Aren't You Really, Really Glad YOU'VE Taken Control Of How Much Of YOUR Money Washington Gets To Spend, Just As The Founders Intended?
Regarding Certain Myths About Money And Debt Slavery
Banks are not
run by saints, but they're not THIS bad, or at least not this powerful...
The other day my
wife shared with me a video that she had come across on an e-zine. The film
focuses on fractional-reserve banking, and makes the bizarre allegation that
under such a system widespread indebtedness to banks is inherent, increasing and
inescapable. The reasoning is that while money is created for the making of
loans, none is created with which the interest on the loans can be paid.
The dire prospect
warned against in the film is ultimate debt-slavery for everyone, and
bank-ownership of all property.
As many criticisms
as can be made against fraction-reserve banking (and many can be), the danger of
debt-slavery and foreclosure because nothing exists by which interest can be
paid is not among them. Nothing inherent in the actual monetary or banking
structures prevent enough wealth being available to pay interest on debts. The
notion to the contrary expressed in darkest tones in these screeds is a
consequence of a failure to understand the true nature of wealth and money.
Currency (whether "fiat" or "paper" or even gold) is not wealth. Wealth is goods
and services.
When one borrows--
to build a house, for instance-- one is not really borrowing a basketful of
notes. Rather, one is borrowing-- from a warehouse of surpluses previously
produced-- the goods and services needed to sustain and reward a labor force
willing and able to produce and assemble all the parts of a house. The notes or
other trading tokens one receives as a loan simply allow one to buy those
goods and services from the warehouse. When one repays the loan with interest
one again does so with goods and services-- one's own goods and services,
typically, produced over a long course of time into the future.
Other than for the
inefficiencies of a prospective homeowner producing and assembling the
components himself (due to lack of specialized skills and equipment,
advantageous access to materials and similar issues), the labor producing the
goods and services with which the homeowner will repay the loan for the next
thirty years is the practical equivalent of what he would have needed to build
the house himself over the same period. The borrower's labor is fortified with
his own specialized skills and comparative advantages, and thus even though
unable to literally build his own house in any amount of time, years, he CAN,
over the period of a properly-structured loan, produce equivalent value to what
is spent in building it.
The loan is simply
access to the value of the borrower's own future output, in advance, all at
once, and in a liquid form. What is charged as interest is simply the price of
advance access to that anticipated future value.
Further, the loan
is not access to, and therefore a demand upon, ALL of the borrower's future
output. The loan's terms (including the consideration of interest to be paid)
are structured to allow the borrower to provide for his own ongoing needs while
diverting off the labor output devoted to the house-building expense.
Our home-owner
wouldn't build the house himself working sunup-to sundown on that alone-- he
would starve to death long before finishing the sort of structure for which he
would need a loan. Instead, he provides for his immediate needs and spends a few
surplus hours on the house each day. The same is true in paying back (and paying
for) the advance of the borrower's future output.
Thus, interest can
always be paid. Interest is just an additional expenditure of labor by the
borrower, and the availability of currency is irrelevant.
There would be an
exception to that last point only where...
...a legal
structure disallows the repayment of a debt in anything except some particular
medium. For instance, imagine that a law said debts can only be paid by tender
of the state's fiat currency (or a currency nominally issued by a bank, but at
the state's direction, like "Federal Reserve Notes"). Under this scenario, only
so much debt could be repaid as could be represented by the notes, and the
horror story of debt enslavement would loom large.
Of course, also
under this scenario, Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) would become very precious.
They would be constantly increasing in value, as people competed for ownership
of this uniquely valuable item.
At the same time,
the number of FRNs needed to buy sufficient goods and services to sustain and
reward the labor needed to build a house would be subject to a corresponding
constant downward pressure (that is, it would take fewer and fewer FRNs to build
a given house-- or anything else). Thus, the size of loans would be constantly
dropping, and fewer FRNs would be needed to repay both the loans and interest...
