Patriot Beware

8/14/2019 Patriot Beware

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/patriot-beware 1/7

Patriot Beware!merica's political landscape

is riddled with ideological

pitfalls and snares that

threaten he unwary. Those who de-

pend upon the major media for per-

spectiveand understandingabout he

state of the nation me treated o a daily

barrage of misinformation and propa-

gandaparadedas unassailablewisdom.

For example, the major media con-

stantly peddlethe notions that weHare

helps the poor but doesn't create de-pendency,that the hesident haspow-

ers as"Commander n Chief" to assign

U.S. troops to UN command at will,

and that "assault weapons" in the

handsof law-abiding citizens consti-

tute a danger to the public safety.

While Americans whose views the

Establishment confines to the "far

right" of the political spectrum are

less susceptible o the manipulations

of the major media, some do fall prey

to different myths, often in the form

of miracle cures for our political ills.One such panacea is term limits,

which has been embraced by some

conservatives as a remedy for con-gressionalsocialism. Others believe

that we should abandon he lesislative

processaltogether and concentrateon nul-

lifying the enforcement of unconstitutional

laws through the activism of "fully-in-

formed"juries. A few have even concluded

that our situation has grown so grave that

patriots must now assume a survivalist

profile by stockpiling food and ammuni-

tion and organizing into armed militias.None of the above provides a realistic

solution to America's political and cul-

tural difficulties. Sucha solution can only

be achieved hrough the creationof a con-

stitutionally literate and principled elec-

Truth s the patriot'smost effectiveweapon.

ttAmericans are misled and de-

ceived into believing that the 'in-

come' tax applies to the general

public.... The IRS admits that the6income' tax system is dependent

upon voluntary filing of tax re-

turns." (The Fact Finder,May 16,

1993)

The U.S . Internal Revenue Ser-

vice doesboast hat it relies upon the

voluntary compliance of most of the

public who file returns without being

directly hounded by government

agents; it is the only way the IRS

could stay within its budget. But that

doesn't mean there is no mandatory

requirement; the IRS does indeed

prosecutecitizens who don't file. In-

come axes,despiteour most desper-

ate wishes, are not voluntary; theirpayment is required of all individu-

als (unless heir income is less than

the exemption amount) residing in

the United StatesunderSection6012

of Title 26 0f the u.S. code. whichstates:"Returns with respect to in-

come taxes under subtitle A [govern-ing tax computationsl shall be made

by the following: (lXA) Every indi-

vidual having for the taxable year

torate. Most of the false alternativesserve gross ncome which equals or exceeds he

as distractions o genuine progress.Yet exemption amount...." The penalty for

while the above examples constitute a violation of Section 6O12 can be found

faulty thought process (term limits will under Section 7203, which calls for up to

make voters wise, there are sufficient a $25,000fine and one year in prison for

numbers of activists to stack uries with an individual "who willfully fails to pay

regularity or to defeat the U.S. govern- such estimated ax or tax, make such re-

ment on the battlefield, etc.), there are a turn, keep such records, or supply suchnumber of distractions based upon out- information."

right falsehoods and,/or deliberate decep- THB New ANTIRIcAN as long opposed

tions.Followingaresomeofthosetangents the federal income tax, but it should be

patriots occasionally face on the path to re- eliminated through the legislative process

storing imited constitutionalgovernment. and not civil disobedience.

!

oE!Uc

o

THE NEW AMERICAN / FEBRUARY 17, 1997 25





from whatever source derived, including

.. . (1 ) Compensation or services."Andwages all within the bounds of compen-

sation for services.

