May 282017
 

I met my friend, Morpheus (now in federal custody), in 2005 at a meeting of the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County in Florida. At the time I was struck by how quickly he understood the ethics lessons that I was teaching then. We quickly became good friends and stayed in touch after he moved to Arizona about 6 months later.

In 2012, just 12 months to the day after my wife’s death, I pulled up stakes and moved to the Phoenix area to become part of the freedom activist community in which Morpheus was a well known participant. Since then I’ve had many opportunities to admire his honesty, courage and fortitude in resisting the evils of mala prohibita (victimless “crimes”) enforcement.

The price he has paid for his extraordinary freedom has been severe. He has been robbed of multiple vehicles, beaten, tased, cuffed, kidnapped, strait-jacketed, prosecuted, fined, and caged just for being free – NOT for harming anyone. In fact, he is currently in prison for buying and selling BitCoins – a commodity comprised of strings of numbers and letters. What could be more absurd?

He was arrested on April the 20th while making a BitCoin deal, and then his apartment was raided and he was charged with owning a handful of ammunition that was found in his apartment (no guns though). So now the feds are trying to build a case against him, probably for “money laundering”, but they have as yet not charged him and have not specified a “probable cause” for his arrest. Meanwhile they won’t let him bail because they consider him a “flight risk” – which in fact he is NOT. And he is languishing in prison until a hearing or trial scheduled for August.

So I am appealing to all you freedom-loving, anarchist, libertarian, or constitutionalist, “activists” to ante-up for Morpheus’s defense – because if you don’t step up and help him, there will likely be no one to come to your defense when the Nazi thugs come for YOU… and they will I can guarantee.
I’ve talked to attorney  Marc Victor on Morpheus’s behalf, and he will charge $800 just to go out to where Morpheus is being held and do an initial interview. His actual defense in court is likely to run tens of thousands of dollars.

This case is likely to be a precedent setter. The federal government cannot afford to let anyone buy, sell, or financially transact anything without their demanding a slice of the revenue (in taxes).  So the outcome of this case could result in your total financial enslavement, OR it could set a precedent that will legitimize the first truly free market on the planet in over 8,000 years.

Make no mistake. Unless we defend Morpheus with every resource available to us, his fate will eventually become ours. If you don’t want to rot in some gulag, donate for his defense while you still can.

Via PayPal: borisheir@yahoo.com

Via Bitcoin: 1CnMqpF3dUoHSUg3r4ngAsJoNhSTBU7TY

If you’d like to write to him, here is his address in captivity:
Thomas Costanzo
#373285408
CAFCC WEST
P.O. BOX 6300
Florence, AZ 85132

Live free,

Jan 232016
 

FBI CHILD PORN SCANDAL

by Bob Podolsky

Introduction

A breaking scandal reported by USA TODAY reveals that the FBI ran a “dark web” child pornography website for 2 weeks last year, after taking over the server that hosted it from its original felonious owner. The ostensible purpose of this was to entrap the site’s users in order to charge them with possession of illegal downloaded content.

Child pornography is a highly charged emotional subject; so one can reasonably expect that the public reaction to this revelation will be the object of a great deal of irrational hyperbole promoted by the mainstream media and exploited by everyone with a political axe to grind.

Accordingly, it is important to acquire a dispassionate fact-based understanding of the issue, in the interest of minimizing unethical responses to the revelations of the USA TODAY (USAT) article. Hence this article.

Common Assumptions

Opinions concerning the USAT article and its implications will vary widely because its readers have widely varying assumptions about how the world works. The assumptions listed below illustrate this point, because some of them are true, some are not, and some are sometimes true and sometimes not.

  1. The making of child pornography invariably involves the sexual interaction of a child with an adult.

  2. Sexual interaction of an adult with a child may be physically damaging to the child.

  3. Sexual interaction of an adult with a child is emotionally damaging to the child.

  4. The child may or may not know, at the time, that what the adult is doing with them is emotionally damaging.

  5. The producers and directors of child pornography are “evil-doers”.

  6. The camera operators involved are “evil-doers”.

  7. Those who process the pornographic imagery are “evil-doers”.

  8. The adult porn actors are “evil-doers”.

  9. The parents of the children involved are “evil-doers”.

  10. Those who watch or observe such imagery are “evil-doers”.

  11. Those who distribute the imagery by various means are “evil- doers”.

  12. The children who are victims of child pornographers are further damaged whenever their images are observed.

  13. It is a proper role of government to identify, find, capture, and punish everyone involved in the child pornography industry.

  14. Laws against the production and distribution of child pornography protect the child victims by discouraging the public from buying the pornographic products.

  15. Punishing the customers of child porn reduces the number of customers.

  16. Reducing the number of customers, in turn, reduces the number of children being abused and exploited.

  17. Running a child porn website to ensnare child porn buyers and viewers is a legitimate strategy for protecting child porn victims from those who exploit them.

Child pornography is certainly a symptom of a serious societal problem, because the victims are seriously damaged…AND if one blindly accepts the above assumptions, the damage can be greatly amplified. In order to get to the bottom of the matter, we need to understand the ethical criteria for what constitutes an “evil-doer” and for the allocation of responsibility to those acting.

The Ethics of Responsibility

After thousands of years of philosophical discussion and debate, the most rationally and scientifically defensible definition of an ethical act is:

An act is ethical if it increases creativity, awareness, love, and/or objective truth for at least one person, including the person acting, without limiting or diminishing any of these resources for anyone.

Rationally we know that the responsibility for an act, be it unethical or not, is divided among all the people who took part in the causal chain of events leading up to the act. However, the one most responsible is the one who had the chronologically last opportunity to prevent the act from occurring. For this reason, despite “legal” opinions to the contrary, the hired assassin is more culpable than the individual who hired him (or her).

In the chain of events leading up to the production of a child porno photograph or video, it is the adult who engages the child sexually that is ultimately most responsible for the harm done to the child victim. The parents who fail to protect their child from such exploitation are arguably the next most responsible. Others involved in the child porn production are also acting unethically, though their participation in support of the crime is less unethical than the actual perpetrators – the adult actor who has sex with the child and the parent who fails to prevent the abuse. These two participants are those from whom the child actually needs protection.

The Objective View: Identifying the Hype

The above definition of an ethical act has a number of logical consequences that yield a dozen important principles that are very useful in applying the ethics to everyday decision-making. Chief among these is the principle that unethical means can never achieve ethical ends. Recognizing that this is so leads to the conclusion that Assumption #17 Running a child porn website to ensnare child porn buyers and viewers is a legitimate strategy for protecting child porn victims from those who exploit them, is FALSE. Therefore, assuming that selling child pornography is unethical, an ethical agency would never resort to doing so…for any reason.

Assumptions 14 through 16 are also false. We know this because they justify the prohibition of child porn, and we know from long experience that prohibition doesn’t diminish the demand for an illegal product, nor its availability. Alcohol, gambling, prostitution and drugs come to mind as obvious examples of prohibition failure.

Assumption 13, It is a proper role of government to identify, find, capture, and punish everyone involved in the child pornography industry. is also FALSE, because punishment of wrongdoers has proven totally ineffectual in curbing crime – especially when the crime is a form of prohibition violation. As an extreme example, consider the fact that drugs are widely available in prisons…where those convicted of selling drugs outside of prisons are routinely sent.

Consider the fact that every crime, as defined in law dictionaries, has a victim – someone who has been physically harmed or whose property rights have been violated. For this reason, Assumptions 10, 11, and 12 are also FALSE. The only victims of child pornography are the children, who are unaffected by strangers seeing their pictures. As much revulsion as most of us feel imagining an adult masturbating in front of a video screen depicting children being molested, the fact remains that the child sex actor shown on the screen is not aware of the event and is not harmed by it. Nor is it a proper function of government to protect us from such revulsion.

Assumptions 1 through 9 are also true, however the first four are qualitatively different than the next 5. The first four serve to simply define the crime that takes place in the production of child pornography…which is ultimately where the crime occurs. Assumptions 5 through 7 indicate the responsibility of the producers of the pornography; but 8 and 9 correctly identify the real culprits – the adult actors and the permissive or absent parents.

Conclusions

Back in the 60’s, in the Vietnam war era, Buffy Sainte-Marie wrote and performed a beautiful song called the the “Universal Soldier”, in which she aptly pointed out that the crime of war could not exist without the willingness of men (most of them practically children themselves) to travel half-way around the world to shoot strangers who had never wronged them.

Today the trigger-pulling soldiers, the bomb-dropping bombardiers, and the rocket-launching drone pilots bear the ultimate responsibility for the international murders we call war.

In similar fashion, it is the child-molesting porno-film actors and the victims’ parents, who abdicate their parental duties, who bear the lion’s share of responsibility for the harm done to children who are thus sexually exploited. While the porn producers and distributors bear some of the responsibility for the harm done to the child victims, the producers don’t usually molest the children personally, and the product distributor issues are just another form of prohibition. And we all know how well ‘The Drug War’ – “works”.

For the creation of an ethical society, free of such evils, it is necessary for a dramatic change to occur in human culture…a change that paves the way for our institutions to make consistently ethical decisions. Fortunately, the knowledge of how this will be accomplished already exists, and more and more people are catching on. For details read Ethics Law and Government and Ethical Organizational Development.

