Under Hillary's Marxist medical conspiracy, 78 new felonies were to be created. One would think that, after her scheme was thoroughly trounced, that would be the end of it. But no, Chester (Trent Lott) the rights molester has again allowed our personal rights to be debated in the Senate. This time, the scheme is under the guise of a patient's "bill of rights."

How quaint. How unconstitutional!

If government wishes to "create" a good medical program for the citizens of the United States, it is easy. I refer them back to my proposal made during the Hillary debacle. In a nutshell, that proposal was:

Have but one form of medical insurance for all elected, appointed and hired federal bureaucrats. That program should not only be mandatory for all federal bureaucrats and their families, but the very same program mandatory for all Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Except to say that this would be the only medical insurance program paid with taxpayer funds, no other laws, rules and regulations would be necessary.

The elected ones and their bureaucratic buddies, who always demand the best of everything for themselves, would soon have a very efficient program operational. And really, just because they work in government, there is no reason they should have better medical treatment than that available to our grandparents or the poor people down the road.

That would be a Constitutional program. What the Senate is discussing now is no more Constitutional than the gun laws Chester the rights molester allowed to be discussed last month. Because, simply put, they have no authority to legislate on these issues. So, we need a fix for their foolishness:

A few years ago, federal bureaucrats exerted their authority over isolated "wetlands" via the Constitution's Commerce Clause using diabolical logic we might wish to apply to other matters. Some bright light in the government decided that since migratory birds fly across state lines, federal agencies can regulate isolated wetlands that might be seen by flying migratory birds. That is, areas the birds might wish to use as a stopover while flying to wherever could be regulated. Under this silly "glancing geese" logic, property owners who never imagined they owned wetlands subject to regulation are finding out they now do.

We need an amendment to the Constitution halting debate or action of any proposed law, rule or regulation violating the original intent of the Founding Fathers. A "glancing citizen's" amendment. That is, if a citizen's committee in any State "glances" at a proposed law, rule or regulation impacting on the rights of citizens and finds that it may be unconstitutional, they may halt all action on the matter until a full Constitutional study is completed. Then, if the proposing bureaucrats are found to be in violation of the Constitution, they are to be prosecuted for violation of their Oath of Office and minimum sentences shall be applicable.

Lying to the American people should count, too. For instance, federal officials are saying we now have a Trillion-dollar budget surplus. What a whopper! The national debt is $5.85 Trillion and still growing at the rate of about $293 million per day. http://www.dailyrepublican.com/nationaldebt.html

Which means, each citizen's -- every man, woman, child, and illegal alien -- share of this debt is about $20,700.00.

Entitlements -- direct government payments to individuals, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. -- make up nearly half of all federal spending. Interest payments on the debt we've already accumulated makes up nearly half of what's left. Therefore, in order to balance the budget, all cuts must come out of the one- quarter of the budget that's left.

The federal debt increased $120 Billion in 1998. Does that sound like a budget surplus to anyone? That's an increase of another $450 per every man, woman and child; or $1,800 for a family of four.

Furthermore, it should be mandatory that every elected official certify that they have studied and understand each and every clause in every bill on which they vote. If they do not, they should be subject to prosecution for criminal negligence. After all, these bills can adversely affect hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting citizens. Therefore, legislators should be held to a much higher standard that any other professional person.

Bringing up the rear is the problem of campaign contributions. No person, except a registered voter within a politician's district, should ever be allowed to contribute to an election campaign. And no bureaucrat should ever be able to accept anything of value for themselves or their families. Nothing.

That is the only way we can halt the billion dollar lobby industry from effecting the vote on Capitol Hill and the regulations promulgated by the regulatory politburos.

It is our responsibility, as citizens, to demand accountability from all government officials. These few steps will help.

Sergeant Drew Carter was taking some time off for fishing in the Gulf of Mexico when he got the call last Sunday. It was from a suspect's sister, in Albuquerque, N.M. That was the call Sergeant Carter had been waiting for, so he forgot the fishing, jumped on a plane and went back to work.

Over the next two days, the young Sergeant brokered negotiations that led to one of the most high- profile arrests (the media says) in his department's history.

"Honesty's never hard. Sincerity is something people sense. That's what I did. I was honest with the family," Carter said, wearing a white cowboy hat and his shiny Texas Ranger badge.

For weeks, the Texas Ranger Sergeant had been building a relationship with the family of suspected serial killer Angel Leoncio Reyes-Resendis, AKA Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, or the "railroad serial killer." Carter was trying to get a man on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List to turn himself in. "I will say that there were very personal one-on-one discussions with family members representing the subject and myself and other people that brought this about," Carter said. And, finally, it all paid off.

The only "deal" Carter made was that Resendez wanted promises for his safety while in jail, regular visiting rights for family and a psychological evaluation. That was approved by Harris County District Attorney John Holmes. And, before long, Carter received the call and a quiet surrender was scheduled.

They met on a remote bridge connecting Zaragosa, Mexico with El Paso, Texas. No police helicopters, Army tanks or SWAT teams were necessary. Carter said that he immediately recognized Maturino Resendez when he rode across the bridge in a pickup.

