|
The News
Current Events and Continuing Education for February 14
through February 27, 2014
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be
their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge
gives.”
-James Madison
Friends! Mark your calendars and join me Monday, February 17 at 9PM
EST on 'The
Shields Report' with Willie Shields
Follow and share losthorizons on Twitter
here,
and on Facebook
here!
"There are two distinct classes of men...those who pay taxes and those
who receive and live upon taxes."
- Thomas Paine
C'mon!
CtC can't be right!
You're crazy!
If
CtC were actually
right,
it would mean the government's been concealing and
denying the truth for years
on end,
and everybody knows THAT would never happen...
(Edward Snowden, come home! It was all just a bad dream; there really is
No Such Agency!)
Do you
know someone truly steeped in the Kool-Aid?
I mean
someone who finds it easier to believe that the far-better-educated,
far-more-suspicious-of-government Americans of a hundred years ago were
complete morons who granted authority to the state to take whatever it
wished from themselves and their posterity than to imagine that they
themselves simply misunderstand the true nature of the income tax? Even
while knowing that their beliefs about the tax are derived entirely from
the representations of those who profit from those beliefs (like tax
bureaucrats and "tax professionals")?
Do you
know someone like that? Shake them awake with the latest (thirteenth)
edition of
CtC!
I'm delighted when anyone wishes to share what I have posted here with
others! Sharing this page is an important means of moving toward the
restoration of the rule of law-- PLEASE DO IT!! But I'd appreciate your
doing so by directing your friends here themselves, rather than by copying
and emailing the material.
***
|
You can't understand the present if you
don't understand the past...
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
February 14- In 1779,
James Cook is killed in Hawaii. In 1803, United States Supreme
Court Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledges that any act by Congress
in conflict with the Constitution is null and void. In 1859,
Oregon is admitted to the union as the 33rd of the several states.
In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray each apply for a patent
for the telephone. In 1899, Congress approves the use of voting
machines in federal elections. In 1903, the United States
Department of Commerce and Labor is established. In 1912, Arizona
is admitted to the union as the 48th of the several states. In
1929, Al Capone's gang commits the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.
In 1989, the first GPS satellite is put into orbit. In 2011, a
popular uprising against the US-backed dictatorship of Bahrain begins.
Anniversaries of interest for
each day of this week will be found throughout the newsletter
below.
|
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an
irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds
of men."
-Samuel Adams
|
Drilling-Down On The Truth About Federal
Minimum-Wage Legislation
Guess what? There's mass ignorance and legal fraud
involved...
ONCE AGAIN, LIKE THE PERNICIOUS PERRENIAL THAT IT IS, the
politicking for a "minimum wage" increase has resumed. Someone must have decided
that the fed's recent sustained intense monetary inflation (QE and other
bailouts) has become inconveniently visible...
Needless to say, in the short term a minimum wage
increase will push low-productivity workers out of jobs and keep
those not yet working from doing so. If everyone believes he HAS
to pay $10.00 +$.75+$X to have a worker perform for an hour (the nominal
minimum wage proposed plus the company's share of FICA plus any
[marginal] infrastructure expenses associated with having the
worker, such as HR labor, tools and equipment, training, etc.),
then any
worker capable of producing only $10.75+X's-worth of output (or
less) will never have a job.
In effect, minimum-wage regimes bar a certain class
of inexperienced or poorly-educated or physically or mentally
handicapped people, who are therefore low-skilled and
low-productivity, from being allowed to work. With typically
twisted Washington spin, this is done in the name of compassion.
The truth is, minimum-wage laws exist precisely in
order to exclude inexperienced, lower-value or lower-cost
workers from the labor market on behalf of established workers,
who otherwise would find their pay levels under downward
pressure from the less-expensive competition. Established
workers in Northern-state-based unions lobbied for the first of
these laws in order to prevent migrating black workers from the
South, foreign immigrants and teenagers all willing to work for
lower pay from competing for existing jobs during the Great
Depression.
KEEPING THE AVAILABLE LABOR SUPPLY FROM CLEARING
THE MARKET is a harm to everyone, of course. It is even bad for
the protected workers.
Inevitably, those kept from working become a
welfare class and a burden of one sort or another on those who
are allowed to work. Where previously low-productivity workers
had simply adjusted their expectations and consumption to the
reality of their ability to provide for themselves, and used
their low-paid worktime to improve their skills and habits in
order to rise in pay, they now are wards of the state. Their
expectations are a political issue, and their needs are met not
only without any contribution from them at all, but at the
additional expense of an army of government bureaucrats
administering their welfare.
Further, maintaining the sizable portion of society
idled by minimum-wage laws requires a thicket of regulatory
impositions against liberty. These, in turn, require the
corruption of American principles of law and Constitutional
limitations on the state necessary to permit them-- a fit
companion to
the corruption of social comity, the erosion of the work ethic,
and the assault on reason and everyone's innate sense of right
and wrong also necessary to facilitate this pustulent
political sop to a rent-seeking special interest.
In short, minimum-wage laws are a massive wrong--
morally, legally and practically. More, all of that is without
even considering the direct adverse effects of the market's
unstoppable automatic efforts to clear itself despite the
unnatural imposition.
Those clearing efforts take the form of a
relentless upward ratcheting of price adjustments, which demand
the production of ever-more currency to accommodate those
adjustments. That production and the habits of practice and
perception it encourages spawns a great oozing pit of moral
hazard for certain players in the game, who catch on to their
opportunities once the people have grown accustomed to
inflation. Those concerned about the hazards of the federal
reserve system and its fiat money (which should be everyone)
need to understand that freedom from that monster and all its
ills requires doing away with the political pretexts for its
existence, among which is the minimum wage.
BUT ALL OF THAT IS MERELY BACKGROUND, because the
real purpose of this commentary is to examine the legal
realities of the federal minimum-wage. That exercise reveals
minimum-wage-legislation to be a fragile house of cards staying
upright only by virtue of ignorance, legal chicanery and
judicial corruption, as is true of so much of today's federal
activity.
Here, in relevant part, is the enactment under
which federal minimum wage limits are imposed:
29 U.S. Code § 206 - Minimum wage
(a) Employees engaged in commerce; home
workers in Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands; employees in American
Samoa; seamen on American vessels; agricultural employees
Every employer shall pay to each of his employees who
in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of
goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, wages at
the following rates: ...
Sounds like this requirement is imposed on pretty
much every business with a workforce, yes? Well "sounds like"
here is no different than how
"wages" as used in tax law "sounds like" 'wages' as used in
common parlance. Let's look at some definitions:
29 U.S. Code § 203 - Definitions
(b) “Commerce” means trade, commerce,
transportation, transmission, or communication among the several
States or between any State and any place outside thereof.
(c) “State” means any State of the United States or
the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession of the
United States.
So, the "commerce" in which one must be engaged to
be subject to the federal minimum wage law DOESN'T mean
'commerce' as normally defined. Instead, it means only "commerce
among the several States or between any State and any place
outside thereof".
Now, even leaving aside the ACTUAL legal meaning of
the "commerce among the several States" over which Congress has
some authority (which we'll get to presently),
put your common-sense, grown-up hat on for a moment and
ask yourself: Is your average McBurger franchisee
engaging in "commerce among the several States" during the
routine course of his business under any rational construction
of this expression? Of course not.
