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?
One Definition Of Insanity...
...IS THE DOING OF THE SAME THING over and over and expecting different results.
Another is harboring the delusion that a "white knight" (like your congressman,
or some "Constitutionalist Sheriff", or whatever) is going to rescue you from a
corrupt state, or that the corrupt state is going to spontaneously "get
religion". All of these notions are batsh*t crazy.
Yet another batsh*t crazy notion is that grousing about the corrupt state while
it accumulates weapons, power, property, personnel, records on everyone, and
unchallenged habits of despotism accomplishes anything.
Some of you will have noticed that I changed the follow-on line after the
current newsletter's "Recommended Reading" selections last week. It used to say
only:
Aren't you REALLY, REALLY glad that YOU'VE
taken control of how much of
YOUR WEALTH facilitates
Washington's misbehavior?!
Now I've added:
If you haven't,
what the hell is wrong with
you?!
Because frankly, if you haven't gotten to your feet and taken control like a
responsible grown-up, I don't understand why not.
Are you batsh*t crazy?
Maybe you're just blithely disengaged from what is going on around you, like
Cary Grant in this little video...
If
so, you'll suffer the same consequence for your self-absorption.
Maybe you're asleep? Same consequence, again.
Or maybe you're just a-scared...
You know what? You OUGHTA be a-scared-- but of leaving Washington's bad behavior
unrestrained, not of following the law and your conscience and imposing that
restraint.
PERHAPS YOU'RE HOPING TO LEARN a way of restraining the state which it won't oppose
and won't strive to discourage...
Give me a break!
Spend one instant thinking
about it and you'll realize that you've come up with another definition of crazy!
Plainly the
only effort to restrain the state against which it will not threateningly flail about is one
that will do nothing. To paraphrase what wisdom once cynically observed, "If
voting could change anything, the state would endlessly struggle to discourage
it."
The mechanism I have revealed is Founder- and
Framer-designed explicitly for the purpose of
restraining the state. It has been deployed by the best
of your fellow American men and women for a decade now.
This state-restraining mechanism is
solidly-proven and
endlessly-demonstrated
as beyond legitimate challenge or resistance, although
the state has nonetheless been
struggling for ten years to figure out how to stop
educated Americans from using this threat to its
unbridled, lawless ambitions. As noted above, anything
that actually can restrain the state will inevitably be
resisted and attacked.
But there IS no LEGITIMATE-- legally-sound,
demonstrably-valid-- resistance to this mechanism, which
is, after all, embedded deep in our fundamental law and
in natural law principles, as well. This mechanism is
utterly beyond any lawful interference, evasion or
disobedience, and the state's futile ten-year struggle
to overcome that reality just emphasizes this fact.
Further, regardless of how significant any one person's individual use of
that mechanism may or may not be in accomplishing that restraint, it is the only
means by which that person can stop voluntarily SUPPORTING a state that is
busily forging chains bearing your name and those
of your kids.
I
don't care how much you may enthuse about the virtues of anarchy, and how much
you deem
anything short of that to be not good enough. You still have no business
voluntarily supporting what you firmly believe to be a lawless state.
I
don't care how much you may believe that the bad guys are relying on some
esoteric interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the institution of a
new, secret Constitution in 1873, or strawmen, or hidden code on the back of
your birth certificate, or whatever. You still have no business acquiescing in
your wealth being taken from you by what you believe to be a lawless state for
its own reasons and purposes, even if just an acquiescence of silence in the
face of payer assertions that your earnings were of the state-claimable variety.
I
don't care how much you may believe that even if the income tax were to collapse
back to its lawful scope the state would just make up the difference elsewhere
and otherwise. You still have no business supporting, by your failure to rebut,
the false assertion that your property is legally the state's for the taking.
Nor have you any business letting the state choose the mechanisms that best
serve its purposes at the expense of the truth.
Do
you think it will find other ways? Let it, then! Your business is your own
righteousness. You look after that, and let the chips fall where they may. We'll see if the "alternative
methods" that you believe the state will find actually serve its interests as well as
they have been served by having you lie on its behalf.
THE GREAT LIBERTARIAN ESSAYIST of the early 20th
century, Albert Jay Nock, did a good job making the
practical case for what is, in any event, the moral
imperative of uncompromising honesty on documents you
say represent your belief as to what is true and in what
you allow to stand for the truth by your failure to
rebut what is said by others. In his 1939 piece entitled
The Criminal State (rather hypocritically posted
recently by folks at lewrockwell.com who steadfastly
refuse to spread the word to their very large audience
about how to actually accomplish what Nock urges all
Americans to do...), Nock cuts to the heart of the
matter:
The weaker the State is, the less power it has to
commit crime. Where in Europe today does the State
have the best criminal record? Where it is weakest:
in Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Norway,
Luxembourg, Sweden, Monaco, Andorra. Yet when the
Dutch State, for instance, was strong, its
criminality was appalling; in Java it massacred 9000
persons in one morning which is considerably ahead
of Hitler’s record or Stalin’s. It would not do the
like today, for it could not; the Dutch people do
not give it that much power, and would not stand for
such conduct. When the Swedish State was a great
empire, its record, say from 1660 to 1670, was
fearful. What does all this mean but that if you do
not want the State to act like a criminal, you must
disarm it as you would a criminal; you must keep it
weak. The State will always be criminal in
proportion to its strength; a weak State will always
be as criminal as it can be, or dare be, but if it
is kept down to the proper limit of weakness –
which, by the way, is a vast deal lower limit than
people are led to believe– its criminality may be
safely got on with.
So it strikes me that instead of sweating blood over
the iniquity of foreign States, my fellow-citizens
would do a great deal better by themselves to make
sure that the American State is not strong enough to
carry out the like iniquities here. The stronger the
American State is allowed to grow, the higher its
record of criminality will grow, according to its
opportunities and temptations. If, then, instead of
devoting energy, time, and money to ward off
imaginary and fanciful dangers from criminals
thousands of miles away, our people turn their
patriotic fervor loose on the only source from which
danger can proceed, they will be doing their full
duty by their country.
Nock goes on to discuss
many examples of crimes committed by strong states, and
then finishes with:
Here is the Golden Rule of sound citizenship, the
first and greatest lesson in the study of politics:
You get the same order of criminality from any State
to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever
power you give the State to do things FOR you
carries with it the equivalent power to do things TO
you.
A citizenry which has learned that one short lesson
has but little more left to learn. Stripping the
American State of the enormous power it has acquired
is a full-time job for our citizens and a stirring
one; and if they attend to it properly they will
have no energy to spare for fighting communism, or
for hating Hitler, or for worrying about South
America or Spain, or for anything whatever, except
what goes on right here in the United States.
The moral case is even more compelling.
All in all, this means that
both wisdom and righteousness oblige you to vigorously
deploy the
Founders' mechanism for restraining the rogue state.
All in all, if you don't promptly take control of how much of
YOUR wealth finances Washington's misbehavior, you must
be batsh*t crazy.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It
never did and it never will. Find out just what
any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact
measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed
on them, and these will continue till they have been
resisted with either words or blows, or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of
those whom they suppress. -Frederick Douglass
Just What IS An Annual "Form 1040" Tax Return,
Anyway?
SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS, ACTUALLY... To start with,
any tax return is a form for the reporting of what
the filer believes to be tax-relevant events (or the
consequences thereof, more accurately-- remember,
the tax is on the events, but is measured by the
profitable outcome of those events). Some returns--
including 1040s-- are also a means by which the
filer makes certain elections related to those
reported events, and a means by which the filer
calculates and acknowledges any tax liability that
arises from those events (which could be anything
from $0 on up).
Much of the essential character of a return is
usefully illustrated by the fact that the law
specifically provides that no return is to be made
unless certain threshold volumes of tax-relevant
events have been reached. Thus, it is clear that the
party concerned is expected to independently
consider and decide the tax-relevance of any given
event, and that a return such as a 1040 is not
simply intended to be a report of "all that comes
in".
Perhaps the best illustration of this
independent-consideration, not-merely-a-report of
"all that comes in" aspect of a return can be found
in the regulatory provisions concerning "wage"
reporting. For purposes of the "FICA income taxes,
receipt of "wages" by which the tax is measured
hinges on the payments being made in the course of
"employment" as defined in the law at 26 USC
3121(b). In the regulations controlling the
application of these provisions, though, we find:
26 C.F.R. sec. 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)...
(Emphasis added.)
Similarly, the withholding provisions in Chapter 24
of the IRC (part of Subtitle C "Employment Taxes")
at 3401(a), which identifes what is to be reported
on a W-2 by a payer and on a 1040 by a recipient as
"wages" constituting "income" on which the tax is
laid are subject to these regulatory provisions:
26 C.F.R. 31.3401(a)-2 Exclusions from wages.
(a) In general. (1)
the term “wages” does
not include any remuneration for
services performed by an employee for his
employer which is specifically excepted from
wages under section 3401(a).
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).
Plainly, since some services performed for an employer by an
employee-- however those terms are defined or distinguished--
don't constitute "employment", and some remuneration for the
performance of such services doesn't qualify as "wages" required
to be reported or declared and included in the calculation of
taxes owed, both the payer and the recipient are
expected to come to their own conclusions about
whether any given payments or receipts qualify for
reporting. Plainly, returns are NOT intended to be
just "reports of what came in" (or "went out"),
even for government entities, such as those to whom the
regulations above apply.
Then, of course, there is the overall prescription at 26
USC 6012(a) that:
(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle
A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual
having for the taxable year
gross income which equals or exceeds the
exemption amount, except that a return shall not
be required of an individual— [a variety of
additional exceptions follows]
As is clear, only individuals who have had "gross
income" in excess of the exemption amount are specified
as being expected to produce a return. Therefore, under this launch-point,
overarching provision, every individual must
independently consider what, if any, of "what came in"
qualifies as "gross income" (a
highly distinguished subclass of receipts), not to
mention consider and come to independent conclusions
concerning the additional exceptions and all related
provisions of law, many of which may further refine and
distinguish the criteria relevant to the question.
Plainly, returns are NOT intended to be just "reports of what
came in" (or "went out"), for anyone, anytime. Instead, returns are intended, by the structure within
which they operate, to be reports of only what the
return-creator believes is relevant to the tax out
of the greater class of "what came in" or "what went
out".
As an aside, the "personal-belief-testimonial" character
of a return is why none can legally qualify as subject
to a "frivolous return" penalty under the provisions of
26 USC 6702 absent a technical flaw making the
instrument inherently invalid as an affidavit by
self-contradiction because it:
(A) does not contain information on which the substantial
correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or
(B) contains information that on its face indicates
that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect.
Absent one of these two flaws (which by themselves would
make the return invalid, even though not subject to the
penalty, regardless of any "position" consideration), no
return qualifies for the penalty even if it is based on
the "position" that only green aliens from Mars are
subject to the tax, or on the entire host of weird "tax
honesty movement" notions and nuance-laden strawmen
populating the "frivolous position" list published by
the Secretary of the Treasury.
However, misunderstanding about the
"personal-belief-testimonial" character of a return is
exploited by tax agencies to persuade the unwary that a
failure to treat a return as a "report of all that comes
in" is itself grounds for the penalty. This
misunderstanding nourishes the fallacies that by itself,
a failure to deem "all that comes in" to be relevant to
the tax results in the return failing to contain
information on which the substantial correctness of the
self-assessment may be judged, or that entries
reflecting a conclusion that not all that came in is
relevant to the tax constitute information that on its
face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially
incorrect.
As we have just observed, these ARE fallacies, because
not all that comes in IS relevant to the tax, and a
return is only intended to contain reports concerning
what the filer deems relevant to the tax, which brings
us nicely to the other key element of a return's
nature...
A TAX RETURN IS A TESTIMONIAL INSTRUMENT-- evidence in
a very narrow and rigidly circumscribed legal contest.
It is the means by which a filer introduces his or her
testimony (evidence) into a brief, judgeless,
trial-by-paperwork concerning the question of who owes what to
who, relevant to the tax and in regard to the filer's
activities over the period reported about on the return.
(The foregoing is true of either "information returns"
or 1040 returns, but from this point forward, only 1040s
will be the focus of the discussion.)
In this legal-contest testimonial role, a return might
be filed to declare or acknowledge gains from taxable
activities greater than the exemption amount; to rebut
allegations of such gains; and/or to make a claim for
the refund of amounts that have come into the
government's hands against the possibility of a tax
liability for the period involved.
Either two or three parties will be involved in the contests of
which returns are a part. Always involved are the entity
claiming the tax (a government entity of some kind) and the
filer of the return.
In many cases, there will also be one or more third parties, who
are involved by virtue of having filed "information returns"
alleging payment of gains from taxable activities to the filer,
and possibly also reporting amounts withheld from those payments
and delivered into the government's hands pending the
determination of the filer's tax liability (allegations and
reports which are to be furnished to both the government and the
1040 filer). The allegations of these "third parties" dictate a
filer's need to make specific rebuttals as part of a return,
when those allegations are deemed incorrect; in the absence of
rebuttal such allegations will be taken as acquiesced-to by
silence, and an appropriate liability will be calculated and
assessed.
The determination process consists of the application of the
proper rate of tax to the filer's reported (or acquiesced-to) "income" total, as
affected by claimed deductions (if any). The government's role
in the process consists of confirming, correcting, and in any
event having final say over the fitness and proper application
of claimed deductions; in ensuring that the proper rate of tax
has been applied in the calculation of any tax liability that
arises upon the "income" total remaining after the deductions;
and checking for math errors generally. (Click
here for an in-depth discussion of the "deficiency"
authority by which this government role is laid out.)
When the government deems certain filings to be required but unmade, or
deems certain filed returns to be required and to actually qualify as
"frivolous" fraudulent or false (willfully or not), the
government is obliged (that is, mandated by law) to create a
competing return, sworn by one of its officers, in order to
protect its interests and make its own claims.
26 U.S.C. §
6020(b)(1):
(1) Authority of
Secretary to execute return:
If any person
fails to make any return required by any internal revenue
law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed
therefore, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or
fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from
his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain
through testimony or otherwise.
The controlling regulations are as follows:
26
CFR 301.6020-1(b) Execution of
returns- (1) In general. If any person... ...makes, willfully or otherwise, a
false, fraudulent or frivolous return, the Commissioner or other authorized
Internal Revenue Officer employee shall make such return from his own
knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or
otherwise."
(2) Form of the return. A document (or set of documents)
signed by the Commissioner or other authorized Internal Revenue Officer or
employee shall be a return for a person described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section if the document (or set of documents) identifies the taxpayer by
name and taxpayer identification number, contains sufficient information from
which to compute the taxpayer's tax liability, and purports to be a return.
The signing
requirement invokes this additional statute:
26 USC 6065 Verification of returns
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration,
statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the
internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written
declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury."
Such a sworn competing return will be
prima facie
good for the purpose for which it was created-- the
introduction into the record of the government's side of the
story, and the staking of its own claim.
Importantly though, these competing return-creation
provisions are just the government's options (and obligations)
for doing its own thing, for its own reasons, parallel to the
filing with which they compete (except where no filing has been
made). They don't control, override, subordinate or supersede
any filing with which they compete.
Furthermore, and even more importantly for purposes of
this discussion, the authority to make such government returns
doesn't extend to returns competing with 1040s. Navigate
here and enter 5.1.11.6.7 in your browser "find on this
page" function. Run the function until you get to that section
heading, where you'll see the limited list of return types that
can be created under this authority, which is the sole authority
for government creation of competing returns.
The reason for that limitation is the specification that
first appeared in section 93 of the foundational income tax
enactment:
[A]ny party, in his or her own
behalf,…shall be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and
manner of which shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
that he or she was not possessed of an income of [greater than the current
exemption amount], liable to be assessed according to the provisions of this
act, or… has been assessed elsewhere… and shall thereupon be exempt from an
income duty.
To see how this provision remains embedded in the
codified version of the law today, click
here.
In the end, then, the "trial" of which a 1040 is an
element is a contest of very limited scope, being confined to
the issue of proper application of the rate of tax to the amount
of income declared, and the proper application of deductions.
Not much of a trial at all, really, but it is important to
recognize and remember this aspect of the character of a 1040
return, which emphasizes its status as an independent
testimonial instrument, not subject to the dictates of the
government against whose own potential claims it stands.
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.
IN LIGHT OF THE ONGOING, EVER-MORE APPALLING revelations of state crimes
making corrupt use of the NSA against the people based on the phony pretext of protecting poor little us
from nasty terrorists who hate and threaten our freedoms (see
here for some discussions of that phoniness), I am compelled to
recommend (not for the first time) the excellent Tony Scott film, 'Enemy of
the State'. See it below (or get the disc-- it really belongs in everyone's
collection).
