CNS News Ticker

Sports Tickers






Stock Market Indices
&ltPARAM NAME="1:multiline" VALUE="true">
[Scroll Left] <     • STOP •     > [Scroll Right]



Haircut: 25 Cents / Shave: 15 Cents / Talk Of The Town: Free



The Inside Track ... News With Views You Won't Hear On The News ...


New GlowBarber Shoppe Gazette Articles Are Also Indexed Online At ... http://del.icio.us/Gazette

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Sheriffs Put Federal Officers On Choke Chains


LAW ENFORCEMENT / WYOMING SHERIFFS PUT FEDERAL OFFICERS ON CHOKE CHAINS



FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"


Smiley Flag Waver "If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody." The court decision came about after Mattis & other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association brought a suit against both the BATF and the IRS in the Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution. The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs, stating that, "Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official."



WYOMING SHERIFFS PUT FEDERAL OFFICERS ON CHOKE CHAINS


County sheriffs in Wyoming are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activities in a Wyoming county with the Sheriff's Office. Speaking at a press conference following the recent US District Court decision (case No 2:96-cv-099-J) Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis stated that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval.

"If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody." The court decision came about after Mattis & other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association brought a suit against both the BATF and the IRS in the Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution. The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs, stating that, "Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official."

The Wyoming sheriffs are demanding access to all BATF files to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibit the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in state courts.

Sheriff Mattis stated: "I am reacting to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law."

This case is evidence that the Tenth Amendment is not yet dead in the United States. It may also be interpreted to mean that political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government and specifically prohibited to the States.

Case Notes:
Case: Castaneda v. USA
Filed: 10th May 1996
Closed: 29th April 1997
Case No: 2:1996cv00099 Wyoming District Court, Casper
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights


Constitutionally the sheriff is the highest and only elected law-enforcement officer in the state. Also, agencies that are part of the executive branch do not have jurisdiction outside DC.

To its everlasting disgrace, the Legislature of Massachusetts [a/k/a/ Taxachusetts] has abolished the Sheriffs in the state that gave us Lexington, Boston and Concord! This was totally unconstitutional and never should have happened! Without the Sheriff you have no elected law enforcement office! The State Troopers are an arm of the governor's office and have no constitutional standing.)

"Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff is the highest law enforcement official and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official."


BENEFITING FROM SEPARATE JURISDICTIONS

Last week we wrote about "Using Separate Jurisdictions," and how that concept could and should be implemented for the protection of citizens in all States. And, as often happens, readers responded positively.

In fact, the State of Montana, we were notified, has just such a bill in the House right now! We understand that it has a good chance of passing, too.

The introduction of Montana House Bill 415 states the purpose concisely:

"An act regulating arrests, searches, and seizures by Federal employees; providing that Federal employees shall obtain the County Sheriff's permission to arrest, search, and seize; providing for prosecution of Federal employees violating this act; rejecting Federal laws purporting to give Federal employees the authority of a County Sheriff in this State; and providing an immediate effective date."

The bill recoups many Tenth Amendment policing rights of the State and "declares that any federal law purporting to give federal employees the authority of a county sheriff in this state is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state . . ."

Section 1 sets the purpose of the bill to "prevent misadventure affecting Montana citizens and their rights" by federal employees. Section 2 declares that in most cases federal employees must first seek the "permission" of the Sheriff, or the sheriff's "designee" before attempting to make an arrest, search, or seizure. And Section 3 makes it mandatory that County Prosecutors prosecute federal employees violating this law.

The words "federal employees" is a very interesting term as used in this bill. That would include all federal police and regulatory agents -- the IRS, FBI, EPA, BATF, and the rest of them. And by extension, it would also include all federal telephone wiretaps and snooping through e-mail files on the Internet.

The Montana Proposal is an excellent beginning in protecting the rights of citizens against an out of control federal bureaucracy. The only change we would propose is that the sheriff's office be required to attend and supervise all actions by federal employees -- not necessarily to participate as a law officer, but primarily as an official representative of the local people. The function then, would be to insure that all Constitutional rights of local citizens within that jurisdiction were respected.

All public officials take an oath of office in which they swear to support the United States Constitution. And the Bill of Rights is part of our Constitution. Therefore, any public official violating the rights and liberties of a citizen should be immediately arrested by the closest available law officer. The Montana Proposal would make that possible, and tend to keep all concerned honest.

This concept is under study in other states too. In fact, as the Knoxville Journal reported last month: Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming, said this week that as a result of Case #96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming, he how has a written policy that forbids federal officials from entering his county and exercising authority over county residents unless he is notified first of their intentions.

According to the report, the sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only. When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the Feds, the sheriff quickly and confidently replied, "None whatsoever." He explained by saying, "They know they do not have jurisdiction in my county unless I grant it to them." Mattis said he grants them permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

It is time that safeguards for the rights of American citizens were written into law and strictly enforced in every State in the nation. Montana House Bill 415 goes far in getting that started.

We suggest that all Americans demand that a similar bill be passed in their own respective States. Towards that end, we include the full text of the Montana bill below.


MONTANA HOUSE BILL 415

"An act regulating arrests, searches, and seizures by Federal employees; providing that Federal employees shall obtain the County Sheriff's permission to arrest, search, and seize; providing for prosecution of Federal employees violating this act; rejecting Federal laws purporting to give Federal employees the authority of a County Sheriff in this State; and providing an immediate effective date."

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Montana:

Section 1. Purpose.

It is the intent of the legislature to ensure maximum cooperation between federal employees and local law enforcement authorities; to ensure that federal employees who carry out arrests, searches, and seizures in this state receive the best local knowledge and expertise available; and to prevent misadventure affecting Montana citizens and their rights that results from lack of cooperation or communication between federal employees operating in Montana and properly constituted local law enforcement authorities.

Section 2. County sheriff's permission for federal arrests, searches, and seizures -- exceptions.

(1) A federal employee who is not designated by Montana law as a Montana peace officer may not make an arrest, search, or seizure in this state without the written permission of the sheriff or designee of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search, or seizure will occur unless:

(a) the arrest, search, or seizure will take place on a federal enclave for which jurisdiction has been actively ceded to the United States of America by a Montana statute;

(b) the federal employee witnesses the commission of a crime the nature of which requires an immediate arrest;

(c) the arrest, search, or seizure is under the provisions of 46-6-411 or 46-6-412;

(d) the intended subject of the arrest, search, or seizure is an employee of the sheriff's office or is an elected county or state officer; or

(e) the federal employee has probable cause to believe that the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure has close connections with the sheriff, which connections are likely to result in the subject being informed of the impending arrest, search, or seizure.

(2) The county sheriff or designee of the sheriff may refuse permission for any reason that the sheriff or designee considers sufficient.

(3) A federal employee who desires to exercise a subsection (1)(d) exception shall obtain the written permission of the Montana attorney general for the arrest, search, or seizure unless the resulting delay in obtaining the permission would probably cause serious harm to one or more individuals or to a community or would probably cause flight of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure in order to avoid prosecution. The attorney general may refuse the permission for any reason that the attorney general considers sufficient.

(4) A federal employee who desires to exercise a subsection (1)(e) exception shall obtain the written permission of the Montana attorney general. The request for permission must include a written statement, under oath, describing the federal employee's probable cause. The attorney general may refuse the request for any reason that the attorney general considers sufficient.

(5) (a) A permission request to the county sheriff or Montana attorney general must contain:

(i) the name of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure;

(ii) a clear statement of probable cause for the arrest, search, or seizure and a federal arrest, search, or seizure warrant that contains a clear statement of probable cause;

(iii) a description of specific assets, if any, to be searched for or seized;

(iv) a statement of the date and time that the arrest, search, or seizure is to occur; and

(v) the address or location where the intended arrest, search, or seizure will be attempted.

(b) The request may be in letter form, either typed or handwritten, but must be countersigned with the original signature of the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff or by the Montana attorney general, to constitute valid permission. The permission is valid for 48 hours after it is signed. The sheriff or attorney general shall keep a copy of the permission request on file.

Section 3. Remedies.