"That's a face that has just been shown all over the country for a long period of time now, and it's a face that I've been working on for the better part of six months," Sergeant Carter reported. "So when I did see that face there was a little bit of excitement there because I finally said, 'This is going to happen.'"

Note here, dear reader, that not one thing was mentioned about a gun yet. Here we have a Texas Ranger standing on a bridge -- white cowboy hat and badge visible -- with empty hands because Sergeant Carter's gun was holstered. And now, here comes even more police work at its finest:

"He stuck out his hand, I stuck out my hand and we shook hands, and then I handcuffed him and he was in custody," the Texas Ranger said.

That's all there was to that. The perpetrator was under arrest. The suspect was in custody. The manhunt was over.

Sergeant Carter's bosses say that the international manhunt would have continued if not for the relationship Carter cultivated with the suspect's sister. "This really, as far as we can tell, would not have happened without Ranger Carter," Department of Public Safety spokesman Mike Cox told reporters.

But the 32-year-old Carter rejected sole credit for the arrest, citing assistance from the FBI, U.S. Marshals and other agencies.

And, of course, the FBI was all bent out of shape that a Texas Ranger made the arrest. So, they jumped the gun with a full press conference, seeming to take credit. A rookie Texas Ranger Sergeant captured someone on their "Most Wanted" list without asking them for an assist -- and without firing a shot or even drawing his weapon. That is unacceptable to the suits. But, that is exactly what went down. One Texas Ranger spokesman called it a "surrender without shots."

We hate to keep bringing up old stories, but think of what the difference would have been if the Texas Rangers handled Waco. . . .

I had occasion to spend a couple weeks beating the bushes with an old Ranger Captain a few decades ago. One thing I immediately noticed was that people respected him. He had awesome speed with both his hands and a gun, but that was not the reason. That Texas Ranger showed respect for all others. And, because of that, people honestly liked and respected him.

It's nice to hear that there may still be some of that around in law enforcement. And it looks like Texas Ranger Sergeant Drew Carter may be one such person.

We salute you, Sergeant Carter, for some very good police work.

About thirty years ago, the Johnson Administration started a scheme intended to lock in the Negro vote for the Democratic Party. "We'll have 'em eating out of our hands forever," Johnson told aides. And so they did. The "Great Society" program changed urban life for all races, but impacted heaviest on the Black community.

Where once there were families -- mothers, fathers and children -- living together peacefully in our cities, suddenly young girls could "get paid" for having children out of wedlock and "fathers" were but an unnecessary interference. Actually, girls with children could not "get paid" if a man was living with them. So, within a decade, single parent households, on welfare, became common.

I actually visited five generations of unwed welfare mothers living in one house. And, except for the children, no males were allowed -- else the welfare would be cut off.

So, what of the boys? They were lost in the "Great Society" scam. Essentially, the boys from this arrangement became throw away humans, not needed or wanted for anything more than a little coupling once in a while.

Government passed laws precluding young boys from picking up part time jobs, which kept them broke. Government schools don't care if the kids learn or not. Teachers pass them on to the next grade no matter what they don't know. Even graduating from high school is no insurance kids can read their diploma anymore.

So, it's no surprise that, after a few generations of this government interference, there were a lot of feral boys running the streets in the inner-city. Nor is it a surprise that many of them banded together, in predatory street gangs.

These boys crave structure. They receive no adult supervision, so they form their own structure. That we do not like their structure is neither here nor there. These kids might be totally ignorant, but they are not stupid. They found someplace to belong.

Part of the initiation for most of these street gangs is to stick up a store or someone on the street. The initiation for some of the street gangs is to kill someone. In fact, there are some gangs that are enforcement agents for other gangs. That is, they kill people for profit.

We find a few thousand kids involved in such structured groups in every inner-city today. Generally speaking, most are involved in the illegal drug trade. And, again, that is no surprise. These are ignorant, feral boys. There is no other opportunity open to them. They can either join a gang and traffic in drugs, or they can rob and steal. That's about it in many inner-city neighborhoods.

But, the socialists got the Black population voting for the Democrats. That's all that Johnson wanted.

Now comes NAACP honcho, Kweisi Mfume, trying to blame gun manufacturers for the actions of feral boys. "Easily available handguns are being used to turn many of our communities into war zones," said Mfume. "The fact that the illegal trafficking of firearms disproportionately affects minority communities in this country is indisputable. Urban communities have sadly become so accustomed to the prevalence of firearms in their neighborhoods that they are no longer shocked at the sound of gunfire."

Not said is the fact that things were not like that before the national socialists interfered. People walked the streets safely in every Detroit neighborhood back then. Today, everyone is susceptible to assault and robbery. That's our liberal Great Society in action. It's killing people.

The Democrats paid dearly to lock in that Black vote, too. Just about a year ago, the Heartland Institute added up the cost of all those liberal Great Society programs. It's astonishing:

Between 1965 and 1997, welfare spending cost taxpayers $6.98 Trillion (in constant 1997 dollars). After adjusting for inflation, the cost of the War on Poverty has been more than twice the price tag for defeating Germany and Japan in World War II.

