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?
The Fourth Branch Of Government
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the
people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise
their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true
corrective of abuses of Constitutional power.”
-Thomas Jefferson
In these times of
increasingly rogue behavior by the state, and corresponding increase in
commentary and rumination on the nature of government, it is common to see
assertions such as that the government "has a legal monopoly on violence,"
possesses "the power of coercive taxation," and is "the arbiter of the limits on
its own powers." These assertions are generally used to condemn the state, and
usually with a subtext (if not an overt declaration) in favor of anarchy (a
condition in which it is naively imagined that for some reason people will not
find themselves in need of even a highly-limited institutional structure for
purposes of mutual defense and effective conflict-resolution).
It is, in fact,
because of the implications of assertions such as these about state monopolies
on violence, coercive powers of taxation and self-defining limits that the
writers behind these commentaries conclude that there is no possibility of a
tolerable government. Based on the assumptions behind these assertions, these
writers conclude that any government-- however organized-- is inherently flawed,
and most particularly that the federal government established by the Founders
here in America is inherently flawed. Imagining that the United States
Constitution equips the state with "a legal monopoly on violence," "the power of
coercive taxation," and "authority over the limits of its own powers" (among
other complained-of things) or fails to prevent them, these writers condemn the
Constitution as a vain exercise.
In many cases,
these conclusions about the flaws in the Constitution cause those who harbor
them to simply abandon any study of the instrument, or the details of its
history, or to take in whatever information they seek out on the subject only
through an a priori filter which ensures that what is seen will be
misunderstood if it conflicts with or contradicts the belief about the
instrument's shortcomings. Either way-- whether by outright assumption of
knowledge or filtered "study"-- the effect of these conclusions is disdain.
This disdain for
the Constitution, being communicated in the work of these critics, has become
disturbingly widespread. It is helped along by, and serves as mutual support
for, an alternative impulse of disparagement and disdain grounded in
condemnation of the founders personally for being, in many cases, slave-holders
and exhibiting other real or imagined character flaws.
Both of these
schools of hostility toward the Constitution are encouraged and exploited by the
progressive elements in society who view the Constitution as a hindrance to
their ambitions and, of course, by the political class, most members of which pay
sonorous and unending homage to the Constitution at the lip while busting caps
on it at every opportunity from the hip.
The end result is
a large and vigorous campaign to erode respect for the one and only instrument
of authority to which resort can always be made in dealing with a rogue state
with a certainty of public support as a general proposition, because EVERYONE
agrees that anything not constitutionally-authorized is outside the lawful
authority of the state. There is no other spelled-out instrument of authority of
which this can be said.
Even the
Declaration of Independence, held up by many as being an even more fundamental
expression of American governmental principles (a view with
which I agree) doesn't serve for this purpose, because it IS [only] a statement
of principles. Every lawful construct of government flows from, and must conform
to, these principles, but the Declaration is not a codification of these
principles in the form of law, with specifics, and rules of construction and
application. It is the Constitution that serves as that codification.
And the
Constitution DOES serve as that codification, embodying all the principles of
the Declaration. The problem today is that modern readers of the instrument have
come to misunderstand this fact, and have lost sight of the fact that every
provision of the Constitution must be read so as to conform to the principles of
the Declaration. One could argue that this should be done purely for
philosophical reasons; but this isn't necessary. The fact is, the Constitution
WAS written in conformity to the Declaration's principles.
Indeed, it is ONLY
by reading the Constitution so as to conform to the Declaration's principles
that
the former is even coherent and self-harmonious. The degree to which the
Constitution is construed other than in conformity to the Declaration's
principles is the degree to which it is incoherent and self-contradictory, and
is simply a reflection of the degree to which those who wish to be unhindered by
the Constitution's restrictions have succeeded in convincing others to
misunderstand its provisions and its purposes.
