A few weeks ago, one of my blog subscribers reminded me of my promise to publish the information that caused such a change, so, here it is.  I apologize for its tardiness, but, “life” happens.  It is quite long, but, packed full of truth, and well worth your time.

It began with an email sent to my tax website, RAM-v-IRS, by a man named Marc Lucas, who put forth a very logical argument, supported by citations from court cases that affirmed the taxation principles envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

After a number of email exchanges, I was convinced, and I believe you will be, too, that the ONLY solution to our nation’s economic ills, festering now for more than 100 years, is to repeal the law that created the Federal Income Tax and return to the original clauses in the Constitution, which provide for ONLY direct and indirect taxes to fund the Federal Government.

Anything other than that will simply fail to solve the underlying problem and “We the People” will continue to be economic slaves to the IRS and Washington, D.C. for all time.

Now begins the information I promised.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Ram-v-IRS
From: marc@………com
Date: Fri, August 12, 2011 10:45 pm
To: bob@bobmcneil.com

Formstack Submission for form Ram-v-IRS at 08/12/11 10:45 PM

———————————————————————–

Name: marc lucas

Email: marc@………com

Message: Dear Robert, I listened to your radio show interviews. While I appreciate your thoughts and your fight against government corruption, I must make you aware that you are advocating an unconstitutional “flat” tax. I’d be more than happy to provide you with the reasons and the Supreme court cases why such taxation is not possible under the direct and indirect constitutional powers delegated to Congress. The only circumstance where such a tax may be permitted, is in areas that Congress may exercise exclusive jurisdiction. I hope you’ll take me up on this challenge and allow me to prove to you the error of such “flat” tax ideological path. Yours in truth, m.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Bob McNeil [mailto:bob@bobmcneil.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 9:13 PM
To: marc@………com
Subject: RE: Ram-v-IRS

Marc,

I don’t advocate a “flat” tax.

I advocate a consumption tax… big difference.

But, please enlighten me.

Bob McNeil

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject:    RE: Ram-v-IRS
From:    marc@………com
Date:    Sat, Aug 13, 2011 2:50 am
To:    “‘Bob McNeil’” <bob@bobmcneil.com>

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your prompt reply.  One of the gentlemen that interviewed you, called your tax a “flat” tax. It is loose language that muddies the waters. Consumption (sales) tax already exists as an indirect tax, charged by the States.

The federal government wears two hats. One of exclusive powers over its territories. The other, as a management corporation, functioning as public servant to the States. As such, it has 17 delegated powers, and “..all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people.”  U.S. Constitution,  Amendment X.

Within the 17 powers, two are legislative: “It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these [two] authorities was the law in question passed?” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)

Constitutional taxation provides only for direct, and indirect taxes. The federal government gets funded through taxes on its objects, international tariffs, duties, imposts, and excises. I understand that your proposed tax, would be a federal sales tax, imposed on the retail transactions within a state. However, the “national” consumption tax would be transferred to the consumer, in addition to the state sales tax, thus effectively interfering with the value of the property transacted.

“One’s right to life, liberty and property … and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnett, 319 US 624, 638 (1943).

“For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”  . . .” This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259; Chy Luny v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370; and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730.”  Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, etc, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220

A national sales tax would also be double taxation of the same object, and would confer a new power to the federal government, which the Constitution does not provide for.

“This constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties”. Gregory V. Ashcroft, 501 US 452, 458 (1991) “just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the states and the federal government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Ibid” U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S.549 (1995).

Needless to say, 1% could become 25 %, 35% etc., depending on the dictator in chief, or the oligarchic suite. I hope you’ll find some of the cases herein useful for your continued battle with the beast. The only “fair” taxes are already in the direct and indirect constitutional provisions.

“The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the States generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government.” Id., at 195.

In this passage, the Court merely was making the well [ U. S. v. LOPEZ, (1995)] understood point that the Constitution commits matters of “national” concern to Congress and leaves “local” matters to the States. ” Other restrictions are, of course, found in Article I, Sections 2 and 9 requiring direct taxes to be apportioned according to population; Section 8 requiring uniformity;”  Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 277 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir., 1960)

“The canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. at 437, 52 S.Ct. at page 254, 76 L.Ed. 375, is a valid approach whereby unexpressed congressional intent may be ascertained.” Foley Bros v. Ilardo, 336 U.S. 281, 69 S.Ct. 575, 93 L.Ed. 680 (1949) “See also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., at 195 (”The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated”).