Feb 012015
 

John McCain and Henry Kissinger are Low Life Scums

By Medea Benjamin January 31, 2015 “ICH”

Insane Senator John McCain denounced CodePink activists as “low-life scum” for holding up signs reading “Arrest Kissinger for War Crimes” and dangling handcuffs next to Henry Kissinger’s head during a Senate hearing on January 29. McCain called the demonstration “disgraceful, outrageous and despicable,” accused the protesters of “physically intimidating” Kissinger and apologized profusely to his friend for this “deeply troubling incident.”

But if Senator McCain was really concerned about physical intimidation, perhaps he should have conjured up the memory of the gentle Chilean singer/songwriter Victor Jara. After Kissinger facilitated the September 11, 1973 coup against Salvador Allende that brought the ruthless Augusto Pinochet to power, Victor Jara and 5,000 others were rounded up in Chile’s National Stadium. Jara’s hands were smashed and his nails torn off; the sadistic guards then ordered him to play his guitar. Jara was later found dumped on the street, his dead body riddled with gunshot wounds and signs of torture. Despite warnings by senior US officials that thousands of Chileans were being tortured and slaughtered, then Secretary of State Kissinger told Pinochet, “You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende.”

Rather than calling peaceful protesters “despicable,” perhaps Senator McCain should have used that term to describe Kissinger’s role in the brutal 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which took place just hours after Kissinger and President Ford visited Indonesia. They had given the Indonesian strongman the US green light—and the weapons—for an invasion that led to a 25-year occupation in which over 100,000 soldiers and civilians were killed or starved to death. The UN’s Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR) stated that U.S. “political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation” of East Timor. If McCain could stomach it, he could have read the report by the UN Commission on Human Rights describing the horrific consequences of that invasion. It includes gang rape of female detainees following periods of prolonged sexual torture; placing women in tanks of water for prolonged periods, including submerging their heads, before being raped; the use of snakes to instill terror during sexual torture; and the mutilation of women’s sexual organs, including insertion of batteries into vaginas and burning nipples and genitals with cigarettes. Talk about physical intimidation, Senator McCain! You might think that McCain, who suffered tremendously in Vietnam, might be more sensitive to Kissinger’s role in prolonging that war.

From 1969 through 1973, it was Kissinger, along with President Nixon, who oversaw the slaughter in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos—killing perhaps one million during this period. He gave the order for the secret bombing of Cambodia. Kissinger is heard on tape saying, “[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything about it. It’s an order, to be done. Anything that flies or anything that moves.” Senator McCain could have taken the easy route by simply reading the meticulously researched book by the late Christopher Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Writing as a prosecutor before an international court of law, Hitchens skewers Kissinger for ordering or sanctioning the destruction of civilian populations, the assassination of “unfriendly” politicians and the kidnapping and disappearance of soldiers, journalists and clerics who got in his way. He holds Kissinger responsible for war crimes that range from the deliberate mass killings of civilian populations in Indochina, to collusion in mass murder and assassination in Bangladesh, the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile, and the incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor. McCain could have also perused the warrant issued by French Judge Roger Le Loire to have Kissinger appear before his court. When the French served Kissinger with summons in 2001 at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, Kissinger fled the country. More indictments followed from Spain, Argentina, Uruguay—even a civil suit in Washington DC.

Hitchens was disgusted by the way Henry Kissinger was treated as a respected statesman. He would have been appalled by Senator McCain’s obsequious attitude. “Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and should be shamed, ostracized, and excluded,” Hitchens said. “No more dinners in his honor; no more respectful audiences for his absurdly overpriced public appearances; no more smirking photographs with hostesses and celebrities; no more soliciting of his worthless opinions by sycophantic editors and producers.” Rather than fawning on him, Hitchens suggested, “why don’t you arrest him?” Hitchens’ words were lost on Senator McCain, who preferred fawning to accountability. That’s where CodePink comes in. If we can’t get Kissinger before a court of law, at least we can show—with words and banners—that there are Americans who remember, Americans who empathize with the man’s many victims, Americans who have a conscience. While McCain called us disgraceful, what is really disgraceful is the Senate calling in a tired old war criminal to testify about “Global Challenges and the U.S. National Security Strategy.” After horribly tragic failed wars, not just in Vietnam but over the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s time for the US leaders like John McCain to bring in fresh faces and fresh ideas. We owe it to the next generation that will be cleaning up the bloody legacy left behind by Kissinger for years to come.

Dec 082014
 

“IT STOPS HERE.”

“It stops here.”

So declared Eric Garner, vendor of “loosies” — individual cigarettes sold to evade New York state and New York City’s deliberately punitive tobacco taxes. He continued, “I’m minding my business, officer. I’m minding my business. Please just leave me alone. I told you the last time. Please, please, please don’t touch me. Do not touch me.”

Those weren’t quite his last words. As we all know by now, his last were, “I can’t breathe!” — repeated over and over again until he passed out from a chokehold and chest compression, then died as both police and EMTs stood around, indifferent to his suffering, his condition, and his eventual fate.

The EMTs were disciplined for their unprofessionalism and callousness. The man who jumped Garner and initiated his death — we also all know by now — was exonerated by a grand jury. Not even charged with manslaughter — a fact that even the most pro-police conservatives found shocking and liberals and hard-core freedomistas were outraged by.

Never mind that the man in question violently attacked Garner over nothing more than a fed-up, weary verbal protest at being constantly hassled for such a petty (and very libertarian) “crime.” Never mind that he used a chokehold forbidden to NYC police officers for the last 20 years. Never mind that he and his fellow officers held the overweight, unhealthy Garner on the ground in a way that their own police bulletins told them could be deadly. Never mind that he and his accomplices put out an initial story that Garner had died of a simple heart attack, nothing to do with their treatment of him at all, a tale quite at odds with the medical examiner’s report.

Officer Daniel Pantaleo now says he’s sorry and that he prays for Mr. Garner and his family every day.

I guess that makes it okay.

—–

Garner was killed last July. Twelve-year-old Tamir Rice was removed from life more recently. So we don’t know yet whether his killer, Officer Timothy Loehmann, is prayerfully sorry or will pretend to be. We don’t know what his “official” cover story is. We don’t know whether Officer Loehmann will get off Scot-free or receive a token wrist-slap. (If I were a betting woman, I wouldn’t put money on the there ever being a murder, or even manslaughter, indictment.)

Some things we do know: Tamir Rice was shot within two seconds of Loehmann’s police car pulling up on the scene. And Loehmann was an emotionally unstable young man, who had already been declared unfit for being a police officer.

Tamir Rice was carrying an Airsoft pistol or some other type of non-firearm. Even the citizen who’d called in the original report of “a guy” carrying a gun had said the gun was “probably fake.” Evidently he assumed that officers would check the situation out rather than instantly opening fire.

We don’t know whether that crucial detail was conveyed to Loehmann and his partner. But we do know that when Loehmann was declared unfit for police work two years earlier, it was after he had an emotional meltdown during live-fire training on a pistol range. (Yes, he was reportedly broken hearted over a relationship gone wrong, but we’ve all been through that, and most of us manage to stay sane, stable, and functional on the job no matter how dark our private moments get. His bosses clearly recognized that guns, cops, and emotional instability were an ugly combo.)

Tamir Rice learned just how ugly. Too bad he had only two seconds to absorb the lesson.

A year earlier, Sonoma County (California) cops gave 13-year-old Andy Lopez a hair more time than that before slaughtering him.

It was about the same with John Crawford III, an innocent Walmart customer murdered last August by police the second they spotted him. They were acting at the behest of a lying phony 911 caller (using a tactic recommended by the Bloomberg moms). Their instantaneous, panicked slaughter was completely unjustified. But of course, being police, they got away with it.

Seems that hoplophobia overrules common sense and judgment — and that that’s just fine when the killers are in that special, exempt class of what David Codrea dubbed “only ones.”

The only ones who consistently get away with behavior that would put you or me in prison for years, if not decades.

—–

These killings have been pinned on racism (though young Andy Lopez was, in the phrase originally coined for George Zimmerman “white-Hispanic”). No doubt fear of black men has something, maybe plenty, to do with it.

The killing of Garner is being pinned on “broken-window policing” (which assumes that those who commit even petty crimes are potential murderers). No doubt that, too, has something to do with why cops feel so entitled to use monstrous force in response to tiny deeds.

Such killings have been blamed on the militarization of police forces, with its attendant mindset that all non-cops are “the enemy.” No doubt that’s true, also. (And getting some very long overdue attention.)

Blame also falls on the concept of “officer safety” — which sounds so sensible in theory but in practice gives cops permission to see themselves as helpless victims, justified in using any amount and kind of force to “protect” themselves even when nobody is threatening them.

Clearly outright hoplophobia — a sheer terror at the very existence of firearms — has to be the major explanation for slaughtering children on sight merely for holding things that look like firearms. (For generations, American kids carried and used guns, both real and fake, without being gunned down for doing so.)

