 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 12 June 2001 | Vol. II, No. 58 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 12 June 2001 | Vol. II, No. 58 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
During the month of April TCN staff members made numerous and sizable contributions to the Florida Association of Money-Grabbing Surgeons. As a result we have been too full of morphine and demerol to publish a TCN that would pass as newsworthy. We are slowly regaining our strength and sanity and plan to get completely back into the fray in the next week or two. Until then I expect publishing to remain on the slow side.
We have been truly humbled by the notes we have received from readers who have missed our publication. Thank you for your understanding.
-- Editor
"The congressional GOP isn't spineless, as some allege. It's headless. It has no ideological core. It does not stand for limited government, reduced taxes or liberation from the indignities of Big Government. It stands merely for survival -- which is defined as enjoying the good opinion of a president and a press corps that will tolerate a Republican Party only insofar as it behaves like a faint reproduction of the Democrat Party. ... The modern Republican Party is a work in progress that stopped progressing four years ago. ... For now, Lincoln's party isn't a party at all - just a party in waiting. When Republicans meet next year in convention, the only thing they'll be sure to have in common is hotel reservations."
[ Tony Snow ]
Tom Ambrose, an assistant editor for World Net Daily, has publicly left the Republican party to yoke up with the Constitution Party. Ambrose published his thoughts in the following article at WND.
*** Open letter to President Bush
"President Bush:
I hereby notify you that I will be changing my political affiliation from the Republican Party to the Constitution Party this coming week. It is clear that as both a fiscal and social conservative, the Republican Party no longer represents the decency, honesty, integrity and intelligence that I desire and expect from those who represent me and my family in Washington and elsewhere.
This evolving, difficult decision has been finalized by the precipitous actions of Attorney General John Ashcroft. Though I have served as an elected member of my Republican county central committee twice over the years, no more. It is clear that Mr. Ashcroft is more interested in sweeping the criminal activities of the FBI under the rug than in cleaning the rats out of his house. Why else ramrod through McVeigh's execution? Why else not release the videotapes of the OKC blast area? Why else hide the FBI's outrageous conduct in the TWA Flight 800 investigation? Why else not tell the truth about Waco and Ruby Ridge?
And who knows what else these miscreants masquerading as law enforcement officers have done?
Perhaps Ashcroft thinks that were he to tell the entire truth that we, the people, might no longer have confidence in the FBI, that we couldn't handle the truth. Well, read my lips, Mr. President – and here's a big clue: A large and rapidly growing number of people already no longer have confidence in the FBI. Indeed, we do not have confidence in you or our government in general. Why? Because, like your predecessor, you are unwilling to tell the people of the United States what they rightfully are due to know – the truth.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God!
I had hoped it would be otherwise with you. I love the United States and all that it stands for in our founding documents. But even there, Mr. President, our government continues to lie to us and abuse us. Why else do you allow the myth to persist that the 16th Amendment was legally ratified? Why else do you allow the federal government to brazenly ignore states' rights, guaranteed in the 10th Amendment?
You remember that oath you took – something about preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, wasn't it? You do remember that, don't you, Mr. President?
I am done with this happy-face sewer of lies that Washington has become. As a citizen of these United States, I assert my right to choose my representatives on principle instead of the vain hope and political strategy that Republicans are the lesser of two evils. Any political party that abuses its citizens for praying at national monuments, supports the candidacy of politicians who acquiesce to the murder of unborn children and allows the illegal and corrupt I.R.S. to continue to exist is not one that I want to be a part of.
There has got to be a better way. There is a better way. If you and your cronies won't change things, then I will – even if I stand alone in doing so.
I will encourage everyone that I can to go learn what the Constitution Party stands for and against. It is time for a change. A necessary change. A big change.
A real change"
As you might imagine such a public statement drew much criticism from the GOP faithful. Ambrose responded to those who asked why he couldn't stay in the party and work for change in the following published statement.
Why not stay Republican?
"And that brings me to the second area that the e-mails I received touched upon, i.e., why cannot I just be more patient and work for change within the Republican Party. Simply, I've been waiting for over 20 years. Things have only gotten worse. The Republican Party is as badly diseased as the Democrat Party, but worse – it is rotting away from the inside. The GOP compromises on core values in order to become a "big tent." In standing for everything, it has come to stand for nothing. At least the Democrats are honest about what they believe even if most of them are a bunch of moral reprobates. I can only imagine that Abraham Lincoln must be turning over in his grave faster than a pinwheel in a hurricane knowing that his party has degenerated into standing for little else than $400-a-year tax cuts.
God help us if that is what we are willing to settle for."
[ WND ]
On July 1, 2001, Bob Schulz, Chairman of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, will begin a fast which will continue until he dies or until IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti delivers to him a list of the government's experts who will meet on September 18, 2001, in a public forum, at the National Press Club in Washington DC, with tax law researchers from the tax honesty movement, to argue against the conclusions of those researchers.
This comes as a result of the government's continued evasion of opportunities the Foundation and others have provided to the government over the past two years to discuss the allegations of fraud and illegal operations of the income tax system. The allegations include the following: 1) in 1913, the 16th Amendment (the "income tax" Amendment) was fraudulently and illegally declared to be ratified by a lame-duck Secretary of State just days before leaving office; 2) there is NO LAW requiring most Americans to file a tax return, pay the federal income tax nor have the tax withheld from their earnings; 3) people who file a Form 1040 "voluntarily" waive their 5th Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves; 4) the IRS routinely violates citizens' 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure, without a warrant issued by a court upon probable cause and supported by oath and affirmation; and 5) the IRS, as standard operating procedure, routinely violates citizens' due process rights in its administrative procedures and operates far outside the law.
On February 10, 1999, Joseph Banister, a Special Agent of the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS submitted his 95-page research report to his superiors in the San Jose office of the IRS. The report contained these allegations and supporting evidence and respectfully requested some answers. Mr. Banister was concerned that he was enforcing the Internal Revenue Code as though payment was compulsory, when his research showed it to be voluntary. Instead of answers, Mr. Banister was asked to resign!
This Foundation respectfully, and properly, invited the leaders of the Executive and Legislative branches to have their most knowledgeable experts on the subject participate in academic symposiums and conferences the Foundation sponsored at the National Press Club in July and November of 1999 and in April and June of 2000. We received no response, not even an acknowledgement of the receipt of the invitations!
On April 13, 2000, while a delegation of people representing all 50 states waited outside, Mr. Banister and Mr. Schulz, and a videographer, met in the White House with Jason Furman, the Executive Director of the National Economic Council. He accepted, for President Clinton, a Remonstrance on the subject, he promised to have the staff of the NEC and White House lawyers and historians review the evidence, and he expressed his agreement to have the government's experts participate with Mr. Banister and other tax law researchers in the June 29, 2000 conference the Foundation was arranging for that purpose. Mr. Banister and Mr. Schulz then proceeded to a meeting in the capitol with Dr. William Koetzle, representing Speaker Hastert's policy office, and then to a meeting with Keith Hennessey, Senator Lott's policy director. They accepted the Remonstrance for Mr. Hastert and Mr. Lott, promised to have the experts at the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee review the evidence, and expressed their agreement to have those experts participate in the upcoming June 29th conference. However, on June 2nd, Mr. Furman told Mr. Schulz, "The legality of the income tax is not a high priority item at the White House and we will not be participating in any conference on the subject." A similar response was received from Dr. Koetzle and Mr. Hennessey.
At a cost of $252,000, the Foundation then published full-page educational messages in USA TODAY on July 7, 2000, February 16, 2001, March 2, 2001 and March 23, 2001, featuring the photographs and names of three of the principal tax law researchers and their allegations, three former IRS agents who have come to believe the researchers are correct, and five employers who have stopped withholding the income tax from the paychecks of their employees because they also have come to believe the researchers' allegations are correct.
On April 5, 2001, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing featuring large blow-ups of the Foundation's USA TODAY messages, mounted on easels. THE FOUNDATION WAS NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AT THE HEARING. Two days prior to the hearing, Senator Grassley was quoted in the Saint Petersburg Times saying," We will not allow the We The People Foundation to testify at the hearing because their message will detract from the message we are trying to convey." The message the Committee conveyed was that those people who question the validity of the income tax laws are "tax cheats, schemers, scammers and cons. They must be kept off the Internet, and will be dealt with harshly!"
On April 9, 2001, hundreds of citizens from across the country gathered outside the main entrance of the IRS headquarters building. Three weeks earlier, on March 19th, a letter was delivered to IRS Commissioner Rossotti, letting him know that the citizens would be there and respectfully requesting that he address the group at 11:30 a.m., to let them know when his experts would be available to meet with the tax law researchers in a public forum to discuss the allegations. On April 9th, he refused to address the citizens, choosing instead to schedule an interview with a reporter from The New York Times at 11:30 that day. The Times' article ran on April 16th. In its first paragraph it said, "As a few protestors gathered in front of the Internal Revenue Service building on a warm April day, Charles O. Rossotti was cool and relaxed in his third-floor office, reflecting on his three and a half years running the agency."
On April 11, 2001 USA TODAY informed the Foundation of its decision to stop publishing the Foundation's full-page educational messages about these issues, and the government's failure to address them, because "the ads could be misleading." The Foundation offered to meet with USA TODAY's legal department to discuss the veracity of the Foundation's messages. They refused!
On May 2, 2001, the home and business of one of the employers who has stopped withholding was raided by scores of government agents, at gunpoint. As of this day, those agents have not provided a list of the charges. Nor have they specified the probable cause for the search warrant. They have, however, asked the judge who signed the warrant for 45 days to analyze the computer hard drives, papers and effects that were seized during the raid before they specify the charges and probable cause. The judge granted the request!
The tax law research provides a substantial amount of very credible evidence that since 1913 the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches have been cooperating to deprive the People of a large percentage of the fruits of their labor by enforcing laws and regulations that are prohibited by the Constitution and which do not exist under the Internal Revenue Code. The evidence shows that the Code and regulations have intentionally been written in such a deceptive way as to obscure and obfuscate so as to give citizens the false impression that they are required to pay.
As a result of the Foundation's four messages in USA TODAY, and its other educational efforts, a growing number of people are becoming familiar with the facts of this research and now realize that Congress is prohibited by the Constitution from requiring individual citizens of the fifty states to file and pay the income tax or a social security tax as they currently operate. More and more citizens now believe that it is precisely because of the absence of proper constitutional authority that Congress has not passed any law requiring most Americans to file and pay an income tax.
So far, the IRS has responded with armed raids and with increased threats and saber rattling, but with no attempts to discuss in a rational way the allegations about the laws and regulations.
Journalists from the dominant media, including David Cay Johnston of The New York Times, have responded as apologists for the IRS by portraying individuals and employers who question the legality of the federal income tax laws as "tax cheats," even though those individuals often have a history of intelligent, rational and professional attempts to get their federal representatives and IRS officials to answer legitimate questions about the legal authority of the IRS to force the collection of the federal income tax.
Obviously, the current situation must not continue.
The question is: What can a free People do when faced with a government that has apparently stepped outside the boundary drawn around its taxing power by the Constitution and by its own laws, and refuses to justify its behavior, evades all requests by citizens to answer legitimate questions, and uses a heavy handed, steel-fisted approach to enforcing the income tax -- as though its payment by most Americans was compulsory when, in fact, most citizens apparently are not liable -- and when the dominant media will not allow the people to purchase space to tell their story?
Answer: We the People must educate one another about the discrepancies between the way the Constitution and the tax law are written and the operations of the IRS. Knowledge is power. Only a well-informed citizenry will bring the federal tax policies and programs back under the control of the People and their Constitution. Education can take many forms.
Bob Schulz prays that his stand in defense of the Constitution and the rule of law, and his death, should it come to that, will help to educate citizens about the apparent discrepancy between the government's behavior in enforcing the federal tax laws and the legality of those laws, the government's recalcitrance and refusal to reconcile the discrepancy, and the importance of keeping the government within the boundaries the people have drawn around its power. His act should not be seen as one of frustration or despair, but as a measure of his devotion to our sacred constitutional principles for which so many others have laid down their lives.
On June 11, 2001, a letter will be delivered to President Bush, to the leaders of the Congress and to Commissioner Rossotti to inform them of Mr. Schulz's decision to do this. A copy of the letter can be viewed on the Foundation's web site at http://www.GiveMeLiberty.org/. Also on the web site are the Foundation's educational messages as published in USA TODAY and other educational materials on the subject.
Bob's motto is ACTA NON VERBA. His deed is part of an overall action plan put together by the Foundation under the heading of PROJECT TOTO, the goal of which is to develop a critical mass of citizens demanding answers to the questions of the tax law researchers, regarding the fraudulent and illegal operations of the federal income tax system.
For a discussion of PROJECT TOTO and what you can do to help, please visit the Foundation's web site at http://www.GiveMeLiberty.org/.
A lawyer for key Pardongate witness Garland Lincecum confirmed Sunday that his client gave damning testimony to a federal grand jury in New York last week about former first brother Roger Clinton's role in the clemency-for-cash scandal.
But federal prosecutors have reached the point where ex-President Clinton's testimony may be necessary to lock up the case, a step the Bush Justice Department may be reluctant to take.
"Essentially my client went in there and he said, 'Look, myself and my family paid this money to associates of Roger Clinton - and, in his opinion, to Roger Clinton - so he could get a pardon from the president," lawyer Ed Hayes told WABC Radio's John Batchelor and Paul Alexander.
The radio duo broke the story of the former first brother's alleged pardon-peddling scam in February, prompting U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District Mary Jo White to launch a federal criminal probe.
Hayes said Lincecum testified that he paid $235,000 to Clinton's partners Dickie Morton and George Locke, one of whom, the grand jury was told, "had a long-term relationship with the president as well."
In the 1980s, Locke, a former Arkansas state senator, was a partner in the Little Rock investment company Collins, Locke and Lasater. Dan Lasater was one of Bill Clinton's biggest financial supporters during his early political career - and when the bond dealer was later sent to jail on cocaine conspiracy charges, Clinton gave him a state pardon.
Locke, who was jailed along with Roger Clinton as part of the same 1985 drug prosecution, told the Wall Street Journal earlier this year that he expected, but didn't get, his own pardon when President Clinton pardoned Roger this past January.
Lincecum testified, said Hayes, that Roger Clinton's partners told him they expected "the president would give Roger at least six pardons - they had six pardons to sell."
Hayes outlined two possible crimes suggested by the evidence thus far:
"One is that Roger took the money and didn't do anything for it. Or, alternatively - and this would be a much more serious crime - if the president did say to him, 'Look, I'm going to give you six pardons. Get the most money that you can for them. Tell me who to pardon and I'll pardon them.'"
But government attorneys may have reached a crossroads in the Clinton case, the New York lawyer suggested - telling Batchelor and Alexander that it's no longer a question of whether the evidence is strong enough to bring indictments, but whether the Bush Justice Department wants to go after the Clintons.
"The big issue now is does the government want to press the case. Because, for one thing, to really show whether or not there was a crime committed, you really have to question Bill Clinton. You really have to ask, Did Roger talk to his brother Bill about getting a pardon for Garland? Did Roger talk to anybody about getting a pardon for Garland?"
Hayes declined to offer his opinion about which way prosecutors were leaning, but hinted they were being reined in on orders from Washington.
"You never know in these cases how dedicated they are to making the case. ... I think [lead Pardongate prober] Elliot Jacobson is a very conscientious prosecutor. But he does what he can do within the Justice Department."
When pressed by Batchelor and Alexander, Hayes elaborated on signals that prosecutors are cooling on the idea of indicting the former first brother.
"I don't think they have any particular commitment to showing that Roger Clinton is a crook. I think most of the country accepts that - I don't know if that's what they want to devote their resources to."
That could mean the Bush administration will decide to use Clinton's case as a bargaining chip with the new Democrat-controlled Senate, the lawyer said.
"You have a much different atmosphere now. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton are the senators from New York. Charles Schumer is a very powerful individual because the Democrats now control the Senate."
Hayes hinted a political deal may be in the works: "You don't know whether [the Bush administration] is going to trade three federal judicial appointments in return for turning a blind eye to this."
[ NewsMax ]
Taking a page right out the Clinton-Carville playbook, New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli is seeking to blackmail Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Torricelli, a Democrat, is under investigation for accepting bribes and illegal campaign cash and gifts. The New York Post reported this weekend that Torricelli plans to stave off an indictment by "tearing down" the attorney general.
Reportedly Torricelli operatives have been working "behind the scenes" to investigate Ashcroft's past - and to use damaging personal information against him if he does not accept Torricelli's demand that an independent counsel be appointed to probe his case.
Torricelli has been bragging about his new strategy and was caught last Thursday at a fund-raiser in Teaneck, N.J., saying, "On the day that John Ashcroft gets a gold watch for leaving the Justice Department, I'll be there [in the Senate] nominating federal judges."
Dick Morris, former adviser to Bill Clinton, said Torricelli's efforts are nothing more than the successful "slash-and-burn" strategy used by the Clintons to derail efforts to have him impeached.
During the impeachment proceeding, Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt openly advertised for damaging personal information on congressmen.
In this case Torricelli will have a more difficult time claiming political motives. He is being investigated by Mary Jo White, U.S. Attorney for New York and a Clinton appointee.
[ NewsMax ]
Think Tom Daschle's visit to John McCain's ranch got Republicans nervous? Just wait till Thursday, when Bill Clinton and John McCain are trying to arrange to meet in Chicago. Clinton will be there for a Democratic fundraiser to be held on Wednesday evening. McCain comes in the next afternoon to attend a fundraiser for state Rep. Jim Durkin, who co-chaired McCain's Illinois presidential campaign.
No time or location has been set for the meeting between Clinton and McCain. "Their people are still talking," says a Clinton associate. "When President Clinton heard they would be in town at the same time, he wanted to get together. Mr. Clinton greatly admires Senator McCain's political courage and independence. He kind of reminds him a bit of himself, when he was the Comeback Kid back in 1992." (Was that before or after Clinton's draft-dodging scandal?)
Clinton's invitation to McCain apparently came after a phone call from Daschle to DNC chief Terry McAuliffe, who then called Clinton. "The Majority Leader felt after staying with Sen. McCain that this was a good opportunity to keep the heat on the senator, and Mr. Clinton is great at these one-on-one meetings. If it happens, the senator will know how much the Democrats would appreciate Mr. McCain's support."
If the meeting is to happen, McCain will have to adjust his schedule. He's not expected in Chicago until after 2 p.m. on Thursday, Clinton is due to leave town later that day. "We're trying to change the schedules," says the Clinton source. "It will be tight, but we think we can get them together for more than half an hour."
[ Washington Prowler ]
The Army is fighting to maintain its 10 active combat divisions in the face of suggestions from some Pentagon officials that trimming soldiers would help pay for the next generation of warplanes, ships and armored vehicles.
Pentagon officials said in interviews that no senior aide has yet recommended Army troop cuts to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who is overseeing a thorough review of military strategy and the force structure needed to carry it out.
But the officials said the option is being discussed at lower levels as the Pentagon last month began writing a new Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) mandated by Congress and due Sept. 30.
A senior Army officer said his service has prepared arguments to dissuade Mr. Rumsfeld´s top aides from agreeing to a smaller Army. The Air Force, for one, has spent the post-Cold War era arguing that air power can blunt enemy invasions, an indirect way of saying fewer ground troops are needed.
"The thing about cutting force structure is that you get a cut within a cut within a cut," said a senior Army officer. "You cut personnel, recruiting, retention and salary expenses. These cuts are much more significant to the long-term budget than, say, the decision to not field the Army´s Crusader artillery system, which just saves a few billion dollars over a few years."
But a senior Pentagon official said that while various options have been discussed, no one in the QDR process has yet proposed cutting the armed forces´ 1.36 million active-duty roster.
"There´s nothing I´ve heard yet that the administration is seriously looking at reducing anybody´s force structure," said this official, who asked not to be named.
"That doesn´t mean [Mr. Rumsfeld] won´t be doing that later this summer."
The official said it would be difficult to trade Army formations for more weapons as long as the United States has a need to keep 200,000 troops in the Pacific region and in Europe.
Mr. Rumsfeld, while in Europe last week meeting with NATO officials, did not rule out a shift in Europe-based forces.
"We are of course looking at how forces are arranged, and force structures -- apart from size -- in addition to the question of structure, and what might come out of it, I don´t know," he told reporters. "We´re not at that stage. . . .
There has been no discussion of troop adjustments in Europe and it would be wrong to inject that into discussion and cause tremors unnecessarily and inaccurately, so please don´t."
Four years ago, the service was one QDR draft away from losing two divisions.
The Army top brass mounted a full-court press to convince Defense Secretary William S. Cohen that abolishing two divisions put the country at risk of not having a national military capability of fighting two regional wars simultaneously.
This time around, however, the stars are aligned differently.
Mr. Rumsfeld openly muses about changing the two-war strategy.
Pentagon officials say one option is a "one-war-plus" declaration. This would mean sizing the force to fight one regional war, while carrying out a multitude of smaller missions such as peacekeeping and "coercive" bombing to gain a diplomatic objective.
If the two-war goal is amended, the Pentagon could try to justify troops cuts.
Mr. Rumsfeld has said repeatedly in recent interviews that he has not decided whether to keep the two-war goal or amend it.
The Air Force has good reason to argue for a smaller Army. Two of its top priorities, the F-22 stealth fighter and the multi-service Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), carry long-term costs of $62 billion and $300 billion, respectively.
There is not enough money to fund these and other high-priced systems unless President Bush is willing to support huge increases in defense spending.
So far, the White House is willing to approve no more than $30 billion in additional money for next year´s defense budget, meaning something, troops or systems, will have to be scaled back.
The Congressional Budget Office has said the Pentagon needs $30 billion more in procurement accounts alone to replace aging weapons and equipment.
Pentagon analysts say a cut of two divisions could mean elimination of as many as 100,000 soldiers from the Army´s authorized end strength of 480,000.
This could also lead to reduction in Guard and Reserve units.
At that juncture, political sparks would fly.
Under the current QDR, the Pentagon was supposed to trim 45,000 Guardsmen and Reserves from a total force of just under 900,000.
But after imposing the first 20,000 cuts, the Pentagon ran up against stiff opposition from Congress and canceled further trims in the forces.
[ Washington Times ]
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.