(1) An arrest, search, or seizure or attempted arrest, search, or seizure in violation of [section 2] is unlawful, and individuals involved must be prosecuted by the county attorney for kidnapping if an arrest or attempted arrest occurred, for trespass if a search or attempted search occurred, for theft if a seizure or attempted seizure occurred, and for any applicable homicide offense if loss of life occurred. The individuals involved must also be charged with any other applicable criminal offenses in Title 45.

(2) To the extent possible, the victims' rights provisions of Title 46 must be extended to the victim or victims by the justice system persons and entities involved in the prosecution.

(3) The county attorney has no discretion not to prosecute once a claim of violation of [section 2] has been made by the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff, and failure to abide by this mandate subjects the county attorney to recall by the voters and to prosecution by the attorney general for official misconduct.

Section 4. Invalid federal laws.

Pursuant to the 10th amendment to the United States constitution and this state's compact with the other states, the legislature declares that any federal law purporting to give federal employees the authority of a county sheriff in this state is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state.

Section 5. Effective date.

[This act] is effective on passage and approval.

Section 6. Severability.

If a part of [this act] is invalid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of [this act] is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.




FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below




Constitution Party Poses Significant Challenge


POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: CONSTITUTIONAL PARTY CANDIDATES MAKING STRIDES TOWARD CHALLENGING TRADITIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES




23 North Lime Street
Lancaster, PA 17602

contactus@constitutionparty.org



Smiley Flag WaverHighlighted here are only some of the Constitution Party election results. We were represented by great candidates all across the country. The sacrifice they made in stepping forward and running for office gave them the all-important platform from which to speak out for Constitutional issues. They did a great job representing the Constitution Party and all deserve our gratitude for their tremendous efforts and for a job well done!



CONSTITUTION PARTY CELEBRATES ELECTION VICTORIES!


The Constitution Party made great strides in the 2006 election and can, for the first time, celebrate victory!

First of all, congratulations go out to Rick Jore, of Montana, who made history becoming the first Constitution Party candidate from any state to be elected to the state legislature, capturing the seat in Montana’s 12th District. Jore actually won in 2004, by three votes only to see the courts throw out enough ballots to give the Democrat the victory. This year, in a rematch, he won convincingly, garnering 56.2% of the vote and drubbing his Democrat opponent.

Two candidates in Nevada’s Independent American Party were also elected to office. Jackie Berg was elected Eureka County Clerk with 54.10% of the vote, easily topping Republican and Libertarian opposition. Also, Cel Ochoa will be the new constable in Searchlight, Nevada by virtue of winning 54.93% of the vote to defeat her Republican rival. Another feather in the cap of the Nevada Independent Party was the victory of IAP member Bill Wilkerson to the Elko School Board, in a non-partisan race. Congratulations to our soon to be incumbent office holders in Nevada!

The Nevada party did exceedingly well across the board, with its five statewide candidates receiving from 3.44% of the vote to 6.75% of the vote all in races with three or more candidates plus a "none of the above" option. Two Nevada state senate candidates received in excess of 32% of the vote and one received over 22% of the vote. These results were indicative of results received across the board by over 40 Nevada candidates.

In Florida our candidates made impressive showings! C. Burt Linthicum received 34,528 votes and 28.9%of the vote for the 12th District State Senate seat. Ken MacPherson received 10,971 and 22.5% of the vote for State Representative in the 76th District!

The Utah Constitution Party did an outstanding job, running over 40 candidates. Scott Bradley, the candidate for US Senate, received 3.75% of the vote. Jim Noorlander, in the 3rd Congressional District won over 8% of the vote against incumbent Chris Cannon, while Congressional candidates Mark Hudson and David Perry received 3.1% and 1.5% respectively. Ed McGarr, in the 58th District State House race garnered 29.91% of the vote and was only kept from greatly exceeding that total by a full blown effort by the Utah Republican Party which feared that McGarr might actually win that seat. Through its high caliber candidates and their coordinated campaign effort under the able leadership of Chairman Frank Fluckiger, Utah has seen its membership grow and is on the threshold of electing candidates to office!

Ron Avery, the Constitution Party candidate for Congress in Texas’ 28th Congressional District won 13% of the vote. This can be compared to the 4% of the vote received by recent Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik, who was that party’s most recent Presidential nominee, despite his pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the race in another Texas Congressional District.