The franchisee's business has NOTHING to do with "trade,
commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among
the several States or between any State and any place outside
thereof". He doesn't ship goods across state lines-- he ships
them across his counter to a waiting customer.
The McBurger franchisee has no employees "engaged
in
commerce among the several States or between any State and any
place outside thereof". Nor any producing goods for such
commerce, even if Congress could rationally look into the future
to determine that any goods produced today actually end up
travelling outside the state "in commerce".
Even under the fraudulently expansive definition of "commerce"
found in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) then, the
franchisee manifestly isn't so engaged, and isn't subject to the
federal minimum wage. Nor is the owner of a gas
station, or a drugstore,
or most any other typical American business. McBurger
"corporate" might have some employees "engaged in commerce" or
"producing goods for commerce" (along with many who are not),
but McBurger down the street certainly has none.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE END OF THE STORY, because as I
mentioned, the definition of "commerce" in the FLSA is NOT the
actual definition of the "commerce" over which the federal
government has authority. The FLSA is actually a gratuitous
distortion of the clause in the US Constitution delegating a
certain very limited and specialized authority to Congress over
goods crossing state lines in order to prevent burdens from
being laid upon such exports or imports.
Here is the text of the clause:
"The Congress shall have power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and
with the Indian tribes;"
Article 1, section 8, clause 3, United
States Constitution
Pretty simple words. Did you know that although for
140 years or so no one noticed anything in them but what they
plainly say, today they are deemed as the authority for federal
gun-control measures, the drug war, federal control over
"wetlands", Obamacare impositions and of course, minimum wage
laws, among much else?
James Madison, in Federalist 42, explained that the
chief reason for the Commerce Clause was: "[T]he relief of
the States which import and export through other States, from
the improper contributions levied on them by the latter"--
that is, the prevention of one State imposing tariffs on
articles crossing their borders. In a 1791 letter to George
Washington commenting on the proposed creation of a central
bank, Thomas Jefferson explains the limits of the Commerce
Clause authority as follows:
"[T]he power given to Congress by the Constitution does not
extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State,
(that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,)
which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its
external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with
another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian
tribes."
From these declarations by the author of the
Declaration of Independence and the Father of the Constitution,
and from the plain words of the clause itself, do we find
support for the notion that the commerce clause authorizes the
federal government to impose "minimum wage" limits on American
businesspeople? (Or that it authorizes the federal government to
subject you to a punitive tax in order to force you to become a
customer of a health-insurance industry whose services you do
not want, because otherwise a federal scheme to finance
insurance for other people with your money will fail? How about
for drug prohibition; or control over all purported wetlands; or
gun control measures?) Clearly not.
Furthermore, the Constitution speaks to the
Commerce Clause meaning elsewhere, specifically prohibiting the
federal government from imposing any burden on goods crossing
state lines:
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles
exported from any State."
Article 1, section 9, clause 5, United
States Constitution
This language by no means limits itself to exports
to places outside the several States entirely, and while it
refers only to taxes, it clearly indicates the intent of the
Framers to prohibit an imposition on exports by, or for the
purposes of, the federal government. Probably the only reason
the Framers weren't more comprehensive in this prohibitory
language is because they couldn't imagine the plain language of
the Commerce Clause being so egregiously misrepresented as to be
made the basis for a boatload of federal aggrandizements as is
the case today.
As Madison explained, the Commerce Clause is
to prevent states from imposing trade-inhibiting burdens on each
other's exports. Plainly, the "no tax or duty" clause is to
prevent any such burdens from being imposed by the federal
government. A minimum wage imposition is a burden, the obvious
effect of which is to encumber and discourage interstate
commerce.
In fact, the Supreme Court firmly, even
vehemently, agreed with all that I have just pointed out in a
series of cases in the first third of the Twentieth Century. The
court steadily and consistently ruled federal minimum wage laws
and similar measures improperly invoking the Commerce Clause
authority to be unconstitutional, and NOT what the clause
authorizes.
But in 1937 the court suddenly reversed itself
after FDR threatened to "pack" its bench with three additional
justices (all of whom would obviously be chosen for having
Roosevelt's "view" of the clause). In the 77 since then, federal
courts have upheld the legality of pretty nearly every
distortion of Commerce Clause authority imagined by Congress.
So, does this mean that Madison, Jefferson,
the unthreatened Supreme Court and your own eyes and reason are
wrong about the Commerce Clause? Or that the clause now somehow
means something different, whatever it might once have meant?
Maybe. But consider this: Maybe the recent
spate of Leviathan-favoring rulings mean that the federal courts
have simply chosen to cravenly or corruptly disregard the law,
and hope that you will be so conditioned to respect "official
pronouncements" that you will imagine one of the first two
possibilities are true without further thought (or are so
apathetic or so cowed as to pretend one of them are true, and
quietly let the rule of law become the rule of the
"interpreters")?
Your call.
For my part, I say not.
I say that everyone should respond to every post
they see anywhere arguing for a minimum wage increase, or
sitting on the fence about the subject, with
the link to this article.
I say everyone being pressured or prosecuted over a
federal minimum wage issue, or a drug issue, or a gun-control
issue or a wetlands issue or an Obamacare issue should use the
points of reasoning and historical fact made in this article as
their defense.
And I say that everyone should beat down the doors
of their representatives and demand support for this proposed
Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"The power of Congress to regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the
Indian tribes shall be exercised solely for the purpose and to
the effect of ensuring that such commerce is unhindered and
unburdened by any restrictions, prohibitions or charges imposed
from any quarter or by any authority, other than such tariffs on
foreign imports as are elsewhere provided for herein."
PLEASE COPY THE TEXT ABOVE and send it to
your US
congresscritters (both your representative and your
senators). As much as it might be easier to get this pushed
forward by the states, the only method by that avenue calls for
a Constitutional Convention, not the proposing of a single
amendment. The latter is what we want (and we DON'T want the
former). Have them tell you what they do toward this purpose,
and then you tell me, so I can coordinate their effort with
others and push for support nationwide.
"A free people claim their rights as derived
from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief
magistrate."
-Thomas Jefferson
Care to post a comment on this article?
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friendd
|
The
Liberating Truth About The 16th Amendment
IF YOU'RE NOT SPREADING THIS LINK with every bit of
energy you can, to school libraries, homeschool
families and community groups, your neighbors, your
family members, your pastors and
co-congregationalists, journalists, lawyers, CPAs,
members of congress, tax-agency workers, Wikipedia,
Anonymous, WikiLeaks, the Tax Foundation, everyone
in the "tax honesty" movement, the 9/11 truth
movement, other activist movements
and everyone
else,
you have only yourself to blame for your
troubles with the tax, and a whole lot else of which
you might complain. It's on you.
"I am a great believer in luck, and I find the
harder I work, the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
|
|
A teacher asked
her 6th grade class how many of them were fans of Big Government.
Not really knowing what a Big Government fan is, but wanting to be liked by
the
teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little TJ.
The teacher asked Little TJ why he has decided to be different...again.
Little TJ said, "Because I'm not a fan of Big Government."
The teacher asked, "Why aren't you a fan of Big Government?"
Little TJ said, "Because I'm a libertarian."