As the simplest of
examples, consider the contention that the government created by the
Constitution has a legal monopoly on the use of violence (and the view of the
purposes and principles informing the Constitution that this contention
implies). In light of the Second Amendment, by which the people's retention of
the means to subdue a rogue state is enshrined, is this contention even remotely
rational?
Under the
Constitution as written and properly understood, the state exercises violence
strictly on the sufferance of the people. It does so under a constant threat of
subduction and punishment for abuse of this delegation, and under strict and
explicit controls over when and how it can employ force at all.
Look at what the
founding generation (and their close students) had to say about this:
"[The
right to keep and bear arms]
may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of
self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been
the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits
possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the
people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever,
prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of
destruction. ...
"The
congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or
interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs
not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property;
nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the
people;..."
-Saint
George Tucker, close friend of Thos. Jefferson and Justice of the
Virginia Supreme Court, in his edition of 'Blackstone's Commentaries
On The Law' (1803)
"The
next amendment is: 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.'
"The
importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who
have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence
of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic
insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is
against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military
establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the
enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means,
which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the
government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the
citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the
palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral
check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will
generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable
the people to resist and triumph over them."
-United
States Supreme Court Justice
Joseph Story, in 'Commentaries On The
Constitution Of The United States' (1833)
"The [second] amendment, ... was meant to be a strong moral check against the
usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and
efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by
usurpation."
"The
Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this
provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to
the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the
intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those
persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military
duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But
the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to
perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit
to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those
enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by
the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in
check."
-Thomas
Cooley, Justice of The Michigan Supreme Court, in 'Principles Of
Constitutional Law' (1880)
It may be argued
that the practical ability of the people to exercise their supervisory role is
cumbersome and unreliable, and this may well be so. But it is also beside the
point. There is no other way to equip the people to do anything.
The provision of
the Second Amendment is the best and perhaps the only way to enshrine the
people's supervisory authority. That such supervisory authority IS thus
enshrined is the accurate measure of the Constitution's demeanor, and therefore
an accurate indicator of its embrace of principle, and of the nature of its true
purpose.
There may BE no easy way to subdue a rogue state, given that the state
is, as a consequence of its legitimate purposes, an organized military machine
and the repository of popular authority for sorting out competing claims and
enforcing them. But the Constitution plainly does all that it can to provide for
this need. It cannot be criticized for allowing the state to exercise a monopoly
on violence-- it does no such thing, and on the contrary, explicitly prohibits
the state from such a monopoly. Anyone who has deemed the Constitution flawed on
such a basis is simply wrong, and should recalibrate his or her understanding.
Look at another simple example-- the contention that the state possesses a
coercive power of taxation. Only someone completely ignorant of the
Constitutional tax structure could say such a foolish thing (and only a fool
would imagine that the Founders-- or our ancestors early in the last century, or
anyone ever-- would equip anyone or anything with such a power). The fact is,
the federal government is prohibited from directly (coercively) taxing any
American citizen (or any other individual). The only entities the federal
government can "coercively" tax are
the
governments of the several states and the District of Columbia-- and then
only if the representatives of the states impose the tax upon themselves and the
district. Thus, even what becomes mandatory after the self-imposition is hardly
the exercise of a "coercive" federal power.
Those who wish to misunderstand the Constitution (in favor of their anarchic
delusions, in service to their "identity politics" assaults on the Founders, or
because their personal political agenda disfavors any limits on the state)
contrive to misunderstand these facts about the limited taxing powers permitted
to the feds, in spite of the complete lack of evidence or authority supporting
their misunderstanding, and the
mountain of evidence and authority to the contrary. That misunderstanding
doesn't change the facts, of course-- it simply illustrates how otherwise
rational people can allow themselves to be misled by becoming mental slaves to
an ideology or agenda.
The fact is, the Constitution is completely harmonious with the principles of
the Declaration of Independence in its provisions related to both the power of
the sword and the power of the purse. In fact, the Constitution MUST harmonize
with the Declaration, and understanding that it must illuminates how it is to be
construed.