By the way, those who rationalize away the looming personal
danger of the total surveillance outrage revealed in all its
dripping evil by Edward Snowden with the adolescent mantra,
"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to
fear..." should spend the weekend reading 'Three
Felonies a Day'.
IN ANOTHER ARTICLE ON THIS PAGE I SPOKE OF AMERICAN HERO EDWARD
SNOWDEN, who is now rightly celebrated for his efforts at
spreading an important truth. I hope YOU are doing YOUR
part at being an American Hero by spreading
this
link
(latest file update, 8-03-13)
far and wide! Anything and everything must be done to get it into a
state of viral distribution across America.
I'm asking you to help me with this by very purposefully sending
this link to every single person you can, with a little
note from yourself urging your correspondents to read the file,
study it, and verify for themselves each assertion made and each
fact cited. Urge your correspondent to let what is learned
thereby percolate and settle in and begin shining its
transformational light on his or her mental landscape, and in
the meantime, to PASS IT ALONG TO OTHERS in the same way!
I also want you to tell me of ANYTHING in this file that you
feel needs more clarity, support (or more support)! I want
you to tell me of anything that you feel is missing, so that it
is somehow not completely sufficient to instill understanding of
the fact that even after 1913, capitations-- taxes on
undistinguished, commonplace revenues and/or the activities that
produce them-- remain subject to the apportionment rule, and
that the income tax is not in conflict with that fact, being NOT
a tax on undistinguished, commonplace revenues and/or the
activities that produce them (however misleadingly worded parts
of the tax law may be, and however routinely misapplied at the
expense of the uneducated, apathetic or intimidated the tax may
have been over the last 70 years).
I want you to tell me, so that if anything IS missing, or needs
greater emphasis or clarity, I can make those tweaks. In the
meantime, I am counting on you to be sending everyone this link.
Seriously, my friend. Even if you never do "action items",
please do this one.
Right now. Without fail. Please.
You may not recognize how doing this will make any difference. I
tell you, it will make ALL the difference.
In this file is the anti-body to all the germs of error,
disinformation and misunderstanding that allow the "ignorance
tax" to persist. It needs to be given a chance to take root in
as many minds as possible-- especially those NOT in the
CtC community.
In many of these minds, perhaps, this truth anti-body will
wither for lack of a hospitable environment. But in just as
many, it will flourish and bloom, and those folks will become
the patient and innovative teachers of others.
Pleas help me with this oh-so-important project.
-Pete
P. S. I know a lot of folks out there have
self-defeating notions planted in their minds about how
clearing up confusion about the "income tax" won't
matter, "'Cause they'll just pay for all the badness
with inflation, man!" or whatever.
No, they won't.
If "they" could do that and survive politically, (and
weren't getting a whole lot more out of the
maladministration of the "income tax" than just a couple
of trillion dollars a year, as well), the tax would've
been dropped with a grimace and without a backward
glance like the universally-hated thing that it is, at
least forty years ago. This "they'll just inflate" thing
could only be said by someone not old enough (or alive
at all) during the 1970s when we had a test of just how
Americans would tolerate real inflation...
(Not that we're going to be spared getting a good dose
of inflation soon anyway, you understand, unless we very
quickly shrink the state down so small that it no longer
has the resources to quash the emergence of free and
valid currencies. This will only happen by Americans
reclaiming individual control of their resources, as is
relied upon by the framers in their design for a
meaningfully-Constitutionally-limited republic-- and
that, of course, is what
the file
at this link is all about.)
The misunderstanding of the income tax is the thoroughly
cultivated thing that it is (and anyone reading through
the file at this link will come to understand
just how diligent is that cultivation) BECAUSE THE
MISAPPLIED TAX IS THE INDISPENSABLE LIFEBLOOD OF THE
UNRESTRAINED STATE. The state knows this well.
Indeed, the reason the truth about the tax is hedged
about with a more enormous army of lies (and
constantly-recruited "stakeholding" defenders) than any
other organ of the state is because it is so vital to
Leviathan's excesses, ambitions and survival. It is the
heart of the monster.
The file at this link is the monster's bane.
Your efforts to spread this shaft of illuminating,
inspiring and disinfecting sunlight will do more for
your future well-being and that of your children than
anything else you could do.
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can
do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of
God, I will do."
-Everett Hale
(...and every other person who ever really deserved liberty)
"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.