The Constitution mandates this uncertainty by withholding from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. Congress has operated within this framework of legal uncertainty ever since this Court determined that it was the judiciary’s duty “to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 177 (1803) (Marshall, C. J.). Any possible benefit from eliminating this “legal uncertainty” would be at the expense of the Constitution’s system of enumerated powers.” U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S.549 (1995)

“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect (Page 279) that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to ‘guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government’ (art. 4, § 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, ‘a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,’ Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President.” Samuel Downes v. George Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 S.Ct. 770, 45 L.Ed.  1088 (1901) “…there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, intrusted to it; all else is withheld….”

Congress can exercise no power by virtue of any supposed inherent sovereignty in the general government. Legislation operating directly upon private contracts, changing their conditions, is forbidden to the states; and no power to alter the stipulations of such contracts by direct legislation (Page 469) is conferred upon congress. There are also many considerations, outside of the fact that there is no grant of the power, which show that the framers of the constitution never intended that such power should be exercised. One of the great objects of the constitution, as already observed, was to establish justice, and what was meant by that in its relations to contracts, as said by the late chief justice in his opinion in Hepburn v. Griswold, was not left to interference or conjecture.” … Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 4 S.Ct. 122, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884)

“It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the  Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it.”  Walz v. Tax Commission of New York Justice,  397 U.S. 664 at 678 (1970)

“A practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by historical acceptance and present convenience.” U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338 (9th Cir. 1984).

“That the power may be abused, is no ground for denying its existence. It is a limited power, and should be kept within its proper bounds; and, when these are exceeded, a jurisdictional question is presented which is cognizable in courts.” McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 166, 47 S.Ct. 319, 326, 71 L.Ed. 580 (1927), quoting  McDonald v. Keeler, 99 N.Y. 463, 482, 2 N.E. 615, 626 (1885).

“The Constitution was designed to keep government off the backs of the people. The Bill of Rights was added to keep the precincts of belief and expression…”… “The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against government.” Laird v. Tatum 8212 288, 408 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 2318, 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. State of Arizona; Vignera v. State of New York Westover v. United States; State of California v. Stewart 8212 761, 584, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)

“… our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, does not claim to control him, except as to his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself..//.. As was said in Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 124, while power does not exist with the whole people to control rights that are purely and exclusively private, government may require ‘each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another.’ “  Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

“We know of no case in which a legislative act to transfer the property of A. to B. without his consent has ever been held a constitutional  exercise of legislative power in any state in the Union. On the contrary, it has been constantly resisted as inconsistent with just principles by every judicial tribunal in which it has been attempted to be enforced:” Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Peters 657.

“Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. While the line between measures that remedy or prevent unconstitutional actions and measures that make a substantive change in the governing law is not easy to discern, and Congress must have wide latitude in determining where it lies, the distinction exists and must be observed.” … ” The power to “legislate generally upon” life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the “power to provide modes of redress” against offensive state action, was “repugnant” to the Constitution. Id., at 15, 3 S.Ct., at 24. United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218, 23 L.Ed. 563 (1875); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639, 1 S.Ct. 601, 609-610, 27 L.Ed. 290 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139, 23 S.Ct. 678, 679-680, 47 L.Ed. 979 (1903).

Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 85 S.Ct. 348, 13 L.Ed.2d 258 (1964); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 (1966), their treatment of Congress’ §5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.” …  “If Congress could define its own powers by altering the … Amendment’s meaning, no longer would the Constitution be “superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means.” It would be “on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, . . . alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, at 177, 2 L.Ed. 60. Under this approach, it is difficult to conceive of a principle that would limit congressional power. See Van Alstyne, The Failure of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 46 Duke L.J. 291, 292-303 (1996). Shifting legislative majorities could change the Constitution and effectively circumvent the difficult and detailed amendment process contained in Article V.” City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997)

“In accomplishing the objects of a power granted to it, congress may employ any one or all the modes that are appropriate to the end in view, taking care only that no mode employed is inconsistent with the limitations of the constitution. We do not overlook those constitutional limitations which, for the protection of personal rights, must necessarily attend all investigations conducted under the authority of congress. Neither branch of the legislative department , still less any merely administrative body, established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190.  We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, and it cannot be too often repeated, that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life.  As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of  the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’” Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (1894)

“It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose. But the power of the state in that respect is not (Page 594) unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.” Frost v. Railroad Commission of State of California,  271 U.S. 583, 593-594 (1926).

“All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt  from taxation… The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission;”  Culloch v. State of Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819)

“The individual … owes no duty to the state . . . since he receives nothing there-from,  beyond the protection of  his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,… He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”  Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.

“(T)he decisive issue turns on the operating incidence of the tax,’ General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U.S. 436, 441, 84 S.Ct. 1564, 1568, 12 L.Ed.2d 430 and ‘(t)he simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return,’ Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444, 61 S.Ct. 246, 250, 85 L.Ed. 267.”   Colonial Pipeline Co v Traigle, 421 U.S. 100 (1975)

“… the state is without power to impose either an income or occupation tax for state purposes, and the court below was, therefore, correct in holding that act unconstitutional, and that decree is affirmed.” We, Justices HART and HUMPHREYS, concur in the judgment, because we think the present income tax statute unconstitutional, but we dissent from the majority opinion that a proper net income tax is unconstitutional.

HART, J.

Judge HUMPHREYS and myself concur in the judgment, because we think that a gross income tax operating upon all persons and corporations alike is unconstitutional.

Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania, 245 U. S. 292, 38 S. Ct. 126, 62 L. Ed. 295, it was held that a state tax upon the business of selling goods in interstate commerce measured by a certain percentage of the gross transactions in such commerce, was by its necessary effect a tax upon the commerce.

United States Glue Co. v. Town of Oak Creek, 247 U. S. 321, 38 S. Ct. 499, 62 L. Ed. 1135, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 748, it was held that the levy and assessment of a general income tax upon the net income of a Wisconsin corporation derived from transactions in interstate commerce is not such a direct burden on interstate commerce as to contravene the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

Mr. Justice Pitney, who delivered the opinion of the court, said: “The difference in effect between a tax measured by gross receipts and one measured by net income, recognized by our decisions, is manifest and substantial, and it affords a convenient and workable basis of distinction between a direct and immediate burden upon the business affected and a charge that is only indirect and incidental. A tax upon gross receipts affects each transaction in proportion to its magnitude, and irrespective of whether it is profitable or otherwise. Conceivably, it may be sufficient to make the difference between profit and loss, or to so diminish the profit as to impede or discourage the conduct of commerce. A tax upon the net profits has not the same deterrent effect, since it does not arise at all unless a gain is shown over and above expenses and Page 726 losses, and the tax cannot be heavy unless the profits are large. Such a tax, when imposed upon net incomes from whatever source arising, is but a method of distributing the cost of government, like a tax upon property, or upon franchises treated as property; and, if there be no discrimination against interstate commerce, either in the admeasurement of the tax or in the means adopted for enforcing it, it constitutes one of the ordinary and general burdens of government, from which persons and corporations otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the states are not exempted by the federal Constitution because they happen to be engaged in commerce among the states.”

Again in Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 40 S. Ct. 221, 64 L. Ed. 445, and Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 252 U. S. 60, 40 S. Ct. 228, 64 L. Ed. 460, it was held that net income derived from interstate commerce is taxable under a state law providing for a general income tax.

The majority opinion is based wholly upon the assumption that occupation taxes levied for the privilege of carrying on a particular business, and a tax on the income from such business are the same thing.

“License and occupation taxes, which are payable in respect to the privilege of engaging in or carrying on a particular business are not income taxes, although the amount of the tax payable by any individual may be measured by the amount of business which he transacts on his earnings therefrom. And conversely, although a person’s entire income may be derived from a particular pursuit or trade, a tax on the income as such is not a license or privilege tax.” Black on Income and other Federal Taxes, section 3.” Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720 (Ark., 1925)

Best wishes to you,

m.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject:    RE: Ram-v-IRS
From:    marc@………com
Date:    Mon, Aug 15, 2011 3:36 pm
To:    “‘Bob McNeil’” <bob@bobmcneil.com>

Dear Robert, I forgot to attach this:

“Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations.  Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special reasons.”  [37 F.R. 20960, 1972]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Subject:    RE: Ram-v-IRS
From:    marc@………com
Date:    Mon, Aug 15, 2011 7:47 pm
To:    “‘Bob McNeil’” <bob@bobmcneil.com>

So, when you put these words together with the other email of cases I sent you, it becomes obvious that liberty and freedom are not “special” reasons, nor an “infrequent” event. They are the PREMISE upon which the foundation of taxation allowed only direct apportioned and indirect uniform by the federal government over the states, but only in regards to ITS objects. No other tax beyond direct and indirect, nor beyond the 17 powers, items, activities and subjects under federal government’s purview. Lack of education has allowed the present distortion towards an oligarchic government rather than a public servant, paid by stamp, according to services rendered. What better measure of freedom than individual freedom, rather than minority or majority freedom?