"[The public record] irrefutably showsthat not one, but several, egregiousfrauds were committed in the purported

ratification of the Sixteenth Amend-

ment. That amendment was. thus. not

ratified at all and any appearance ofratffication which may exist has no foun-

dation because of the frauds committedby parties involved in the ratificationprocess." (The Law That Never Was,VoL II, by Bilt Benson, 1986)

The 16th Amendment was a direct re-

sponse o the 1895 SupremeCourt deci-sionin Pollockv. FarmersLoanandTrust

Co. The reaction to that decisionwas oneof outrageamong Populist Party agitatorsand their sympathizers within the Demo-

cratic Pafty,who browbeat thepublic intoaccepting he amendment.Therewas ittleorganizedoppositionto the ncome tax bythe time the Congress had submitted theincometax (16th) amendment o the statesfor ratification in 1909. The amendmentpassed he Senatewithout a single "nay"

vote, and only i4 opposed he income taxin the House. The votes were similarlylopsided n most state egislatures.

Bill Benson'scontention hat the 16thAmendment was never properly ratifiedand is therefore invalid rests on the factthat most of the stateswhich ratified the16th Amendment did so by ratifying reso-lutions which varied slishtlv from the

amendmentsubmittedby Congress.How-ever, all of the variations in the state-passed esolutionsare clearly attributable

to grammatical oversights and impropertranscriptionratherthan fraud or any sub-stantivechange n the amendment. n histwo-volume work, The Law that NeverWas, Benson never successfullydemon-strates hat the 16th Amendment wa sfraudulently ratified; in fact, his research

all but proves he opposite.Bensondoesn'teven attempt to contend that the stateswere under the impression that they wereratifying someamendmentother than theincome tax; there was only one incometax amendmentsubmitted o the statesbyCongress,and the issue was well knownin state egislative circles.

Th e only interesting case made by

THENEW AMERICAN FEBRUARY17, 1997



Benson is that Kentucky never appeared

to complete the ratification process.Thelegislature n that statepasseda resolution

with grammatical mistakes (compared tothe congressionalamendment),and t was

vetoed by the state's anti-incometax gov-

ernor. Realizing the errors, the Kentucky

House again took up the amendment andpassedanotherbill. There s some contro-versy as to whether the Senatepassedor

rejected the amendment he second time(according to Benson, the Senateournal

extracts recorded the amendmentas hav-ing beenpassedwhile the officialjournal

recorded the measure as having been re-jected). In any event, the Kentucky legis-lature appeared o be satisfied that it had

ratified the amendment.But even ncome

tax advocates of the day fretted about theappropriateness f including Kentucky

among those having ratified the amend-ment. Income tax advocate Kossuth Kent

Kennan wrote of Kentucky in his 1910

booklncome Taxation that"there

is somequestionto the regularity of the proceed-

ings" and worried about he consequences

if "the vote of Kentucky should becomenecessaryo make up the total of thirty-

six states avoring the amendment." It

was. ndeed.one of the 36.As to the governor's veto, it was imma-

terial. When Congressdeclared he amend-ment ratified in 1913. t did so on the basis

of the constitutional requirement that

amendments e ratified only by the legis-

latures,of the states or by state ratifyingconventions(the mode of ratification de-

terminedby Congress).Moreover, to this

day Kentucky has not contested ts inclu-

sion among those stateshaving ratified theincome ax amendment.

Interestingly, most of those who cite

the Bensonbook do so in order to excusethemselves rom paying income taxes ontheir wages,which the SupremeCourt has

always ruled an indirect tax not in need of

apportionment. In other words, the Su-premeCourt would still uphold unappor-tioned income taxes on the wage income

of individuals even if the 16th Amend-

ment were repealed. The only realisticmeans of freeing this nation from Karl

Marx's income tax is for Americans toforce Congressto repeal the statutesal-lowing for the income tax, along withthose unconstitutional welfare-state aws

which necessitate n onerous ax burden.