The teacher asked him why he's a libertarian. Little TJ answered, "Well,
my Dad's a libertarian and my Mom's a libertarian, so I'm a libertarian."
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your dad were a moron and
your mom were an idiot, what would that make you?"
With a big smile, Little TJ replied, "That would make me a fan of Big
Government."
|
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
February 15- In 1898,
the USS Maine explodes in Havana Harbor, Cuba, providing a pretext for
the United States to declare war on Spain. In 1933, an assassin
bungles an attempt to shoot FDR during a speech in Miami, Florida, but
does shoot and fatally wound the mayor of Chicago, who was in the car
from which the president was speaking. In 1946, ENIAC, the first
general-purpose electronic computer, is unveiled. In 1989, the
Soviet Union announces that all its troops have left Afghanistan.
In 2003, protests against the impending U.S. invasion and occupation of
Iraq take place in 800 cities worldwide. BBC News estimates the
participation of between 6 and 10 million people in what proves to be
the largest peace demonstration in history. The Bush
administration pays no attention... In 2005, YouTube is launched.
|
Real Americans don't accommodate fog, lies and a sliding scale of
adherence to the rule of law. Real American men and women stand up for the
truth and the law, come what may, knowing that it is only by setting the bar
at the top and enforcing it, come what may, that liberties are secured.
"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."
-Thomas Paine
A Thumbnail Sketch Of The "Income" Tax
Reporting And Determination Process
A helpful summary of certain core "income" tax
dynamics
AT THE CLOSE OF THE REPORTING PERIOD (December 31st, in
most cases), payers considering themselves obliged to
issue taxable activity reports create and execute one or
more of the various "information return" reports (W-2s,
1099s and K-1s, mostly), sending one copy to federal,
state and/or local tax agencies, and one copy to the
person about whom the document makes its allegations.
Having thus been put on notice that allegations of
having received "income" have been reported to the
government(s) to whom any resulting tax would be owed,
the reportee either:
A. Lets the allegations go without response-- thus
inviting the tax agency (we'll just focus on the
federal system, now) to:
-
presume them correct and true;
-
create an "SFR" "module" in order to calculate
the resulting tax liability (without going into
the legitimacy of doing so in any particular
case-- if no response has been made to "income"
allegations, a door has been left pretty wide
open for all manner of presumptions about the
legal status of the reportee);
-
and claim ownership of any withheld or paid
in amounts up to that calculated liability,
and/or (eventually) issue an appropriate "Notice
of Deficiency" for any outstanding balance.
(NOTE: The agency is also thus invited to impose
available statutory sanctions, such as a "failure to
file" penalty, for instance. This is because
the requirement to file-- which generally arises
upon receipt of a threshold amount of "income"-- and
jurisdiction for the imposition of sanctions have
been presumptively established by the allegations of
the taxable activity report and the failure of the
reportee to rebut them after being put on notice.)
or
B. Responds to the allegations by filing a valid
(that is, accurate, honest, and self-consistent)
return which either:
1. Acknowledges the reported taxable activity
("income"), claims appropriate deductions,
credits, exemptions etc., calculates the
resulting tax liability and self-assesses,
or
2. Corrects or rebuts the reported "income"
amount(s), claims appropriate deductions,
credits, exemptions etc. (if applicable and
relevant), calculates the resulting tax
liability and self-assesses (very possibly
resulting in an assessed liability of $0.00 and
a claim for the return of everything withheld or
paid-in).
(NOTE: Returns rebutting allegations of the receipt
of "wages" and/or "trade or business"-generated
"income" simultaneously rebut jurisdictional
presumptions which could otherwise be supported by
those allegations.)
In the case of B(1) or B(2), the IRS can then:
a. Issue a refund check or credit (if the
self-assessed amount is less than the amount
withheld, paid in, carried forward, or
otherwise available for crediting for that
period-- thus resulting in an
"overpayment");
b. Bill the filer for any balance due if the
amount assessed on the return is more than
the amount withheld, paid in, carried
forward, or otherwise available for
crediting for that period;
or
c. Make a determination that the amount
self-assessed is deficient and issue a
"Notice of Deficiency"-- but only on the
basis of the rate of tax having been
incorrectly applied to the amount of
"income" shown on the return (through math
and/or deduction/exemption/credit reduction
errors).
It will be noted that each of these latter IRS response
options are confined to calculations based on the amount
of "income" reported on the return. When a return
has indeed been filed, the agency has no authority to do
otherwise. This is why when it wishes to thwart an
educated American (which is to say, when it wishes to
evade the tax laws and the required issuance of
properly-claimed refunds), the IRS will try to deny the
relevant return was ever filed.
Toward that end, the agency has actually gone so far as
to deny ever having received the returns of some
educated filers whose returns made claims the agency did
not wish to honor-- an, "Our junk-yard dog must've
eaten your tax return!" routine. This only
delays the inevitable for a brief time, of course, while
the filer walks a copy in to the local office and
personally oversees having it stamped as received, or
otherwise secures incontrovertible evidence of the
agency receiving the filing.
Thus, alternative ploys are becoming more common when
the IRS wishes to evade the law. One is a simple
declaration that the return is "frivolous" (under the
statutory definition at 26 USC 6702-- a status which,
when accurate, means the return can be treated as though
never filed, according to current doctrine), in the hope
that the filer will back down in confusion and fear.
(Click
here for more about this revealing ploy, which would
obviously never be attempted if the law provided for any
other means of defeating a claim, and
here for a series of case-studies of
CtC Warriors
who have dealt with this, and other tax-agency ploys.)
Then the agency will follow up with with the steps
outlined earlier in section "A."
Another is to invite the filer to abandon his testimony,
by proposing alternative numbers on a convenient form
which the filer can sign under penalty of perjury and
thus adopt as a modification of his previously-filed
return-- as though what had been filed must simply have
been a big mistake, from which the filer will surely
back down (in confusion and fear).
CtC-educated Americans do not back down in confusion
and fear, of course...
Find many more important FAQs
here and
here.
Care to post a comment on this article?
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
Return to contents
|
|
Test Your
"Income" Tax IQ!
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!!
Click here to take the test
Click here for more Tax IQ tests
|
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a
people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power
which knowledge gives.”
-James Madison
How About You?
Are You Governing Yourself?
Get
The Knowledge, Reclaim Your Power, And Stand With The Founders
Have You
Visited This Page Yet?
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
|
THIS WEEK'S RECOMMENDED READING:
Don't Get Too Comfortable With The GOP's New
Love For Libertarians
The party’s shift to a more limited government, civil
liberties-conscious platform may not be as genuine as some believe.
by
John Glaser
In what many described as yet another indication of a
monumental shift happening in the Grand Old Party, the Republican
National Committee last week passed a resolution calling for an end
to the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’
phone records.
But the party’s apparent shuffling to a more limited
government, civil liberties-conscious platform may not be as genuine
as some believe.
The RNC’s resolution, which passed by an “overwhelming
majority,” declares “the mass collection and retention of personal
data is in itself contrary to the right of privacy protected by the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
These are strong words for the party that stood by
President George W. Bush when he
secretly (and illegally) ordered the NSA to spy on the domestic
communications of Americans without any warrants at all. Time
magazine’s Zeke Miller branded the RNC’s resolution “the latest
indication of a growing libertarian wing of the GOP.”
It’s not just on NSA surveillance that Republicans are
choreographing a shift. Chris Christie, Republican Governor of New
Jersey and expected 2016 presidential candidate, made headlines
earlier this month when he condemned the “failed war on drugs” in
his second inaugural address.
Departing from the traditional Republican orthodoxy
that more prison beds equal less crime, Christie railed against the
canard that “incarceration is the cure of every ill caused by drug
abuse.”
Rand Paul (R-KY), another expected presidential
candidate and the perceived leader in the GOP’s libertarian swing,
has also worked in Congress to eliminate mandatory minimum
sentencing for non-violent drug possession.
“[M]ore and more conservatives are clambering down from
the prison ramparts,” wrote political scientists David Dagan and
Steve Teles in a 2012 article in The Washington Monthly. “Change is
coming to criminal justice because [of] an alliance of evangelicals
and libertarians” on the right, they claimed.
Click here to read the rest of this article
***
Now, take the warning in this article
seriously, because it is wisdom.
DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN.
Understand that the ONLY thing that will
keep the Republicans honest (or the Libertarians, for that matter),
is YOU keeping the government they want to control SMALL.
Aren't you REALLY, REALLY glad YOU'VE
taken control
of how much of YOUR WEALTH facilitates Washington's
misbehavior?!
If you haven't, what the hell is wrong with
you?!
Do you not understand how IRRESPONSIBLE YOU ARE
for not having done so?
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU??!!
Even as ardent a statist as Abraham Lincoln, in announcing his
willingness to burn the Southern states to the ground in order to
keep them paying the tariff for the benefit of Northern interests in
his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, paid at least lip
service to the Founders design of leaving control over the fuel
available to feed the fires Washington wants to light in the hands
of the individual citizenry when he said, "Doing this I deem to
be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, unless my
rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite
means..."
Held over:
Disinformation-How it works
by Brandon Smith
*****
'The
Discourse of Voluntary Servitude'
by Étienne de la Boétie
*****
Return to contents
|
|
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
February 16- In 1804, Stephen Decatur leads
a raid to burn the pirate-held USS frigate Philadelphia in the First
Barbary War. In 1852, the Studebaker Brothers Wagon Company is
founded. In 1918, Lithuania declares its independence. In
1923, Howard Carter unseals the burial chamber of Tutankhamun. In
1937, nylon is patented. In 1959, Fidel Castro becomes Premier of
Cuba. In 1985, Hezbollah is founded in Lebanon. In 2011, protests
fomented against the regime of Moammar Ghaddafi by western interests
disturbed by extensive oil-production deals being made between Ghaddafi
and Chinese organizations, and unhappy about Ghaddafi's decision to
cease selling Libyan oil solely for US dollars and instead sell for a
new gold coin currency he intended to introduce and encourage as a
regional competitor to the dollar and the euro, begin. In Bahrain,
the US-backed dictatorship conducts a violent suppression of that
country's nascent uprising, on what becomes known as "Bloody Thursday".
|
There is little more important to the long-term health of America than
how our children are educated..
HOMESCHOOL YOUR KIDS!
Page Two
Want to get on the Newsletter mailing list? Just
email your name to SubscribeMe 'at' losthorizons.com using the address you
want added!
|
This And That
Ratification of the 16th; Homeland Hypocrisy; Nuclear
Nutcasery...
I WAS SHOCKED AND DISMAYED to get an email the other
day flogging the empty, harmful and seemingly deathless "tax honesty movement"
nonsense about the Sixteenth Amendment never being ratified (or not
properly so). Let me try (for the nth time) to put an end to it:
However admirable the work some folks have
done in
examining records from state legislatures and finding
inconsistencies, and almost certainly proving a great deal of
sloppiness and error in the ratification procedures in many states,
in the end the simple fact that no state protested the announcement
of its ratification proves that the announcements were in accord
with their understanding of what they had done or meant to do!
Had any state (or legislator in a state) been of the opinion that
what Philander Knox alleged their legislature had said or meant to
do with regard to the Sixteenth Amendment was not true, he (or the
state attorney general) would have been in the Supreme Court that
afternoon bringing suit.
No such suit was filed. This is because everyone was
for the amendment, and with good reason-- except for some plutocrats
who were VERY upset about it, and also with good reason. The notion
that many people were opposed to the Sixteenth prior to 1913 is part
of a program intended to mislead folks today about what the
amendment really did, and about what it DIDN'T do.
I don't think Bill Benson is a knowing tool in this
project, but those spreading this "never ratified" bs are certainly
doing its work. Ratification happened-- whether directly and cleanly
or by silent acquiescence. To get an idea of why that ratification
is actually powerful evidence all by itself of the benign meaning and effect
of the Sixteenth Amendment, and how it fits in with, and
underscores, the true nature of the income tax, see
this and then
this.
And when you're through reading, PLEASE direct everyone
you know that might be suffering from this "never ratified"
infection to this article (here's the link to share:
http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm#PageTwo).
Don't mistake the seriousness of this issue! Anything
put out there as "tax honesty truth" that is so readily debunked
(or debunkable at all, for that matter) serves to turn previously
open minds ready to learn the actual truth into jaded skeptics who
conclude that anyone encouraging them to suspect that things aren't
what the powers-that-be want them to think they are is either a loon
or a bs artist. When someone approaches these folks another day
with the actual liberating truth about the tax, they will
smile and say "No thanks" without ever even looking-- once burned,
twice warned.
(Find thoroughly-documented debunkings of many of the
misunderstandings constantly injected into circulation among
self-identified "tax honesty" folks in order to keep mainstream
America from giving the time-of-day to any information that actually
threatens the ignorance-based status quo
here.)
*****
COULD THERE BE ANYTHING MORE NAUSEATINGLY LUDICROUS
than the US "Department of Homeland Security"
issuing warnings about data security in Sochi? At the very
moment these folks are warning against "exceptional opportunities
for criminals" to seize personal data, and that "their communication
will undoubtedly be monitored by the Russian Government," the
travelers being warned WERE, in fact, being victimized by criminals
and having their communications monitored-- by the government of
which the DHS is a part!
In fact, the only crimes of this sort of which anyone
can be confident are those of the US (meaning the fed-state
creature, as opposed to the USA, meaning just Americans generally
and their home states). It MAY be that Russia will do such things,
or that random criminals will target visitors, but it is a known
fact that every one of these visitors IS suffering data theft and
other violations at the hands of the very hypocrites issuing these
warnings, and are not only while in Sochi but also when back at
home. The chutzpah is mind-boggling.
*****
THE ENDLESS RABID-DOG SLAVERING OF FOLKS LIKE JOHN
McCAIN AND LINDSAY GRAHAM (and many others in the political class)
about Iran continues to amaze and appall. I have to wonder if these
folks all owe the mullahs money...
For hundreds of years, Iran has been a remarkably peaceful country.
The last time it did anything even nominally aggressive was a
three-month occupation of the city of Herat in Afghanistan in 1856,
but this was actually at the request of the city's rulers, who
wanted protection against being absorbed by the British-backed
kingdom of Afghanistan. There's no good reason to view Iran as even
a violent threat just to its regional neighbors, much less to
America.
