(Click on the underlined text to jump to each feature. To
return, use your browser's "back" button, or close the new tab or window to
which you have jumped.)
Putting down nonsense about tax origins and alternatives:
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.
May 23- In 1568, the
Netherlands declare their independence from Spain. In 1788,
South Carolina becomes the eighth of the several states to
ratify the current United States Constitution. In 1813, Simón
Bolívar leads enters Mérida, Venezuela, and is proclaimed El
Libertador. In 1934, Bonnie and Clyde Barrow are ambushed by
police and killed in Black Lake, Louisiana. In 1934, the
'Battle of Toledo', a five-day clash between 1,300 Ohio National
Guardsmen and 6,000 striking workers at the Electric Auto-Lite
plant begins. In 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City is demolished, 34 days after being rocked by
explosions on the anniversary of the Waco massacre. In 2003,
the Euro exceeds its initial trading value against the US
Federal Reserve note for the first time since its introduction
in 1999.
Anniversaries of interest for
each day of this week will be found throughout the newsletter
below.
De-bunking lies about when the tax began, and that it
doesn't matter anyway, 'cuz without the misapplied tax, they'd just
print all the money they need...
PEOPLE! See and share this important ten minutes of
truth! Send out links to
this page, or to
this YouTube location!! Please understand that whether we
get free of the mis-applied tax and all the social and political
pathologies that accompany it rests on ONE THING-- enough
Americans learning the truth. Nothing else is necessary, and
nothing else will do the trick. SPREAD THIS VIDEO.
For every entertained presumption there must be an
equal and opposite opportunity to rebut...
THE NATURAL WORLD IS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN INESCAPABLE
LAWS-- such as that every action has an equal and opposite
reaction. The world of valid law is similarly constrained.
Valid law tolerates no tyranny by which the
interests of a favored party enjoy special benefit over those of
another. Thus, every means by which a liability or subordination
of one to another could be established must be counterbalanced
by an equally potent means by which such a liability or
subordination can be rebutted. There can be no involuntary,
inescapable liability; no one can say, "You owe me a duty
(either simply because I say so or based on some presumption or
allegation of agreement or trespass), and you cannot effectively
dispute the obligation."
By virtue of this principle, there can be no valid
statutory structure by which a liability for a debt can be
alleged or presumed, with a means for rebuttal specified, but in
which that means for rebuttal actually serves to confirm or
even just support the alleged liability. There is no, "Heads I
win, tails you lose!" in valid law.
This principle is (or should be) self-evident. And
yet, millions of otherwise perfectly sensible Americans overlook
it and allow themselves to be sucked into the disastrous
practice of "non-filing" in regard to the income tax, based on
the mistaken and indefensible belief that filing a tax return is
inherently supportive of the tax liability the filing is meant
to rebut, no matter what is said on the return.
The fact is, the statutory structure under which
the tax operates specifies a return as the means by which
alleged or presumptive liabilities are rebutted, and therefore a
return (whether the taxing authority's own published version, or
its functional equivalent) is the ONLY thing recognized by the
taxing authority as a rebuttal instrument. Thus, the irrational
belief about the inherent adverse effect of filing a return
embraces precisely the physics-violating fallacy described
above, in which an allegation can exist with no actual
countervailing means of rebuttal.
RETURNS (AND THE STRUCTURE WITHIN WHICH THEY
OPERATE) DO NOT violate the physics of the law. Returns DO NOT
carry with them inherent adverse effects. The relevant law
states with perfect clarity that:
"[A]ny party, in his or her own behalf, or as
guardian or trustee, as aforesaid, shall be permitted to
declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and manner of which
shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
that he or she was not possessed of an income of [more than the
exemption amount of "income"], liable to be assessed according
to the provisions of this act, or that he or she has been
assessed elsewhere and the same year for an income duty, under
authority of the United States, and shall thereupon be exempt
from an income duty; or, if the list or return of any party
shall have been increased by the assistant assessor, in manner
as aforesaid, he or she may be permitted to declare, as
aforesaid, the amount of his or her annual income, or the amount
held in trust, as aforesaid, liable to be assessed, as
aforesaid, and the same so declared shall be received as the sum
upon which duties are to be assessed and collected."
The accuracy of a return can be questioned
or challenged; the sincerity of a return can be
questioned or challenged; but whether the return supports or
rebuts an allegation of liability hinges solely and
comprehensively on what is declared on the the return regarding
the filer's income, with nothing in that respect inhering in the
mere fact that a return was filed.
FURTHER, THE LAW ALSO SPECIFIES THAT IT IS ONLY BY
MEANS OF A RETURN that payments against a tax liability not
actually owed can be effectively reclaimed:
26 U.S. Code § 6402 - Authority to make credits
or refunds
(a) General rule
In the case of any overpayment, the Secretary,
within the applicable period of limitations, may credit the
amount of such overpayment, including any interest allowed
thereon, against any liability in respect of an internal revenue
tax on the part of the person who made the overpayment and
shall, subject to subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), refund any
balance to such person.