END OF MARC’S INFORMATION

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To further illustrate the original intent of the Founding Fathers, Marc also provided the text of this 1796 Supreme Court case.

Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. (1796)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, now…. meet Marc Lucas.

How to Keep 100% of Your Earnings

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Finally, a story about farming.

The Story of Your Enslavement

The moral: If you are unwilling to think, and act, outside the box, you will be forever destined to live within it.

Wake up!

If you take anything away from this blog, let it be this:

Our current 100 year-old progressive income tax system lies at the heart of our enslavement.  Freedom will only be restored to us when we elect true citizen representatives who will go Washington, D.C. and repeal the law that created it.  Nothing more needs to be done.  The method of taxation allowed to fund the Federal Government already exists in the original taxing clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Further, the “Fair Tax” is unconstitutional.  Herman Cain’s “9%/9%/9%” plan is unconstitutional.  And, any attempts by the “establishment politicians” to “reform” our current tax code simply fail to address the underlying problem and restore our freedoms.

As a 21st Century American Revolutionary, I will resist the Federal Government’s attempts to enslave me further.

The peaceful, legal, Constitutional 21st Century American Revolution provides you with the ability to resist without harm.  You just have to step out of the darkness and into the light…. where freedom lives.

Will you do it?

The choice is yours.

In freedom,

Bob McNeil
Founder - American Citizen Party
Phone: (713) 806-5199
Who Is Bob McNeil?

If you happen to see me driving on the freeways and streets around town, or parked at restaurants, shopping centers, or grocery stores (yes, I do my own grocery shopping), this is what you’ll see.

A few weeks ago, I was filling my gas tank after work (yes, I pump my own gas) and, out of the corner of my eye, noticed someone approaching me.  As I turned to take a closer look, I saw that it was a man in a motorized wheelchair.  I always greet people with a smile and “Hello!”, and this time was no different.  I introduced myself, saying “My name is Bob McNeil.  What’s your name, Sir?”

“My name is ‘Old School Don’, but, most people just call me ‘Old School’”, he replied.

After our introductions, he asked me “Say, Bob, what is the American Citizen Party? I’ve never heard of it.”  As I began explaining to him that it was a political party formed to recruit candidates to defeat the Democrat and Republican members in Congress, he said “Man, that’s exactly what we need!  I am afraid for the future of our country and I don’t see anyone with a plan to save it.”

I explained further that I am running for President of the United States in 2016 for the express purpose of doing just that, and that my plan involves a return to the constitutional principles under which our country was founded, especially in the area of taxation.  I added that, it was through our 100 year-old progressive income tax system that our freedoms were taken from us, and it is through the repeal of that law, and others, that we will get them back.

His reply was “Bob, you seem like a very intelligent man.  I’ll vote for you!”

“Thank you, Old School”, I said, and we shook hands and parted ways.

Here is another example.

This past Thursday, I pulled into a parking space at the local grocery store and, as I was opening the door of my car to go inside, I noticed a middle-aged Hispanic man looking intently at the American Citizen Party sign on the driver’s side door.  In my head, I was thinking, “Here we go, a man offended by the term American citizen.”  But I was wrong to prejudge him.

He walked towards me and, in broken English, asked “What is the American Citizen Party?  I have never heard of it?”.  As before, I began explaining to him the purpose and principles of the party and that I was running for President in 2016 with a plan to restore freedom to ALL American citizens.  To my surprise, he said “God bless you, Sir!  I am so afraid for the future of our country and see no one with a plan like yours.  Do you have any advertising materials?”

I handed him several of my business cards and said “Thank you, Sir.  My name is Bob McNeil.  What is your name?”

“Espinoza.”, he replied.

“Espinoza, my plan restores freedom to ALL people.”, I replied.

Again, he said, “God bless, you, Mr. McNeil!  I will go to your website and read more about your plan, and, if what you say is true, I will vote for you in 2016.”

We shook hands and parted ways, and I went inside the store to shop for the items on my list.

Finally, there is this reaction that I received today.

My brother and I had been out running errands on a beautiful, sunny, Texas day and were returning home to Mom and my sister.  I was driving east on Washington Avenue towards downtown when I heard an amplified voice from the vehicle in the left lane, slightly behind me.  At first, I thought it was a police car.  “Who else has an amplified system in their car?”, I thought.

Again, I was wrong.

The voice said very clearly, “American Citizen Party!  You, Sir, are a communist!”

Since I define myself as a Constitutional Conservative, and the party is based on those principles, I was taken aback by that statement and quite puzzled about how any intelligent person would equate, or confuse, the restoration of freedom with communism.  In reality, the two are diametrically opposed.

But, then, the vehicle passed me and I noticed that it was a 9-passenger van with signs saying “Free Press” on the side and the back doors.  The “Free Press” is a local, edgy, artsy newspaper that, apparently lacks journalistic integrity.  If it had any, then the person on the microphone would not have made such an ignorant statement.  Basic journalistic principles require that this person actually go to the American Citizen Party website, read its content and purpose, maybe even interview me in person, then use sound reasoning and rational thought to form a conclusion about whether it is communist in nature, which it most certainly is not.

But, it appears that even the “out-of-the-mainstream” media are just as ethically challenged as the so-called “mainstream” media.  A sad state of affairs in our nation, to say the least.

The point of these anecdotes is to let all free-thinking, freedom-loving, Constitution-loving Americans know that they have a new home in the American Citizen Party.  In fact, it is the ONLY political party that offers more freedom and prosperity than any other party today.

My constituency is the 150 million voting age Americans who did NOT vote for Barack Obama in 2008.

My constituency is the millions of disillusioned and disaffected Democrats who did vote for him, but, now feel betrayed by “Hope and Change”, which turned out to be nothing more than the same failed, leftist, policies and programs that, in the history of mankind, have never delivered on their promises.

My constituency is the millions of conservative Republicans who will be forced to hold their noses and vote for a candidate who was selected for them by the media, but, who they know in their hearts and minds, has no intention of restoring their freedoms.

My constituency is you.

Share this blog with as many of your friends as possible.  Encourage them to subscribe to my blogs.  Get involved.  Run for office as an American Citizen Party candidate.  Donate money to the cause of freedom.

Become a part of the peaceful, legal, Constitutional, “21st Century American Revolution” to take our country back from the “enemies of freedom”.

Do it today!

The 80% will no longer allow the 20% to control the destiny of our nation.  Their reign of tyranny is over.

In freedom,

Bob McNeil
Founder - American Citizen Party
Phone: (713) 806-5199
Who Is Bob McNeil?

* The Republican candidates are traveling around the country chasing votes with plans and promises that fail to solve the fundamental problems facing our country today;
* President Obama is shredding the Constitution in ways never before witnessed in modern American history;
* The solutions to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression are failing;
* The war in Afghanistan is spinning out of control;
* The United Nations is still pushing for a global carbon tax based on the global warming/climate change “theory”, which has yet to be subjected to the Scientific Method;
* The “Occupy” movement, a conglomeration of communists, socialists, anarchists, union members, and other leftists wanting something for nothing, is getting national attention;
* And…. so on…… and so on.

I could fill your inbox and Facebook walls with endless stories pointing out all of the things wrong with America.

But, I won’t.

I am not a journalist with inside contacts that feed me the big “scoops” before anyone else.  Any “news” I pass on to you would already be “old news” by the time I published it.  No, there are plenty of other outlets from which to get the details behind the latest headlines.

Besides, I work a full-time job as a professional business consultant, traveling the country, and the world, to help my clients identify problems/mistakes in their accounting records, investigate the causes, and make recommendations to strengthen, or put in place, the necessary internal accounting controls to prevent their recurrence.  In other words, I recover millions of dollars for my clients, which reduces their costs, increases their profits, increases their share price, increases the wealth of their shareholders, and provides additional capital for business expansion, new jobs, etc.

In addition to that, since December 2010, when I moved from Houston to Austin, I have been helping my sister with the day-to-day care of our 85 year-old Mother.  On April 1st, however, my sister and I switched roles, with me taking over as primary caregiver for Mom.  Along with that change in roles, and after thoughtful consideration, I moved back to Houston, bringing Mom with me.    We will be sharing an apartment near downtown.