In light of the facts, it's hard to see why anyone
should be upset about the prospect of Iran having a nuclear weapon
capability. Not only is it a peaceable country generally, but it
lives in a dangerous neighborhood.
Iran is constantly threatened in a most alarming-- even
unhinged-- way by nuclear-armed Israel. Further, nuclear-armed India
and Pakistan hang out on street-corners very close to Iran's house,
too, and the same State Department run by appointees selected with
the approval of McCain and Graham is constantly telling us how bad
are the regimes in control of three-quarters of the other countries
in the area.
The reason Iran might want (and have every right to
have) a nuclear deterrent is easy to see, being no different in
principle from the reason anyone might want to own a gun--
especially someone living in a bad part of town. Indeed, the
attitude of McCain, et al regarding (speculative, and
pretty-certainly-fictional) Iranian ambitions to have, or be
capable of making, a nuke or two is suspiciously reminiscent of the
nonsense we hear (and properly denounce) from gun-control advocates
here at home, who are fine with gun-possession by those they trust,
but just don't want YOU to have one...
Care to post a comment on this article?
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
Return to contents
|
|
Where Are All The Journalists? Where Is
Your Outrage?
We haven't ever before had a trial for heresy in America,
but one is on the docket now...
BACK IN WHAT WE ALL LIKE TO THINK OF AS A DISTANT PAST, the
ways of which are universally viewed with derision, contempt
and condemnation as both simple-minded and barbaric, people
were sometimes accused of "heresy".
The crime was the profession of a belief which "the
authorities" wished to go unspoken.
The fictional pretext for criminalizing heresy was that the
heretic really knew better than what she errantly professed,
because the officially-approved beliefs are presumed to be
unmistakable established truths. They wouldn't be the
"officially-approved" beliefs otherwise, don't you see, and
anyone too dense to recognize them like everyone else has
done must know them to be such truths anyway, because of
that "official approval".
A heretic could therefore be properly punished for lying and
properly made to declare instead what the authorities knew
she really knew to be true. Further, the crime wasn't just
an individual perjury; a heretic's continued profession of
her errant beliefs, and her failure to recant and instead
profess the favored view, would infect the minds of others
with her
seditious beliefs.
Perhaps the best known victim of this tyrannical practice
was Galileo Galilei. Galileo was accused of heresy for
declaring his belief that the Earth revolved around the Sun,
contrary to the official view at the time.
Sorry to say, Galileo recanted his perfectly correct
conclusions and was spared being burned at the stake. (He
was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life
anyway, for having lied in the first place as proven by his
recantation, and as warning against the next person who
might be tempted to publicly declare a belief contrary to
the "official" one that everybody knows to be true,
the right to do so having been something else Galileo had
asserted as part of his "heresy").
Popular resistance to this manifestly improper
rationalization for the exercise of state power against an
individual was overcome with the sly claim that it was all
about saving the souls of the accused, since heresies were
purportedly rejections of God. This was combined with the
unspoken but obvious threat that anyone who objected too
strongly to the assault on any "heretic" could be readily
tarred as being a heretic himself, and would become the next
in line for the attention of the inquisitor.
The real goal, of course, was the suppression of
information, conclusions and beliefs which threatened to
take hold in the minds of others and undermine the status
quo. Those in power understand that the reason things
are the way they are, with themselves on top, is because of
the way things are. They strive mightily to prevent change--
especially change in the perceptions of those capable of
taking away their power.
***
A "TRIAL" FOR HERESY WAS SOMETIMES KNOWN AS an "auto de
fe"-- an "act of faith". Once the relevant tribunal (the
"inquisitor", generally) had determined that the charged
expression qualified as heresy, the accused would be given a
chance to recant her disfavored belief and declare her
adherence to a position the powers-that-be found more to
their liking. If stubborn, the accused would be tortured for
a while to help her remember that deep down inside she knew
the truth of the favored view and the error of her own (or
that deep down, she really didn't believe her professed view
at all).
If an accused heretic were to recant (under the influence,
or anticipatory fear, of the torture or other penalties of
continued contumaciousness), she might still be punished,
but not so badly as otherwise. If she did not, things would
be the worse for her...
Barbaric and simple-minded, right? Thing of the past, yes?
Indeed, this kind of thing is expressly prohibited in
America by virtue of the First Amendment guarantee of
freedom of expression and conscience, isn't it?
NOT ANYMORE.
This very day Doreen Hendrickson faces a charge of heresy.
Doreen has been charged with criminal contempt of court for
refusing to recant a belief about a matter of law which she
has repeatedly declared under oath, and to replace it with a
contrary statement declaring that she believes something the
government would prefer her to say.*
Doreen was ordered to declare this government-dictated
"belief" over her sworn signature attesting that it is her
own belief. She was also ordered to lie about the fact that
the recantation and contrary, government-dictated
declaration are by command of the court, so as to perfect
the appearance that these are things done of her own accord
and truly reflect what she herself really believes to be
true and correct.
What's more, the "belief" that Doreen was ordered to declare
is that her earnings qualify for the "income tax". Plainly,
this is something either objectively true or not,
irrespective of Doreen Hendrickson's beliefs, meaning that
the order can have no legitimate practical or legal purpose.
Further, Doreen is ordered to declare this "belief" on her
own tax form, the legal effect of which is to authorize the
government to impose a tax on those earnings. The government
has been unable to assess a tax on these earnings, even over
the course of the 11 years that have passed since some of
them were received-- because, in fact, her earnings do NOT
qualify for the tax, as this history, and the very fact that
the government is trying to force Doreen to agree that they
do, should make clear to anyone old enough to be out of
kindergarten.
Thus, the coerced lies ordered by the government and the
court assault not only the very core of liberty-- freedom of
speech and conscience. They also assault the principle of
"due process" as well, under which no one can be forced to
declare agreement with a legal adversary's view of the
facts.
More, these corrupt orders don't simply serve the state's
corrupt political interest overtly declared in the court's
order, which explained itself as intended to discourage
others who "imitate" Doreen and "file false tax returns"--
returns which,
in their tens of thousands over a full decade now and
even
when striven mightily against, the government has been
unable to overcome by any legal means and which are plainly
NOT "false", like
the educated amended return that produced this complete
refund-- with interest-- for Henry and Kathleen:
No, these corrupt orders have the added dimension of serving
the direct and immediate financial interest of those in
control of the state, as well, because that's really what
this is all about.
I THINK EVERY RATIONAL AMERICAN CAN AGREE that it's one
thing for the state to tell someone that she must declare
what she believes, and it's rather another for the state to
tell someone WHAT she must declare she believes. The one is
mere "discovery". The other is rankest tyranny.
Doreen's trial ended in a hung jury, thanks to her good
fortune in ending up with one or more real Americans being
among those into whose hands this case was put. But if
everyone's right to freedom of speech and conscience is to
still be preserved when the government comes back at her
again next summer, we all need to make some noise about this
assault, and keep on making it.
“Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s
thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all
rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they
first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones,
dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice
and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to
reason…”
-Frederick Douglass
*Motions filed in this case, which reveal the nature of the
charge and the history of the issues involved can be found
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here and
here.
Care to post a comment on this article?
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
Return to contents
|
|
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
February 17- In 1621,
Myles Standish is appointed commander of the Plymouth Colony. In
1801, Thomas Jefferson is elected President of the United States.