26 U.S. Code § 7422 - Civil actions for refund
(a) No suit prior to filing claim for refund
No suit or proceeding shall be maintained
in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax
alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or
collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected
without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive
or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund
or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to
the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the
Secretary established in pursuance thereof.
Sec. 301.6402-3 Special rules applicable to
income tax
(5) A properly executed individual, fiduciary, or
corporation original income tax return or an amended return (on
1040X or 1120X if applicable) shall constitute a claim for
refund or credit within the meaning of section 6402 and section
6511 for the amount of the overpayment disclosed by such return
(or amended return).
Plainly, this structure of law would be inherently
and self-evidently invalid if the specified means for recovering
overpayments of tax had the effect of invalidating that
recovery. If the filing of a tax return on which was declared
the receipt of less income than would produce a liability equal
or greater than the amount withheld or paid-in in order to claim
a refund of the overpayment served to somehow inherently prove
or support the allegation that a greater amount of income was
received, it would be impossible to make a claim.
The filing of a return cannot even carry with it or
cause to arise merely a "burden of proof" upon the filer. A
return is the responsive instrument. It is not a means for
prosecuting a claim against another based on alleged agreement
or trespass-- it is a means of agreeing to the claim or
allegation of another, or putting the other to the burden of
making its proofs.
THERE CAN BE NO IMBALANCE OF THESE KINDS IN THE
LAW. It is a "physics" impossibility. On that basis alone, those
plagued by these irrational fears about filing returns should
recognize the error of their thinking, even without studying the
actual related provisions of law.
If such an imbalance were to be perceived in the
law or in any action of the taxing authority or any court, it is
not because the law is actually structured to allow it. It is,
and can only be, either a mis-perception, or because the taxing
authority or court is either in error or corrupt.
To none of these possibilities is non-filing an
answer. Non-filing simply takes the issue off the table
entirely.
Non-filing is not a rebuttal of liability-related
allegations, or even a repudiation of error or corrupt practices
by agency or court. It is, very much to the contrary, an
agreement with the allegations, and an abandonment of one's
own claims.
Indeed, if corruption is the reason for any
agency or judicial proposal or effectuation of an invalid
imbalance in the law, it is practiced in the hope of prompting
non-filing by anyone whose return would rebut allegations of
taxable income. Non-filing IS a "Heads you win, tails I lose"
proposition, because the non-filer is not calling a side, or
even showing up to watch the coin get tossed, just as a corrupt
agency or court wishes.
I'VE POINTED ALL THIS OUT BEFORE, OF COURSE, many
times. And it is, as noted above, self-evident, in any case.
Nonetheless, the non-filers persist and accumulate.
Lately a new "school" of non-filing has arisen,
persuading its victims with the bizarre argument that
1. US income tax returns are an
American form of an ancient English instrument known as a
"statute staple contract" (which was an agreement by which goods
were allowed to be landed at English ports by foreign merchants
with the understanding that related obligations to the crown
thereby arise), and
2. that by some (unsurprisingly
unexplained) mechanism, what is reported on the return (or
contract, in this context of this notion) is irrelevant to its
effect-- by simply filing it, even if including declarations
rebutting allegations of "income" greater than the exemption
amount, one is instead
acknowledging
the receipt of some amount of "income" which, being apparently
adopted from some unspecified external source of information,
could theoretically be any amount at all.
Even taking the "statute staple contract"
relationship as true for sake of argument, this strange idea
would have it that even if the merchant declared himself to have
imported ten tons of grain on his form, this would be
irrelevant. By simply completing the form at all, regardless of
what he says upon it, he is inherently agreeing to have brought
in 100 tons, or 1,000, or whatever allegation the crown finds it
convenient to accept.
This manifestly absurd notion is grounded, it would
appear, in the persistent-as-athlete's-foot infection of certain
quarters of the "tax honesty movement" with what is known as
"redemption theory". "Redemption theory", as part of its schtick,
would have all tax law be "law merchant"-- a body of law arrived
at by merchants during the Middle Ages, acting
independently of any state.
US tax law is NOT "law merchant". It is statutory,
and it is a specific body of statutes, the first of which was
enacted by the United States Congress in 1862.
Likewise, a 1040 is NOT a "statutes staple
contract". It is, by explicit statutory specification, a
declaratory form used to acknowledge receipt of more than the
exemption amount of "income", rebut errant allegations about
receipts, and/or recover "overpayments".
