  |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Schulz Responds to Hammell, Sept 9th. |
|
DIRTY TRICKS AND DISINFORMATION (a message from Bob Schulz) First, the anonymous threat from “the Ghosts of the Revolution” against the lives and property of all IRS employees – a threat obviously designed to derail the citizens’ hearing on the fraudulent and illegal operation of the income tax system by frightening the congressional sponsor of the event into canceling it. Now, a campaign of disinformation apparently designed to raise doubts about the integrity of the hearing’s other sponsor, the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and its chairman, Bob Schulz. A man who purportedly lives in Floyd Virginia has sent an e-mail to me. He states that he has sent copies of the e-mail to Congressman Ron Paul, Joseph Farrah at World Net Daily, Virginia Cropsey and to one Jackie Patru. He also says that he posted a copy on his web site. Click here for a copy of the e-mail. The e-mail message explicitly or implicitly suggests:
ASSERTION 1: That
the We The People Foundation is a “controlled opposition group,”
which has a hidden motive, which is to “usher in either a national
sales tax or a flat tax.” This is nonsense. The Foundation is controlled by no one other than its Board of Directors, its Certificate of Incorporation and its By-Laws, copies of which are posted on our web site. The Foundation is opposed to any abuse by the federal government of its taxing power, as prescribed by the fundamental law. The Foundation has publicly presented its view of the only constitutionally valid alternative to the current income tax. See the Foundation’s full-page message published in USA TODAY on March 23, 2001, under the heading, “WHAT IF.” We have referred publicly to that alternative as the “founding father’s intent approach” and sometimes as the “no action alternative approach.” We have publicly stated that the full implementation of the founding father’s constitutionally valid and explicitly articulated methods to funding the federal government would result in a dramatic shift in power away from the federal government to the states and to the People. This is precisely what the founding fathers had in mind (i.e., government closer to the people).
ASSERTION 2: That there is a connection between myself and the Rockefeller Foundation.
ASSERTION 3: That in 1993 I was contacted by one Jackie Patru, who requested that I assist her in calling attention to the threat imposed by a call for a federal constitutional convention and that I responded by saying I was “too busy.”
This is true. I did support approval of the question. The years 1990 thru 1997 were enlightening: I learned that there is a State Constitution; I learned just how important the State constitution was to the preservation, enhancement and protection of individual rights, liberties and freedoms; I learned that most people in the state, including most public officials and lawyers did not know there was a state constitution; I learned what my rights were under the State Constitution; I learned the meaning, effect and significance of every provision of the State Constitution; I learned about “republicanism” and its role in the founding of our State and country; I learned that The Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Senate Majority Leader and the state legislature as a whole were routinely violating the letter and the spirit of the state constitution, trampling those rights; and, I learned that since 1997 the people have not been electing any of the numerous appeals court judges and that men and women were being placed on the bench by the Governor to protect the actions of the Governor and the Legislature – i.e., that the judiciary was not the independent branch I had been educated to believe it was. In 1997, during the months leading up to the vote on the question, I chaired monthly meetings of concerned citizens from across the state. We discussed the problems we were having with our State and local government and how We The People could tighten the chains on the State and local government through selective revisions to the language of the State Constitution. The meetings were formal. Resolutions were voted on. Click here to view the full text of the Resolutions, which include the changes we decided to send to the delegates of a State Constitutional Convention, should the people decide to convene one by their vote on the ballot proposition. While I was in favor of a “yes” vote on the question of a New York state constitutional convention, the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Senate Majority Leader, the Civil Service Employee Unions, the AFL-CIO, the New York State United Teachers Union, the United Federation of Teachers and the Trial Lawyers Association all opposed approval of the question.
|