In 1819, the U.S. House passes the Missouri Compromise. In 1865,
the Union army burns Columbia, South Carolina to the ground. In
1867, the first ship passes through the newly-opened Suez Canal.
In 1996, after losing to the machine a week earlier, Garry Kasparov
beats Deep Blue at chess.
|
|
What Do The People Do About The Rogue State??
The
most important question facing Americans todayThe
most important question facing Americans today
I HAD THIS QUESTION POSED TO ME BY AN EMAIL CORRESPONDENT the other
day. I guess this just shows how poor a job I've done at
communicating, because I have been trying to shout the answer to
this one from the rooftops for a long time.
That answer is simple: The People impose restraint on the rogue
state by choosing-- one by one-- to cease voluntarily turning
control over their resources to the state, and choosing instead to
retain control over those resources. This is done by refusing-- one
by one-- to engage in "income tax" excisable activities (and
refusing to blindly or fearfully allow their activities to be
treated or taken as excisable activities upon which the tax arises,
when they really are not).
The refusal of individual Americans to voluntarily engage in
excisable activities forces the state to resort to
highly-politically-accountable, highly-politically-vulnerable
alternatives revenue sources. These include options like direct,
apportioned taxes (which will not be tolerated by the people or
approved by Congress at $multi-trillion annual volumes), and/or
increased revenue tariffs (which can raise amounts adequate for
legitimate state needs, but are very self-regulating, since
consumers naturally choose domestic product alternatives when higher
tariffs raise the prices of imports beyond a certain point).
This solution is precisely the one intended and provided for by the
Founders-- who didn't impose the taxation rules in the US
Constitution just so they could admire their handwriting. They put
those rules in place in direct anticipation of state behavior of the
sort with which we are now plagued.
As even so odious a character as Hamilton pointed out in Federalist
#21:
“Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles
of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time,
find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be
contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own
option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources.
...If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the
collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so
great as when they are confined within proper and moderate
bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material
oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself
a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
What we've got today is simply the direct (and perfectly
predictable) consequences of NOT adhering to the Founders' plan. As
Frederick Douglass trenchantly observed,
“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."
We've got plenty of injustice and wrong these days. But our fix to
the problem was bought for us with blood a few hundred years ago.
All we have to do is stop playing along with the rogue state's
false (and rather embarrassingly crude) paradigm concerning
who owns what, and what powers to tax have really been granted.
As soon as enough of us quit endorsing that nonsense,
it's all
good.
By the way, let's not forget
that not only is adhering to the Founders' plan the very essence
of wisdom, it is also a simple matter of acting in conformity
with the law...
Victories Recently Added To The
Hundreds And
Hundreds And Hundreds Previously Posted
(out of the thousands and thousands and thousands being won by
Americans across the country for the last ten years):
L. W. shares his first victories on behalf of the rule of law: Two
complete refunds of everything withheld from him during 2012 and put
into the hands of Kansas and the United States.
The filed docs producing these victories are posted at links found
beneath each of the checks shown below, as is always the case when
those docs are supplied to me for this purpose by the upstanding
victor. But I'm going to precede those checks and doc sets with one
of the items included in each filing this time, because these
explanatory notes with which some accompany their filings do so
thoroughly debunk the absurd notion that some outside the CtC
community persist in harboring to the effect that even the tens of
thousands of ongoing victories must somehow be all some sort of
mistake. Enjoy:
See the filing that
produced this May 24, 2013 debut victory
here.
See the filing that
produced this May 23, 2013 victory
here.
K.
& S. G.
See
the docs that produced K. and S.'s May 24, 2013 debut victory
here. It will be noticed that this refund is about $800 shy of
the total withheld and the couple's corresponding claim. They say
they made a mistake handling the 1099-R, and also had a few hundred
nicked off this refund for an alleged liability from a previous
year. K. says he'll be doing some amending...
Tyler
This
April 30, 2013 victory for 2012 is Tyler's first on behalf of the
rule of law!
Bill
Harding
See
the filing that led to this May 27, 2013 victory
here (Bill deliberately declined to recapture what had been
withheld from him as the FICA income taxes, as he is currently
accepting the benefits from that program and feels this is the right
way to deal with that situation). Enjoy Bill's federal victory for
2008,
and his Michigan victories for
2005,
2006,
2008,
2009,
2011 and
2012.
Noel
Berube
See
the filing that produced this May 24, 2013 debut victory
here.
D & K
This
August 23, 2013 victory of everything withheld and paid-in, plus
interest, is on an
amended filing correcting a pre-educated original
James
G.
Travis and Angie Scott
This
August 16, 2013 victory was on an amended return-- see it
here.
Henry
and Kathleen
Click
here to see the amended filing that produced this September
9, 2013 complete refund with interest.
Eugene Duffy
This
November, 2010 complete refund of 2007 withholdings (with interest)
is a result of an amended filing (really, a replacement filing with
explanation). See the docs
here.
Anon.
Note
the overpayment acknowledgement in the "Summary" section of this
May, 2012 notice, and see the filed docs that led to this refund
credit
here.
Willie Shields
Don't
be misled-- while what the IRS alleges to be owed for a different
year is made the most prominent feature of this May, 2013 notice, it
is, in fact, a notification that Willie has been refunded everything
withheld from him during 2012-- which was
all
Social Security and Medicare taxes (see the "Billing Summary"
section). The amount has simply been gratuitously diverted to pay
off what the government alleges to be outstanding balances for other
years.
Larry
_
See
the docs that produced this June, 2013 partial victory
here (and a related FAQ
here).
Holiday Chock
See
the docs that produced Holiday's August, 2013 victory for the rule
of law
here.
William & Caroline Wadsworth
William and Caroline Wadsworth filed a
CtC-educated return concerning 2011
acknowledging some "income" and rebutting a
half-dozen individual erroneous allegations by
payers that other of their receipts also
qualified as "income". Over a year later the IRS
decided to try to chivvy them back into the
"ignorance barn" with the livestock:
But these two American heroes refuse to be cowed
by domestic enemies of the law. They stood their
ground and were rewarded for their perseverance
with this crisp and clear acknowledgment of the
truth about the tax as revealed in
CtC:
See
the whole story, with all the docs involved,
here.
Gary D.
See the amended filing that produced this refund
here.
THESE LATEST EXAMPLES OF VICTORIES BY AVERAGE AMERICANS in
enforcing our fundamental law
join
all the others in the ongoing river of evidence of the accuracy
of 'Cracking
the Code-...' flowing without interruption...