But whatever the individual causes (and I think we can safely say “all of the above”), the major underlying cause for all this is still going largely unexamined (oddly enough, the extreme-left publication The Nation comes closer than anybody else to the real issue — though it ultimately dodges it).

—–

The real problem is that governments created a special class of armed enforcers to serve the requirements of politicians and that they then turned those enforcers loose to brutalize anybody they wish without personal consequences to either the officers themselves or their direct political bosses.

That they then armed their enforcers with surplus military weapons, entitled attitudes, and a belief that the rest of us are their enemies is secondary. That these enforcers are increasingly encouraged to see all firearms and all people carrying them as a special kind of enemy, to be slaughtered on sight without any evaluation or judgment of the situation — or any mercy — is a terrible, terrible, ominous and dangerous thing. But even that is secondary to the real problem: that police serve government, not citizens, and that citizens have no way to hold brutes personally responsible for their brutality.

Bottom line: By definition, more government equals more force. And less individual accountability.

Unfortunately, the current sudden outcry against police tyranny won’t change anything. Cosmetic reforms will be passed. They will accomplish little. A few individual officers might actually face a few consequences, perhaps in highly publicized federal civil rights cases. (That happened in the Rodney King case and have you seen any improvement in policing or police officers since then?)

Nothing substantial will change because the culture of immunity and impunity that rules both politics and policing will remain intact.

In fact, for gun owners, things will get worse. Police hatred and fear of guns (that is, your guns, my guns; of course not their own guns) will increase because politicians are encouraging it and the politicians are the masters. Always have been and always will be.

Non-minorities who live in fairly civilized places will continue to luck out. For a while. As official hoplophobia builds, even that bit of luck will run out.

“It stops here” is a brave declaration. In Garner’s case, it was a foolish declaration because he had no means of upholding it against the force of both trained thugs and the government that sent them.

But if those responsible for both being brutes and sending brutes among us aren’t held firmly and consistently to account for their deeds, someday citizens as weary and fed up as Eric Garner (but more organized, more powerful, and more ready) will say, “It stops here”and make that stick.

Aug 062014
 

Bundy Ranch – Open Letter to Sheriff Gillespie

08/06/2014

To Sheriff Doug Gillespie, Clark County Nevada Sheriff’s Department,In a recent press conference, you mentioned 1) the BLM lied to you and 2) Bundy brought armed men to the ranch for protection.While I can’t speak to the validity of your first claim, we unequivocally take issue with the second. We never asked for armed men to come to our aid. In fact, everyone who arrived at the Bundy ranch (men, women, armed & unarmed) voluntarily came to support the constitutional rights that you failed to defend. Had you not neglected your duty to defend our rights, the rights of the very people for whom you swore a solemn oath to defend, there never would have been a standoff in the first place.So while you chastise my family and pontificate about how “Bundy should be held accountable for crossing the line”, let it be known that the responsibility for this escalation rests primarily at the doorstep of the Clark County Sheriff’s office.

Please allow me a moment to remind you of some of the history leading up to that day:

Hundreds of militarized agents invaded our community and terrorized us.

They seized the land by gunpoint, claiming it as their own.

They not only threatened, but actually inflicted bodily harm on anyone who stepped onto the land. Remind you, this land was cared for, cultivated and improved upon by my family and the community for many generations.

A 57 year old cancer surviving woman was body slammed by a federal agent, for doing nothing more than exercising her first amendment rights.

As we sat in the sniper’s cross-hairs, federal agents shoved M-16 rifles into the faces of our wives who were holding our infant children.

Dave was, kicked, beaten, battered, loaded into a federal truck and taken to the BLM compound to become the BLM trophy. They paraded him around in the sun, cruelly ridiculing him for hours, tightly bound (without water). After they had their fun with him, they dump him out on the road and covered up any legal proof that they even took him.

These are just a few of the atrocities that were inflicted upon my family and the community – who was peacefully protesting. The only thing we pointed at those agents, were cameras to capture their atrocities for the world to see. In return, they released dogs on us, they tased us, they beat us and they abused us in order to intimidate us.

When our first amendment rights were stripped down to a 20’x50′ box, you did nothing. When armed men trampled my brother, beat him and nearly took his life, you refused to protect. When women, infants, and children were held captive at gunpoint by angry and violent men, our cries for help fell on deaf ears.When men and women literally wounded and bleeding were in need of emergency assistance, because you allowed these heavy hands to afflict us, you then refused the emergency medical services to be dispatched for our care.When we called, you said, “there wasn’t anything you could do”. You said, “this fight was between the Bundy’s and the BLM”. However, you commanded your deputies to stand by while their own families and community members were being inflicted upon and threatened with lethal weapons.Sheriff, your response demonstrates that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of your place in our government. You have more authority and responsibility than any federal agency, and yet you cowardly forced the people to defend themselves.

Evidence in your power and responsibility was never more apparent than at the standoff. When your deputies told the federal agents to back down – the federal agents backed down. They backed down because your deputies who had constitutional and jurisdictional authority from the people, finally did what the people hired you and them to do, and insisted that these federal agents stop their abuses.

In the end, your deputies did the right thing, but Sheriff, you should have never let it come to this. While the BLM was willing to shoot my family over land and power, we were willing to die for our families, our livelihoods and our constitutional rights. You should have been defending these rights for us. That’s what we elected you to do.

Thankfully, the American people came to our defense. They came to our defense because you failed to do your duty. For that you should be grieved and held accountable.

I offer warning to you and other government personnel that lead or follow your example. The people are in unrest because of these types of egregious actions. The purpose of government is to protect and uphold the unalienable rights of the people, not to infringe upon them. It is our duty and obligation to defend our God-given rights if our government representatives fail to do so, or tries to discard them. We as citizens desire to live in peace and tranquility, but will defend our freedoms if necessary, in order to do so. I call upon you Sheriff Gillespie, and all civil servants, to honorably effectuate the true purpose of government, to uphold the oaths and duties of your sworn offices-to truly be representative of the people, by the people and for the people.

I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson:

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Sincerely,

Ammon Bundy

Jun 032014
 

Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund Government

Devvy Kidd
Originally published and copyrighted in June 2001
Updated 01/25/2012

Also available on audio for free; click here.
Download to a CD or IPod and help get the truth to family and friends

Can this statement possibly be true? In order to answer this question, Americans must first understand what is the source of the money that funds the government and where it goes. Contrary to the sound bites issued by the two mainstream political parties, the reality of how the system actually works will not only open your eyes, but hopefully stimulate the American people to demand that the thievery underway come to an end.

Where do your “income” tax dollars go?

The best place to look for an answer to this question would be a government report, so let’s take just one at random:

President’s Private Sector Survey On Cost Control
A Report to The President (Reagan)

January 15, 1984. Available from the Congressional Research Service.
The excerpt below can be found on page 12.

  • “Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.
  • Further, there isn’t much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the
    Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days.
  • Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
  • With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.
  • In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government.”

So what we have is a central bank issuing worthless paper “money” that controls our economy, our lives and our future. This private banking cartel was unconstitutionally granted this power by a devious, scheming group of senators back in 1913. In essence what they did was place the American people into indentured servitude by forcing The People to pay usury on worthless fiat currency (paper money created out of nothing), not to fund the government, but to enrich the bankers and fund wars in which America should never be involved. This system exists not to fund the government, but to allow the U.S. Congress carte blanche power to continue funding unconstitutional agencies and programs by providing them with a bottomless source of worthless ink.

The National Debt and the Deficit

These two little bookkeeping items are not the same thing. Few Americans actually know the difference, but the difference is quite important. We continually hear members of Congress, president after president, and political pundits call for “reduction in the debt.” But what does that really mean? Here’s how it works in the most simplified way to fit into this document:

Let’s say that for 2002, Congress and the President decide they want $1.7 trillion dollars to fund this bloated pig called our government. We know that 100% of all personal “income” taxes extorted by the IRS goes to the “Federal” Reserve Banking System and does not fund a single function of the government. So, let’s take the people’s blood and sweat off the table.

What other revenues does the government collect? Corporate taxes, social security taxes, constitutional revenues such as excise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, tires, etc., tariffs on trade, military hardware sales, and some minor categories. Let’s say that those revenues will total $900 billion dollars. The politicians want $1.7 trillion to spend on their favorite welfare programs, wars and foreign welfare, but have a short fall of $800 billion dollars. This is called the deficit and the deficit, created by the spending of Congress, creates the “national debt.”

How? Because the politicians are $800 billion dollars short, they simply call up Al Greenspan and borrow your children’s and grand babies’ futures. The “Federal” Reserve Banks don’t loan anything of value to Congress. They aren’t banks; they’re really an overpaid, powerful, private accounting service. When that $800 billion dollars worth of ink is transferred to the Treasury, it gets piled on top of the existing “national debt.”

This is how the magical money machine works. Congress overspends. It borrows from this accounting firm called the “Fed” and then turns around and tells you to pay for these crimes against the people. In other words, Congress basically pays the bills with social security and borrowed ink from the “Fed.” Pretty slick scam, wouldn’t you say?

The people of America are also responsible to a large degree for this out-of-control spending. Americans have been bred to a welfare dependent mentality. Special interest groups who have no interest in the U.S. Constitution, demand that billions of dollars be spent on their pet interests. Billions upon billions of dollars have been unconstitutionally thrown to foreign governments, some days our friend, a week later our enemies. They are only our friend as long as the U.S. throws money at their corrupt governments.

Billions of dollars have unconstitutionally been spent on grants to colleges and universities, which in turn sell their research to the highest bidder, paid for by the sweat off the back of the little guy out in America. No, they don’t return any back to the little guy who funded these studies and research programs.

As long as the American people themselves condone continued unconstitutional spending by Congress, the longer they will violate their oath of office, and continue to fund unconstitutional expenditures, placing your children and grand babies in a state of unpayable, massive debt.

Unless The People demand an end to this insanity, our economy eventually will collapse under the weight of this massive, unpayable debt, no matter how much ink the “Fed” transfers into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. The pain of withdrawal from unlawful government hand-outs will be far less now than it will be down the road.

America became the greatest, debt free nation on earth by a resourceful, independent, self reliant people. Sadly, today we have a large percentage of our population who can’t get through the day without a government memo telling them how, step-by-step, with a redistribution of average, ordinary Americans assets into the hands of the unproductive. A very sad commentary to what made our nation great and prosperous.

But I heard the debt is being paid down?

What you heard and reality are two separate issues altogether. The politicians must continue to fool the American people lest they catch on to this chicanery. Let’s have a look at the numbers so you can see that any utterance that the national debt has been paid down X billions of dollars, is nothing more than bombastic gas, passed from one administration to the next and the latest recycled Congress.

In the chart below, an R next to the amount indicates a Republican President; a D is for a Democrat in the Oval Office. The Democrats had control of Congress from 1954, until the illusion billed as the “Republican Revolution” in 1994. Both houses of Congress were Republican controlled until after the 2000 “election”, but this ended when in May 2001 James Jeffords ‘fessed up to his real political agenda.

Current Congressionally created debt:

01/23/2012
12/31/2011
06/30/2011
12/31/2010
06/30/2010
12/31/2009
08/30/2009
04/16/2009
10/30/2008
11/01/2007
09/29/2006
09/30/2005
09/30/2004
09/30/2003
09/30/2002
09/28/2001
08/08/2001
04/30/2001
02/28/2001
01/31/2001
12/29/2000
09/29/2000
09/30/1999
09/30/1998
09/30/1997
09/30/1996
09/29/1995
09/30/1994
09/30/1993
09/30/1992
09/30/1991
09/28/1990
09/29/1989
09/30/1988
09/30/1987
$15,236,245,309,869.69 (D)
$15,222,940,045,451.09 (D)
$14,343,087,640,008.40 (D)
$14,025,215,218,708.52 (D)
$13,203,473,753,968.10 (D)
$12,311,349,677,512.03 (D)
$11,909,829,003,511.75 (D)
$11,183,899,252,728.00 (D)
$10,530,893,033,778.21 (R)
$9,080,228,573,291.65 (R)
$8,506,973,899,215.23 (R)
$7,932,709,661,723.50 (R)
$7,379,052,696,330.32 (R)
$6,783,231,062,743.62 (R)
$6,228,235,965,597.16 (R)
$5,807,463,412,200.06 (R)
$5,720,324,946,092.23 (R)
$5,661,347,798,002.65 (R)
$5,735,859,380,573.98 (R)
$5,716,070,587,057.36 (R)
$5,662,216,013,697.37 (D)
$5,674,178,209,886.86 (D)
$5,656,270,901,615.43 (D)
$5,526,193,008,897.62 (D)
$5,413,146,011,397.34 (D)
$5,224,810,939,135.73 (D)
$4,973,982,900,709.39 (D)
$4,692,749,910,013.32 (D)
$4,411,488,883,139.38 (D)
$4,064,620,655,521.66 (R)
$3,665,303,351,697.03 (R)
$3,233,313,451,777.25 (R)
$2,857,430,960,187.32 (R)
$2,602,337,712,041.16 (R)
$2,350,276,890,953.00 (R)

The statistics above were obtained from the Bureau of The Public Debt’s web site:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
As you can see, it doesn’t matter which party is in office, there is no surplus and the debt cannot be paid down, it can only grow exponentially as long as Congress and the President have the central bank at their fingertips.

A “balanced budget” is nothing more than good political rhetoric, but in reality, it’s a pipe dream strictly for public consumption. How can you balance your budget if you have no money to spend and are trillions of dollars in the hole? You can’t. It’s just another well crafted illusion to keep the masses pacified.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the American people have awakened to this monumental theft and are demanding the only real solution that can be implemented: Abolishing the central bank, and a return to a constitutional monetary system with no income tax.

No “Fed,” no need for a direct tax

Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.

President Andrew Jackson booted out the central bank; his speech can be read here:

http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/ajveto.htm

This battle fought by Jackson was a huge deal back then and he refused to back down. Jackson was the last honest president with the guts to stand up to the international bankers who are literally stealing US blind.

“The greatest party battle of Jackson’s presidency centered around the Second Bank of the United States, a private corporation but virtually a Government-sponsored monopoly. When Jackson appeared hostile toward it, the Bank threw its power against him.

“Clay and Webster, who had acted as attorneys for the Bank, led the fight for its recharter in Congress. “The bank,” Jackson told Martin Van Buren, “is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!” Jackson, in vetoing the recharter bill, charged the Bank with undue economic privilege.

“His views won approval from the American electorate; in 1832 he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote and almost five times as many electoral votes as Clay.”

Please note that the words “a private corporation but virtually a Government sponsored monoploy” comes directly from the White House’s web site. What a huge admission!

On line, you can also read Congressman Louis McFadden’s indictment on the Federal Reserve Corporation. It is a very concise explanation of how the international banking cartel has been sacking this country’s wealth since 1913.

Don’t be fooled by this chant around the country for a flat tax, a consumption tax, sales tax or any other kind of personal income tax. There is absolutely no authority in the U.S. Constitution to implement any of these forms of taxation without apportionment. It is for this reason and this reason alone, that when it became apparent that the 16th Amendment was not going to be ratified by the states, fraud was committed and it was simply “proclaimed” ratified by then Secretary of State Philander Knox.

We don’t need any direct taxation and these popular mantras are just new lies to replace old lies. Any one of these forms of taxation will still feed the cancer: the central bank. Any one of these forms of taxation is just another way to fleece the American people to enrich the pockets of the international banking cartel. Please consider the words of Congressman Ron Paul:

    “Strictly speaking, it probably is not necessary for the federal government to tax anyone directly; it could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering the milk: too much water and the people catch on.”

Please don’t fall for these alternative taxing SCHEMES. The banking cartel doesn’t care what form it is they fleece your hard earned dollars (flat tax, fair tax, sales tax, etc.) – just as long as they continue to steal from us:

Beware alternative taxing schemes
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43242

Make IRS check payable to stockholders of private Fed
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43820

Today is April 15 … again
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44036

What we need to do is take away the magical money machine called the “Fed,” which will force Congress to live within its means and fund only those activities specifically enumerated by the supreme law of the land in Art. 1, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, borrow Money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce (trade), naturalization, bankruptcy laws, coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, fix the Standard of Weights and Measures, punishment regarding counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States, establish Post Offices and post Roads, Promote [Editorial note: “promote” does not mean fund] the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court, define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years, provide and maintain a Navy, make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, Exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. **

There is absolutely no authority for the federal government to legislate in areas of the environment, education, the NEA, the FDA and many others. It may surprise you to find out that agencies such as FDA, DEA and the EPA all derive their jurisdiction from international treaties. When the powers that be wish to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, they do it either through an executive order or international treaties. We strongly encourage you to investigate this issue thoroughly.

Prior to the Federal Department of Education, America had the finest schools in the world. Since this disastrous and unconstitutional grab for power, we can all see that a quadrillion dollars a year will not fix our schools, and they continue to decline faster than the feds or states can shovel money into them. Even if a direct tax were necessary, only by keeping it at its lowest possible percentage would it ever benefit this nation:


“The point now emphasized is that the evil effects of high surtaxes fall not upon the individual whose income is seized and taken, but ultimately almost entirely upon the mass of the people who are thereby deprived of the benefits which would result from the free flow of commercial transactions and the use of the additional capital which would be available for productive enterprise.
“Freedom of business transactions essential.

“The revenues to be obtained by the Government from this class of taxes depends upon transactions in trade and commerce which bring about income available for payment of taxes. It is highly desirable, in the interest of the production of revenue, that the volume of business transactions giving rise to gain shall be as great as possible, and to this end it is essential that the natural laws of trade and commerce and the free flow of business shall not be interfered with or prevented.


The excerpt below is from pgs 19-20, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of Finances for 1921:


“But the direct effect of these very high taxes is to hinder and prevent business transactions which would otherwise take place. A man may have property which he has held for years and which has greatly increased in value, and he would like to sell it, but if he does a large part of the gain would have to be paid out in taxes. He would rather keep the property than sell it, pay the tax, and invest what is left in something else. At the same time the party desiring to buy this property, if he obtained it, would improve it with buildings.

