From the Concord Monitor comes this story of a couple who are standing up to the IRS -

The trial of a Plainfield couple who refused to pay income taxes for nearly 10 years began yesterday in federal court with Ed and Elaine Brown each arguing that they do not believe the income tax applies to them.

The couple, who are representing themselves, said they did not dispute the prosecutor’s contention that they had opted out of the tax system, but they said they believe they have not broken the law by doing so.

“My husband and I challenged the application of the tax law to us,” Elaine Brown said in her opening statement. “We cannot find any statute that requires us to pay.”

According to Bill Morse, the assistant United States attorney who is prosecuting the case, the Browns stopped paying income taxes in 1996 and stopped filing tax returns in 1998. Both Browns are accused of conspiring to commit tax fraud, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions. Elaine Brown, a dentist who practices in Lebanon, has also been charged with evading income taxes and failing to withhold taxes from her employees. Each of the Browns face decades in prison if convicted.

(Continued)

Professor Williams has another clear lesson in economics and free trade in his October 18th column.

He explains trade deficits like this:

When I purchase $100 worth of groceries, my goods account (groceries) rises by $100, but my capital account (money) falls by $100. That means there’s really a balance in my trade account. By the same token, my grocer’s goods account (groceries) falls by $100 but his capital account (money) rises by $100, also a balance in his trade account.

Which makes sense. We buy goods, we get something for our money, and the producers are able to either produce more or invest the money in other things. And by buying the cheapest available goods I now have more money to buy more goods from more people. I don’t see the problem.

From the Altavista Journal comes the latest in the fight againt cybercrime -

I am a local farmer; my wife teaches elementary school; our three children are well-adjusted, “A” students.

We go to church, work hard, and pay our bills and taxes.

We are law-abiding, responsible members of society; we have never had reason to fear the law.

On Saturday morning, Sept. 23, 2006, many police vehicles appeared in our driveway. Men in black with flak jackets ran to and around our house.

I was held at gunpoint, searched, taunted, and led into the house. I had no idea what this was about. I was scared beyond description. I feared there had been a murder and I was a suspect.

My wife and I were interrogated about Internet crime. We are not avid computer users; we do not even e-mail. We knew nothing of what they were speaking.

At 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 2, the chief investigator of Pittsylvania County returned our possessions and said that the wrong IP (computer) address had been identified. We would not be charged.

It appears that the local Sheriff made a mistake. I wonder if they cleaned up their mess after searching thus poor guy’s house? Did the issue him an official apology? Will they compensate him for the terror that he endured while under investigation for two weeks? Doubtful.

The 4th Amendment is pretty darn clear as to how the Government is to behave in this situation. Maybe they need a refresher course?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here in Washington State we have an initiative on the ballot in the next election, I-933, which basically says that if the Government (you know, the guys that threaten you with guns and jails and fines and things) decides to restrict your use of your property that they ought to compensate you for it.

The Seattle Times is reporting that a whole bunch of ex-governors have banded together to help fight off I-933. I notice that they don’t mention Dino Rossi… Anyway, they think it will be the worst thing to happen to the state since … Here are a couple of choice quotes:

Evans said I-933 would cost taxpayers billions because, despite what supporters say, it wouldn’t allow governments to waive regulations instead of paying landowners.

No, Mr. Evans, you just don’t pass the regulation in the first place! It doesn’t cost you a dime if you’re not trampling all over their property.

Locke said cities that recently incorporated could be forced to pay landowners for city rules that are more restrictive than the county regulations they replaced.

Sounds like a good reason to pass I-933 to me! How would you like to be happily living in un-incorporated King County one day and the next find that you are now part of a city with higher property and sales taxes? And with no recourse! What are you going to do? Pick up your property and move a couple of miles east?

She added that the state Growth Management Act, the source of much of the rural frustration behind I-933, isn’t perfect but is too complex to change by voter initiative…

So if its so damn complicated how do our citizen legislators understand it? Or do they? And if they don’t then what business do they have passing laws that are ‘too complex’. Sounds to me like Queen Christine thinks she’s smarter than the average voter. And maybe she is, since she won by 126 votes (or thereabouts).

On August 5, 2005, at 6:15 a.m., a SWAT team converged around the Sunrise, Florida, home of Anthony Diotaiuto. […] By 7 a.m. the raid was over. Police had broken down Diotaiuto’s front door, and turned his home upside down looking for drugs, weapons, and drug paraphernalia. Diotaiuto
lay dead in a bedroom closet. He had 10 bullet holes in his head, chest, torso, and limbs.