...since
the beginning of
intense IRS efforts to suppress the book in 2003;
...since
the DOJ itself was compelled to move for dismissals of
multiple IRS efforts to attack
CtC as "promoting false or fraudulent
tax schemes" in different courts across the country in 2004 and
2005;
...since a
carefully-inaccurate description of a typical
CtC-educated filing was listed
as #1 on the IRS "Dirty Dozen" list in 2006 (reappearing again
as #5 in 2007 and #10 in 2009). Interestingly, in 2008 the Sixth
Circuit Court Of Appeals excused this and similar efforts to
mislead, declaring that the
government can't be prohibited from "SUGGESTING [that
CtC] promotes false or
fraudulent tax schemes"... (emphasis added);
...since the launching of the hokey and
contrived IRS PR-campaign "lawsuit"
against my wife and me in 2006, ostensibly seeking to recover
refunds made to us several years ago-- which even the United
States Treasury Department acknowledges were, and remain,
perfectly proper-- by means of an unprecedented court order
commanding us to replace previously-made sworn testimony with
words dictated by the government declaring our earnings to be of
a taxable variety and to only speak government-approved words in
the future;
...since the IRS launched a vicious
assault on me personally in 2008 in a desperate, deeply
corrupt effort to cow the educated into paralysis and frighten
the ignorant away from the liberating truth, so as to continue
successfully bleeding both into penury and subjugation ;
...and since
a criminal action was brought against my wife alleging
non-compliance with DOJ-requested court orders assuming control
of her speech of so obviously-illegal and indefensible a
character that the government resorted to
a jury
instruction for her trial barring consideration of the
lawfulness or Constitutionality of the orders in deciding
whether she could be found to have violated an actual legal duty
when resisting them.
By the way, click
here
to see a couple score fully-documented instances in which the
tax agency involved tried hard to resist issuing those refunds to
educated claimants, the progress and outcomes of which nicely
illustrate who's got the law on their side and who doesn't.
But, hey! Don't forget the "official position" on the matter:
Do you have a victory to share?
Click
here to learn how to do so.
Care to post a comment on this article?
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
Return to contents
|
|
Are You Ready
For More Power?
"Peter Hendrickson has done it again! 'Upholding The
Law' does for individual liberties what 'Cracking the Code' did
for tax law compliance: exposes the reader to the unalienable
truth!"
-Jesse Herron, Bill Of Rights Press, Fort Collins, Colorado
|
|
CtC-Educated Lawyers:
It's Way Past Time For You All To Queue Up!
[Y]ou really need to familiarize yourself with Pete
Hendrickson's absolutely magnificent work at his website and in
his book(s). He has, brilliantly and lucidly, "cracked the
code" regarding the federal income EXCISE tax(es)."
-Mark C. Phillips, JD
"...I find your work fascinatingly simple to understand."
-Jerry Arnowitz, JD
"Your book is a masterpiece!"
-Michael Carver, JD
"Received your book yesterday. Started reading at 11
PM, finished at 4 AM." "I have 16 feet (literally 16'
4.5") of documents supporting just about everything in your
book." "Your book should be required reading for every lawyer
before being admitted to any Bar." "I hope you sell a
million of them."
-John O'Neil Green, JD
“Thanks again for your efforts, Pete. They mean an awful lot
to a lot of people.” “…as an attorney, I am humbled by your
knowledge and ability in navigating the law. THANK YOU for
your hard work and sacrifice.”
-Eric Smithers, JD
"I am an attorney and want to give a testimonial to your
book, which I find to be compelling. I am exercising these
rights for myself and my adult children. I'm even considering
making this my new avenue of law practice."
Nancy "Ana" Garner, JD
Learn what these colleagues already know, then step forward and
become part of a coordinated, mutually-supportive squadron
focused on developing strategy and deploying the law in
courtrooms across the country. There's a lot of suing that
needs doing right now.
Are you ready for a challenge that'll put some real meaning
behind all the effort you went through to get your credentials?
Send me an email.
|
Have You Taken
A Military, Law Enforcement or Public Office Oath To Uphold And Defend The
Constitution?
Renew
Your Promise
*****
|
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
February 18- In
1841, the first filibuster begins in the United States Senate. It
will last until March 11. In 1885, 'The Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn' is published. In 1930, Pluto is discovered. In 1930, a
cow named Elm Farm Ollie makes the first bovine flight in a fixed-wing
aircraft. In 1943, the members of the White Rose anti-Nazi
movement are arrested in Germany. In 1979, snow falls in the
Southern Algerian portion of the Sahara Desert. In 1991, the IRA
explodes bombs in Paddington Station and Victoria Station in London.
|
|
An Introduction To The Liberating Truth In Ten Easy Segments
Tom Bottaro,
CFC,
CtCW, author of 'Secrets
of the Income Tax Code- A Guide for Businessmen',
has shared another fine outreach effort. Tom has been writing and
sending a series of short wake-up and educational essays to friends
and family, one by one, for some time. When Tom told me about this,
I asked him to compile the pieces and let me post them for everyone
to enjoy and share with their own people. Tom, good guy and warrior
for the truth that he is, was perfectly agreeable.
Here
is the compilation in printable .pdf format. I hope everyone
will indeed share it widely.
|
|
"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen
from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to
keep the Government from falling into error."/i>
-United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
|
|
SPOTLIGHT on ACTIVISM
CtC Warrior David Sides says, "Bumper stickers?
Nice, but NOT BIG ENOUGH!"
(By
the way, Dave's got it precisely right-- If you want your power
to be secure, your neighbors have to be empowered with the same
knowledge that you've acquired. Click
here for ideas about
spreading the truth-- which include normal bumper stickers
available for free, by the way....)
***
Photographed on 1-70 in Missouri
***
At a rally outside the Alamo
***
CtC Warrior Brian H. in Alaska has a great INDOOR approach
to spreading the transformational truth. Here's Brian's desk at
his workplace:
You notice the big glass container to the right of the CtC?
Tasty freebies for Brian's co-workers-- candy and brain-candy
all in one:
|
'Don't Tread On Me' Polo Shirts Say It All!
Click Here To Get
Yours Now!
*****
CLICK HERE FOR THE
LATEST 'TAX TIP'
More Than Two Thirds Of The Several States That Collect "Income" Taxes
Have Now Acknowledged The Truth About The Law As Revealed In
CtC, And Have
Issued Complete Refunds Accordingly! See The Following Chart...
|
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
February 19- In 1674,
England and the Netherlands make peace in their third war, a provision
of which hands New Amsterdam over to the British, who rename it "New
York". In 1807, former vice-president Aaron Burr is arrested for
treason. In 1846, the Republic of Texas government relinquishes
power in favor of the new government of the state of Texas. In
1878, Edison patents the phonograph. In 1881, Kansas goes "dry".
In 1942, FDR asserts the authority to confine Americans of Japanese
descent to prison camps.
|
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
'The BOSTONIAN'S Paying the EXCISE-MAN, or TARRING & FEATHERING' (1774)
(How our forefathers responded to arrogant "Rule of Law defiers"...)
*****
LostHorizons.com traffic stats now available for the past year (March 1,
2012 to March 1, 2013) show approximately:
6,000,000 hits and 2,000,000 page views during that
period!
YOU DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE ALL ALONE, DID YOU?
*****
HELP SPREAD THE LIBERATING TRUTH ABOUT THE TAX
“All truth
passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently
opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
-Arthur
Schopenhauer
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
Get your FREE* CtC bumper sticker and help spread the word!
Just send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to Lost Horizons, Bumper
Sticker Offer, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382
(*If you want to throw a few bucks into the envelope to help
with costs, that'd be nice, but it's entirely optional...)
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
*****
|
If You're Not Standing Up, Then You're Standing Down
...and "standing down" means "going down"...
MY FRIENDS, IT IS MY SINCERE BELIEF that this community of
activists has been encouraged, inspired, enlightened and
expanded over the years by the steady posting here of
your ongoing victories on behalf of the rule of law.
Certainly, it has been my pride and my joy to help you share
with the world your honorable testament to the liberating truth
about the tax, widespread knowledge of which is so critical to
the well-being of ourselves, our children, and our beloved
America.
However, unless YOU send those victories I can't post them.
Unless YOU stand up, your courage and commitment can't inspire
anyone.
YOU WILL RECALL THAT FOR THE LAST YEAR OR SO I've been telling
you that we are in a transformational moment. Look around at
what is going on today and recognize the truth of what I say.
More than half the American population views government as a
threat. As mainstream a publication as Forbes magazine is
posting
articles about massive DHS ammunition and armored vehicle
purchases. Denunciations of the NSA violations are features
in every major MSM organ.
Even before Edward Snowden's documentation of particular crimes
being committed against the American people the
LA Times,
NY Times,
Washington Times and other mainstream organs were
editorializing about Leviathan having grown too big, and gotten
dangerously out-of-hand (see stories at each of the preceding
links). In the Spring Rand Paul's filibuster denouncing the
lawlessness of Mordor-on-the-Potomac prompted a major buzz
across the country, and in July Justin Amash shocked Washington
by very nearly defunding a huge portion of the illegal
surveillance state's crimes.
Concurrently, this
CtC community has been winning legal victories and refunds
which are ever-more significant and telling. Consider, for
instance, the victories which have qualified for
the EWWBL collection. Every one of these is an especially
illuminating acknowledgement of the truth about the tax, and now
include a very significant two-time victory in a federal
district court.
Things are happening!
HOW IT ALL SHAKES OUT is still up for grabs, though. This is not
the time for either complacency or paralysis, because both of
those don't amount to "doing nothing"-- instead they amount to
"standing down". And standing down means conceding the fight,
letting all these eleventh-hour sparks of light burn out
unnurtured and the moment be a transformation for the worse.
This is not the time for standing down. This is the time for a
FULL-COURT PRESS.
This is the time for educated American grown-ups to stand up
tall and firm, pulling others to their feet by their very
gravity. This is the time for leading the way.
STAND UP! SEND THOSE VICTORIES-- the new ones, and those of the
last few years as well. Click
here to learn how. Even if you don't have checks to scan,
send your testimonials. Learn how to do that
here.
|
|
The Willingness Of Some People To Trade Liberty For
Convenience Is Without Limit
Some Observations About Current Political Efforts
To Evade The Truth, Such As The "Fair Tax" Scheme
Regarding "Tax Reform"
|
"Taxes are not raised to carry on wars, wars are raised to carry on
taxes."
-Thomas Paine
Where To Find
Things On This Site
Law Professor James Duane Says: "Don't Talk To The Police. Period."
Honest Cops Agree...
*****
The Newsletter is interested in your work! If
you are a writer, scholar, or just a dedicated Warrior with a worth-while
story to tell, please consider sharing your words and your wisdom with our
thousands of readers!
Click here to learn how.
'Letters to the Editor' should be addressed to 'feedback 'at'
losthorizons.com', with "Editor" in the subject line.
*****
Films
That Belong In Every Home Library
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
CLICK HERE TO INSTRUCT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
Ever
Wonder How Much An Unrestrained FedState Would Like To Tap You For?
*****
Warrior David
Larson shares this beautiful little farce, wryly observing that,
"Depositors have "..not lost one penny.." - OK we could agree on that simple
statement ..how about the purchasing power of
that same penny 'not lost'?"
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
REGARDING MONEY
***
|
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
February 20- In 1792,
the United States Post Office is established. In 1872, New York's
Metropolitan Museum of Art opens its doors. In 1933, Congress
proposes the Twenty-first Amendment, which will undo prohibition.
In 1962, John Glenn becomes the first American to orbit the Earth.
In 1976, SEATO-- the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization-- disbands.
|
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
Last Word
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We
seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-Samuel
Adams, Architect of the First American Revolution
OK, Now Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Programming:
|
Is this newsletter of any value to you? If so, please
consider a donation
to help keep it available, or it soon won't be. Donations can
be sent to:
Peter Hendrickson
232 Oriole St.
Commerce Twp., MI 48382
|
Order Books,
Warrior-Wear, or The CtC Companion CD
An "Income" Tax Related Site Map
E-mail this Newsletter to a friend
Want to get on the Newsletter mailing list? Just send an email from
the address you want added to SubscribeMe 'at' losthorizons.com with
"Subscribe me" in the subject line, and your name in the body!
PLEASE CONTINUE TO DILIGENTLY SPREAD THE LIBERATING TRUTH ABOUT THE TAX!!!
*****
|
Your Comments
To comment on any article in this newsletter (or to read
comments of
others), click on the
below.
(It may take a few moments for your newly-posted comments to
appear.)
|
|
About The Author
Pete Hendrickson is possibly the
most effective lawyer in history, even while never having
set foot in a law school, nor ever being a card-carrying
member of "the bar". He is the first American in history to
secure a complete refund of Social Security and Medicare
‘contributions’ withheld from his earnings (along with all
other property taken for federal taxes); further, since 2003
students of his legal analyses and arguments in ‘Cracking
the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America’
(CtC), and its sequel, 'Was
Grandpa Really a Moron?' have been routinely
retaining and recovering billions of dollars which
otherwise-- wrongly, but as a matter of course-- would have
gone to federal or state government treasuries. This despite
concerted efforts by government to suppress his work,
and in some cases
vigorously oppose the claims by
his students.
Hendrickson is also a widely-read essayist on matters of
politics, public policy and law; many of these works are
collected in his second book, ‘Upholding
the Law And Other Observations’. He is a member of
Mensa; an
award-winning artist; and has paid his dues as a youth
soccer coach. He is a long-time political activist as
well, and has served as co-chair and platform convention
delegate of Michigan’s largest county Libertarian Party
organization; as a consultant to the National Right to Work
Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy; as a member of the
Heartland Institute; and as a member of the International
Society for Individual Liberty. He is a frequent
radio-show guest on stations across the country.
Hendrickson's business career has included nearly a
decade-and-a-half at the leading edge of the renewable-energy
industry, both as Director of Purchasing and Materials
Management and member of the R&D board at Starpak Energy
Systems, the mid-west's then-largest solar heating and
energy-recovery-and re-utilization company; and as founder and
president of AFJ Inc., a high-efficiency lighting design,
manufacture and installation firm.
Beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing for the twelve years
before his present full-time focus on the restoration of the
rule of law in America, Hendrickson directed purchasing
activities for the $84 million-a-year multi-family-housing
division of the Farmington Hills, Michigan branch of Edward Rose
and Sons, with responsibility for 18,000+ apartments, direct
supervision of 35 technicians and agents, and incidental
authority over several hundred divisional workers. He also
ran the division's 10 cable television earth-station and
distribution systems in four states, and designed and
administered the company's website.
On
rather the other end of the spectrum, amidst these more mundane
pursuits Hendrickson co-founded and was the primary creative
force behind a small
board- and
card-game company that enjoyed a modest success for several
years.
Hendrickson makes his home in southeast Michigan, with his wife
and two children. He is currently working on his next
book.
|
© All written and graphic material on this page and
website are copyrighted by Peter E. Hendrickson, unless otherwise attributed
|
