington surrounded himself with good people who were emotionally secure enough to not resent being outshone. Knowing he could not do everything by himself, he delegated responsibility and authority to others, empowering them to make great accomplishments. Early on in the French and Indian War, he appointed Gist to be his chief aide. In the Revolutionary War, he appointed Generals Greene, Knox, and Lafayette to vital leadership posts, Before and during the Constitutional Convention, Washington made Madison a key figure. He also appointed Jefferson, Hamilton, Knox, and Randolph to his first presidential cabinet. Their achievements reflected well on him and added to his credibility.

Washington managed resources, especially human resources, very well. For example, he never ordered his soldiers to attack entrenched British troops. He thought it best to attack an unprepared enemy - not one who was ready and waiting. At Trenton, he ordered a dawn attack to catch the drunk Hessians off guard (see Christmas 1776 - Victory or Death at Trenton). The attack devastated the British allies and secured an important victory for Washington.

Washington was careful not to de-motivate the people in his charge with too much red tape. He was also careful to not treat them with distrust or suspicion, or use diresprctful command and control techniques to convey orders.

Washington respected the diversity of his soldiers' different cultures, religions, races, etc. Upon assuming command of the Continental Army at Cambridge, Washington faced the problem of prejudice among the militias of the four New England colonies surrounding the British at Boston. It was problematic because the soldiers of one colony would not serve under an officer from another colony. Washington appealed to their pride of belonging to the whole of the Colonial effort, not just to individual colonies. The militiamen were then willing to work together. Washington's Continental Army was also fully integrated. African-Americans fought alongside white colonists.

Washington was a good listener and he cultivated an open door policy. Even the lowliest private who called upon him was welcomed and received with respect. Washington sought to gain valuable information from each conversation by asking pertinent questions.

Washington learned from his mistakes. During the French and Indian War, he had his men holed up at Fort Necessity, where the enemy overwhelmed the. With no avenue for escape, Washington was forced to unconditionally surrender his men en masse. Washington never again allowed men under his command to be trapped in a fort. Another unfortunate incident was at the Jumonville massacre. While interrogating a French diplomat, Washington carelessly allowed the Indian ally to tomahawk and scalp his prisoner right before his eyes. Never again did anything of the sort happen under Washington's watch. Contrast this willingness to learn to the British attitude. At Bunker Hill, the British ships could have blasted American lines to oblivion, but their officers wanted to show off how brave and capable their soldiers were. The troops were forced to march up a steep hill with 120 pound back packs, which slowed them down. The British soldiers were slaughtered. In WWI, 150 years later, the British did the exact same thing, leading to another massacre of British troops.

Washington was flexible and could adapt to changing situations. At first, Washington thought he had to defeat the British Army to win the Revolutionary War. At some point, however, he realized all he had to do to win was to just not lose. To that end, he fought a war of attrition to exhaust the British will to fight.

By looking to Washington's leadership methods, anyone can improve their leadership skills.

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

Thomas Jefferson on Banking Tyranny

2010-12-18T15:20:00.000-08:00

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and third United States president, warned about the threat big banksters posed to our liberty and financial security. He wrote back in 1802 that

"I believe that Banking institutions are more dangerous to Our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow Private banks to control the issue of their Currency, first by inflation, then by Deflation, the banks and corporations that will Grow up around the banks will deprive the people Of all property - until their children Wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers Conquered."

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The Federal Reserve Banks that set the nation's monetary policy and issue fiat currency are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." (Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)). The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is

"[A] secretive group deploying billions of dollars to favored banks, operating with little oversight by the public or elected officials...

The New York Fed is in the hot seat for its decision in November 2008 to buy out, for about $30 billion, insurance contracts AIG sold on toxic debt securities to banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Societe Generale and Deutsche Bank AG, among others. That decision, critics say, amounted to a back-door bailout for the banks..."

(David Reilly, Secret Banking Cabal Emerges From AIG Shadows: David Reilly Bloombert, Jan 28, 2010)

Thomas Jefferson felt that "To compel a man to subsidize with His taxes the propagation of ideas which he Disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Taxpayers have been forced to bail out the "too big to fail" banks to the tune of billions, if not trillions of dollars. "[S]ome experts warn that government spending on support for struggling financial services companies will ultimately reach into the trillions of dollars." (Colin Barr, Bank bailout could cost $4 trillion, FORTUNE, January 27, 2009) However, the Congressional Budget Office says the 2008 bank bailout "only" cost taxpayers $25 billion to help rescue struggling banks (as of November 30, 2010). (CBO: Bank Bailout Cost Taxpayers $25 Billion)

"[W]hen unelected and unaccountable agencies pick banking winners while trying to end-run Congress, even as taxpayers are forced to lend, spend and guarantee about $8 trillion to prop up the financial system, our collective blood should boil." (David Reilly, Secret Banking Cabal Emerges From AIG Shadows: David Reilly Bloombert, Jan 28, 2010). Thomas Jefferson believed "The strongest reason for the People to retain the right to keep and bear arms Is, as a last resort, to protect themselves Against tyranny in government" and that "The tree of liberty must be Refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and tyrants."

The time is upon us when we must again free ourselves from the yoke of tyranny. A few unelected Elite are now able to dictate how taxpayer money is spent. They demand welfare for their Wall Street buddies. They force taxpayers to prop up failed institutions. These financial institutions made bad investment decisions. Giving them money simply rewards bad behavior. If the free market were allowed to function, the poorly-run financial institutions would collapse, as they should. Unfortunately, in a command economy run by private bankers, taxpayers are forced to prop them up. If Americans do not stand up to this tyranny now, they will "Wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers Conquered" in the very near future.

Authors:

James Hodges, Ph.D. and Cynthia Hodges, J.D., LL.M., M.A.

More resources:

End the Fed Network

FED Up: Founding Fathers, the Banking System, and the Federal Reserve

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

Letter of appreciation for presentation

2010-12-18T13:52:00.000-08:00

This letter was sent to Dr. Hodges in appreciation for a presentation on George Washington he gave to a Rotary Club in November 2010:

Captain Don [Last Name]

USN Ret.

Kingston, Washington Rotary Club

Dear Jim,

Your presentation yesterday was excellent, and well received by all hands. We very much appreciate your willingness to come across the water and share this (very timely) message with us. What a shame our politicians can't have this message force-fed en masse. Maybe we could clean up "the best government money can buy" just a little.

I don't remember who it was who said that Democracy could only work until the elected representatives discover that they can bribe the electorate with their own money. It's clear they have made that discovery, and we're on a slippery slope, unless we can muster the ethical backbone to insist on NOT being bribed. I see that as unlikely.

Thanks again for a most inspirational luncheon. It was a pleasure getting to know you. I'll look forward to repeating the experience in the near future.

Meanwhile: I've put Poulsbo on notice that they might want to book you in, and will draft a letter for our Prez to sign, making our appreciation a tad more concrete.

Best regards,

Don

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

Founding Fathers on Illegal Immigration and the Safety of the Republic

2010-05-27T20:39:00.000-07:00

“Illegal immigration is a crisis for our country.

It is an open door for drugs, criminals, and potential terrorists to enter our country.

It is straining our economy, adding costs to our judicial, healthcare, and education systems.”
~ Timothy Murphy

“Anybody who comes into this country illegally is a criminal.”

~ Charlie Daniels

Historically, America has provided for lawful immigration to those who wish to live here and are willing to accept the responsibilities of citizenship. The Founding Fathers welcomed immigrants who contributed to society and who would assimilate into the culture. James Madison said he wished “to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us.” He recognized that “America was indebted to emigration for her settlement and prosperity,” but he wanted to exclude anyone who could not readily incorporate himself into society. George Washington felt that immigration should be limited to useful mechanics and some particular description of men and professions.

The Founding Fathers required that four elements be satisfied for an immigrant to become an American citizen. These requirements were incorporated into the the Naturalization Act of 1795 and remain a part of immigration law:

1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States;

2) a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States;

3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and

4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles.

Current law also requires competency in the English language. [Heritage Foundation]

Washington believed it was important for the immigrants to assimilate into American culture, so that they would become “one people.” Washington said:

[T]he policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people.

[George Washington, November 15, 1794]. Alexander Hamilton also felt that

[T]he safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

Thomas Jefferson feared that immigrants who brought different ideas and refused to assimilate would cause discord in society. He warned that “These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and tender it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.” Such an effect would be to destabilize and fracture society.

Legal immigrants at Ellis Island

As opposed to legal immigration, illegal immigration occurs when foreign nationals enter and/or remain in another country in violation of the law. Immigration in conformity with the laws of the United States is to be supported and encouraged, but those who break the law should not be allowed to stay. Rewarding law-breakers only encourages them to further ignore and flaunt our laws and policies.