"Citizens born in the Sovereign 50states were not born in a territorv over

THENEWAMERICAN FEBRUARY 7, 1997

which the United States is Sovereign!Therefore the Citizens of the 50 statesare not the subjects ofthe graduated di-rect income tax." (Vultares in Eagle'sClothing, by Lynne Meredith, 1994)

This statement s basedupon the mis-conception that the general taxation power

of the Congress is limited by Article I,Section 8, Clause 17of the Constitution; tis not. That clause grants Congress the

power to "exerciseexclusive egislation nall caseswhatsoever,over such district (not

exceeding ten miles square) as may, bycessationof particular states,and the ac-ceptanceof Congress,become he seat ofthe Government of the United States, andto exercise ike authority over all placespurchasedby consentof the legislatureofthe State n which the same shall be, forthe erection of forts, magazines,arsenals,dock-yards,and other needful buildings."

Of course, the exclusive urisdiction

within federal territories $anted by Clause

17 is in addition to other enumerated ed-eral powerswithin the states,not a limita-tion upon them. The federal government

may levy any kind of tax it chooses ex-

cept a tax on exports), either direct or in-direct, within the 50 states. The onlylimitation on the taxation power is that in-direct taxes must be "uniform" throughout

the United Statesand direct taxesmust beapportioned according to congressionalrepresentation. The 16th Amendment tothe Constitution puts the ncome tax in thecategory of taxation requiring unifor-mity.) To suggest hat the Founding Fa-thers drafted a federal constitution onlyfor the District of Columbia and its terri-tories s ludicrous. The District of Colum-bia did not even exist at the time and wasestablished o provide a seat for the na-tional government.

"Social Security tax is just another in-come tax that you voluntarily agreed topay." (Medin Bypass, April 1996)

By law, all wage-earners re required opay social security ax underSection 3101of Title 26 of the U.S. Code (self-em-

ployed individuals pay under Section1401), and the only exception under thelaw is for a few religious ordersapprovedby the Treasury Department. ncidentally,

a rider on the implementing legislation forthe GATT/IVTO treaty passedby Con-gress during a lame-duck session of the103rd Congress equiresall Americans tohave a Social Security number from birthbeginningJanuary , 1997.

"All Americans can set themselvesFree with the Stroke of a Pen by simply

Giving Absolute Voluntary Jurisdictionto the Common Law Court. and De-manding their Relief and Remedies for

their Grievances." (Emilio L. Ippolito,founder of the Common Law Court ofthe People,November 211995)

If Emilio Ippolito has gained freedomwith the stroke of a pen in creating a

"common law court," why is it that he hasbeen spending so much time in prison?

Here is some backgroundon the commonlaw andthe citizen's groupingsmarketingthemselvesas common law courts.

"Common law" is a generic term de-scribing the legal system the American

states nherited from England at the timeof independence.Common law developedin Englandover the last 900 yearsor so,butis generally traced to its beginnings duringthe reign of Edward I in 1100. Edward's

curia rode circuits to institute justice

throughout England andgenerally came toenforce the same laws equitably to all ar-eas of the country in the king's jurisdic-

tions. Although thesecommonly enforcedlaws initially applied only to feudal nobles,the Magna Carta of l2l5 and subsequentlegislation enacted by the English kingsgradually increased the jurisdiction andreach of the common law over the variouslocal feudal and ecclesiasticalcourts.

Over the centuriescommon law has ac-quired a number of characteristicswhichprotect individual rights, suchas the rightto a trial by jnry, the right to face an ac-cuser in open court, protection against

searchand seizure,etc. The English Peti-

tion of Right (1628) and the Bill of Rights(1688) n Englandaddedgreatlyto a bodyof law which set common law rights

above the whims of the Crown. In court.common law involves decisionsarrived atby precedent,with casesarising from ac-tual controversies.One ofthe greatest n-fluences on the American common law

system at the time of independencewasSir William Blackstone's four-volume

Commentaries,which were basedupon a

series of 1756 lectures at Oxford. TheFounding Fathers requently cited Black-

stone'sCommentaries n their correspon-

dence,particularly the frst volume which

expounded he rights of Englishmen, andused many of his arguments as ustifica-

tion for secession rom England. TheFounderswere also influenced by Sir Ed-

ward Coke, a great exponent of commonlaw who affirmed the principle that the



common aw can control and supersede n

act of parliament.