John Langville, South Carolina candidate for state representative from the 28th District, received 19.4% of the vote.

The American Constitution Party of Colorado’s efforts resulted in their maintaining ballot access for 2008.

In Illinois Chuck Broy won ballot access in Tazewell County by receiving 6 percent of the votes, while Chairman Randy Stuffleman conducted an estensive write-in campaign for governor.

In Idaho Jared Eastley won 22% of the vote in his race for state senate, while Katherine Frazier and Jaclyn Ann Crooks running for state house positions in three way races, received respectable votes at 3.6% and 3.3% respectively.

In South Dakota, Scott Bartlett received 4.5% of the vote in the 11th State Senate District, while Bill Scott received 8.2% of the vote in the 14th State Senate District. Meanwhile, South Dakota’s candidate for Governor, Steve Willis, outpaced the Libertarian earning third place in that race.

Our Michigan affiliate, the U.S. Taxpayers Party, was once again able to retain their ballot position. Running over 30 candidates, the Michigan party proved the effectiveness of their candidate recruitment efforts.

John Gathings, candidate for State Treasurer, for Nebraska’s Constitution Party affiliate, the Nebraska Party, maintained that party’s ballot position by receiving 124,656 votes for 23.5%.

The American Independent Party in California ran six statewide candidates, and three for U.S. Congress. Gubernatorial candidate Ed Noonan received an impressive 48,672 votes.

Candidates running for the Pennsylvania State House had very good showings. Joe Murphy running in Pennsylvania’s 38th District received 15.9% of the vote, Chris Graham running in the 40th District received 15.3%, and .Janet Serene, running in the 66th District captured 5.7% of the vote in a three way race.

Tom Kovach, of Tennessee’s Constitution Party, ran as a Republican with the full endorsement and support of Tennessee’s Constitution Party in the 5th Congressional District and received 27.9% of the vote in a four way race. Tom is a member of the Constitution Party’s Veterans Coalition Executive Committee.

Mary Starrett, TV personality, conservative talk show host, and the dynamic candidate of the Constitution Party of Oregon for Governor, received 40,271 votes which amounted to 3.6% of the vote, a full percentage point more than the combined vote of the Libertarian and Green Party candidates. She ran against a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat, and so worried the Republican establishment with her strong campaign that they even attempted to have her removed from the ballot!

Highlighted here are only some of the Constitution Party election results. We were represented by great candidates all across the country. The sacrifice they made in stepping forward and running for office gave them the all-important platform from which to speak out for Constitutional issues. They did a great job representing the Constitution Party and all deserve our gratitude for their tremendous efforts and for a job well done!





Please support the work of the Constitution Party by clicking here

Please visit our website at www.constitutionparty.org.




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Ending Tax Slavery Now


TAXES / ENDING TAX SLAVERY NOW





Smiley Flag WaverTaxation is impractical, unnecessary, and immoral. It is impractical because tax-supported public services -- from public schools to police protection -- work poorly, if at all, and are very wasteful.

Taxation is unnecessary because any service or product that people truly want or need -- from education to roads to charity -- they can and will purchase without being forced to pay. And taxation is immoral because it is based on brute force -- the threat of fines and imprisonment of peaceful citizens.

For 150 years, America got along fine without the personal income tax, sales tax, profits tax, and most other taxes. We need to end taxes now, before tax slavery ends America.



WE MUST END TAX SLAVERY NOW

Out-of-control taxes and regulations are crippling America. According to current federal budget projections, within 15 years the government will take 70% of your income directly in taxes. America will look like East Germany under the Soviets.

IRS agents raided the Engleworld Learning Center near Detroit. Parents were told their children would not be allowed to leave until parents immediately paid any balance due to the Learning Center for the coming months. However, the money would not go to the Center, but to the IRS. A creative IRS official thought he had a great way to force parents to pay the Center's taxes.

"It was like something out of a police state," Sue Stoia says. "They were using the children as collateral."

Marilyn Derby, director of Engleworld, said, "Parents were not allowed to see their children until they had signed an agreement with the IRS. It was a very scary situation, like the Gestapo was here. Children were crying, parents were trembling. I told one woman whose hands were shaking that she shouldn't sign anything she didn't want to. She signed anyway."