So, by now, you might be thinking to yourself “Bob, when do you have time to research, write blogs, and talk to people about your plan to restore freedom to ALL American Citizens?”

The answer?  Every waking moment.

Given my level of commitment to serve my God, my country, my Mother, my family, my clients, and you, can you think of another person better suited to lead the 21st Century American Revolution?

I don’t think so.

Since I announced that I would not run for President in 2012, I have been researching other ways to implement my plan and have come up with a strategy.  And, like most solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems, it is a quite simple plan, if you do your part.

Yes, I know.  The election clock is ticking, and filing dates are fast approaching.  But, I never had a plan to purge all 435 members of the House of Representatives and the 30+ Class I Senators up for re-election in just one election.

That will take three election cycles - 2012, 2014 and 2016.

As it turns out, there are hundreds of opportunities, in the 2012 election, to begin the peaceful, revolutionary shift in power from Washington, D.C. back to the People, as the Founding Fathers intended.

Here are a few highlights from a spreadsheet I developed from all of my late-night research.

There are currently 22 open seats (3 Senators and 19 Representatives) just ripe for the picking.  These seats are not “low hanging fruit”.  They are fallen fruit lying on the ground just waiting to be picked up by American Citizen Party candidates running on a platform of personal responsibility, self determination, and the restoration of the freedoms that have been taken from us over the last 100 hundred years by the very people we elected to serve us.

In addition to the “open” seats, there are also 95 seats (4 Senators and 91 Representatives) in which the current office holder was elected in 2010 and is up for reelection in 2012.  Some of these “newly-elected” members were supported by the Tea Party.  Some of these Tea Party Representatives have betrayed the founding principles by their votes.  All 95 “newly-elected” seats, the “low-hanging fruit”, will be ripe for picking in November.

The remaining seats will require a ladder to reach because these are the incumbent Representatives and Senators who must be purged from office if “We the People” are ever to live at the level of freedom intended by the Founders.  A number of these Representatives have been in public office for more than 50 years and simply must be voted out of office.

Since we know that “We the People” cannot depend on the Democrat and Republican candidates to restore our freedoms, this appears to be an opportune time for true, citizen candidates to enter the race.

So, the question now becomes “Are there sufficient numbers of freedom-loving American citizens willing to step forward and run for office as candidates from the American Citizen Party?”

I believe there are.

In the next week or so, after Mom and I are settled, I will post another blog in which I will begin to lay out the state-by-state, district-by-district path going forward.  In case you might have missed it, 2012 is the first election in which we are witnessing the impact of the 2010 census and the seismic shift in representation due to the migration of Americans from one state to another.  Here is a map showing the gains and losses in the number of seats in the House of Representatives for each state, as prescribed in Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3 of the Constitution, which states:

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers….. “.

An increase in population results in an increase in the number of House seats a state is “apportioned”.  Likewise, a decrease in population results in a decrease in the number of House seats a state is “apportioned”.

Also in our favor is the fact that the filing dates for minor party/independent candidates are generally later than the filing dates for the major party candidates.  Unfortunately, the filing dates have passed in the following eight states: Nevada, Ohio, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Florida and Tennessee.  No worries.  We’ll purge those politicians in 2014.

For now, though, here are the states with May filing dates, along with the number of seats in play:

Arkansas ~ May 1 ~ 4 House
Maine ~ May 25 ~ 2 House & 1 Senate
Arizona ~ May 26 ~ 8 House & 1 Senate
Colorado ~ May 27 ~ 7 House

The remaining 38 states have filing dates scattered throughout the period from June 1 (Alabama) through September 3rd (North Dakota).  For we Texans, the filing date is June 29th.

Constitutional conservatism, and advancing that philosophy through a peaceful revolution at the ballot box, forms the core of the American Citizen Party.  So, I believe running a candidate for Ron Paul’s open seat would help propel the Party, and that candidate, onto the national stage from the date of filing.  And, a victory in that district would be a truly historical event.

So, for those freedom-loving American citizens who believe that the only choice this election is to hold your nose and vote for the candidate selected for you by the media, I say “Not so fast.”

You have an important part to play in the 21st Century American Revolution.  And you already possess the most powerful weapon on earth to bring it about.  That weapon is your vote.

Use it wisely.

Stay tuned.

In freedom,

Bob McNeil
Founder - American Citizen Party
Phone: (713) 806-5199
Who Is Bob McNeil?