The term "common law" is often em-

ployed to differentiate from the civil law

system usedby non-English-speaking oun-

tries as well as to distinguish from equity

law and specialized ypes of law and courts

used n the United States,such as admiralty

law on the federal level and family and u-

venile law on the state evel. TheConstitu-

tion grants the Supreme Court jurisdictionin all casesarising under the Constitution"in fcommon] law and equity," as well as

in cases arising from the military, the

states,or federal officials."Common law courts" have been

springing up in recentyears hrough the

efforts of some misguided individuals.

Someare ollowers of EugeneSchroder's

bizarre heory that the U.S. Constitution

has been suspended.*Others seek dec-

larations of statecitizenship(or Repub-

lic of Texas itizenship)n avainattempt

to evade either income taxes or federaljurisdiction in some other controversy.

Still others seek o "prosecute" elected

officials for alleged "crimes."

The creationof "common law courts"

by the fiat of certain ndividuals is usu-

ally basedon the false suppositions hat

conrmon la w was abolished in the

United States at some time during the

20th century and that anyonecan create

his own common law court under the

Constitution. Yet none of the so-called

common law courts which Tne New

AwnrceN has examined even pretends o

cite a specific provision of the U.S. or

stateconstitutionsauthorizingprivateciti-

zens o create such a court.

Thesecommon aw court'Judges" are

not electedby anyone other than the small

circle of zealots who peddletheir deviant

common law court theories, and they are

not appointedby elected officials. These"courts" therefore violate the fundamen-

tal principle of American government

which requires the consent of the gov-

erned. Although not directly part of the

common law, the consentof the governed

has long been associatedwith the com-mon law and can be traced back to the

Magna Carta itself, which required the

consentof the nobles for the king to im-

posean "aid or scutage tax]." More often

than not, these unelected "common law

courts" pass illegitimate multi-million

dollar 'Judgments" againstelected offi-

cials and legitimate government entities.

One such court notified Colorado Attor-

THENEWAMERICANFEBRUARY7, 1997

ney General Gale Norton that her en-forcement of "illegal" laws had resulted

in a'Judgment" againsther of $3.7billion

in punitive damages.The Dallas Morning

News eceiveda $1 billion udgmentagainst

it from the"CommonLaw Court of Pleas";

the Montana Freemenoffered a $1 million

bounty on the local sheriff through its bo-gus common aw court; and another com-

mon law" court. decidins in favor of the

"Republ ic of Texas." [anded down ajudgment of more than $93 trillion against

the U.S. sovernment and other entities.

Sir Wilf am Blackstone: His Commentarieshad major influence on U.S. common l aw.

These"common law courts" do not ap-ply law, have no legitimacy as courts, and

do not rule in any sort of common man-

ner. They are nothing more than lynch

mobs without a rope.

"[]t is now resolved at law that the Re-public of Texas s re-installed as ts ownfree and independent Nation among na-

tions, and is subject only to its treaties

authorized by its Constitution." (John C.

VanKirk, "President" of the Republic

of Texas moYement,January 5,1996)

A few Texans claim to have initiated a

constitutional convention and set up theirown "provisional" national government,

but there is no legitimacy to either their"government" or their rulings. It should

be noted that the unelected Republic of

Texas RT ) leaders ave no appreciation

of the fact that legitimate governmentre-quires the consent of the governed - a

concept embraced by the Founding Fa-

thers of both the United Statesand Texas.

Leadersof the Republic of Texas plan

to hold a Texas constitutionalconvention

by January1, 1998.They assert hat Texas

was never legally annexedby the United

States, the in tent and best efforts of

Stephen Austin and Sam Houston not-

withstanding. The crux of their argument

is that Congressdid not have the power toannexTexas nto the union under he Con-

stitution becauseTexaswas a foreign na-

tion at the time. In point of fact, not onlydoes Congresshave exclusive power to

admit new states nto the union under Ar-

ticle IV, Section3 of the U.S. Constitu-

tion, but there is no limitation against

annexation of foreign nations withinthat section.

The self-appointed, would-be rulers

of Texas have been issuing ludicrous

statementswhich are at oddswith con-servative and constitutional principles

as well as with common sense.John

VanKirk's successor s "President"of

the Republic of Texas, Archie Lowe,remarked n an October 1 , I 996 press

release, The conditions n Texashave

reached he samepoint as Nazi Ger-many in 1939." This "Republic" has

appealed o the freedom-threatening

United Nations requestingUN. recogni-

tion ofTexas as an ndependent ation.

RT has also proclaimed amnestyand

full citizenship or all illegal aliens"do-

miciling on the soil of Texas or at least

six months." And it has encouraged ts

"cit izens" to form "common la w

courts" n every county n Texas.

Like the leaders of the RT provisional

govemment, he officers of the common aw

courts are not electedby anybody(except he

tiny groupsigning"citizenship"papers or

RT) and are not appointed by any elected

official. As already ndicated, one such"common law court" evidenced he bizarre

natureof suchbodiesby demanding or the

RT a judgment ot $93,492,827,008,096.00in gold against he federal government,

the International Monetary Fund, the Fed-

eral ReserveBanks, and he RomanCatho-

lic Church at the Vatican.

Richard Mclaren, RT "Chief Ambas-sador and General Consul," has served

time in the Midland County Detention

Centeron contempt of court charges elat-

ing to his unwillingness to cooperatewith

* If true, this would mean that the federal government

is not now violating the Constitution by exercisingextra-constitutionalpowers, since the governmentcan hardiy violate a law that has zLlreadybeen sus-pended. n truth, of course, he Constitution has notbeen suspended;t is waiting to be used.



legitimate court hearing related to his

of bogus liens against the Stewart

Guarantee Company. Stewart Title

won a $1.8 million judgment

gainstMclaren plus a pefinanent njunc-

prohibiting Mclaren from initiating

Stewart Title,

ccording to the June 8, 1996 Dallas

More dangerously, he "Republic" has

irculatedpetitions in which signees re-State citizenship

nd pledge to "support and defend" the

of Texas. Although the RT has

ot yet been involved in any violence,

ontinued frustration resulting from its

to attain its goals could cause tsSecretaryof Defense" to initiate RT ac-

going beyond the issuing of bogus

through ts authorized"common lawMilitia organizations throughout

been allying themselveswithRT for the last several months. And

has threatened o use "bodilyfederal marshalsattempt o affest

him for fail ing to appear n court for

filed byRT. Moreover, federal officials could

RT forms renouncingU.S. citizen-

ship as evidenceof sedition in later court

if violence

rupts.Conservativeswould do well to ig-

ore theseself-appointedwanna-be ulers

f the RT.

There are 2,851,433 ellow Americans

cheduledfor[concentration

camp] ter-

on the RED LIST pick-up.

here are 3.374.69I fellow Americans

cheduled for termination on the BLUE

IST pick-up.... These figures are sub-

to expanding by as much as tenercent each by the time of FINAL

FEMA COM-

UTER BASES (34 NATTONWTDE)

ON JULY 22, 1996." (Jesus Reigns

inistries fax broadcast, July 30, 1996)

The above statement s one of a series

f ever-multiplying and varying accounts

hich embrace he idea that a "new world

rder" machine s poised o suck patrioticmericans into a waiting domestic gulag

system at any moment. Many of theseac-

ounts cite th e Beech Grove Amtrak

aintenance hopnear ndianapolis as he

site of one of these concentration camps.

Hn Nsw ArvrsRrcANnvestigated the mat-

er and reported n its October 31 1994 is-

sue that there is, indeed, nothing at the

mtrak repair shop to indicate that this


Concentration camps and secret UN bases on U.S.soil: Wild rumors, no proof,

site is any more a "detention center" in is overwhelming; the plan exists forwaiting than any other large public struc- the imprisonment of millions of U.S.ture. Nevertheless, iving Truth Minis- citizens.tries leader Texe Marrs has continued topush the Amtrak scenario n a videotapeentitled Concentration Camps n America.

Most concenfration camp theories can be

traced back to the late William R. Pabst ofHouston, who argued that concentration

camps were being set up in the United

Statesas early as 1976. Pabstcame o this

conclusionby taking a few genuinelyomi-nous federal rulings and then exfrapolating

ad nauseamabout the intent of the docu-ments. For example, Pabst noted that theArmy Field Manual refers to a "Civil Af-

fairs Operation" in conquered erritory as"Assumption of full or partial executive,

legislative, and judicial authority over acountry or area." That sounds easonable

enough; the Army should administer or-

der temporarily in captured oreign lands

to prevent ooting and possible errorism.

But here s how Pabst ntemreted t:

Nowhere in the manual does t ex-

clude this program from being putinto effect right here in the United

States.As a matterof fact, in Kearny,

New Jersey, he Civil Affairs group

went into that areaand practiced ak-

ing over that governmental unit....

Now, the Department of the Army

still maintains that all this is not for

the United States yet this training

continues here for us. The evidence

Pabst nferred an nsidiousmotive from

the fact that the Army Field Manual did

not explicitly state n that paragraph hat

Civil Affairs Operations should not be

conducted n the United States.But no

reasonableperson would expect to find

such a legalistic disclaimer in the defini-

tion sectionof a guidedesigned o explainmilitary concepts o recruits. The fact that

the Army has conducted raining exercises

for Civil Affairs Operations should not

alarm ci tizens, unless evidence existed

pointing to something involving morethan just training exercises. But Pabst

gave no other reasoning or evidence osupport his statement hat this somehow

constitutes overwhelming evidence that

millions of Americans are headed o con-

centration camps.

The federalbugabooswho would usher

U.S. citizens into concentrationcamps n

Pabst's ime were the now defunct Fed-

eral Law EnforcementAssistanceAdmin-istration and the U.S. Army; Pabst evenprovided a map of the United Statespin-

pointing where the concentration camps

would likely be. Today, in the eyes of

mostconcentrationcamp heorists he role

that was to be played by the LEAA and

the Army has been replaced by FinCEN,

multi-jurisdictional task forces, and the

United Nations. The names on the map



gold-fringed flags fall within theexclusive province of the military.Besides, here is no statutorybasisfor alleging that flags change thelegal system applied in any court-room, military or civilian. The ap-plicable legal jurisdiction isdeterminedby other factors,such asmembership n the armedservices.

"Under the terms of ExecutiveOrder 11490, the President ofthe United States can declarethat a National Emergency existsand the Executive Branch can

may have chaaged,but the map itself has ... put the entire country under TO-not. The Red List/Blue List scenario s an- TAL MARTIAL LAW AND A MILI-other variation on the concentrationcamp TARY DrcrAToRsHIP," (unsourcedtheme basedon an anonymous"former photocopied circular, Kosmos Com-government official" who was inter- puter BBS cited as originator)viewed on short-wave adio. This statementdescribes airly accu-

The danger n uncritically acceptingun- rately what the practical effect of Execu-substantiatedumors about concentration tive Order 11490would have beenhad itcamps s that it leads

to the false conclu- been implemented. It never was, and itsion that our freedomsare already ost and was eventually repealed as t should havethat it is too late for lawful remedies.ob- been)as a result of the National Emergen-viously, if the crematoriaare readyfor the cies Termination Act of 19j6.constitutionalists,gun owners,and militia The President's power to issue execu-members,what is the use in working to tive orders arises under his authority aseducate he electorateor even working to- chiefexecutive ofthe federal governmentward the next election? t is, of course, rue (Article II, Section One, Clause One ofthat if we continue to lose our freedoms, the U.S. Constitution) and Commander-concentrationcamps on u.S. soil would in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II,eventuallybecomea reality. Ironically, al- section Two, clauseone). But thatauthor-lowing ourselves o be neutralizedby the ity is limited solely to administering thepresent alse rumors would only serve to law as passedby Congress and repellinghasten hat day. surprise nvasions,respectively.During

the 20th century, however, many Presi-

"The Maritime, Admiralty Flag is a dents have improperly issued executivegold fringed American Flag of War orders to createentirely new governmentpursuant to Army Regulation s840-10 agencies, uch as he FoodAdministrationOctober 1990under which all constitu- during World War I, the Office of Cen-tional rights are suspended." (F. Joe sorship during World War II, and theHollando North American Freedom Commission on Critical InfrastructureCouncil,October 17, 1996'l Protectionduring the Clinton Administra-

Mr. Holland's declarationof "fact" em- tion. Mr. Clinton hasalso ssuedexecutivebraces a number of erroneousnotions. orders o bail outthe economies fforeignFirst, it assumes hat the U.S. Constitution nations and to place u.S. soldiers underand the rights it protects can be negated United Nations control.by military law; that is not so. Second, t Clearly there is no authority under the

incorrectly assumes hat Army regulations Constitution for the President o createen-can negate congressionally and state- tire federal agenciesby sheeredict, andpassed aws and supplant civilian law in there certainly is a constitutional prohibi-civilian courlrooms; they cannot. tion upon any rights protected under the

It is true that Army regulationsdo au- Constitution from being infringed duringthorize gold-fringed flags for "indoor evena time of nationalemergency exceptdisplay and for use in [military] ceremo- for the suspensionof habeascorpus). Butnies and parades" and that a "Military the practical limitations on the power ofCourtroom" is among the approved in- presidentialexecutive ordershave histori-door uses. But that does not mean that callv been defined bv what the other two

34

branchesof governmentarewilling to tol-erate. Executive orders,whether calledExecutiveOrders or PresidentialDecisionDirectives, continue to function in theUnited Statesasde acto legislation.

The SupremeCourt hasoverturnedsev-eral executive orders as unconstitutional,most notably in the case of YoungstownCo. v. Sawyer. In Youngstown, he HighCourt overturnedHarry Truman's Execu-

tive Order 10340, which was an attemptto seize he entire steel ndustry. Congresshas also overturned numerous executiveorders by legislation over the years, buthas more often than notlet de acro presi-dential law-making through executivede-cree continue unhindered. Worse still,Congresshas exhibited an increasing en-dency to write legislation that allowspresidential "flexibility" to proclaim ex-ecutiveorders n a variety of matters.

* * *

While the false statements examined

above can be exposed as factually inac-curate or wildly misleading, many falsesolutions are more a result of poor judg-

ment. Survivalists who think militias willsave themselves rom the new world or-der overestimate their own firepowerand create a fertile ground for loose can-nonsor federalagentsprovocateurswithinthe milit ia movement. Such elementscould be responsible for creating a per-

ceived threat from the "radical right" thatcould then be used as justification foroutright gun confiscation and other po-lice-state measures.Fully Informed Juryadvocatessell their movementas a pana-cea for all unjust laws, when it can neverbe clear how juries will rule on a particu-

lar case.

In order to avoid the pitfalls offalse so-lutions for a runaway federalgovernment,

solid judgment is required. Wild state-ments must be checked out and not betaken at face value, especially when thestatementsoriginate from a commentatoror organization without a proven trackrecord of reliability. Even if the factualstatements prove to be technically true,

considerationneeds o be given as towhether the facts support the conclusion.For example,although tax rebels may ac-curately quote various court decisions,their generally brief citations fail to sup-port their conclusions hat the income taxis voluntary and need not be paid. If con-stitutionalists nsist upon reliable informa-tion and exercise sound judgment, theywill rarely be led astray. I


Are weon the "fringe"of tyranny?

Documents

Patriot Beware