18 Elderly Nursing Home Residents Die When The IRS Seizes Their Home and Kicks Them Out In The Dead Of Winter

During a freezing winter cold snap, the IRS seized all of the assets of a nursing home in Toledo, Ohio. Unable to even buy food or pay an electric or gas bill, the owners were forced to close the home. Eighteen of the residents died during the hasty relocation. When Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) demanded an explanation from the IRS, he was told it was an "extremely routine" seizure.

IRS collection agent Art Harris described the mentality of many of his fellow agents:

"Some [agents] were vicious -- they'd brag back at the office, 'Boy did I make that guy jump,' or 'I had that woman crying when I told her I'd put her on the street with her kids.' One agent who bragged about padlocking some guy's business said the man was so upset he asked, 'How do you expect me to pay now?' The agent said, 'I told him, Go get your wife to peddle [herself].'" [Source: Art Harris, "The Tax Man and the Big Sting," Washington Post 4-16-89, p. F4]

Down The Government Sewer:
What Happens To Your Tax Monies?

These incidents show how far our government has strayed from its original purpose of protecting our lives, liberty, and property. Providing basic government services such as police, courts, and military defense would cost a fraction of what we now pay in taxes. Fifty years ago, the US had an excellent court system and the most powerful military in the world, yet taxes then consumed less than 5% of the average person's income.

Today, taxes are over ten times as high, and ninety percent of the money we pay in taxes is wasted. Would you send $20 billion of our tax dollars to Mexico to prop up the peso? Would you pay for inner-city schools that graduate students who are unable to read or write? Would you pay farmers not to grow food? Would you authorize the Pentagon to spend $7,622 for a coffee maker designed to survive a plane crash? Would you have spent billions to build up the militaries of the Shah of Iran and Gen. Noriega of Panama? Would you spend $352,000 to study the mating habits of the California kangaroo rat? Would you spend $17,000 so an artist could display a picture of Christ in a jar of human urine?

Any business that spent money as irresponsibly as the government does would quickly go bankrupt -- if their directors weren't lynched first. But, as the Supreme Court has ruled, government is not legally obligated to provide you with any specific service in return for the taxes you pay.

Unlike legitimate businesses, only the government can legally force you to pay for its programs, no matter how wasteful or outrageous. And there's no limit to how much of your income the government can seize.

How Much Do You Really Pay?

According to the Tax Foundation, in 1994 the average American paid 22.4% of his or her income in federal taxes, plus 11.8% in state and local taxes -- 34.2% total.

But that's just the beginning! Dr. James Payne of the University of California found that in addition to direct taxes we also pay huge, hidden taxes including:

  • Compliance costs -- record keeping, monies spent on tax planning, computers and software purchased to fulfill IRS requirements, etc.

  • Enforcement costs -- IRS audits, field investigations, service center corrections, criminal investigations, litigation, and forced collections.

  • Emotional, moral and cultural costs -- families forced onto welfare, time and creative energy lost figuring out how to avoid taxes, etc.
  • For every $1 we pay in direct taxes, we spend an additional $0.65 in compliance costs. And even that figure doesn't include the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. For a typical U.S. family, the real cost of taxes and regulations is at least:

    Federal taxes 22.4% of income
    State & local taxes 11.8%
    Compliance costs 22.2%
    Regulatory costs 12.7%

    70.1% of your income is now consumed by government

    Taxes Are Crippling America

    Why are more businesses failing, why is unemployment soaring, and why are more and more families becoming homeless? Two major reasons are skyrocketing taxes and destructive regulations.

    Taxes and regulations are destroying businesses. By the time businesses pay income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, inventory tax, corporate tax, license fees, IRS penalties, EPA fines, etc., etc., little or nothing is left to operate the business.