Illegal immigration to the United States is a tremendous problem. It has been estimated that between 11 and 20 million illegal immigrants live here. The illegal immigrant population in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people. That is more than the number of legal immigrants. The majority of the illegal immigrants are from Latin America. According to a 2005 Pew Hispanic Center report, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico and 24% were from other Latin American countries. According to journalist and author, Peter Brimelow, “This type of mass influx is simply too much to handle. What we've had since the disaster of the 1965 Immigration Act will take 100 years or more to absorb.” Illegal immigration is devastating local economies, schools, health care facilities, and public safety across America.

Arrest of illegal aliens in Dallas, Texas

The economic burden of illegal immigration on taxpayers is staggering. The Center for Immigration Studies found that illegal immigrants cost taxpayers about $10.4 billion a year. According to former Representative from Florida, Ric Keller, taxpayers shell out about $45 billion a year for health care, education, and incarceration expenses of illegal aliens, The burden of illegal immigration is forcing hospitals across the country to close. Harvard economist, George Borjas, said that illegal immigration causes a “huge redistribution [of wealth] away from [unskilled American] workers to [American employers] who use immigrants.” Many college students cannot find summer jobs and wages “across the board are depressed by the overwhelming influx of cheap and illegal labor,” according to Elton Gallegly, Representative from California. Research by Borjas and Robert W. Scrivner, Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University, and Paul Samuelson, Nobel Prize-winning economist from MIT has shown that illegal immigration has substantially reduced the economic status of poor people in the U.S., while benefiting the middle class and wealthy. Research by Borjas, Jeffrey Grogger (the Irving Harris Professor in Urban Policy in the Harris School at the University of Chicago), and Gordon H. Hanson (the Director of the Center on Pacific Economies and Professor of Economics at UCSD) indicated that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the wages of African-Americans by 4.0 percent, lowered the employment rate of African-American men by 3.5 percent, and increased the incarceration rate of African-American men by almost one percent.

The country’s immigration laws are disrespected both by those who cross our borders illegally and by the businesses that hire those illegal immigrants. Identity theft is associated with illegal immigrants who use social security numbers that do not belong to them, in order to obtain fake work documents. Penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants range from $2,000-$10,000 and up to six months' imprisonment. However, these penalties must be enforced to be effective.

Illegal immigration has also devastated the environment. According to Mike Coffeen, a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Tucson, Arizona,

It has been estimated that the average desert-walking immigrant leaves behind 8 pounds of trash during a journey that lasts one to three days if no major incidents occur. Assuming half a million people cross the border illegally into Arizona annually, that translates to 2,000 tons of trash that migrants dump each year...

A few years ago, there were 45 abandoned cars on the Buenos Aires refuge near Sasabe, Arizona and enough trash that a volunteer couple filled 723 large bags with 18,000 pounds of garbage over two months in 2002.

[Environmental Damage]

Illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. - Mexican border in southern Arizona are suspected of having caused eight major wildfires in 2002. [Environmental Damage] The fires destroyed 68,413 acres (276.86 km²) and cost taxpayers $5.1 million to fight. [Environmental Damage]

If we are a nation of laws, immigration should occur legally, “not through the machinations of illegal schemes and scams that threaten our national security,” as J. D. Hayworth, Representative from Arizona, put it. The flood of illegal immigrants to the United States has created great instability. The invasion of illegal immigrants could even be seen as a Fifth Column infiltration. They are undermining this nation from within to benefit another country. In this case, Mexico. According to Mexican President Calderón, “Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.” [Mexican President Assails U.S. Measures on Migrants]

A program run by the government of the state of Yucatan and a federal Mexican agency helps Mexicans migrating to the U.S. In 2005, they produced a handbook and DVD about how to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border. The guide told immigrants where to find health care, how to get their kids into U.S. schools, and how to send money back home to Mexico. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and some advocacy groups claimed that they were encouraging illegal immigration by giving such advice.

Similar to the guide, the Mexican government distributed a comic book in 2005 that gave tips to people illegally emigrating to the U.S. such as “Don't call attention to yourself. ... Avoid loud parties. ... Don't become involved in fights.” Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, said it was “kind of like illegal immigration for dummies.” The comic book had a disclaimer that the Mexican government does not promote illegal border crossings and only encourages visits to the U.S. with required documentation, but as Krikorian said, “Promoting safe illegal immigration is not the same as arguing against it.”