What is the result? The transaction does not take place, and the community loses the advantage which would come in the stimulation that would arise from the transactions resulting from the buyer’s improvement of the property, and it also loses the advantage of the seller’s putting his money into some other form of investment, which in turn would give rise to business transactions. The same thing on a much greater scale is true in manufacturing and mercantile lines. Men have built up enterprises to the point where they are highly successful. They would like to take their profit and turn the business over to younger men to carry on.

These transactions are highly desirable not only for the parties but for the community, yet they are absolutely stopped, because if made the seller would have to pay in one year a tax on a gain which has been the result of perhaps the better part of a lifetime of effort. And in all such cases the Government gets no tax, whereas if the rates were reasonable the transactions would take place and the Government’s revenues would benefit accordingly.

The free interchange of property in business transactions is essential to the normal prosperity of the country, and each such transaction has a direct tendency to bring about others of like character with the result of increasing the amount of gain or income available for taxation; but when the tax is so high as to act as a deterrent against usual and desirable business transactions, and the volume of such transactions is thereby lessened, the inevitable result is for the tax to become less and less productive.

It is for these reasons that, particularly in the higher brackets, a lower tax rate will produce more revenue in the long run than excessive rates. So long as the high rate stands in the way of accomplishing bargains and sales, the Government receives no tax; but at a lower rate the transactions proceed and the Government shares in the profits.” (End of excerpt.)


Today Americans are being fleeced to the tune of approximately 52% of every dollar going for local, state and federal taxes. The day is rapidly approaching when making even $1,000 per hour will not be enough to survive. How much longer are the people of this nation going to put up with this state of affairs? We say enough is enough!

A Pioneer on the withholding issue

Vivien Kellems was a woman before her time who knew the grand theft taking place against the working man’s paycheck. [For more information on Ms. Kellems, see: http://www.vivienkellems.org/]. The following excerpt from pages 41-46 of her book, Toil, Taxes and Trouble, published in 1952 is legally right on point:

    “Since a capitation means a tax of the same amount for every person, this provision makes doubly sure that all federal taxes must be at the same uniform rate for everybody. This limitation that direct taxes be levied by the Federal Government must be in proportion to a census and apportioned among the States in accordance with numbers, is the only provision in the Constitution that is stated twice.

    “The only reason that our Constitution required a census to be taken every ten years was to count the people to determine how many Representatives should go to Congress, and how direct taxes should be levied. I wonder how many Americans thought of this in 1950 when those little busybodies came knocking on their doors, asking ten thousand impudent, silly questions which were none of their, or Washington’s, business.

    “There is absolutely no power granted in the Constitution which enables a top-heavy bureaucracy of empty-headed simpletons, and worse, to invade the privacy of the American people in such a monstrous manner.
This census is just a preview of what is really in store for us if they actually take over, which they most certainly will do unless we uproot and vote them out.

    “The census was to count the people – that was all. The number of people determined the number of Representatives in Congress and the apportionment of direct taxes among the states.

    “For a long time I asked myself, ‘Why were Representatives and direct taxes linked together and apportioned among the States in accordance with population?’ It was understandable that Representatives should be chosen in accordance with numbers but why should taxes be apportioned the same way? And then one day, out of the blue, it came to me crystal clear. All at once I understood the plan to safeguard the future freedom of the nation, conceived and executed by those scholarly men.

    “I read again: ‘Representatives and direct taxes shall be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers…’ ‘No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census of Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.’ And in those two sentences our forefathers bound fast the hands of Congress and secured the liberty and freedom of the American people. How? By making it utterly impossible to levy an income tax.

    “An income tax is certainly a direct tax, probably the most direct tax of all since it cannot be shifted but must be paid by the person receiving the income. By specifying that direct taxes must be levied in accordance with the number of people, not upon what they produced, as in the days of ancient Egypt, an income tax was simply out of the question. It cannot be levied upon a man but must be levied upon what he receives.

    “Our forefathers designed and incorporated in the Constitution a new system of government. It was built upon a revolutionary idea; the conviction that the government belonged to the people and existed only by their consent. Its genius lay in the careful system of checks and balances among the three departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. And it went further and maintained a balance between the powers of the individual States and the Federal Government. In addition it carefully reserved to the States and to the people all rights and powers not specifically delegated, or prohibited to the Federal Government and further stated that because certain rights were enumerated in the Constitution it did not mean that others not mentioned were still not the property of the people.

    “However everything in the Constitution was arrived at by compromise. The interests and concerns of the thirteen states varied widely and each delegate was sent to Philadelphia to protect the commerce, industry and agriculture of his particular state. It required months of patient discussion, argument and forbearance to finally produce the finished document, which when completed, comprised a system of government to protect the people in the rights and liberties set down in flaming words in the Declaration of Independence. It is a wonderful document, the best system of government ever devised for human beings, but it could have varied in some respects and still have worked satisfactorily……

    “The supreme achievement of the combined brains of all those men were written into those two sentences and the freedom and liberty of the American people were secured in them. For in those two sentences the right of the free man to own something was made inviolate. This was his distinguishing mark, the only criterion of freedom in all the world, the right of the common man to retain for himself the fruit of his labor.

Now this is how it worked. Every man was given a vote with which he could vote for his Representative. Originally only Representatives were elected, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures and it’s too bad we changed that provision.”

(Editorial Note: We didn’t. Like the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment is a fraud–it was never ratified by the states. Therefore, we have not had a lawfully seated senate since 1913.)

    “That Representative having to stand for election every two years was close to the people and responsive to their wishes. That is why he was given the power to tax; all bills of revenue arise in the House. And that is why he must come home every two years and give an accounting to the people.

    “But his power to levy direct taxes was limited by an ironbound restriction: that tax must be apportioned among the States in accordance with the population. Since all taxes were to be at a uniform rate, Congress simply could not penalize one section of the country, or one group of citizens for the unfair advantage of another.

    “When Congress levied a tax, everybody had to pay and at the same rate. The amount would vary with the wealth of an area, as it does today with the different values of real estate, but the rate was the same for all and the tax was distributed among the States according to population.

    “The men who wrote our Constitution did not found a democracy. They feared the so-called ‘Democrats’ of their day as much as we fear the Communists today. They did not believe in mob rule, or government by the unintelligent, irresponsible mass. They founded a republic and they made certain that the right to vote should be curbed and controlled by the necessity of paying taxes. Scheming politicians could not take taxes from a helpless minority and buy themselves back into office with the votes of the tax exempt majority. When a Representative voted a tax, he voted to tax everybody because the tax was based upon numbers, not upon dollars.

    “This was the most brilliant plan ever conceived for guaranteeing the freedom of a nation. It protected every person in his right to private property, rich and poor alike, and under this protection we built the richest, most powerful nation on earth. We achieved and maintained for the majority of our people a standard of living undreamed of before, the hope and the envy of the whole world.

    “And we accomplished something even more important: we developed a vigorous, self-reliant, self- respecting race of people. An American citizen would have been ashamed to ask for a handout from his Government. The Government belonged to him, he did not belong to the government.

    “And then what happened? We chucked our carefully safeguarded right to own something out the window, and we passed the income tax amendment. Gone was our apportionment among the States in accordance with population, and also gone was our principle of uniformity. Income ‘from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration’ could be taxed and without limit. And when we passed this income tax amendment the slow, distilled poison of tax slavery dripped into our veins. We sowed the seeds of our national decay which is rapidly coming to maturity before our eyes today. The heritage of freedom so carefully insured for us by our forefathers is gone; it has been taxed away.” (End of excerpt.)

The “General Welfare” Clause of the Constitution

The majority of unconstitutional spending is justified by the “general welfare” clause of the constitution. Shawn O’Connor of the Free Enterprise Society summed up this misconception in one of his speeches, paraphrased below:

“Discussion of the general welfare clause of the Constitution by the courts relies upon the Federalist Papers. This term simply means: Taxation was to protect the individuals’ life, liberty and ownership of private property. One can go to Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1 of the constitution and read the general welfare clause. Then one can do some history research and see what the Anti-Federalists had to say about this clause:

“That this clause conveys absolute power to the central government. Patrick Henry was very vocal in his opposition to putting this kind of language into the constitution. Madison, however, assured Henry and others that all the general welfare clause represented was a preliminary introduction prior to the enumerating the specific powers the delegates were about to grant to this new federal government and that the general welfare clause granted no new power to the government whatsoever. It was simply an introductory statement.

The Anti-Federalists still weren’t satisfied. Hamilton and Madison came back to re-state that if the general welfare clause conveyed absolute power to the government, why would they go on to list the specific powers they were going to grant the government? That wouldn’t make any sense at all if they were going to give absolute power to this government. It was finally conceded by all at the convention that the general welfare clause conveyed absolutely no power to the government.” [End of comment.]

The general welfare clause of the constitution has been misused for personal gain by special interest groups to enrich the pockets of the banking cartel, by politicians hoping to “get that vote,” and an all out push to turn America into a socialist country, beginning with the “New Deal” implemented by FDR and supported by a weak Congress. Lyndon Johnson took the quest to turn America into a socialist nation to new and grotesque heights.

How would you fund the government without any direct taxation?