    Taxes and regulations are destroying the middle class. Thirty years ago, middle-class Americans could afford to buy a house. Today, increased taxes consume a sum equivalent to mortgage payments. Both parents now have to work just to make ends meet. 15% Social Security taxes make it nearly impossible to save for retirement. And state and local taxes make it difficult for many families even to pay utility bills. Taxes keep poor people poor. Cash-starved businesses can't afford to hire and train the poor. The working poor often can't even afford to feed their families on what's left of their paycheck after taxes. Taxes make it extremely difficult for the poor to start businesses. To operate a push cart you must pay a $7,000 license fee in Washington, DC. A city "Medallion" to legally operate a taxicab in New York costs $142,000. Atlanta charges the poor $50 for a license to beg for money.

    How Can We End Taxes?

    The first step is to reduce taxes to the levels of 50 years ago when people could still afford to buy houses and start businesses. That means cutting government spending with a meat axe. Here are four initial cuts that would save over $600 billion a year - enough to immediately eliminate every cent you pay in personal income tax.

    Cut military spending by 60%. We're now spending $279 billion a year on defense -- almost as much as we did at the height of the Cold War. We can cut military spending at least 60% without jeopardizing our security by scrapping 90% of our 25,000 nuclear weapons, eliminating four of the navy's seven fleets, and requiring honest, competitive bidding for all military procurement.

    – Savings: $167 Billion A Year –

    Get rid of the welfare bureaucracy. Former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon reports that 80% of the budgets of welfare programs go for salaries of government social workers and other overhead expenses. By phasing out the tax-funded welfare bureaucracy and providing private, voluntary aid through churches and community charities -- we can cut welfare costs 80%.

    – Savings: $160 Billion A Year –

    Privatize the schools. Public schools are failing on every level -- moral, academic, and social. SAT scores continue to drop, violence is widespread, and many inner-city schools look more and more like prisons. The solution is to privatize education by allowing parents to spend their money on the schools of their choice that reflect their values. Since government schools spend over $6,000 per pupil vs. less than $2,500 for independent, private schools, this means we would get better education at half the cost.

    – Savings: Up To $100 Billion A Year –

    End Corporate welfare. According to the Cato Institute, some 129 federal programs now spend $87 billion of our money each year subsidizing big business. Here are a few examples:

  • In fiscal 1995, taxpayers spent $1.4 billion subsidizing sugar farming. 40% of this money went to the largest 1% of sugar farms.

  • Taxpayers spent $465,000 to help advertise McDonalds' McNuggets and $2.5 million to promote Dole products overseas.

  • Texas Instruments received $13 million to create civilian applications for military hardware. Hewlett Packard received $10 million and Chrysler $6 million. We paid these companies to develop military technology, and now we're paying again to help them figure out a way to sell it to K-Mart. Corporate welfare should be eliminated now.
  • – Savings: $87 Billion A Year –

    TOTAL SAVINGS: $514 BILLION A YEAR

    End Tax Slavery Now!

    As government consumes more and more of our income, the IRS and state tax authorities act increasingly like criminal gangs. Violent confrontations with tax agents, seizures of bank accounts and homes without trial, and lengthy prison sentences for people who can't both pay their taxes and feed their families, are rapidly increasing. In 1992 alone, the IRS seized 3,253,000 paychecks, bank accounts, cars and homes without trial.

      As historian W. H. Chamberlin states:

      "One of the most insidious consequences of the present burden of personal income tax is that it strips many middle-class families of financial reserves. [It] has made the individual vastly more dependent on the State."

    At the current rate of growth, within 20 years taxes will consume every penny we earn. Long before then, we will all be living in public housing projects and eating government cheese.

    Taxation is impractical, unnecessary, and immoral. It is impractical because tax-supported public services -- from public schools to police protection -- work poorly, if at all, and are very wasteful.

    Taxation is unnecessary because any service or product that people truly want or need -- from education to roads to charity -- they can and will purchase without being forced to pay. And taxation is immoral because it is based on brute force -- the threat of fines and imprisonment of peaceful citizens.

    For 150 years, America got along fine without the personal income tax, sales tax, profits tax, and most other taxes. We need to end taxes now, before tax slavery ends America.




    Jarret B. Wollstein is a member of ISIL's Board of Directors and a founder of the original Society for Individual Liberty

    This pamphlet was revised in November 1997. It is part of ISIL's educational pamphlet series. Click here for the full index of pamphlets online.




    E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

    Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below