The Mexican federal government issues identity cards called Matrícula Consular (“Consular Registration”) to Mexicans living abroad. The cards allow holders to get driver's licenses in some U.S. states, open bank accounts, and send money home. [Remittances are Mexico's biggest source of income, says Fox]. They are a boon to the Mexican economy, generating more money than the Mexicans in Mexico. In 2003, Vicente Fox, President of Mexico, stated that remittances “are our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment” and that “the money transfers grew after Mexican consulates started giving identity cards to their citizens in the United States.” [Remittances are Mexico's biggest source of income, says Fox] Fox stated that money sent from Mexican workers in the United States to their families back home reached a record $12 billion in 2003.[Id.] Fox said: “The 20 million Mexicans in the United States generate a gross product that is slightly higher than the $600 billion generated by Mexicans in Mexico.” [Id.] In 2005, the World Bank stated that Mexico was receiving $18.1 billion in remittances. In 2007, the illegal aliens were sending home about $20 billion a year. [Mexican President Assails U.S. Measures on Migrants].

Vincente Fox

In September 2007, Mexican President Calderón criticized the United States for cracking down on illegal immigrants, even though Mexican officials strictly enforce Mexican immigration laws. Elton Gallegly’s response was “It is our hope that in future discussions with the Mexican government, you will encourage Mexico to do its part to address illegal immigration rather than encourage their citizens to illegally enter the U.S.” Unfortunately, Mexico has a strong incentive to encourage its nationals to illegally work in the U.S., since its economy benefits greatly from the money they send back home.

Although the issues surrounding illegal immigration may be complex, America must secure its borders and stop the influx of illegal aliens. Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states “The United States shall ... protect each [State in this Union] against Invasion...” U.S. authorities have a constitutional duty to protect the border from foreign invasion. If the flood of illegal foreign nationals is not stemmed, we might find that our great nation has been destabilized by a quietly invading force. The safety of the republic depends on halting the invasion.

Authors:

James Hodges, Ph.D. and Cynthia Hodges, J.D., LL.M., M.A.

_____________________________________________

James P. Hodges, Ph.D.

Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George!

Rally Around the Flag - Flag Day

2010-05-15T14:48:00.000-07:00

On Flag Day, June 14, 2008, Dr. Hodges presented a speech entitled "Rally Around the Flag" to Fort Vancouver, Washington Historic Reserve Trust. Here is the text of the speech, which has been edited and modified for print.

Fort Vancouver, Washington

Fellow Citizens,

It is altogether fitting that we honor our flag as we celebrate Flag Day each June 14. Our flag is much more than a piece of cloth flapping in the wind. It is the symbol of our nation. It represents who we are, our shared history, our culture, our patriotism, and our love for our country.

The American flag:

symbol of valor, purity of morals, liberty and justice for all.

The American Revolution was a remarkable victory for liberty. Against all odds, 13 separate colonies on the farthest edge of civilization transformed themselves into a new nation-state: the United States of America. Making this change from British tyranny to self-government was due to the collective leadership wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Let us honor the flag's important role in our nation's history.

When George Washington arrived in Boston in July 1775 to take command of the newly created Continental Army from the militia of the four New England colonies, the flag then flying was bright yellow. It had a picture of a rattlesnake in the middle that was coiled and ready to strike. At the bottom, the flag had the inscription, “Don’t tread on me.” This flag symbolized Americans' defiance of Britain trampling upon their rights. The rattlesnake was chosen for a couple of reasons. For one, it is a symbol of Americans because it is native to America. In addition, one rattle alone does not make much noise, but all rattling together in unison can make quite a racket. Finally, the rattlesnake does not attack unless provoked, but if it is trodden upon, it will deliver a deadly strike - just like the Americans.

After the French and Indian War ended in 1763, the British started to trample upon the rights Americans felt entitled to as English subjects. Since the first period of colonization, each colony had more affinity with the Mother country (England) than with each other, but the colonies began to draw together. By 1775, there was a significant change in attitude, but the transformation was not yet complete. When Washington visited the men in July 1775, he was appalled by the animosity often shown toward men from a different colony. For example, troops of one colony would often refuse to serve under the officers of another. There was once a terrible melee in which troops from the maritime part of Massachusetts had a “free for all” with the backwoodsmen. It was so bad that they actually gouged each others' eyes out. Washington put an end to the brawl immediately, shouting that they were not to fight each other but to reserve themselves to better fight the British. Washington admonished his troops, saying that they must be united in both thought and deed. Washington told them that they were now the troops of the United Colonies of North America, so they must start considering themselves to be Americans.

Unfortunately, the attitude of being loyal first to one's state lingered for a long time despite all of Washington's efforts. His step-grandson in law, General Robert E. Lee, was an example. After 30 years of devoted service to his country, Lee put loyalty to his state, Virginia, over that of his country. When Virginia left the Union, he went with it and fought for the Confederacy against the Union.