The powers that be know it’s just a matter of time before the truth reaches enough Americans about the voluntary income tax system. Already trial balloons are being floated to once again fool the people into some form of alternative tax in order to feed the central bank.

America functioned very well without an income tax throughout the history of this Republic. The answer to the question of funding without a direct tax is found is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution since 1787. It provides for Congress to pass a legislative bill for tax money to be paid by each state in proportion to its population.

Proper, constitutional funding will allow large amounts of money to fund a limited form of Republican government. To continue on the path of this massive and unconstitutional spending will bring a final and total collapse of the economy. Make no mistake about it.

Has your government been truthful?

Do you know why the “withholding tax” system was put into place? Let me provide you with just one shocking example of how things work behind the scenes:


Declassified (Confidential Committee Print)
Withholding Tax Hearing Before A Subcommittee of The Committee on Finance,
United States Senate, 77th Congress, Second Session on:
Data Relative to Withholding Provisions of the 1942 Revenue Act, August 21 and 22, 1942
(Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance)
United States Government Printing Office, Washington 1942
SUMMARY/Contents Statement of:
Friedman, Milton, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department
Hardy, Charles O., of Brookings Institution
Jacobstein, Meyer, of Brookings Institution
Paul, Randolph E., Treasury Department

Overview

Because the war effort resulted in increased production and employment, which caused a sudden large influx of money into circulation, the Federal Government and Federal Reserve System had to find a method of “mopping up excess purchasing power” thereby control inflation and obtain immediate funds for the Treasury. Several plans were put forth before the House, Ways & Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Finance to accomplish this purpose.

The following points were made by the Senators and those testifying before the committee:

1. The overall purpose was to obtain immediate money for the war effort, to control inflation and to get the income tax on a current basis instead of being one year behind.

2. To accomplish this goal, it was recognized that a scheme was needed to reach the largest number of people.

3. That the scheme, regardless of whether it was a “coupon,” “stamp” or “withholding of income tax at source,” would constitute a “forced loan” to the Federal Government and it would apply to taxpayers and nontaxpayers alike, with exceptions.

4. Where an individual had money withheld and ultimately no tax liability, the individual would file an income tax return and that income tax return would constitute an automatic claim for refund.

5. The proposed plan was an emergency war time measure.

Hearing Experts, Beginning Page 99

Statement of Meyer Jacobstein of Brookings Institution

“It is obvious that it is necessary to mop up the excess purchasing power of the community, not only because of it’s effect on the price situation but because the Treasury needs the money and needs it quickly.*

Obviously the Treasury can collect from the consumers as the purchases are made and the Treasury has the use of those funds long before it would obtain them by the income-tax method.

Now, there are many ways, of course, of mopping up this surplus purchasing power…Now, there is the withholding tax at the source based on payrolls.”

Senator Clark: “Doctor, what this plan is, it is essentially a compulsory savings plan based on sales tax methods, is it not?”

Mr. Jacobstein: “I should say that is a fair description of it, yes. It is the use of a sales tax method without being a tax.”

Senator Clark: “So far as the impact on the public is concerned, it is precisely the same as a sales tax, except you give the money back sometimes.”

Mr. Jacobstein: “That is right. That is a very fair statement, I think. Senator Danaher used the word “self-assessment.” If I buy a dollar necktie I pay $1.10 under his plan. A withholding tax is usually withheld at the source. Here you withhold it not at the manufacturer’s end but at the retailer’s end. You are using the retailer instead of the manufacturer to siphon off several billion dollars, depending on the rate of the assessment of a tax.

It may be that several systems can be used. Any one of them might be very useful to the Treasury in accomplishing this purpose. But…for siphoning off purchasing power into the Treasury from day to day, or week to week, or month to month; and it has that advantage.

Now, there is an aspect to this question which was not brought out in the original memorandum which would make the scheme perhaps a little more palatable if certain deductions were made by any method, either by the withholding tax method or direct sales tax method or by Senator Danaher’s proposal….”

Statement of Charles O. Hardy of the Brookings Institution

Mr. Hardy: “First…mainly for the purpose of providing an exemption from the tax or forced loan, either one. Now, as has been stated a moment ago, this is a forced loan. It should be pointed out, I think, that you can do the same thing with the mechanics of any other tax, that is, under the income tax you can give out bonds or coupons redeemable in bonds instead of giving receipts for the income tax. You can do that, as far as I can see, with any tax, for the whole schedule of taxes.

I would like to say…that we have to bring about a readjustment of consumption in the country to the amount of consumers goods and services that we can spare the resources to produce under war conditions. First, we have got to devote our productive energies to the war.

Or, you can use the mechanism of the sales tax, as far as I can see, by mopping up the increased purchasing power that is created by the rising amount they receive in their paychecks. On the other hand, if the money is stored up, whether it is in the form of these stamps or in the form where people haven’t spent it because they have had no way to spend it, in either case if it is too large a proportion you are going to have the problem, whenever you do turn it loose, that you have now in the other case, namely of having a lot more purchasing power than you have goods and services to make it good with.

That is the answer, I think, to the question that might be raised as to why not carry this principle through and apply it to income tax, corporation tax, and everything else. Obviously, this has the advantage that this definitely sews up the purchasing power in such a way that it cannot be released until we discover the proper way to release it.

I think it has a great advantage over the deficient spending program. This program just postpones the problem of administration, in deciding how much purchasing power is available to release and to what extent it will create the old wartime inflation over again.”

Senator Danaher: “Let me ask you this question: Considering the withholding tax, simply the treasury withholds it currently and applies the proceeds against the tax due in a given year…”

Mr. Hardy: “The deduction from salaries and interest, and so on, at the source?”

Senator Danaher: “Yes.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes.”

Senator Danaher: “That is a currently applied method of withholding so much of the consumer purchasing power as is represented by the tax collected or withheld.”

Mr. Hardy: “That is right.”

Senator Danaher: “And the applied as against the tax due.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes. The withholding tax provision has the effect of withholding purchasing power at the time the income is realized rather than a year hence through the income tax structure.”

Senator Danaher: “And if it were in effect for 1 year it would apply only 1 year?”

Mr. Hardy: “I assume so.”

Senator Danaher: “Yes. Whereas this proposal is a continuing thing.”

Mr. Hardy: “It seems to me the essential difference is that the withholding tax plan applies at the point of receipt of income, and this applies at the point of expenditure of income.”

Senator Danaher: “Of course, you withhold not only from taxpayers but nontaxpayers.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes. Some people that I talked to about this plan, Federal Reserve people, have been rather favorable to the idea.”

Mr. Jacobstein: “Don’t you want to add that Mr. Selko pointed out that such difficulties as are encountered in the States are, partially at least, overcome when you have a uniform Federal tax? Where you have a uniform tax all over the country by one administration, the Federal Government, it is easier to administer than a sum total of 48 states. Now that was Mr. Selko’s conclusion.”

Statement of Milton Friedman, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department

Senator Danaher: “I have only one other thought on that point. In the event of withholding from the owner of stock and no taxes due ultimately, where does he get his refund?”

Mr. Friedman: “You thinking of a corporation or an individual?”

Senator Danaher: “I am talking about an individual.”

Mr. Friedman: “An individual will file an income tax return, and that income tax return will constitute an automatic claim for refund.” End of document excerpts.

What bald faced lies. “Mop up purchasing power”? Fleecing Americans dry is a more accurate way to describe this terrible injustice against US. How about letting Americans decide to save the fruits of their labor? No, the government wants it all.

* Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to issue money, not the private fed: “To coin money, regulate the value thereof,” Cut out the middle man (“Fed”) and the Treasury wouldn’t “need the money.” What a con game.

T. Coleman Andrews. Mr. Andrews (a Democrat) was Commissioner for the first 33 months of the Eisenhower Administration, stated the following in an article for U.S. News & Report, May 25, 1956:

“….We’re confiscating property now….That’s socialism. It’s written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him.”

Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stated in one of his speeches in 1946:
“The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income.

It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures.
Taxes on corporation profits have three principal consequences — all of them bad.”

Does the average man or woman in America know this?

What do we mean when we say that the IRS is not a government agency? Read this quote
from an U.S. attorney submitted in court documents in a tax case up in Idaho:

Betty Richardson, United States Attorney, Box 32, Boise, Idaho 83707. Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, United States’ Answer and Claim re: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and Steve Morgan, Defendants, page 4, paragraph #4:
“Denies (the U.S. government) that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government …”

If the IRS is not an agency of the federal government, just what is it? In a nutshell, the income tax is international in scope and not incumbent upon domestic Americans. That is a provable fact. The IRS for more than 80 years has been misapplying the IRCode against unsuspecting Americans and back up their unlawful activities with brute force. This must stop.

What can you do?

The federal government must generate revenues to operate what our Founding Fathers created: A limited form of Republican government. State constitutions are all guaranteed a limited form of Republican government. America is not a democracy. We believe America is a nation of laws, not lies. We can’t have it both ways for political expediency or to please any and every special interest group that bribes politicians at all levels with the politically correct “PAC money.”

Sometimes it’s difficult to be the messenger of news that people would rather not hear.