Cato Institute policy analyst Radley Balko has written a paper examining the increased usage of SWAT teams against innocent or non-violent suspects. It paints a bleak picture for our civil liberties at the hands of an increasingly militarized police force, and to clearly illustrate this point the author also created an intractive map of all the incidents that he found in his research. You can order a hard copy of the paper, or read it in PDF format from the Cato Institute website.

Thanks to Kim du Toit for the tip.

They’re at it again. Union Township is taking land it doesn’t own and giving it to its pet developers. If these thieves keep this up someone’s going to get shot. And rightfully so. This is exactly why Supreme Court nominations are important. I wish GWB had kept that in mind when he nominated his stealth candidate. Read the rest at The Star Ledger and Michelle Malkin.

This comes from Ian over at Claire Wolfe’s blog. The cops in New Orleans are disarming citizens trying to protect their homes — and here is the video footage to prove it. Howbdo they expect these people to protect their property when they move on to the next neighborhood? Or is it a nefarious plan to disarm them and therefore force them to leave? The houses they showed looked pretty dry and in pretty good condition. Now that looters know that the remaining citizens are disarmed they will have free roam of the remainder of the city.

Amazingly enough the New York Times has taken notice but without comment. According to their article private citizens are being disarmed, but not private security guards hired by businesses and wealthy citizens. Seems to me there’s a shitload of discrimination going on here — private citizens who can’t afford to hire a security company damn well ought to be allowed to protect their proprty and family with more than a baseball bat and harsh language.

This is what happens when Congress passes their ‘authority’ (the buck) on to a bureaucracy. Up until yesterday it was possible for firearms dealers to import replacement parts for guns that are not ‘allowed’ to be imported as complete weapons (eg. barrels for your Uzi, or replacement receivers). But now the ATF has issued this letter removing permission. They will be … “Importers holding approved import permits for non-importable barrels and receivers will receive a letter prior to September 10, 2005, advising them that their permit has been suspended.” although they are being generous enough to “… forgo enforcement of this import restriction for 60 calendar days and allow importers holding existing permits to continue to import barrels and receivers for a period of 60 calendar days.”

So, thanks to the fact that Congress has given the ATF the authority to decide at their whim how they want to enforce the firearms laws some of your weapons may become even more collectible. But hey, as JP has been saying - “We were born free”. I think the emphasis in on were.

Thanks to Kim du Toit’s reopened blog for the lead to this info.

I came across this excellent article by Radley Balko on Joe Huffman’s Blog this morning. While I agree with everything it says, especially this part -

Every right we have stems from government’s recognition that we, the people, are born with our rights intact. We own them. We have property in them. We voluntarily forfeit some of these rights to government, in exchange for protection from outside threats, the administration of justice, and the rule of law. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution, then, is not to tell us what rights we have. We’re born with the right to do as we please, so long as we don’t harm others. The Constitution’s purpose is to outline what rights we give to the government, and to firmly define the limits of government power.

I’m not ready to go as far as Kim DuToit and Ogre. I still think we can pull off this experiment. But its going to take more vigilance on our part.

We’ve all known it for some time now. We are no longer the land of the free and home of the brave. We live at the whim of decisions made by 5 black robed judges. That is apparently all it takes to wipe out your God given right to own your own proprty and be free from Government interference as used to be protected by the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Read Vin Suprynowicz’s book The Ballad of Carl Drega to see where this proprty rights battle is leading.

EFF-WA has more coverage of the Supreme court decision, as does Michelle Malkin

Estate Tax Repeal Heads to Senate Battle
By MARY DALRYMPLE, AP Tax Writer

WASHINGTON - Lawmakers and lobbyists pressing for an end to the federal estate tax hope newly elected Senate Republicans give them the votes they need to terminate what opponents of the levy call the “death tax.”

Its good to see congress making progress on this tax, although it is interesting to note that the Democrats still consider cutting this tax a ‘cost’ to the governemnt.

ed.

The big question is this - how can you call yourself a country if you don’t enforce your borders? Small groups of American Citizens have been answering this question by doing their civic duty and helping the under-staffed and under-funded Border Patrol catch illegal aliens.

Even before it officially started today, the Minuteman Project has been a success. While setting up for their month-long patrol of the San Pedro Valley they spotted 18 illegals and reported them to the Border Patrol for arrest according to this AP news story.

Despite all the hand-wringing by the Mexican Government and open borders crowd (some who call themselves ‘human rights activists’) I expect the project to progress peacefuly and successfully. Good luck to them.

“by Peyton Knight

Here’s another good example of government (and do-gooder neighbors) infringing on people’s property rights. Haven’t they heard of Carl Drega(book link)? Are they trying to push more property owners over the edge? I sure hope not, but I don’t see any other outcome if this practice continues.