Nonetheless,
despite the amelioration of the pressure as loan amounts declined, under this
legal regime FRN deflation would never end. I don't think I really need to point
out that this has hardly been the history of the Federal Reserve Note:
Value of an FRN measured in milligrams of gold, 1954 to
2003. (Source: Wikipedia)
The fact is, there
IS no "have to repay debts in FRNs" law. There is a law declaring that the
federal government has to accept FRNs in payment of all debts, but no law requires the use of FRNs for
any purpose.
Here's how the United States Treasury puts it:
The pertinent portion of law
[making FRNs legal tender] is
the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal
tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal
reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks)
are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified
above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a
creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private
business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for
payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their
own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which
says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies
or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas
stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above
$20) as a matter of policy.
There is also
a
federal statute withdrawing government consent to be held to a contract
obliging it to pay out something OTHER than federal reserve notes against its
debt.
But there isn't
anything requiring anyone to use FRNs to repay bank loans (and I'm betting your
banker would LOVE to have you pay in gold, instead), nor anything supporting the
doomsday scenario of insufficient FRNs and debt slavery.
There IS, however,
another form of slavery, and it really IS a fact in the lives of too many
Americans. That's tax slavery, whereby an alien entity (the state, which is
alien from you) is made able to lay claim to a portion of your labor output as
though it owns you to that extent (and it admits to no limit).
The real tragedy
of this very real kind of slavery is that this happens not by despotic command,
but only because you MAKE it happen to yourself, personally. I'm not talking
about "making it happen by some political process." I'm talking about you
personally (and unnecessarily) causing the income tax to be laid on your
earnings when in many cases it doesn't apply to them...
There
may be good reasons why logic, a subject that was "core curriculum"
in the ancient republics, throughout the Renaissance, in the
schooling of our Founders and in that of our own grandparents, for
that matter, isn't taught to most Americans today. Those good
reasons escape me, but maybe they exist...
In any
event, one of the tools of logical analysis is the analogy. It is a
cognitive tool designed to help people reason through complex
language, and to overcome the natural human tendency to assume what
is necessary to reconcile what is read and heard with what one
already imagines that material to mean.
The
use of analogy in this sense involves replacing assumption-freighted
elements with substitutes not so burdened, while retaining the
active dynamics relevant to the language being parsed. This process
allows what is really being said in the original language to stand
clear of the fog generated by presumptions as to its meaning which
had been harbored prior to its critical examination.
Here's
an example:
In the
federal "income" tax laws we find specifications regarding the
reporting of "wages" paid to those defined as "employees" and/or as
"in employment" (in two different protocols). Looking at the former
(which defines "wages" as the remuneration for services performed by
an "employee"), we find that the relevant definition of "employee"
lists particular varieties of workers, but uses the term "includes"
in its construction, as follows:
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an
officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a
State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of
Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of
the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a
corporation.
Because long habit developed over the years prior to examination of
this language has trained the analyst to imagine that "employee",
whether as defined in tax law or otherwise, always means, "anyone
who works for anyone else in a long-term, subordinate position" (or
the like), the analyst assumes that whatever is necessary to make
the language of the definition above mean just that-- anyone who
works for anyone else-- is present in this language, and reads it in
just that way. But now let us apply the power of analogy.
Recognizing that the list of workers in the statute above IS, in
fact, a discrete list, let's replace the familiar elements with
others which are identically discrete, but simply amount to a
different such list:
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes a
secretary, file clerk or janitor of the Microsoft Corporation,
or any subsidiary thereof. The term “employee” also includes a
software engineer.
Now we
can easily see that to imagine that the actual statutory definition
of "employee" should be read as embracing "anyone who works for
anyone else" is just as ridiculous as imagining that "employee", if
defined as "including a secretary, file clerk or janitor of the
Microsoft Corporation, or any subsidiary thereof, and also including
a software engineer", should be read as meaning "anyone who works
for anyone else". Obviously, NO ONE would do the latter, and just
as obviously (now that we have applied the analogy), NO ONE SHOULD
DO THE FORMER.
(By
the way, the custom rule of construction for "includes" at 26 USC
7701(c) doesn't diminish the clarifying power of this analogy.
Applying that provision-- explained by the Treasury Department as,
"Meaning of Terms: The terms “includes and including” do not exclude
things not enumerated which are in the same general class" -- to,
"For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes a
secretary, file clerk or janitor of the Microsoft Corporation, or
any subsidiary thereof. The term “employee” also includes a
software engineer," clearly doesn't make ""employee" mean "anyone
who works for anyone else""...
Furthermore, it's obvious that if that provision-- or any other
aspect of the statutory structure-- were somehow intended to be read
as making the "employee" before the "includes..." mean "anyone who
works for anyone else", there would be no point in listing the
Microsoft folks at all. The same would be true in regard to the
listing of officers, employees and other members of the federal
workforce that is found in the actual statutory language.)
So,
why don't the government schools teach logic...?
Anyway, here's the 'tip' part of this 'Tax Tip': Analogy is a
flexible cognitive tool. As Wikipedia puts it, "Analogy plays a
significant role in problem solving, decision making, perception,
memory, creativity, emotion, explanation and communication." " It
has been argued that analogy is "the core of cognition" (Hofstadter
in Gentner et al. 2001)". It is immensely useful in communicating
clarity of understanding to those befuddled by the fog of the
"ignorance tax" beneficiaries. Learn how to use it, and do so.
If this newsletter is of any value to
you, PLEASE show your support, or it WILL
go dark. To those who have made
donations, I thank you. To those who have
not, please do so, today. Donations can be
made to:
OKLAHOMA CITY (March 13, 2013) – Nullification of Obamacare
in Oklahoma took a step closer to reality Wednesday when the
Oklahoma House overwhelmingly approved a bill that would nullify
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
HB1021 declares Obamacare unconstitutional and calls on the
Oklahoma legislature to take action to prevent implementation of
the federal health care plan in the Sooner State.
It shall be the duty of the Legislature of this state
to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary
to prevent the enforcement of the “Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act” and the “Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010” within the limits of this state.
The bill passed 72-20 and will now move on to the State
Senate.
As Long As Myths About The Income Tax Persist,
The Misapplication Of The Tax Will Continue
FEBRUARY 3, 2013 MARKED THE 100th ANNIVERSARY of the adoption of the
16th Amendment. As was to be expected, a lot of punditry on the
subject could be found throughout cyberspace and in the mainstream
media harmfully mis-stating the facts concerning the amendment, and
thereby helping perpetuate the mis-application of the "income" tax.
The
chief error made in these articles is the characterization of the
amendment as the origin of the income tax. The
chief ill effect of this error is that imagining the 16th
Amendment to be the origin of the tax makes it very easy to
misunderstand the real nature of the tax as an excise of limited
scope on only distinguished, specialized receipts.
On the
other hand, understanding that the 16th is NOT the origin of the
tax makes recognition of the true nature of the tax virtually
inescapable. Understanding the true origin of the tax means
recognizing that the tax predates the amendment by many years
during which it was applied to the very same things to which it
applies now-- and was so applied without apportionment, while being properly
upheld by the courts as completely Constitutional. This, in turn,
reveals that the objects of the tax were, and are, of a limited,
distinguishable character that have always been suited to a
non-apportioned tax.
Because getting these things wrong conceals the true nature
of the tax, and getting them right reveals that true nature, this is
not only just a matter of academic and professional integrity.
Instead, it is a matter of enormous public interest concerning the
truth about a tax by which control of 35-45% of productive America's
earnings has annually been being transferred from its rightful
owners to a hungry horde of sociopaths intent on living by the
"political means".
CLEARLY, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT that punditry erroneously perpetuating
myths about the 16th Amendment and the tax be corrected, and this
will only happen if each of your reading these words help to educate
those responsible. You will all have seen articles this past week
about the amendment and/or the tax. Please send
the document you'll find here (preferably with a nice, polite
cover letter) to every writer responsible for such an article, and
to that writer's editor as well, where appropriate.
If
each of you takes part in this endeavor, we will soon see a welcome
transformation in the minds of everyone with whom those of us
standing up for the rule of law and the proper application of the
tax must deal. I don't need to explain what a difference that will
make.
P.S. That
document is a great tool for introducing the truth about the tax
to others, as well...
Scrolling through
my newsletter archives, I came across this little gem and had to share it again,
'cause it's that shiny and illuminating...
Clearly In A
State Of Disarray, The IRS Invokes A Unique New Legal Doctrine In A Panicked
Response To A
CtC-Educated Claimant
Unable to cite a legal basis for a disallowance of a
CtC-educated claim for the return of property improperly withheld, someone
at the IRS has ranged into alternative bodies of law to "justify" its desire to
simply keep anything put into its hands, whether able to demonstrate a lawful
claim to government ownership of the property or not. Be sure you're sitting
down, make sure that anyone likely to suffer a start at sudden loud guffaws is
duly warned, and then check this out:
"The Forms 4852 associated with your Form 1040X were not filed in accordance
with the laws of mathematics..."!!
Wow!
I guess next we'll see something about such forms
not being filed with the "laws of the universe", since, as this desperate (and
desperately comical) letter goes on, "[I]t is not possible to withhold
the taxes shown on Forms 4852 from zero wages".
This plainly implies that the IRS is pretending that whoever did the
"withholding" is
incapable of doing so in error from payments that don't qualify as "wages"; is
therefore infallible; and thus, apparently, divine...
All I can say is,
Watch out for that robot! I THINK IT'S GOING TO EXPLODE!!
Don't
let the message of this "disallowance letter" escape you. This evasion,
while more ridiculous than most, is just another piece of hard evidence
which joins all the rest steadily accumulating for years now.
Since even the pay to federal "employees" is not always
"wages" or taxable:
26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(c)-1 Employee
(h) Although an individual may be an employee under
this section, his services may be of such a nature, or
performed under such circumstances, that the
remuneration paid for such services does not constitute
wages within the meaning of section 3401(a);
26 C.F.R. § 31.3121(b)-4 Employment; excepted
services in general
(a) Services performed by an employee for an
employer do not constitute employment for purposes of
the taxes if they are specifically excepted from
employment under any of the numbered paragraphs of
section 3121(b)....
(b)...
Example. … While no tax liability is incurred
with respect to A’s remuneration for services performed
in the employ of B (the services being excepted from
employment)...
...and
that of non-federal workers never is (as you already know, and just
saw demonstrated yet again in 'The
Power of Analogy' earlier on this page), this absurd reference
to "the laws of mathematics" can't be explained away as just
boneheaded bureaucratic confusion on the part of whoever prepared
this notice. This is a deliberate effort to groundlessly evade
this educated American's claim (even while
tens of thousands of identical claims by others were being honored
without a word), and intimidate or confuse her into imagining
something false about the law in order to discourage her from
staying on her feet and sticking up for her rights.
Like all such evasions, this one joins the mountain of
evidence consistently and unmistakably demonstrating for
more than nine years now that
what is revealed in
CtC is THE complete, dispositive truth about the tax, needing
nothing more to bring an end to decades of corrupt exploitation than
resolve in standing up for that truth, and diligence in spreading it
throughout the land.
(Deceitful efforts to discourage Americans from learning the
truth about the "income tax")
FOR
ALL THE YEARS SINCE 2003 when
CtC was first
published, the government has engaged in a concerted effort to
frighten people away from its truths. This effort involves
official government websites and press releases touting an
occasional court ruling that appears to be at odds with some
CtC-revelation
(but without details sufficient to expose the real substance of the
ruling)--
and
sometimes even more mendacious behavior.
The
effort also involves online
activity by purportedly disinterested folks who we are supposed to imagine spend huge amounts of time posting "Stay away from this crazy stuff!" out of the goodness of their hearts and
a selfless concern for
the well-being of others. In other words, this is online activity by
obvious government-connected or supervised "agents-provocateur" and
the occasional "useful idiot" shill
Some of these folks imagine themselves to
be beneficiaries of the status quo, or want to be on some official's
cocktail-party A-list. Some are doubtless
just shameless hacks attempting to defend a professional career of
thoughtlessly buying into the "income tax" scam as commonly
misunderstood, and see their best bet at avoiding embarrassment in
helping the government bury the truth.
These
"non-official"
posts (which can be found in newsgroups, blogs, and occupying entire
websites) are generally of a consistent character. All either make
fallacious "resort to authority" arguments based on a careful
selection of misleading, irrelevant or demonstrably flawed material
from certain judicial rulings, present outright lies about events
such as tax-agency reactions to educated filings, present lies about
the content or arguments in
CtC, or do all
of these. All rely on the targets of their mendacities not
investigating matters for themselves, knowing that such investigations are often
time-consuming and sometimes outright difficult.
Here's
the simple, impossible-to-misunderstand short answer to these efforts: The
IRS has admitted under oath that tens of thousands of
CtC-educated filings have been
made since 2003. Now consider how many allegedly adverse
court rulings are claimed in these official and non-official
scare-you-away-from-CtC efforts...
Furthermore, pretty-much everything alleged in these official
and non-official scare-you-away-from-CtC
efforts is grossly misrepresented. Let's examine
a few of these falsehoods.
Misrepresentation: CtC-educated Americans
have been prosecuted for their filings
We each have our reasons, and our story. It's time, and it's needed, for
you to share yours with the world.
Everyone's failure to step up and fulfill
this simple request is really getting to me, now...
"The day we see truth and do not speak is the
day we begin to die."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
What does it
for you?
Is it simply
because no moral and upstanding person has any choice when it comes to
telling the truth over his or her signature, whether on tax forms or
anywhere else?
Is it recognition of the critical importance of the rule of law,
and the knowledge that if everybody leaves its caretaking to someone else,
it will soon be lost to us completely?
Is it the money?
Maybe it's
just simple respect for your own rights as a human being, who is not and
cannot be not involuntarily subordinated to others?
Maybe it's just
simple respect for your general civic responsibility to be the grown-up and
enforce frugality and restraint on a big, powerful creature of our own devising
which otherwise is like a badly-raised teenage boy given whiskey and car keys
and let loose on the road to wreak havoc?
Or is it, perhaps,
a more acute anxiety that if our bonfire of a state isn't damped, and quickly,
it'll soon burn down the house around us all?
What IS it that
firms up your jaw and stiffens your resolve?
It's time to
take off the bushel and share your light!
I would like
you to think about what it is that motivates you for a few moments (or all
day, if you like), and then send me your thoughts. I want to put YOUR reasons to work inspiring folks who
don't yet understand what this is all about.
In this day
and age, the most effective way
for you to share your thinking
for the benefit of others is to video-record yourself talking about how you
feel, and explaining what inspires and motivates YOU.
All you need is a
webcam or cell-phone equipped with a camera. If you don't have, or know how to
use, one of these, have a friend help.
If needed, write a little script for yourself. Better, though, to just speak
extemporaneously, after spending a little time sorting out your thoughts and
getting down into your heart.
Keep yourself to
no more than 2 or 3 minutes,
and keep in mind that the purpose is not to educate, but to
INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and ENERGIZE. Your video will be one of many to be shared.
You needn't
feel any obligation to be profound, and you shouldn't try to explain
anything about the law, other than to say that you have read it and you know
it's on your side. You just need to be sincere, and uplifting. Your object
is to make your audience want to have what you have, and to be where you are
in your heart.
Keep in mind that you're speaking to an
audience that doesn't yet know ANYTHING about the subject, and whose first
reaction is, "This must be illegal; this must be dangerous; this is too good to
be true." You want to pull that audience right past such things, and
straight to a focus on truth, morality, and our American heritage of liberty
and the rule of law.
Remember:
INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE, ENERGIZE.
Speak about rights. Speak about morality, and the obligation of a grown-up
and responsible person to speak the truth and to enforce the Constitution. Speak
about everyone's duty
to give to God what is God's, always, and to Caesar only
what is really Caesar's. Speak of your obligation to respect yourself, and to
look out for the current and future well-being of your children and your fellow
citizens.
If you have had victories, describe them.
Better still, show them, if possible.
Be clear about
just what you accomplished: EVERYTHING
back-- Social Security, Medicare and all; a "notice of deficiency" closing
notice; an on-paper agreement or acknowledgment that your earnings weren't
subject to the tax and everything withheld or paid-in was an "overpayment";
a transcript showing all $0s; or whatever happened.
When you speak of state victories, name the state. If you had to
overcome balkiness from a tax agency before winning any victory, describe that,
too!
Remember, your
purpose is to INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and
ENERGIZE.
If you're dealing with ongoing balkiness, describe that,
too, if you wish-- but be sure to explain why you're not discouraged, and why you are not
standing down, not slinking back into the barn, and not choosing to endorse the lies.
Mention what you do for a living, whether you're a doctor, homemaker, lawyer,
trucker, IT guy or gal, or a retiree or student. Help people understand that the
company of grown-up activist Americans they are being invited to join cuts
across all demographics and all interests-- with the common denominator being
respect for the law and love of the principles on which this great country was
founded.
This is
your chance to get a LOT accomplished.
We've all had
frustrating occasions of trying to explain all this to a friend, neighbor,
family member or co-worker, only to pile up against the wall of a mind not
yet ready to listen and learn. Here is your chance to address a
self-selected audience of folks who have themselves decided that it's time
for them to begin paying attention, and have clicked on your testimonial for
exactly that reason.
So, please
make and send those videos right away! The restoration of institutional
respect for individual rights and the rule of law depends on enough
individuals insisting upon it. Do your part to let those starting to rub the
sleep from their eyes know that there is a community already waiting for their
fellowship with open arms and open hearts and shining spirits.
"There are two distinct classes of men...those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes." - Thomas Paine
CtC Warrior Ike Hall has been engaged in a very virtuous project-- creating a study guide for new students of CtC. This remains a work in progress at this point, but I think what Ike's done so far is already worth sharing with the rest of the community. Click here to download the guide-- now complete through chapter twelve!
For more clarifying resources click here; and click here for more tools for spreading the truth.
Getting Free Of The "Income" Tax Scheme Is As Easy As Falling
Off A Bike
To get an
idea of how today's "income" tax scheme works, try this little
exercise:
Think
of the federal government as a guy named Bob, who lives down the
street from you in a town that is really big on bicycles. Bikes
get used for commuting, deliveries, shopping, etc.. In fact,
other than walking, bicycles are the exclusive form of
transportation in your town.
Your neighbor
Bob has a by-the-mile bicycle-renting business-- "Bob's
Bicycles". Bob's Bicycles is far and away the biggest business
in town.
Part of Bob’s
success is because he does a lot of contract business. However,
Bob doesn't just get paid by riders who have signed an agreement
with him, or even just those using Bob's bikes. Bob gets
something every time anybody in town does any riding at all,
through an odd combination of circumstances that took many years
to come together.
Here's how it
happened...
Bob's
Bicycles was launched long ago by the great grandfather of the
present Bob (Bob IV). Great Grandpa Bob started out not only
with a main location for his contract business-- he also had the
bright idea of setting up spots around town where he parked some
of his bikes for use by the more occasional rider, on an "honor
system". Anyone could take and use one of these bikes, but they
were expected to keep track of their mileage, and send Bob a
"1040 Mileage Ridden/Rent Due Form" (and the appropriate rent),
periodically. The initial design of the form was like this:
I, ______________, rode a
Bob's Bicycle a total of _____ miles this year.
At Bob's rental rate of
$.15 per mile, I owe Bob $______
I said that
Great Grandpa Bob planned to deal with these occasional riders
on the "honor system", and that's true. But he liked his money,
too, and didn't want to miss anything that was due him. So,
after setting up the "self-serve" locations, Great Grandpa Bob
went around handing out "W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms"
to every other business in town. The forms-- accompanied by
notices that if Bob didn't get his rent from someone riding a
bicycle in connection with any business, he would sue the
company involved-- said:
You Can’t Fight Well When You Don’t Know What You’re Fighting About.
If you are having an argument with the IRS or any other tax agency,
You are NOT being presumed to have made “corporate profit”.
You are NOT being alleged to have received “foreign income”.
You are NOT entangled in an invisible “adhesion contract”.
You are NOT being obligated by a law whose subject is never identified.
You are being targeted because REAL EVIDENCE exists that YOU PERSONALLY HAD “INCOME” to which the revenue laws apply-- even though that evidence is almost certainly incorrect, and CAN be corrected.
Seriously. Do you want to win? SPREAD THIS FILE AROUND!
Doing so will accomplish more than anything that happens in a courtroom, more than any argument you make with any bureaucrat, more than ANYTHING else that you can do.
Are You Not Bothering?
Then You're Just Talking The Talk.
You've GOT To Walk The Walk If You Want To Win.
"Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."
CtC Warrior SanDiegoScott has put together a great little 20-question quiz to test your knowledge of the law regarding the United States "income" tax. Test yourself, test your friends and family! Test your accountant and tax attorney, and help them learn the liberating truth!!
A "Pragmatic" Perspective On The Tax And The Rule Of Law
Hey, don't bother me with that "morality" argument, and all that stuff about "upholding the rule of law". I'm a pragmatist. I'm just interested in looking out for "numero uno", and living my life without any hassles from the IRS!
So I'm okay with submissively letting the government:
take 45% of my earnings;
habituate itself to the conveniences of "creativity" in the writing of laws and the behavior of its officers in courtrooms in order to take that wealth from me with an appearance of legitimacy;
use my money to mess with foreigners on behalf of special interests, engendering hatred and contempt of all Americans-- including me;
use my money to finance an army of bureaucrats who rule my life for the benefit of themselves and their special-interest clients;
use my money to pay for an army of lawyers who will sue me or prosecute me if I try to make my own choices about who works for me and on what terms; about what I say-- and when, and how; about what I do with my own property; about whether I'm equipped to defend myself and those I love; and about how I raise and educate my children;
-- just as long as I'm left alone, dude!
To suffer abuse without complaint or struggle is to suffer it
nonetheless-- but to suffer it without the amelioration of dignity and
self-respect.
If each person receiving this newsletter each week distributed as few as 100 of any of the great outreach tools featured here to co-workers, friends, neighbors and family members (or just strangers on the street, in the mall, etc...), we could have SEVERAL MILLION new Americans suddenly introduced to the liberating truth about the tax!
When directed to a page by topic or link, read everything.
I know that this can mean the investment of a lot of time, attention and effort, but although some may imagine otherwise, I don't write as much as I do because I can't think of any other way to spend my time...
Furthermore, when you encounter a hyperlink within, or associated with, the text you are reading, follow it!
It is pretty common these days for web-based material to be littered with hyperlinks. Sometimes the purpose is to provide definitions or examples, in order to ensure that folks reading the original material aren't presented with a word or reference which they don't understand. Sometimes the links lead to illustrations pertinent to the original text.
It is common-- and perfectly understandable-- for folks who are confident that they are familiar with language or references within the main text they are reading to get in the habit of skipping over included links. I do it all the time, myself!
However, I very rarely include links for definitional or explanatory purposes; and when I DO make a link out of text in one page it is generally to another self-contained page, rather than merely illustrative material. These other pages contain material the clear understanding of which I deem highly important for the proper and complete understanding of the original page. (Links to CtC, the Victories pages, CtC Warriors and so on are obvious exceptions to this general rule. On the other hand, a link to the victory Highlights or 'Every Which Way But Loose' pages, which might seem like such exceptions, are not. The special selection of victories on those pages, and the filed docs and tax-agency correspondences included therewith, themselves constitute highly instructive material which merits careful attention. Thus care needs to be taken in all cases.)
Please make a habit of clicking on all provided links and at least looking briefly to ensure that the linked page is one with which you are completely familiar from another study session.
Finally, please keep in mind that, annoying though it may seem at first blush (but not, I trust, upon reflection), I constantly tweak material already posted. Obviously this doesn't mean that every page is in flux at all times, but it does mean that if you are directed to a page that IS familiar, it's worthwhile to read it through again if it's been a month or two since your last having done so.