However, Americans can no longer remain in their comfort zones because the message isn’t what they want to hear. If your house is on fire, you don’t sit and continue to watch the television set, you call the fire department. America: Our house is on fire and it is the obligation of every American to safeguard the liberties and freedoms given to us by those who paid the ultimate price. Please join the growing numbers of millions who are ready to take back our country and stop the assault on our rights.

Feb 192014
 

Megan Rice Peace Activist

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Megan Rice, An 84-year-old nun was sentenced by the BORG agent to nearly three years in prison for breaking into a nuclear weapons complex and defacing a bunker holding bomb-grade uranium, a demonstration that exposed serious security flaws at the Tennessee plant.

Two other peace activists who broke into the facility with Megan Rice were sentenced to more than five years in prison, in part because they had much longer criminal histories of mostly non-violent civil disobedience.

Although officials said there was never any danger of the protesters reaching materials that could be detonated or made into a dirty bomb, the break-in raised questions about safekeeping at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge. The facility holds the nation’s primary supply of bomb-grade uranium and was known as the ‘‘Fort Knox of uranium.’’

After the break-in, the complex had to be shut down, security forces were re-trained and contractors were replaced.

In her closing statement, Rice asked the judge to sentence her to life in prison, even though sentencing guidelines called for about six years.

‘‘Please have no leniency with me,’’ Megan Rice said. ‘‘To remain in prison for the rest of my life would be the greatest gift you could give me.’’

She said the U.S. government was spending too much money on weapons and the military, and she told the judge about the many letters of support she had received, including one from youth in Afghanistan.

‘‘This is the next generation and it is for these people that we’re willing to give our lives,’’ she said.

Rice, Greg Boertje-Obed (bohr-CHEE’ OH’-bed) and Michael Walli all said God was using them to raise awareness about nuclear weapons and they viewed the success of their break-in as a miracle.

Their attorneys asked the judge to sentence them to time they had already served, about nine months, because of their record of good works throughout their lives.

Rice is a sister in the Society of the Holy Child Jesus. She became a nun when she was 18 and served for 40 years as a missionary in western Africa teaching science.

Walli’s attorney said the activist served two tours in Vietnam before returning to the U.S. and dedicating his life to peace and helping the poor. Walli said he had no remorse about the break-in and would do it again.

‘‘I was acting upon my God-given obligations as a follower of Jesus Christ,’’ he told U.S. District Judge Amul Thapar.

The judge said he was concerned the demonstrators showed no remorse and he wanted their punishment to be a deterrent for other activists. He was also openly skeptical about whether the protesters caused any real harm and challenged prosecutors to prove it. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Theodore said they had destroyed the ‘‘mystique’’ of the ‘‘Fort Knox of uranium.’’

On July 28, 2012, the three activists cut through three fences before reaching a $548 million storage bunker. They hung banners, strung crime-scene tape and hammered off a small chunk of the fortress-like Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility, or HEUMF, inside the most secure part of complex.

They painted messages such as, ‘‘The fruit of justice is peace,’’ and splashed baby bottles of human blood on the bunker wall.

‘‘The reason for the baby bottles was to represent that the blood of children is spilled by these weapons,’’ Boertje-Obed, 58, a house painter from Duluth, Minn., said at trial.

Although the protesters set off alarms, they were able to spend more than two hours inside the restricted area before they were caught.

When security finally arrived, guards found the three activists singing and offering to break bread with them. The protesters reportedly also offered to share a Bible, candles and white roses with the guards.

The Department of Energy’s inspector general wrote a scathing report on the security failures that allowed the activists to reach the bunker, and the security contractor was later fired.

Some government officials praised the activists for exposing the facility’s weaknesses. But prosecutors declined to show leniency, instead pursing serious felony charges.

Prosecutors argued the intrusion was a serious security breach that continued to disrupt operations at the Y-12 complex even months later.

Attorneys for Rice and Walli, 65, both of Washington, D.C., said the protesters were engaged in a symbolic act meant to bring attention to America’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, which they view as both immoral and illegal under international law.

Boertje-Obed’s wife, Michele Naar-Obed, said before the hearing that she would figure out a way to deal with the sentence, whatever it was. Her real concern was that her husband’s actions and imprisonment were not in vain.Continued…

Nov 082013
 

BORG Agents: Armed, Brutal and Cowardly

On Tuesday in Santa Rosa, California, two of that city’s “finest” BORG Agents cowered behind a car door and gunned down a thirteen-year-old boy carrying a toy rifle. This little boy, Andy Lopez Cruz, was walking down the street with a fake plastic rifle when the two “heroes” boldly got out of their police cruiser, hid behind the passenger side door, and called out to him. When Andy reacted like any human being would and turned to face them, our brave boys in blue shot a child carrying a toy, because they were scared.

Physical courage is hardly the highest virtue, nor one linked particularly closely with any other measure of moral worth. But physical courage is a virtue all the same, and one sadly lacking today in our cowardly police departments, who hide behind a comical array of war machines and gun down anyone of any age or species who inspires the slightest tremor of fear in their faint hearts. Family pets, the mentally disabled, the elderly — seemingly anything that can move can terrify our brave police officers, so overwhelming them with abject, presumably pants-wetting fear that they draw their weapons and open fire willy-nilly on whatever has their teeth chattering in terror.

In July in Hawthorne, California, a BORG police officer was so overcome by fear at the sight of a little doggy less than a quarter his size that he had no choice but to fire five shots into the animal in front of its owner. Of course one can hardly blame the officer in question, as he only had three of his colleagues there with him and could not possibly have prevailed against the ferocious animal, which reached nearly to the officer’s waist when on its back legs. Letting the owner calm the animal down was also plainly not an option, as the owner was a dangerous villain guilty of a heinous crime — annoying the police while black.

In January in Maryland, a 26-year-old with Down’s syndrome and a reported IQ of 40 was murdered by not one, not two, but three off-duty BORG police officers because he dared try to see a movie twice without buying a second ticket. The possibility that such an offense might not be worth taking a man’s life over never occurred to our fearless officers, who were put in mortal fear of their lives by his anger at being asked to leave that they were forced to tackle him and “subdue” him until he asphyxiated. Down’s syndrome has such a classic, easy-to-spot presentation that even lay people can readily diagnose it in newborns, but it seems these heroic officers had never watched “Life Goes On.” And who can blame them for their fear? Their victim stood all of 5’6” and weighed nearly 300 pounds, presumably all muscle.

In June, back in California, BORG police officers with the Los Angeles Police Department thought they smelled the trademark smell of someone enjoying an illegal chemical and burst into the home of an eighty-year-old man who, startled in the night by strangers in his home, drew a gun and was immediately killed by a fusillade fired by the heroic officers in question, who boldly executed an old man in his bed. Why these officers could not explain who they were or back out of the room to avoid the old man’s fire is unknown, but one thing is certain — we are all safer now that this eighty-year-old man cannot brandish a pistol at strangers who burst into his bedroom in the middle of the night.

Discussions of police abuses usually turn back to policies and procedures that should be changed and the need for increased accountability. These things are important, but also important is addressing the unbelievable degree of cowardice we tolerate in our police officers today. If you’re so afraid of danger that you’re a danger to those around you, you have no business in any kind of dangerous job and should consider going to work in some nice comfy office somewhere. Physical courage isn’t the greatest virtue, but it is a virtue all the same.

Nov 022013
 

The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis

By Bill Moyers
This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer’s 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government.
Host Bill Moyers exposes the inner workings of the secret government. Though originally broadcast in 1987, it is even more relevant today. Interviews with respected, top military, intelligence, and government insiders reveal both the history and secret objectives. Where is Bill Moyers Now?

Oct 212013
 

SEAL Team 6 Crash was a HIT!

Charlie Strange, the father Michael Strange, one of the 30 Americans SEAL’s, who died Aug. 6, 2011, from a rocket-propelled grenade, asks himself and others he meets: “Was Michael, my son, was set up by someone inside the Afghan government or the US government wanting revenge on American and Afghan warriors who killed Osama bin Laden.

“Somebody was leaking to the Taliban,” said Mr. Strange, whose son intercepted communications as a Navy cryptologist. “They knew. Somebody tipped them off. There were guys in a tower. Guys on the bush line. They were sitting there, waiting. And they sent our guys right into the middle.”

He and other family members wants to know why “the fuck” (my words might even be his too) the BORG “command” sent his son into Tangi Valley toward a “hot landing zone” in a “hello freaking” cargo carrier instead of a special operations helicopter. The MH-47 and the MH-60 Black Hawk, are Hot Rod choppers, which SEAL Team 6 rode to kill bin Laden.  These flown by Night Stalker pilots who are skilled in fast, ground-hugging maneuvers to avoid detection and thus more likely to survive.  Instead the BORG “command” sent this crack group of some of the most highly trained and intelligent fighters into a Hot LZ in a “flying pickle”

Patrick Hamburger, an Army staff sergeant, also perished when the helicopter was transformed into a fireball, yards from where armed Taliban resistance fighters watched from a turret. “When you want to fly them into a valley, when you’ve got hillsides on both sides of it with houses built into sides of the valley, that is an extremely dangerous mission,” said Patrick’s father, Doug Hamburger, “The MH, the new model, they’ve got radar that will pick up an incoming missile or incoming RPG. They’re faster. They’re quicker on attack. They’re more agile. So there was every reason in the world to use the MH that night.”