Robert E. Lee, Confederate General

The Americans wanted a flag to symbolize cohesion, cooperation, and unity of vision for all Americans. To that end, a flag with 13 alternating red and white stripes next to each other was designed. The 13 stripes symbolized the inter-connected 13 colonies. At the time, the colonies were still British, so the British Union Jack was placed in the upper right-hand corner. This flag was called the "Grand Union" and flew from January 1, 1776 to June 14, 1777.

In November 1776, four months after America declared its independence from Great Britain, the American warship, Andrew Doria, entered St. Eustatis, a Dutch island in the West Indies. Andrew Doria was there to procure gun powder and other supplies for the war effort. Andrew Doria fired a salute to the Dutch flag, as was customary. To the Americans' joy and relief, the Dutch returned the salute with booming cannons. This was the first time a foreign government recognized America as an independent nation.

Andrew Doria: The First Salute

On June 14, 1777, the legendary Betsy Ross sewed the "Stars and Stripes," which became the national flag. The new flag was highly symbolic, and Washington consulted with Ross on the design. The British Union Jack was replaced with 13 stars in a circle, which represented the 13 colonies. The 13 red and white stripes that also symbolized the colonies were retained. The red stood for the valor of American arms; the white stood for the purity of their morals; and the blue stood for liberty and justice for all. Washington said at the time that they had plucked the stars from heaven. The first time the "Stars and Stripes" flew in battle, the Americans were victorious. At Fort Stanwix in upstate New York, the Americans defeated the British and their Indian allies, who were invading America from Canada.

The flag played a key role in the writing of the national anthem. In September 1814, toward the end of the War of 1812, Francis Scott Key, a lawyer from D.C., was a prisoner aboard a British warship. A strong British fleet was attacking Fort McHenry (named after James Mc Henry, Washington's Secretary of War), which protected Baltimore and the middle states. Key was allowed to watch the battle. He saw the American flag proudly flying at "twilight’s last gleaming." All through the night, the flag was illuminated by the light of cannon fire all around. At dawn’s early light, the flag was still waving, which meant the British had been defeated. Deeply touched, Key wrote his famous poem to commemorate the victory, which became the national anthem.

The Battle of Fort McHenry

"The Star Spangled Banner"

Francis Scott Key

O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

The American flag at Fort McHenry was hard to miss. The fort commander wanted everyone to see it, so he flew a huge flag. A garrison flag was normally 20 by 30 feet, but this flag was 30 by 42 feet. It was flown from a 90 foot pole. This flag had 15 stars and 15 stripes, because for a short period of time, flag designers added a new star and a new stripe for every new state that joined the Union. They soon realized, however, how cumbersome that design could become, so they reverted back to the original 13 stripes. They continued to add a new star to symbolize each new state that joined the Union. For example, Washington was the 42nd star to be added to the flag when it joined on November 11, 1889.

When you look upon the Stars and Stripes, remember what it stands for: valor, purity of morals, liberty and justice for all. America does not exist separate from its citizens. We are America. We must be the living embodiment of those ideals for which it stands. Let us aspire to be the values the American flag symbolizes. Let us be the shining examples of ethical and moral conduct that Washington and the other Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation.

God Bless our flag! Long may it wave over the land of the free and home of the brave!

Authors:

James Hodges, Ph.D. and Cynthia Hodges, J.D., LL.M., M.A.

_____________________________________________

James Hodges, Ph.D. is the author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: The Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Please visit Leadership by George

George Washington on TV

2010-04-26T18:49:00.000-07:00

This is a video series of my presentation as George Washington on April 9, 2010 in Coos Bay, Oregon. The hosts of the TV program were Don and Theresa Van Dyke. Don van Dyke is running for County Commissioner of Coos County.

General George Washington Part 1 of 4

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

~ James Hodges, Ph.D.
Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: The Leadership Wisdom of George Washington

Website: Leadership by George

FED Up: Founding Fathers, the Banking System, and the Federal Reserve

2010-04-21T21:10:00.000-07:00

"Scenes are now to take place as will open the eyes of credulity and
of insanity itself, to the dangers of a paper medium abandoned
to the discretion of avarice and of swindlers."

~ Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814

"If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and

banking system, there would be a revolution before morning."

~ President Andrew Jackson

Thomas Jefferson

In 1776, the American patriots declared independence from Great Britain and fought desperately for their freedom. They not only longed for political self-determination, but they also wanted to rid themselves of the financial noose the Bank of England had placed around their necks. Unfortunately, they were not able to permanently rid America of the international bankers who had infested it. Our current banking and economic crisis is, in some respects, a result of some of the same problems with which our Founding Fathers struggled.

Thomas Jefferson considered "[t]he system of banking [to be] a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens" (Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816). Jefferson warned that

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be taken from banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies."

(Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Monroe, January 1, 1815).

Jefferson lamented that private individuals - the bankers - were empowered to "regulate according to their own interests, the quantum of circulating medium for the nation -- to inflate, by deluges of paper, the nominal prices of property, and then to buy up that property at 1s. in the pound, having first withdrawn the floating medium which might endanger a competition in purchase..." (Thomas Jefferson to William C. Rives, 1819). Jefferson feared that "[t]he banks... have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and... condense and explode them at their will" (Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819).

Jefferson "sincerely believe[d]... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies..." (Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816). He said "[i]t is a cruel thought, that, when we feel ourselves standing on the firmest ground in every respect, the cursed arts of our secret enemies, combining with other causes, should effect, by depreciating our money, what the open arms of a powerful enemy could not" (Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, 1779).

The Bank of the United States in Philadelphia

Jefferson considered the Bank of the United States to be a serious threat to the Republic, and fought hard against it. According to Jefferson:

"[The] Bank of the United States... is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution... An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?"

(Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803).

The banking Elite have been slowly implementing a global system of financial control accumulated in private hands. Those who control the issuance of money wield considerable power over national politics and policies. Mayer Amschel Rothschild said in 1828, "Allow me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who writes the laws." English Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, said in 1844 that "The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not

behind the scenes." According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter, "The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise their power from behind the scenes."

Jefferson explained that the banking system was creating an aristocracy in the United States that was at odds with the Republic:

"The bank mania... is raising up a moneyed aristocracy in our country which has already set the government at defiance, and although forced at length to yield a little on this first essay of their strength, their principles are unyielded and unyielding. These have taken deep root in the hearts of that class from which our legislators are drawn, and the sop to Cerberus from fable has become history. Their principles lay hold of the good, their pelf of the bad, and thus those whom the Constitution had placed as guards to its portals, are sophisticated or suborned from their duties."

(Thomas Jefferson to Josephus B. Stuart, 1817). David Rockefeller, a member of this "moneyed aristocracy" admitted to working against the Republic - and being proud of it - in his autobiography, Memoirs:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

President Andrew Jackson considered such people to be "a den of vipers," and promised "by the Eternal God I will rout you out."

The robber barons have been able to steadily increase their domination over politics in various countries and even the global economy. President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson" (U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House).

The banking Elite's method of conquest is to usurp the power to create money from governments. The United States Constitution grants Congress the power to "coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof" (Article I, Section 8). Unfortunately, Congress has allowed the private bankers to usurp that power to issue money and regulate its value.

The Federal Reserve Building

In 1910, several of the world's leading bankers devised a central banking system for the United States. This system was to consolidate the power to issue and regulate the nation's money into the hands of a consortium of private bankers. This was by making the Federal Reserve the only entity that could legally introduce US paper currency into circulation. Congressman Charles A. Lindberg, Sr. complained that "[t]his Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." Henry Cabot Lodge also refused to support the bill. He said:

"Throughout my public life I have supported all measures designed to take the Government out of the banking business. This bill puts the Government into the banking business as never before in our history. The powers vested in the Federal Reserve Board seen to me highly dangerous especially where there is political control of the Board. I should be sorry to hold stock in a bank subject to such dominations. The bill as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency. I had hoped to support this bill, but I cannot vote for it cause it seems to me to contain features and to rest upon principles in the highest degree menacing to our prosperity, to stability in business, and to the general welfare of the people of the United States."

(Henry Cabot Lodge to Senator Weeks, December 17, 1913).

Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve became a reality in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law. President Woodrow Wilson lamented having done so. In 1916, he wrote:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Now, "The Federal Reserve (privately owned banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen," according to Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Chairman of the U.S. Banking Currency Commission for 22 years).

Part of the problem is the dependence on paper money. Jefferson believed "Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself" (Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788). He felt paper was too unstable and insecure:

"The evils of this deluge of paper money are not to be removed until our citizens are generally and radically instructed in their cause and consequences, and silence by their authority the interested clamors and sophistry of speculating, shaving, and banking institutions. Till then, we must be content to return quoad hoc to the savage state, to recur to barter in the exchange of our property for want of a stable common measure of value, that now in use being less fixed than the beads and wampum of the Indian, and to deliver up our citizens, their property and their labor, passive victims to the swindling tricks of bankers and mountebankers."

(Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819). Jefferson described paper money as "froth and bubble":
"If the debt which the banking companies owe be a blessing to anybody, it is to themselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight or ten per cent on it. As to the public, these companies have banished all our gold and silver medium, which, before their institution, we had without interest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would have been our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which they have given us two hundred million of froth and bubble, on which we are to pay them heavy interest, until it shall vanish into air... We are warranted, then, in affirming that this parody on the principle of 'a public debt being a public blessing,' and its mutation into the blessing of private instead of public debts, is as ridiculous as the original principle itself. In both cases, the truth is, that capital may be produced by industry, and accumulated by economy; but jugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks with paper."

(Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813). George Washington was also against paper. He wrote: "Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice" (George Washington, letter to J. Bowen, Rhode Island, Jan. 9, 1787).

Jefferson advocated using coinage. According to him, "Specie is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war" (Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813).

Jefferson offered a solution for restoring the U.S. banking system:

"Bank paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs. It is the only fund on which they can rely for loans; it is the only resource which can never fail them, and it is an abundant one for every necessary purpose. Treasury bills, bottomed on taxes, bearing or not bearing interest, as may be found necessary, thrown into circulation will take the place of so much gold and silver, which last, when crowded, will find an efflux into other countries, and thus keep the quantum of medium at its salutary level. Let banks continue if they please, but let them discount for cash alone or for treasury notes."

(Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813)

President John F. Kennedy tried to implement Jefferson's solution by using silver coins. In 1963, he signed Executive Order 11110 which gave the Treasury Department the power to issue silver certificates as the base for U.S. currency. The idea was that once enough silver certificates were in existence, they would eliminate the demand for Federal Reserve notes.

President Abraham Lincoln had tried a variation on the theme, but he had stuck with paper. He had the Treasury Department issue "Greenbacks," which were non-interest bearing notes. He tried to change the system in this way, and hoped that "By Government creation of money, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest."

Unfortunately, both Kennedy and Lincoln were assassinated before their monetary reform policies could take hold and effect permanent change.

What, then, is the ultimate goal of the Elite bankers in brandishing so much power over our government?

If one is to believe insiders, then there is cause for concern for the continued existence of the Republic. Sen. George W. Malone of Nevada said in 1957 that there was a "preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States." This is part of the "march towards a world-government" that David Rockefeller has talked about. According to him, "[t]he supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries" (David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991). Senator Barry Goldwater informed us in his 1964 book, No Apologies, that

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.
The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate
the four centers of power--Political, Monetary, Intellectual, and Ecclesiastical."

Perhaps worse than a one world government is another dreadful possibility: enslavement. American Mercury Magazine warns "The invisible Money Power is working to control and enslave mankind. It financed Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Zionism, Socialism. All of these are directed to making the United States a member of a World Government ..." (AMERICAN MERCURY MAGAZINE, December 1957, p. 92).

Jefferson offers another solution out of this dilemma: the legislature must intervene. He says, "The evil has been produced by the error of their sanction of this ruinous machinery of banks; and justice, wisdom, duty, all require that they should interpose and arrest it before the schemes of plunder and spoilation desolate the country" (Thomas Jefferson to William C. Rives, 1819). Let us hope it is not too late...

For more information, I recommend the following video:

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
It is described as a "historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure that rules our nation and the world today." From the description:

"The modern political power structure hasits roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned "central" bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation, including America, has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers."

Authors:

James Hodges, Ph.D. Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: The Leadership Wisdom of George Washington
Cynthia Hodges, J.D., LL.M., M.A.

______________________________________________________

Leadership by George offers a full range of resources for organizational and personal leadership, including audio programs, podcasts. articles, blogs, e-zines, and more.

To schedule a personal presentation by Washington elaborating his principles, please contact Dr. Hodges at jim (at) leadershipbygeorge.com or call 425-673-2525 (9 am - 6 pm PST).

Excerpt of Beyond the Cherry Tree

2010-04-18T15:15:00.000-07:00

In my book, Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington [order], I discuss Washington's ethical and moral principles for effective leadership. This book is part of a system devoted to Washington's mission of developing desperately needed leaders in this period of national turmoil. Here is an excerpt from Chapter One.

Illustrations by Bonnie Hodges

CHAPTER ONE – LEADERSHIP AT EVERY LEVEL

...President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “Leadership is getting other people to do work because they want to.”

Harry Truman described the need for leadership when he wrote, “Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. “

Effective leadership should exist within the entire company—not just at the top. Everyone should be involved in the leadership process. Old-style leadership of command and control puts a company’s future at risk, because it can’t adapt fast enough to meet global competition.

The new process of “collective leadership” is fast-acting. Only results count—not the time worked nor the energy expended, as compared with the sales process, in which only the sales count.

More and more big corporations are adopting the collective leadership process. They divide themselves into entrepreneurial units with teams set up to start and finish the process. While called a “new style,” it resembles the way things worked before assembly line production. This new style of leadership is a transformation change that many accept readily.

Effective leadership within this new process listens to advice from workers, takes and gives criticism, but does not criticize, is not cynical, creates enthusiasm and not fear, and trusts the workers to behave ethically. Leaders create the corporate culture in which work is done—the better the environment, the greater the productivity.

The new style collective leader seeks 360-degree feedback—that is, comments from every stakeholder around the spectrum. Under the old style of command and control leadership, workers didn’t dare show weakness. It would be held against them, even grounds for dismissal. Under the new style leadership, they are even encouraged to do so. Admitting they need help will best assure that the work will be done—correctly.

Will it be easy for you to become a more effective leader? No! Will your effort be worth it? Yes!

As George Washington’s contemporary, Thomas Paine—the author first of Common Sense and later, American Crisis—wrote, “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” America is hungry for this type of leadership.

Between a stimulus and a response, there is a moment in which one must make a choice of what action one will take. The more thoroughly ingrained the ethical leadership principles are within us, the more likely we will choose to act correctly.

The effective leader is a skillful communicator. General Washington wrote one of the finest documents ever produced on leadership. It was in response to a request from Colonel William Woodford at the beginning of the Revolutionary War. Woodford had asked his commander’s advice on the proper conduct necessary to be the most effective leader of men. Washington advised him:

“The best general advice I can give is to be strict in your discipline, that is, to require nothing unreasonable of your officers and men, but see that whatever is required be punctually complied with. Reward and punish every man according to his merit, without partiality or prejudice; hear his complaints, if well founded, redress them, if otherwise, discourage them in order to prevent frivolous ones. Discourage vice in every shape, and impress upon the mind of every man from the first to the lowest, of the importance of our cause, and what it is they are contending for. Forever keep in view the necessity of guarding against surprise. Be plain and precise in your orders, and keep copies of them to refer to, that no mistakes may happen. Be easy and condescending in your deportment to your officers, but not too familiar, lest you subject yourself to a want of that respect, which is necessary to support a proper command. These, Sir, I have presumed to give as the great outlines for your conduct. Signed, Geo Washington.”

American companies could earn hundreds of billions of extra dollars each year and improve productivity by implementing Washington’s business leadership practices. Washington’s accomplishments stemmed from his ability to turn complexity into simplicity. His leadership and management skills had different focuses. He believed that one leads people and the other manages processes. Leaders do the right things. Managers do things right. The key to his success lay in his ability to distinguish between the two and to give each its due respect...

You can build an organization based on Washington's principles by educating each member about his principles for successful leadership. This book makes an ideal gift to inspire your employees.

To purchase book, please see Order page. A portion of the proceeds is donated to Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to teaching patriotic leadership to school children. There is a discount for bulk orders for businesses, universities, school, governments, non-profits, and communities.

~ James Hodges, Ph.D.
Author of Beyond the Cherry Tree: the Leadership Wisdom of George Washington [Order]

Leadership by George! [see website] offers a full range of resources for organizational and personal leadership, including audio programs, podcasts. articles, blogs, e-zines, and more.

To schedule a personal presentation by Washington elaborating his principles, please contact Dr. Hodges at jim (at) leadershipbygeorge.com or call 425-673-2525 (PST).

Leadership by George Washington

The Right to Bear Arms, Government Tyranny, and the Second Amendment

Federal Income Tax: 2nd Plank of Communism

Federal Reserve is a private corporation - Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982)

FED Up: Founding Fathers, the Banking System, and the Federal Reserve

THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX: UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED

End banking tyranny: starve the beast

Signing the Constitution: September 17, 1787

George Washington on the Illuminati

George Washington to Rev. George Washington Snyder, October 24, 1798 -- Transcription

The “Horrid and Unnatural Rebellion” of Daniel Shays

Stripping Us of Our Rights: DHS, Naked Body Scanners, and the Fourth Amendment

Example of Effective Leadership: George Washington

Thomas Jefferson on Banking Tyranny

FED Up: Founding Fathers, the Banking System, and the Federal Reserve

Letter of appreciation for presentation

Founding Fathers on Illegal Immigration and the Safety of the Republic

Rally Around the Flag - Flag Day

George Washington on TV

General George Washington Part 1 of 4

FED Up: Founding Fathers, the Banking System, and the Federal Reserve

Excerpt of Beyond the Cherry Tree

THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX:  UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED