Time: Fri Sep 26 06:37:37 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA27821;
Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:33:25 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA20358;
Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:29:24 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:29:01 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: The New Abolitionists -- Abolish the IRS! (fwd)
<snip>
>
>Subject: Keyes: The New Abolitionists -- Abolish the IRS!
>
>Please distribute this transcript.
>
>Coming Soon: The Official Keyes 2000 Web Page
>
>================================
>
>The Alan Keyes Show
>September 23, 1997
>Subject: Abolish the IRS
>
>
>
>The income tax was actually an innovation. And
>some people talk about the income tax like it is
>some big inevitable thing; it's always been with
>us; you can't get rid of it. That's not true.
>When the Constitution of our country was written
>by the Founding Fathers, back in the late 18th
>century, the one that governed all the way through
>the early 20th century, they wrote it in such a
>way that an income tax -- a direct tax on
>individuals that was done without any regard to
>states or distributions of population or anything
>like that -- was illegal. It was
>unconstitutional. You couldn't do it. So that
>the income tax that we have now was forbidden by
>the Constitution.
>
>In order to get it in there, they had to actually
>pass an amendment to the Constitution that changed
>its wording in order to allow this kind of a
>direct tax to be levied on the individual's
>labor. And that's another thing that a lot of
>people don't understand. We call it an income
>tax; in point of fact, it's a tax on our work, and
>income is used to measure it. So it's a tax on
>individuals.
>
>That was therefore something that came in in the
>early 20th century; it was part of what they call
>the Progressive Era, the first time a bunch of
>left-wing self-deluders got control of the U.S.
>Government. They put in place the income tax,
>which, by the way, had been advocated by people
>like Marx and others on the left as a tool of
>socialism and communism.
>
>They put in the Federal Reserve. During the
>course of the 19th century, there had been a big
>fight over whether we should have a centrally
>controlled banking system, and a lot of the people
>who believed in the grass roots, and believed that
>this ought to be a nation that paid attention to
>the needs of the community and the needs of the
>smaller owners and business people and farmers --
>they didn't like the idea of a centralized banking
>system; fought it real hard during the 19th
>century. They finally lost in the early part of
>the 20th century, when the budding oligarchs
>established the Federal Reserve System, combined
>with the income tax.
>
>I go through all of this in order to make the
>point that the income tax is an innovation; it's
>an experiment. Actually a left-wing, socialist
>experiment. And I think it is an experiment that
>has obviously proven to be a very bad thing, that
>has hurt this country, hurt our economy. Some
>would argue that it helped to set us up for things
>like the Depression. I think it has proven to be
>a big mistake. And I think we ought to get rid of
>it.
>
>(Caller: How do we get rid of it?)
>
>You repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution,
>so that we return to the original founding
>Constitution of this country, and then you abolish
>the tax code that the income tax is about. You
>can replace it with the kind of taxes most people
>are already paying -- which is the taxes on things
>you buy, which you only pay when you decide to buy
>them. Nobody able to reach into your pocket and
>take your money out, until you decide what to do
>with it. Doesn't that sound better?
>
>Instead of being taxed before you decide how to
>spend your money, you will be taxed only after you
>decide what to do with it. And if you decide that
>you want to save it, you won't be taxed. If you
>decide that you are going to spend it on things
>that are just vital to life, rather than on
>certain kinds of luxury items and so forth, you
>wouldn't be taxed. But when you go out and make a
>decision to spend it on other items, that are
>subject to the tax, then you would pay the tax.
>
>This would mean that you would decide what your
>tax rate was going to be; wouldn't that be nice?
>You would be in control of your situation, and so
>would everybody else in this country. That's what
>the founders intended to be our economic
>situation, where we'd be in the driver's seat,
>earning our money.
>
>And by the way, not having to report it to a
>living soul. Not having our privacy invaded by a
>bunch of people coming in, furrowing about all our
>business to find out how much we make, where it
>comes from, when we got it -- all these questions
>that at one time in human history were considered
>to be our private business, and are now
>everybody's business. Government gets to ask, and
>they can even through you in jail. This is all
>wrong. It's contrary to our liberty.
>
>And when people like Steve Forbes, and these
>folks, come up with their flat tax, I say that's
>not the answer. We need to abolish the income
>tax, not reform it. We need to get rid of it.