Sith Douangdara, whose 26-year-old son, John, was a Navy expeditionary specialist who handled warrior dog Bart, said he has lots of unanswered questions. “I want to know why so many U.S. servicemen, especially SEALs, were assembled on one aircraft,” he said. “I want to know why the black box of the helicopter has not been found. I want to know many things.”

Let’s see now, there is a “P-A-R-T-Y” you want me to go to,  where there is going to be people shooting at me.  Normally I would go to such a “P-A-R-T-Y” with a group of MY friends  in a several armored “Hot Rod” helicopters, driven by race car drivers, equipped to easily blast away at anything that moves.  BTW, my friends and I have already gone to other “P-A-R-T-Y’s” where we have “supposedly” killed and deposed of the body of Asama bin Laden in the Ocean,  Now after doing so, we are sent out to another “P-A-R-T-Y”  in a slow lumbering “school bus” helicopter with zero armament, a vehicle not even designed for this mission, so I can easily be blasted out of the sky.  Does this seem a bit fishy to anyone?  Sure does to me.  Ah, but the story gets even BETTER!  Keep reading!

One individual says, “there is nothing to see, move along folks” is Newly PROMOTED Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Colt covered all issues. Gen. Colt, who has since this easily avoidable catastrophe, that ended in the unnecessary tragic deaths of 30 of America’s finest, most well trained, who happened to be guys, who supposedly killed Bin Laden.  ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!  HELLO! WAKE UP!

Normally in the “real world” when you make mistakes you are FIRED, however when you work for the BORG and make monumental FUCK UP you get PROMOTED!  This sounds like JFK or 9/11 coverup to you?  WAKE UP! Since the debacle, Colt has been promoted to Major General, he simply mentioned to commanders that his job was not to find fault and his report did not criticize any person or decision.  That’s how I work, I tell my customers what to do and they tell me get lost.  How does this Major General now tell his bosses what his job is.  Kinda like the pot, calling the kettle white.

SEALS supposedly AVENGED

Even with this mind expanding proportion of FUBARS (Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition) actions by the BORG “command” the shooter who was somehow “located” utilizing the most advanced spy planes and intercepts to locate the Taliban fighter who fired the rocket-propelled grenade that knocked down the CH-47 Aug. 6, killing all aboard.

“We were able to track his movement out of the Tangi Valley up over into Wardak [province] further over. And that’s what ultimately led to his destruction there,” a briefer told Army Brig. Gen. JeffreyColt during his JFK like Warren Commission / 9/11 post-crash investigation.

How they got their man is buried among hundreds of pages of documents released by U.S. Central Command and reviewed by Washington Times reporter Rowan Scarborough who then wrote his watered down story.

Hours after the shoot-down, the military heard a Taliban commander talking about moving the fighter who fired the RPG from Afghanistan to Pakistan. There, he would be unveiled as part of Taliban propaganda.

Intelligence located the fighter’s vehicle and followed its route until higher-ups gave approval to assassinate him.

He was often too close to civilian areas. But he finally stopped at a compound, a break for trackers that led to the dropping of an extraordinary amount of ordnance to kill one man.

“The individuals got out, moved out into an orchard area, settled into, kind of, a tree line, vegetated area, and we executed kinetic strikes with both F-16s,” the briefer said.

“I think we dropped eight 500-pounders, (that’s 2 tons folks) and then we also had Air Weapons Team – four or eight 500-pounders(1 ton – 2 tons more) and then 30 millimeter from the Air Weapons Team [AH-64 Apaches] as well. And then we got positive reflections after that we had killed the shooter and then the guy close to him … . We are absolutely confident that we killed the actual shooter, based off everything we’ve seen.”

Well this stupid “briefer” (what’s that a code word for? fabricator? ) may be correct about someone being killed however the idea that this guy was tracked by satellite and then killed by dropping 3-4 tons of bombs on his ass is a bit farfetched even for me.  This guy was DEAD, as soon as he got paid by someone, to do this job.  I bet 4 tones of bombs would level a city block…to the ground.  Oh and 30 millimeter gunfire…that stops a tank.

The briefer also revealed that a “source” –  obliviously a spy – was able to attend the funeral. Here is a recount:

“So we did have the source take photos of both the commander that was responsible and the shooter,” the briefer told Gen. Colt. Beaming as he said with Glee. “So the source went in there, had great access, was able to take photos at the funeral.” It was really important that we drop 4 tons of bombs on this guy’s head, instead of CAPTURING him and waterboarding a confession out of him.  You know I’m not in favor of torture however in this case, I wouldn’t mind, because I would be willing to bet even money that there would be many things pointing back to Major Gen. Colt and possibly other high level BORG operatives.  If this doesn’t stink to high heaven I don’t know what does.  You might want to help me cover my ass by posting this as many places as you can.

So the “Command” sends our bravest and finest into harms way in the least likely and most sub-optimal equipment, leading to their Deaths, then no stone is unturned to kill the guy who “supposedly” did it with a massive amount of bombs and then they atttend the guys funeral.  Why the Fuck, pardon my french please I am adding it for effect. Why the Fuck wasn’t he brought into find out where the leak was?  Can this be any more clear!!

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which oversees (‘overseas’ in original Rowan Scarborough how was this detail missed?  Seems like a proof reader would catch unless there was a dealine to get this story out, this is the Washington Times) the war (uh it’s NOT a WAR as only congress can declare WAR. and conducted the probe, declined to answer the families’ questions and referred a reporter to Gen. Colt’s report.

Finally Congress gets involved

After more than two years The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, is finally making inquiries after meeting with some deceased SEAL members families.

Larry Klayman, who runs the nonprofit watchdog group Freedom Watch, has filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Pentagon, as well as the Air Force, Army and Navy. He wants a judge to order the military to turn over an array of documents under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. He said the Defense Department stonewalled his written requests, so Freedom Watch went to court last month and succeeded in forcing the government to turn over records.  We have to FORCE the public servants to give us information for this highly suspect criminal escapade?  Am I insane?

Mr. Klayman has generously allowed The Washington Times to view the military’s investigative files turned over to family members two years ago.

“The families of our fallen heroes, who I am proud to represent, need closure to this tragedy,” Mr. Klayman said. “There are many unanswered questions and the military’s explanations of the causes of the crash do not add up.”

He also wants to know the identities of Afghan soldiers aboard, and why the aircraft’s black box, washed away in a fierce rainstorm, was never found — even though it has a homing device.

Even some military personnel involved that night questioned the operations afterward. The navigator aboard the AC-130 gunship that loitered for three hours over Tangi Valley expressed in 2011 what the families are thinking today.

“One of the other things that we did talk about — kind of what you’re hitting on, sir, is about the fact that, you know, for three hours we had been burning holes in the sky,” the officer told Gen. Colt’s team. “You’ve got [Apaches] flying around, so there’s a lot of noise going on and, basically, this entire valley knows that there’s something happening in this area. So, to do an infil (opposite of exfil where you extract people out of a hot area) on the X or Y, you know, having that element of surprise in the beginning of an operation is good, but by the time we’ve been there for three hours, and the party’s up, bringing in another aircraft like that, you know, may not be the most tactically sound decision.”

The suicide / homicide “Mission”

After Gen. Colt’s report became public in September 2011, the military arranged for him to brief next of kin Oct. 12 in Little Creek, Va., home to Naval Special Warfare Development Group, popularly called SEAL Team 6. The crash took the lives of 17  SEAL’s and five special warfare development group operators, making it the worst one-day loss in the history of U.S. naval special operations.

The chopper’s manifest included five Army soldiers, three Air Force airmen, seven Afghan soldiers and one Afghan interpreter. All 38 died. Twenty-two of them, such as Petty Officer Strange, were thrown from the aircraft. The rest died inside the fireball.

The military morgue at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware reported that all succumbed within seconds. Gen. Colt said they were “most likely rapid fatalities.”

President Obama went to Dover to receive the fallen and console the families.

“Your son changed America,” Mr. Strange said the president told him. “I grabbed the president by the shoulders and said, ‘I don’t need to know about my son. I need to know what happened.” Of course we because the government acts like the Mafia and doesn’t like to talk, nothing happens except a watered down version of this Greek tragedy.

The watered down “military probe”

According to the Washington Times and Gen. Colt had the right experience to lead the probe: He is a decorated Iraq and Afghanistan veteran and career helicopter pilot, including time in the storied 160th Special Operations Regiment. He is now deputy commander of Fort Bragg, N.C.

For the families on Oct. 12, he went over his main conclusions, then his staff handed out DVDs.

But the questions the next of kin have today did not materialize until they began poring over 1,300 pages of maps, charts, briefings and interview transcripts of task force commanders and planners connected to the incident.  This is typically how information is hidden in 1300 pages of information.  I know this is what I used to do when I was a Fleet Manager at the Car Lot.  The customer wants the invoice price for a car.  I would send them a 15 page report.  It’s in there you just gotta look for it.

Time to start Digging!  Roll the Bones!