The Declaration spells out the character of legitimate government. Any
governmental behavior inconsistent with that character is prima facie
illegitimate. Therefore, any reading of any Constitutional provision as
authorizing a governmental power out of harmony with the Declaration's
principles is manifestly a wrong reading.
Imagining that any provision of the Constitution allows the state to impose an
involuntary burden on the exercise of any right, for instance, is plainly wrong.
That such impositions may have occurred is not because the Constitution allows
or supports them. Such impositions have occurred because the fact that the
Constitution does not, and cannot, allow or support them has been misunderstood
or disregarded-- perhaps even by every public official in the legislature, the
executive and the judiciary.
The failing in such a case is not a failing of the Constitution. It is a failing
of the people, who are, after all, the fourth branch of government in the
American system, and the one relied upon by the Founders and Framers to be the
check and balance on all the other three simultaneously.
Is
the government exceeding its Constitutional limits and authorizations in acting
as though the Commerce Clause means what it plainly doesn't say (in drug
prosecutions, for instance, or any of the zillion other ways this clause is
misconstrued)? The People (meaning YOU) are fully-supported by the Constitution
in slapping
down this illegitimate behavior with one vote on a jury.
Is
the government sucking up too many resources and thereby financing assaults on
the peoples' liberties, or mucking about in other countries' back-yards,
murdering those who have done us no harm and making the survivors into
implacable enemies to all Americans, or simply threatening to impoverish you
beyond your consent? The People (meaning YOU) are fully-supported by the
Constitution in
keeping
your resources from feeding the federal fire.
Here's the bottom
line, my friends: The Constitution is the best thing going, and while nothing
from the mere hands of men, however brilliant, is really perfect, nothing
better, or different but as good, has ever been contrived. If you don't find it
so, it is only because you don't really understand it, or can't get your mind
around the fact that pieces of paper can't enforce themselves, and no matter how
well conceived, a Constitution can be no more effective than YOUR willingness to
step up and see it respected.
During our first
150 years with the Constitution, the People did their part. Only in the early
1940s did the Fourth Branch of Government begin to go to sleep on the job:
All that it takes
to resume enjoying the benefits of the Constitution is that we the people-- each
and every one of us; one by one; and in every way that we can-- resume the
responsibilities of our high office.
So long as the
people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will
do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name
of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping
men.
Can't Say This Too Many Times Or In Too Many Ways...
'Cause everyone has his or her own unique "light-switch"
EVEN IF WE DIDN'T KNOW IT AND COULDN'T SHOW IT FROM ALL
MANNER OF OTHER AUTHORITY, we know the "income" tax is
limited to indirect-excise-taxable objects not only because
the law imposing it says so directly, but by virtue of the
relevant Constitutional provisions, the historical record,
and simple "Logic 101" analysis. For example:
The Constitution says that all capitations and other
direct taxes have to be apportioned.
Something came to be taxed under the label "income" in
the 1860s and was upheld as Constitutionally taxable
without apportionment.
32 years after the origin of that tax, the Supreme Court
(in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust) decided that when
"income" was realized in either of two particular ways
(that is, as rent or dividends), the tax is legally a
tax on the personal property source (the stock or real
estate) from which the rent or dividends were derived,
and that in those two cases it is functionally a
property tax and has to be apportioned.
The 16th Amendment was adopted to overturn the Pollock
decision, which was deemed to have been incorrect in its
view that the source from which "income" is derived
should be resorted-to in determining the tax's legal
character. The amendment establishes that a tax on what
had always qualified as "income" is not to be construed
as a property tax needing apportionment, even when the
"income" is realized as rent or dividends.
As
the Supreme Court says over and over since the
amendment, only what is described above was intended or
accomplished by the amendment; nothing new was added to
what qualifies as "income"-- that remains the same thing
that had been subject to the unapportioned tax for 51
years prior to the amendment.
SO...
What qualifies for the "income" tax now-- post 16th
Amendment-- is the same thing that qualified PRE-16th
Amendment. The key distinguishing characteristic of that
thing is that by its nature, it was and is capable of
being taxed without the apportionment required for all
capitations and other direct taxes.
Because what qualifies as "income" subject to the tax
is, and always has been, something properly taxable
without apportionment by its nature, we know that what
qualifies for the tax cannot be any of the objects of a
capitation or other direct tax.
Among the objects of capitations and other direct taxes
are the exercise of any right; personal property; real
estate; individuals themselves by any measure (such as
their estate or ability to pay); and undistinguished
revenue or the process by which it is created or
realized
(that is, revenue produced or acquired by an exercise of
right as opposed to by an exercise of privilege).
The thing subject to
the "income" tax therefore must be a thing other than
the exercise of any right; personal property;
real estate; individuals by any measure (such as their
estate or ability to pay); and undistinguished revenue
or the process by which it is created or realized
(that is, revenue produced or acquired by an exercise of
right as opposed to by an exercise of privilege).
This is not rocket science (but it does give a good idea of
why logic isn't taught in government schools...).
NOTE: If you need to see the overwhelming and undisputed
body of authority for any or all of the above, visit
losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm and read. Be sure
to follow all the links.
IT BEHOOVES US ALL TO ATTEND TO THE NEEDS of every family with children for meaningful
educational materials-- especially on subjects not likely to
be well-covered under most institutional curricula.
Thus, I'm pleased to offer a special educational resource for the
CtC
community and everyone else: 'Knowledge Is Power'
flash-cards! These are concise, easily-remembered
definitions and facts necessary to any American's
preservation of his or her rights, and critical for the
transmission of our American heritage of liberty to each new
generation.
Study, learn discuss and test!
Before long, your kids will be equipped to be masters of
their own lives (and your own knowledge will get a good
polishing, as well)!
A Well-Educated Warrior Delivers An Important Lesson
The word is
spreading, and this is one key way it is happening
Tax Professionals' Resource Seminars
2510 Alpine Rd.
Eau Claire, WI 54703
Dear Sirs,
Received your solicitation (below). I wish to point out some things to you:
When you look into the guts of 26 USC Section 6050W, you will find that this
ONLY refers to those P-card and third-party transactions that involve Federal
departments, Federal corporations, agencies and so forth. It has NOTHING TO DO
with private-sector, non-government related business transactions at all -- as
does most all of the rest of the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 USC Section
6050W (d)(1)(B) and (C) to see the very narrow limitation that is placed on such
"reportable transactions", as well as 26 USC Section 7701 for related basic
Definitions. (This has relevance to the Form 1099-K, for credit card
transactions.)
Amendment 16 of the US Constitution did NOT create an income tax on "all that
comes in". It was a corrective mechanism for an incorrect US Supreme Court
decision that had to do with investment income as derived from stocks in Federal
instrumentalities, i.e. railroads, where the original complaint was that the
dividend should be taxed by apportionment because it was a "property tax" (in
the Plaintiff's view). The People as a whole revisited the issue and deemed the
Supreme Court's decision erroneous, and that due to the federally-connected
character of
the stock the dividends that were thus produced and
paid to the stockholder were EXCISE taxable as a "privileged" transaction. But the 16th
Amendment did NOT declare the clauses within Article 1 Sections 2, 8, or 9
relating to taxation (no Capitations; (apportioned) Direct; and (uniform)
Indirect) to be repealed or in any way modified. (This has relevance for
Form 1099-DIV.) Side note: The Federal Income Tax was begun in 1862 as a
mechanism for the Union to pay the mounting debt of the Civil War.
Those who are sole proprietors or commonly-referred to as self-employed, should
NEVER issue a Form 1099-MISC against themselves -- it is a perjury. Form
1099-MISC is only for those engaged in a "trade or business" which, by
definition at 26 USC Section 7701 (a) (26) means "performance of the functions
of a public office". And, in fact, a private individual not having received any
work-related payment from the Federal government, should not enter anything on
Schedule "C" of their Form 1040, except ZERO. (This has relevance to Form
1099-MISC.)