>
>And along with that, of course, you get rid of the
>IRS completely. You don't have the IRS, because
>you no longer have a tax code that requires and
>allows that the government to come in and demand
>that you report your income to them, and gives
>them the right to take away your home, take away
>your goods, destroy the livelihood of your family,
>in order to improve their records at the IRS.
>This is wrong; this is tyranny. It should never
>have been imposed, and it must be removed.
>
>I think it is one of the top items on our
>practical agenda, to get rid of it. And that's
>how I feel, in a thumbnail sketch. That's where
>it came from, and that's where it ought to go,
>too.
>
>I think we can do it, too, if we work at it. And
>if we are not diverted from our real goal by
>people who come forward with phony alternatives.
>I have concluded that the flat tax is a phony
>alternative. In anticipation of the rising public
>sentiment against this tyrannical, despotic income
>tax, they have now devised this thing that says:
>"Hey, hey, don't try to get rid of it; we'll make
>it easier on you. Don't take off those shackles;
>we'll just make them of a lighter material. It
>won't rub so much against your ankles. You'll no
>longer bleed every day. How's that? But keep
>them on. Don't give them up."
>
>That's the Steve Forbes approach. The flat tax
>approach. "Keep your shackles, but make them
>lighter."
>
>Caller: Don't need the shackles at all. Let's
>get rid of it.
>
>Keyes: Amen! Proclaim liberty, throughout the
>land. That would be my slogan. And liberty means
>abolish the income tax.
>
>One final word on this point, because there is a
>movement out there that is growing, being pushed
>by people who are associated with Steve Forbes.
>And they have this thing that says "Let's end the
>tax code. Terminate the tax code in the year
>2000!" And some of you might think that they are
>talking about what I'm talking about. They are
>not. This is a way of trying to co-opt the
>growing sentiment in the country for abolishing
>the income tax. There's a growing sentiment.
>
>But what they are trying to do is take it, and
>channel it in a direction that will leave us with
>the income tax. See, that's what Steve Forbes is
>all about. And I think that as I believe there is
>a lot of manipulation and misrepresentation going
>on in the pro-life issue, on his part, I think
>that this business with the flat tax is simply to
>distract us from the real solution. I really do.
>
>The real solution is to abolish the income tax.
>Not to keep it in a lighter, nicer form that still
>leaves them with the prerogative to slap the
>shackles back on any time they get an excuse.
>That's not the way it should be. And yet that is
>what is going on. And they are even using
>buzz-words like "terminate the tax code" to make
>people think they are talking about abolishing the
>income tax, when they are not.
>
>And to me, that is a carefully crafted and
>conscious type of deception that is going on.
>Because they know how strong the sentiment is,
>growing throughout the country, to abolish this
>slave-tax. It is a slave tax. It is a tax fit
>for people willing to be enslaved by their
>government; to be turned into wage-slaves of
>politicians and bureaucrats. That's the income
>tax.
>
>And we must ABOLISH it. Not alter it, not reform
>it, not flatten it -- GET RID OF IT.
>
>And by doing so, we will return to the
>constitution of liberty that our founders wrote.
>That's what they don't want you to know. They
>want you to think: "Oh, this income tax; it's
>been around." No it hasn't. Innovation.
>Socialist innovation, that came through in the
>early part of this century, that required a change
>in the Constitution as the founders wrote it in
>order to make it possible for them to fasten upon
>the backs of a free people, a canker that should
>never, ever be associated with any people that
>wants to be free.
>
>So abolishing the income tax; I think it is the
>new abolition movement. And we need to call it
>that: The New Abolition Movement. Get rid of the
>income tax. Are you gonna become New
>Abolitionists? Just as we had to get rid of the
>slavery of the body in the 19th century, we must
>get rid of the slavery of the pocketbook in the
>21st century. It is time to end the income tax;
>to get rid of this dark nightmare that casts a
>long shadow, not only over our economic freedom,
>but over our overall freedom.
>
>And we can do it, too. The signs are growing that
>there is a strong sentiment building in America to
>abolish the income tax. And they are trying all
>kinds of little ploys to co-opt it, and distract
>people, and move it in some other direction.
>Don't be fooled! "Terminate the tax code" to them
>doesn't mean end the income tax, it means
>terminate this tax code and put in another one
>that keeps the income tax in place. What we need
>is the slogan "Abolish The Income Tax." Settle
>for nothing less, in my opinion. That's the way
>we need to go.
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail