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?
On The Care And Feeding Of Mushrooms
I HEARD FROM SOMEONE LAST WEEK whose mood was glum--
even despairing. He had apparently gone in search of an elusive
(and illusive) "silver bullet" solution to bad behavior by some
government agency and found himself in one of the many "tax
honesty" mushroom-farms that thrive where the light is dim and
the supply of nourishing manure is abundant. There my
correspondent had been convinced that the limits of the "income"
tax to "privileged" activities was irrelevant because the feds
have forcibly made him a privilege-beneficiary in all gainful
economic activity, regardless of his personal decisions.
The particular manure involved in this case is the notion that
some sort of federal
"trustee" status is
imposed on people by provisions of the Social Security
system. This is a hoary bit of nonsense as
old as the equally ridiculous ideas that "wages" are not
"income" and that everyone is viewed by the tax laws as being a
corporation.
All of these notions have evolved from
the mistaken idea that only "corporate profit" qualifies for the
tax. For instance, because "corporate profit" obviously
can't be realized as any kind of "wages", this theory forces the
conclusion that "wages" can't be "income" subject to the tax
(and that the Subtitle C "income" tax subcategory denominated as
"employment taxes" must be a tax entirely separate from what is
relevant to Subtitle A).
Similarly, the "income-is-only-corporate-profit" folks
necessarily conclude that anyone addressed by the tax agencies
must be being presumed to be a corporation. This leads to the
additional fancy that the rendering of a name on a form letter
in all caps-- a common time-saving practice-- is actually done
because there's a special secret rule saying that only corporate
names can be rendered this way (or that rendering a name this
way is an indication that the named-party is a corporation).
This "[taxed] income-is-only-corporate-profit" myth also leads
to the idea that some secret design of the Social Security
system establishes each person as the trustee for that imagined
"corporate person", and from there to the idea that
everyone's earnings are subject to the tax because they are
exercising the privilege of acting as federal trustees. The myth
has even led to the circulation within the mushroom farms of
completely fictional judicial-ruling excerpts contrived to
support all this, such as the following fabrication supposedly from
the US Supreme Court case of
"inasmuch as every government is an
artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a
government can interface only with other artificial person. The
imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from
creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal
manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law,
agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other
than corporate, artificial person and the contract between them."
There is no mere circular reasoning in these mushrooms farms.
These foggy mental landscapes are more along the lines of a
Möbius-strip continuum.
(NOTE: Ironically-- or at least, annoyingly-- this bogus 'Penhallow'
ruling excerpt apparently first got put into circulation by
a book titled 'Cracking the Code, Third Edition'-- a
collection of nonsense and misdirection which would have
prompted me to choose a different title for
CtC, had I known of its existence before going to
print.)
SADLY, IT HAS NOT OCCURRED TO THE PURVEYORS OR THE CONSUMERS of
this "trust" myth that (for one thing), if it were true that
FICA participation is imposed, and creates a basis for treating
relevant earnings (or a "trustee"-relationship-therewith) as of
a privilege-related, taxable character, nothing received after
the first $113,700 (at which FICA extractions end) would be
subject to the tax. And yet the "wage withholding" provisions of
26 USC 3402 draw no distinction and provide for withholding on
"wages" above the $113,700, and no distinction is drawn in the
law concerning the application of the "income" tax to "wages"
above or below that figure-- the only difference is that those
below also get tapped with a surtax.
Further, the taxable exercise of "privilege" is the producing of
a profit doing something that can only be done by federal
permission (even if the "profit" is only nominally so, as in the
case of federal workers all of whose pay above the exemption and
available deduction amounts is deemed to be a taxable gain).
Simple activity as a "trustee"-- even were it actually
happening-- is not inherently profitable (or even remunerative
at all), and even were the fiction of SS imposing "trustee"
status on everyone true, being a trustee certainly isn't the
activity for which any such person is paid.
When you get paid for working as an auto mechanic at Joe's Car
Repair, your pay is for your work as an auto mechanic.
Even if it were true that having your pay shorted by alleged
FICA obligations makes you into a "trustee" for the government
(or for the "corporate you", or whatever), you're still not
getting paid a dime for being a trustee. On the contrary--
you're being charged for it. This is hardly a gainful privilege
under any reasoning; further, there being no payment for
"trustee" activity means there is nothing by which any imaginary
resulting tax obligation can be measured or defined.
All of that is without even starting on the fact that "trustee"
status could hardly be IMPOSED on anyone in the first place, and
even if the feds meant it to be a hidden consequence of applying
for a Social Security number, it couldn't have any legal effect
of the sort imagined here without the knowing acquiescence of
the individual affected...
THERE ARE MANY MORE MYTHS OF THIS SORT FEEDING FUNGI THROUGHOUT
the "tax honesty" community. The Social Security system and SS
numbers figure in quite a few; strange notions about the UCC are
also prominently represented. Recently we saw a flare-up of the
notion that the use of Federal Reserve Notes constitutes a
tax-qualifying "privilege", making all pay received in that form
(or denominated in that form) taxable.
All of these false notions cycle in and out of popularity with
the kind of consumers to which they are directed. It has become
clear to me over the years that this is not entirely because bad
pennies never seem to go away. Instead, enemies of the truth
seize on paralyzing notions of this kind which have proven
capable of gaining traction in the "tax honesty" community and
then re-introduce them periodically.
Sadly, no matter how thoroughly debunked, some of these notions
will always find victims open to infection. This is because the
real thing being sought from, and delivered by, these paralyzing
notions is an excuse for paralysis.
The top-layer facade of subtext behind notions like "trustee"
status makes one subject to the tax, or it's from using FRNs, or
any of the rest of this fungus-food is a kind of naïveté:
"The tax agencies seem to take it as a done deal that my
earnings are subject to the tax; therefore something behind the
scenes must be legitimizing this behavior and there's no point
in acting until I figure out what that is and how to get around
it."
The deeper, REAL subtext is, "I fear confrontation and don't
want to risk a growl or glare from the junk-yard dog. I'd rather
he ate my lunch than assert myself and tell him "NO!" Accepting
the infection of [whatever mushroom-food is being consumed] lets
me appear to have a reason for standing down."
It's not for nothing that the IRS has diligently cultivated a
fearsome reputation as a gang of lather-mouthed psychotics over
the decades since it began relying on ignorance and mis-information
to expand its reach:
"The Tax Code represents the genius of legal fiction... The IRS has never really known why people pay the income tax... The IRS encourages voluntary compliance, through FEAR."
-Jack Warren Wade Jr., former IRS officer in charge of the IRS Nationwide Revenue Officer Training Program, in his book ‘When You Owe The IRS’
I SOMETIMES WONDER WHY I HAVE WRITTEN SO MANY articles like this
one over the years. I usually get to about this point and begin
concluding that it is pointless to explain things to those who
don't want to understand. 'Cause it is.
But then I remember things
I
have been persuaded to believe which I later discovered or
realized were not true, and I remember that not everyone being
fed mushroom-food is really looking for that fare. The
"ignorance" tax IS a genius of legal fiction, and fear is a
mind-killer; more, the false notions don't, in fact, just spring
up overnight spontaneously. More often than not they are
cultivated and pushed by gnarly trolls through sincere useful
idiots or sincere-appearing folks who recognize an opportunity
to make a buck peddling silver-bullet fantasies to the timid and
the uncertain.
So, I write these articles for the benefit of the timid and
uncertain, and will continue to do so. The only problem is that
my debunking of the mushroom-myths isn't really a solution to
the problems of that audience. What those folks need is not
logic-- in most cases what is keeping this large host of what
should be warriors for the light from being on the field and
engaged is not faulty reasoning. Most of these paralyzing
notions are absurd on their faces, or at worst fall to only a
little serious thought.
What really keeps this absent
army from lending its strength to the cause being honorably
prosecuted by the rest of us is simply the fear.
Unfortunately, my reasoning will
never cure fear. The only thing that can cure fear is
encouragement and camaraderie, such as that offered here,
here,
here,
here,
here, here,
here,
here,
here and
here.
It takes a big dose of this kind of warmth and light to thaw
someone frozen by fear, though-- bigger than this little
collection.
This little collection needs YOUR light to start the
chain-reaction melt-down.
Please master your own fear (or whatever else has stopped you
from doing this in the past), and go
here and act.
My
wife had a great take on this article that’s worth sharing:
Doreen had asked me Saturday morning what I was working on, to
which I replied, “An article on mushrooms.” She assumed I was
writing something about the drug war and individual rights. When
I eventually gave her the article to read, she mentioned her
earlier assumption with amusement, and observed that, in a
round-about way, she had been correct, since I really WAS
writing about “drugs” that cloud minds.
“Actually, the two things ARE the same!” she went on. “People
are admonished to abstain from drugs and keep their minds clear
and focused. In exactly the same way, people need to keep their
minds clear and focused by not falling prey to the “drug
pushers” described in this article, whose effect is also to
separate people from their money!”
Educating About Freedom-- Resources For The Teacher
And Student
HAVING RECENTLY BEEN INTRODUCED TO AN EXCELLENT SERIES OF ONLINE TEACHING
VIDEOS, I'm taking the occasion to post
links to these resources and others in the same vein that I think
everyone will find useful in pursuing (or helping someone else to
pursue) an education in principles and applications of freedom. This
collection of resources will have a permanent home on my
Homeschooling pages for anyone who wishes to find them after
this newsletter edition has been replaced.
Here's a sampling of this new batch of educational videos:
(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
Take this THIRD little test to see whether you're thoroughly-equipped to
run rescue missions into the dark thickets of misunderstanding and
misdirection and lead lost souls back to the path, and to raise the
consciousness of those not yet in motion.
The Quiz:
upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official,
of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality
of the United States or the District of Columbia.
c.
Only after liability has been established and 1. notice that the government is
asserting its claim and 2. demand for satisfaction, have been made.
d. All of the above.
8. The "Paperwork Reduction Act":
a.
Has the effect of nullifying any statutory obligation on anyone to file a tax
return.
b.
Is irrelevant to anyone's need to file a return.
c.
Is relevant to tax return filing because a tax return is an
information-collection instrument, not a testimonial instrument.
d. All of the above.
9. IRS efforts to hinder liberty-minded political organizations between early
2010 and the 2012 election:
a. Are
a great practical example of why the Founders put strict limits on federal tax
power.
b.
Provide a wonderful opportunity to explain to those in the targeted
organizations that they DON'T really need "501(c)(4)" approval, and why.
c. Are
just the latest in a series of similar efforts of those running the state to
secure themselves in power by exploiting the diligently-nurtured widespread
misunderstanding of the true nature of the income tax over the past 70 years.
d. All of the above.
10. The warrantless federal wiretaps of journalists (and of everyone else)
revealed in 2013:
a.
Are bad enough by themselves, but are really just a symptom of the much larger,
much more dangerous fact that the state is no longer restrained by limited
access to resources as planned by the Framers, due to widespread ignorance about
federal tax powers heavily-cultivated by the state and its clients and cronies
over the last 70 years.
b.
Are part of a campaign to control what Americans know about efforts by state
operatives to secure themselves in power and reward themselves and their clients
and cronies at the expense of everyone else.
c. Both (a) and (b).
d. None of the above.
11. Tax-reform proposals, even those calling for the abolition of the income
tax:
a.
Are unnecessary because reform is not needed; all that is needed is scrupulous
state respect for the spirit and letter of the laws as written.
b.
Are actually harmful and ill-intended in that they serve to obscure from view
the true nature of existing tax law and its highly desirable imposition of the
income tax on (and only on) profit-taking beneficiaries of state privileges such
as the operators of the state and their cronies and are meant to undo that
benign and desirable structure of law.
c. Would, in the case
of "reform" involving a national sales tax, just increase the degree to which
the shift of control over resources from individuals to the collective (which is
to say, to those making decisions in the name of the collective) is concealed
from view and goes unremarked and unrestrained, and would further habituate
Americans to the false and pernicious notion that the state has an interest in,
and authority over, all economic activity of all persons.
d. All of the above.
12. When spreading the word of the truth about the income tax and urging one's
fellow Americans to rise to their responsibilities, one can and should:
a.
Explain the moral issues-- the obligation on everyone to speak the truth about
themselves and others (and to say nothing not known to a moral certainty about
anyone else, especially in a context of possible legal consequences).
b.
Explain the societal/political issues-- that the legitimacy of a government
depends on it being organized and maintained only with the consent of affected
individuals and the practical reality of that consent is only achieved when a
government is scrupulously subjected to a real and proper rule of law and a
meaningful diffusion of power.
c.
Explain the horrors of the unrestrained state and the moral, personal and
practical glories of the liberty that blossoms when the state is thoroughly
restrained by individual citizens empowered and active in looking out for their
own interests in the exercise of control over their own property and the fruits
of their labors.
d. All of the above.
Score =
SCORING
0 - 24% correct: I'm afraid you've gotten your "education" exclusively from the
IRS.
25 - 49% correct: Your heart's in the right place, but you haven't yet started down
the path to knowledge.
50 - 74% correct: You're well on the path, but still have some studying to do.
75 - 99% correct: You're on the very verge of self-empowerment...
Question 1: Who
said: "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on
ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so..."?
a. Mr. Rogers.
b. Mr. T.
c. Uncle Jay.
d. Uncle Remus.
Correct response: "d.
Uncle Remus" (but I bet
Uncle Jay has said the same in different words...)
Question 2: The
IRS is an agency of:
a. The United
States Department of Treasury.
b. The Puerto
Rico Department of Treasury.
c. The Queen
of England.
d. Aliens from
Jupiter.
Correct response: "a.
The United States Department of Treasury".
Click
here for some information related to this subject.
Question 3: There
IS a law providing for the imposition of liability for the income tax on ANYBODY
under certain circumstances.
a. True.
b. False.
c. That's not
what my "law study" group says...
d. You're just
a hater!
Correct response: "a. True".
Click here for some
information related to this subject.
Question 4:
Treasury Decision 2313 declares that the income tax only applies to non-resident
aliens.
a. True.
b. False.
c. You mean
only non-resident aliens and foreign-source income!
d. Are these
the "aliens from Jupiter" I heard about earlier?
Correct response: "b. False".
Click here for some relevant observations.
Question 5: The
U.S. Constitution's apportionment requirements and other tax-limitation
provisions applicable within the several states also apply:
a. Everywhere
else.
b. In Guam,
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
c. On Jupiter.
d. Nowhere
else.
Correct response: "a.
Everywhere else".
Click
here
for some relevant observations.
Question 6: In the
ten years that
CtC has been in print, during which tens of thousands
of Americans have been continuously acting on the information in the book and securing
every
possible kind of
state-restraining, law-enforcing victory; and over the entirety of which
intense efforts have been undertaken by the state to suppress the book and its
information and to discourage people from acting on that information; tax
agencies, government attorneys and the courts have actually disputed some
assertion in the book about the law or its meaning and application:
a. Never.
b. Twice.
c. Many times.
d. Is
persistent mischaracterization of what is said in the book a form of
"dispute"?
Correct response: "a.
Never".
Click here,
here
and here for some
relevant observations.
Question 7: A levy
can legally be made:
a. Against
anyone who actually owes a tax.
b. By "notice of
levy" alone only upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee,
or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any
agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia.
c. Only after
liability has been established and 1. notice that the government is
asserting its claim and 2. demand for satisfaction, have been made.
d. All of the
above.
Correct response: "d.
All of the above".
Click
here and
here for some relevant observations.
Question 8: The
"Paperwork Reduction Act":
a. Has the
effect of nullifying any statutory obligation on anyone to file a tax
return.
b. Is irrelevant
to anyone's need to file a return.
c. Is relevant
to tax return filing because a tax return is an information-collection
instrument, not a testimonial instrument.
d. All of the above.
Correct response: "b.
Is irrelevant to anyone's need to file a return".
Click here for some relevant
observations, and
here,
too.
Question 9: IRS
efforts to hinder liberty-minded political organizations between early 2010 and
the 2012 election:
a. Are a great
practical example of why the Founders put strict limits on federal tax
power.
b. Provide a
wonderful opportunity to explain to those in the targeted organizations that
they DON'T really need "501(c)(4)" approval, and why.
c. Are just the
latest in a series of similar efforts of those running the state to secure
themselves in power by exploiting the diligently-nurtured widespread
misunderstanding of the true nature of the income tax over the past 70
years.
d. All of the above.
Correct response: "d.
All of the above". Click
here for some relevant information.
Question 10: The
warrantless federal wiretaps of journalists (and of everyone else) revealed in
2013:
a. Are bad
enough by themselves, but are really just a symptom of the much larger, much
more dangerous fact that the state is no longer restrained by limited access
to resources as planned by the Framers, due to widespread ignorance about
federal tax powers heavily-cultivated by the state and its clients and
cronies over the last 70 years.
b.
Are part of a campaign to control what Americans know about efforts by state
operatives to secure themselves in power and reward themselves and their
clients and cronies at the expense of everyone else.
c. Both (a) and
(b).
d. None of the
above.
Correct response: "c.
Both (a) and (b)".
Click here for some relevant observations.
Question 11:
Tax-reform proposals, even those calling for the abolition of the income tax:
a. Are
unnecessary because reform is not needed; all that is needed is scrupulous
state respect for the spirit and letter of the laws as written.
b. Are actually
harmful and ill-intended in that they serve to obscure from view the true
nature of existing tax law and its highly desirable imposition of the income
tax on (and only on) profit-taking beneficiaries of state privileges such as
the operators of the state and their cronies and are meant to undo that
benign and desirable structure of law.
c. Would, in the
case of "reform" involving a national sales tax, just increase the degree to
which the shift of control over resources from individuals to the collective
(which is to say, to those making decisions in the name of the collective)
is concealed from view and goes unremarked and unrestrained, and would
further habituate Americans to the false and pernicious notion that the
state has an interest in, and authority over, all economic activity of all
persons.
d. All of the
above.
Correct response: "d.
All of the above".
Click here and
here for
some relevant observations.
Question 12: When
spreading the word of the truth about the income tax and urging one's fellow
Americans to rise to their responsibilities, one can and should:
a. Explain the
moral issues-- the obligation on everyone to speak the truth about
themselves and others (and to say nothing not known to a moral certainty
about anyone else, especially in a context of possible legal consequences).
b. Explain the
societal/political issues-- that the legitimacy of a government depends on
it being organized and maintained only with the consent of affected
individuals and the practical reality of that consent is only achieved when
a government is scrupulously subjected to a real and proper rule of law and
a meaningful diffusion of power.
c. Explain the
horrors of the unrestrained state and the moral, personal and practical
glories of the liberty that blossoms when the state is thoroughly restrained
by individual citizens empowered and active in looking out for their own
interests in the exercise of control over their own property and the fruits
of their labors.
d. All of
the above.
Correct response: "d.
All of the above".
Click here,
here,
here and
here for
some relevant observations.
"At the outset, we reject the
Government's breathtakingly expansive claim of congressional power under the
Sixteenth Amendment -- upon which it founds the more far-reaching arguments
it advances here. The Sixteenth Amendment simply does not authorize the
Congress to tax as "incomes" every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive.
As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the "Congress cannot make a thing
income which is not so in fact." Burk-Waggoner Oil Ass'n v. Hopkins,
269 U.S. 110, 114 (1925). Indeed, because the "the power to tax involves the
power to destroy," McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 431
(1819), it would not be consistent with our constitutional government, and
the sanctity of property in our system, merely to rely upon the legislature
to decide what constitutes income.
Fortunately, we need not rely
solely upon the wisdom and beneficence of the Congress for, when the
Sixteenth Amendment was drafted, the word “incomes” had well understood
limits."
MURPHY v. INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE, DC Cir. No. 05-5139 (2006)
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.