"The $6.98 Trillion cost of the War on Poverty nearly equals the entire cost of the private-sector industrial and business infrastructure of the U.S. For $6.98 Trillion one could purchase every factory and all the manufacturing equipment, with enough money left over to purchase every airline, railroad, trucking firm, the entire commercial maritime fleet, every telephone, television, and radio company, every power company, every hotel, and every retail and wholesale store in the nation.

 

That's some very expensive votes!

Incidentally, $6.98 Trillion would be more than enough money to give every welfare family a cash payoff of a million bucks. It would have also paid 6,980,000 skilled trade union jobs for 25 years.

We'll investigate where all the money went some other time.

The recent renewed interest in the issue of the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment has drawn some comments that the amendment legally did nothing: in the words of the Supreme Court, the amendment did not confer any new taxing powers. Based on this statement of the Supreme Court, some contend that this issue is meaningless. Those who believe this are mistaken and do not understand what the Supreme Court has decided in the series of cases regarding the income tax.

Under the United States Constitution, Congress can impose two types of taxes: direct taxes, which must be apportioned via the census, and indirect taxes which must be uniform. Before the Supreme Court's decision in the Pollock case, the Court had determined that income taxes imposed upon the income of public officials were excise taxes which need not be apportioned, but only uniform. But things changed with the decision of the Court in Pollock.

At issue in the 1894 Pollock case was the question of whether income from real property (land) and personal property (stocks and bonds) could be subjected to a federal income tax via a law which was not apportioned. In Pollock, the Court held that a tax upon the income from land was a direct tax. Clearly, Congress could tax the income from land and has always had that power, provided the tax was apportioned, which is extremely difficult. However, since the 1894 federal income tax was uniform and not apportioned, it was held unconstitutional. Even today, it would be virtually impossible to apportion an income tax on land. If you wish to read the first Pollock decision, it is posted on FindLaw at: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/157/429.html

After the first Pollock decision and in response to a petition for rehearing, the Court had to determine the remaining question of whether taxes on the income from personal property were also direct taxes which must be apportioned. Again, the Court concluded that an income tax on the income from personal property could only be taxed via an apportioned tax. If you wish to read the opinion of the Pollock Court on rehearing, it is also posted at FindLaw: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/158/601.html

In summary, the Pollock Court held that, while Congress has always had the power to tax incomes from real and personal property, such taxes had to be apportioned; an uniform income tax could not tax such income. Once this is understood, the meaning of the above statements about "no new taxing power" becomes clear.

However, the Supreme Court in Pollock held the whole 1894 federal income tax void. A decision simply invalidating the 1894 income tax insofar as it concerned the income from real and personal property would have left the tax to be borne entirely by "professions and occupations" and the Court determined that Congress would not have adopted the 1894 tax if the tax was invalid as to incomes from real and personal property. For this reason, the whole act was voided. Go to http://www.uhuh.com/laws/pollock.htm to find that part of the decision in the Pollock case which so held.

Based upon the decision in Pollock, the 16th Amendment is absolutely essential to enable Congress to impose an uniform tax upon incomes from real and personal property, contrary to the popular beliefs of some. Without the amendment, Congress could not impose uniform taxes upon the income of real and personal property. But further, if the 16th Amendment were declared today to be void because of the defects discovered by Bill Benson, income taxes on the income of real and personal property would fall. But it does not stop there. Clearly just like the Pollock Court observed, Congress would not have imposed this tax to be borne entirely by the professions and occupations if the taxes on income from real and personal property were constitutionally invalid. Thus everyone should have an interest in the question of the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

-----------------------------

[Editor's notes on background]

Larry Becraft is a practicing attorney. Anyone with an avid interest in federalism and Constitutional law will find a gold mine of research completed on the "BeCraft Briefs" web page at: http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft

Joseph Banister, CPA, was a special Agent (criminal investigator) in the Department of the Treasury, IRS Criminal Investigation Division. While working for the IRS, he became unable to resolve conflicts between the way the IRS administered the Federal Income Tax laws and his oath of office. So, he resigned from the IRS. All taxpayers should download a copy of his "Investigating The Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report." The report is very enlightening! http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/

Bill Conklin is a paralegal and tax consultant who has 6 published wins against the IRS in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. He is author of "Why No One is Required to File Tax Returns and What You Can Do About It," another very interesting text. http://www.anti-irs.com

Devvy Kidd, popular author, activist and very nice lady, has a very informative web page at: http://www.devvy.com/index.html. Recently, Devvy and Larry Becraft formed The Wallace Institute. More information on The Wallace Institute can be found at: http://www.devvy.com/wallace.html . While there, please pay close attention to the "Brochure" and "IRS KO: Long 1 IRS 0" sections.

Bill Benson is the author of "The Law That Never Was." Check out some of his reasoning in a letter to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue at: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/uncerlt2.htm

(This is Jeff in central Michigan) 

  ** uhuh **

The President said he is reducing taxes.

uhuh.

Congress says they are balancing the budget.

uhuh. Sez who?

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com

---

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 1996 by Forest Glen Durland.

hu144.htm. Revised 7-18-99. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.