Form 1099-INT may be relevant to non-government individuals and/or
companies if they have funds in an interest-bearing account at a bank -- also
considered an "instrumentality" due to its public service and interstate passage
of funds -- since the interest gained on those deposits is actually paid from
investments in US Treasuries which ultimately point to the Federal government's
original ownership of those securities.
Forms W-2 are only for Federal workers who meet the definitions at 26 USC
3401(c) and 3121(d) [which is really more specific to the FICA taxes -- Social
Security and Medicare]. All others not so engaged should NEVER receive Forms
W-2, which means that private-sector hiring companies should NEVER ISSUE Forms
W-2. Doing so is also a perjury and a felony because in doing so they are
acting as "Federal agents" in the withholding of an individual's property and
sending it to the Federal government in ignorance of the law. Federal agents
must be authorized by the Federal government; I will bet that no CEO, CFO or
President of a private-sector, non-government related company is in any way
authorized as a "Federal agent". Impersonation as one is a felony per 18 USC
Section 912, punishable by imprisonment or fine or both.
I could go on about the other variants of the Form 1099, but the several
examples highlighted above should serve to drive the point home. The other
variants all have the commonality of Federal government-related business which
most Americans are not involved with at all.
You are making money from folks who are ignorant of the basic narrow limitation
of the Federal Income Tax reach, which is truly shameful. You would be doing
your customers a much greater service -- and upholding the law -- if you were to
actually drill down and STUDY Title 26 USC and teach the truth. The truth would
then become readily (if not painfully) apparent. Unless your target audience is
a swarm of CPAs, bookkeepers, and other financial types who are working for and
being paid by the Federal government, your offering is a waste of time (and
money) for all others not so engaged.
Kind regards,
Walter Helfrecht, President
H&M Analytical Services, Inc.
IRS Form 1099 Reporting: What You Need to Know
LIVE SEMINAR |
November 19, 2013
South Plainfield, NJ
Save $85 when
you become a Silver Member.
Membership + Live Seminar
$425 + $339 $254
Register Now
Live Seminar Only
$339
Register Now
Can't Attend?
CD & Manual Package
$359
Add to Cart
Don't let the 1099
forms confuse you … tackle even the toughest filing
requirements.
Independent contractors
save your business money, but increasing IRS scrutiny
can put you at risk. Fail to meet all the 1099 filing
requirements, and you may land in a hotbed of penalties.
With a maze of 1099 forms, and confusing and
ever-changing IRS reporting guidelines, mastering the
1099 can be a daunting task for any business.
Attend this informative
seminar and sharpen your 1099 savvy. Develop better,
more accurate reporting skills - keep your business
audit-ready and in compliance. Determine a worker's
status without hesitation - every time - and stay
current and in the clear.
Benefits for You
Walk you through the 1099 series of forms - to
help you know which forms to use
Pinpoint when to issue a W-2 or 1099 form
Tackle your 1099-MISC questions
Perfect your backup withholding rules know-how
Learning Objectives
You will be able to review different types of
Form 1099s.
You will be able to discuss who must file.
You will be able to explain Forms 1099-C, K and
A.
You will be able to describe employees vs.
independent contractors.
View Complete Agenda
Who Should Attend
This seminar
is designed for accounts payable professionals,
accountants, controllers, tax managers, tax preparers,
enrolled agents, presidents, vice presidents,
bookkeepers, CPAs and CFOs.
Seminar Details
November 19,
2013 | 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM
Holiday Inn South Plainfield
4701 Stelton Road
South Plainfield, NJ 07080
3 Easy Ways to Register
Online:
www.taxprofessionalsresource.net
Phone:
1-866-411-6211
E-mail:
info@taxprofessionalsresource.net
Please provide the
attendee's name, company, address, phone number and
email address.
Seminar ID:
391718
Priority Code: 2905194457
Course and
Credit Provided by Lorman Education Services
Save 25%
Become a Silver Member
Two Free Live Webinars
Unlimited OnDemand Webinars
Seminar Discounts
Credits
Sponsored by Lorman Education
CPP/FPC
CAC
CFP
Enrolled Agents
CPE
Credit Details
Only registered attendee will
receive continuing education credit.
Presented By
Moderator: Nora L. Schmitz, E.A., MBA, Litz Tax
& Consulting Daniel J. Gibson, CPA, E.A.,
EisnerAmper LLP Leonard Prather, RTRP,
Accounting & CPA Exam Tutoring Service LLC Linda
Pressler, CPA, The Pressler Group, PC
Brought to you by:
Tax Professionals'
Resource | 2510 Alpine Rd. | Eau Claire, WI | 54703
Please mail registration and payments to: Dept 5382, PO Box
2933, Milwaukee, WI 53201-2933.
This commercial email
was sent to
walter@h-and-m-analytical.com.
Unsubscribe. Call 1-866-411-6211 for assistance.
To ensure that all
our mailings get to you safely, we recommend you add
taxprofessionalsresource.net to your whitelist in your email
client.
Learn more about how to add taxprofessionalsresource.net to
your whitelist. This email address is not used for customer
support and communication. Please do not respond to this
message.
(C) 2013 Tax Professionals'
Resource, owned and operated by Lorman Business Center, Inc.
THIS IS HOW IT GETS DONE,
PEOPLE-- one declaration of the truth and correction of
misunderstanding at a time, every time the opportunity
arises.
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.
POSITIVE PRESSURE IS ON AGAINST THE NSA and its domestic spying
and cyber-security erosions, and this is great. It couldn't come
a moment too soon.
Unfortunately (though predictably), the "reforms" being proposed
by even the best-talking inside-the-beltway types aren't even a
suitable starting point for what needs to be done here.
One of the wannabe heroes of the last four months of
revelations, Ron Wyden, may well be an unusually good guy
measured by the standards of Washington (even if no Edward
Snowden, of course-- Wyden knew about NSA lawbreaking for years
without having the courage and commitment to the law to flatly
tell the folks to whom he has a plain fiduciary duty, even if he
would have had to do it from a Hong Kong hotel room). But even
Wyden
is pushing merely for reform, talking about things like
adding advocates for "the other side" (what is the other side,
the Constitution?) to special secret court proceedings.
Reform is not how you fix unconstitutional. Drowning,
stake-in-the-heart, bullet in the brain and burning the body
afterwards is how you properly deal with unconstitutional. The
moment you start negotiating or "compromising" with any interest
in competition with your own (the Constitution being the
codification of the peoples' well-considered, bottom-line
interests, no compromise of which is acceptable, you've already
lost-- maybe not everything, yet, but you're on that road.
You losing even just a little bit by the first compromise makes
your assailant grows stronger and you grow weaker. This means
the next time a conflict arises, you're more certain to be
forced into "compromise", and a greater one still, because your
assailant enters that second contest stronger than you. The next
time, same thing, and so it goes until you are reduced to utter
subordination and helplessness.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our
liberties.
We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens,
and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had
strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in
precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and
they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." -James Madison
The FISA's presumption as an exception to the Fourth Amendment's
prescriptions and proscriptions is totally unacceptable. The
Fourth
provides for no such exceptions, and allowing this one in
the first place plainly put us on a path to greater and
greater-- and more and more dangerous-- experiments on our
liberties.
Hold fast against all "reform" efforts. This monster needs to be
destroyed.
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
document
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!
It is critically-important that all Americans regain their
once-common understanding 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).
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.
This document 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
this
document is all about.)
The misunderstanding of the income tax is the thoroughly
cultivated thing that it is (and anyone reading through
this
document 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.
This
document 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
while since your last having done so.