Its use imposes no adversities upon the
filer, and cannot. Since the 1040 is the specified instrument,
and no other instrument is accepted for these purposes, the
"physics of law" dictate that the 1040 must be sufficient to
those purposes.
I hope everyone will do his or her utmost to help
shine light for the sake of those misled by the "redemption
theory" nonsense and any other confusion leading to the
disastrous practice of non-filing. The mis-application of the
income tax, and all its ill effects, will never be fixed by
silence and withdrawal from the field of action.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never
did and it never will. Find out just what any people will
quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the
injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them, and these
will continue till they have been resisted with either words or
blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the
endurance of those whom they suppress."
-Frederick Douglass
P. S. 18 months ago or so, I proposed a little
exercise for those caught up in confusion and doubt about the
filing process and its purposes. This seems like an apt occasion
to share this notion again. The idea is a letter to your
friendly local tax agency (or hey, maybe to your member of
Congress or favorite tax attorney, after suitable editing)
essentially to this effect:
Sir:
I would like you to tell me the proper forms and
procedures for rebutting tax-related allegations which
have been made to your agency by someone who has paid me
money, allegations that I believe to be erroneous. I
also wish to learn the proper procedures and forms for
reclaiming amounts which I believe have been improperly
withheld from me by this payer.
Here are the relevant facts: A company for which I
worked has reported payments to me on your "information
return" form W-2, characterizing these payments as being
of "wages" as defined at 26 USC 3121(a) and 3401(a). I
don't believe this characterization is correct, and wish
to rebut the allegations that I have received such
"wages".
Please understand: I'm NOT asking for your views
concerning what payments are or are not "wages". I am
not interested in those views. I simply want to know how
to register MY view with your agency in order to rebut
the W-2 in the manner provided for by your agency's
protocols.
The payer WILL NOT correct the erroneous W-2 on his own
(or I don't want to imperil my relationship with this
otherwise good and valued company), so please don't
waste either of our times with anything about W-2c
forms. What I want from you is guidance on what form I
should use to introduce what I deem to be correct
information into your records to counter the erroneous
W-2.
In addition to rebutting the bad W-2s, I would like to
learn how to properly reclaim amounts withheld from
payments to me by this errant W-2 creator, who has been
treating my earnings as "wages". Obviously, since I
don't believe my earnings qualify as "wages", I also
don't believe any related tax liability has arisen, and
I wish to claim a complete refund of all amounts
withheld in connection with those earnings. Please
explain the procedure for doing so, and the proper forms
or other instruments to use.
Please respond promptly, in case I have
follow-up questions, and because your answers will be
very relevant to the next tax-related filings I make. I
feel compelled to make those filings on a schedule you
impose because even though I am not actually subject to
that schedule, not having engaged in any taxable
activities or having received more than the exemption
amount of "income" prompting a requirement to file at
all, I realize that until I file rebuttals to the errant
"information return", your agency will presume that I AM
under such an obligation, and will harass me
accordingly.
I am sure that immediate response is not a problem, as
you must have the information I seek on your computer,
available in seconds for printout and mailing. I have
enclosed a SASE for your convenience.
If I do not receive your answers within 30 days, and
from that point until I DO receive answers from you
instructing me otherwise, I will use your form 4852 to
rebut the erroneous W-2 allegations; and I will declare
what I believe to be my correct "wages"-received
amounts, and calculate and claim any appropriate refund
of the amounts withheld, on your form 1040, as my study
of your forms and related instructions and the
regulations under which you operate leads me to believe
is proper.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.
____________________________/__/__
The version relevant to (non-1099-R) 1099
recipients would be like this:
Sir:
I would like you to tell me the proper forms and
procedures for rebutting tax-related allegations which
have been made to your agency by someone who has paid me
money, allegations that I believe to be erroneous.
Here are the relevant facts: Someone for whom I worked
has reported payments to me on your "information return"
form 1099-__, characterizing these payments as being of
"self-employment income" as defined at 26 USC 1402(b). I
don't believe this characterization is correct, and wish
to rebut the allegations that I have received such
"self-employment income".
Please understand: I'm NOT asking for your views
concerning what payments are or are not "self-employment
income". I am not interested in those views. I simply
want to know how to register MY view with your agency in
order to rebut the 1099-__ in the manner provided for by
your agency's protocols.
The payer WILL NOT correct the erroneous 1099-__ on his
own (or I don't want to imperil my relationship with
this otherwise good and valued company), so please don't
waste either of our times with anything about such payer
corrections forms. What I want from you is guidance on
what form I should use to introduce what I deem to be
correct information into your records to counter the
erroneous 1099-__.
Please respond promptly, in case I have follow-up
questions, and because your answers will be very
relevant to the next tax-related filings I make. I feel
compelled to make those filings on a schedule you impose
because even though I am not actually subject to that
schedule, not having engaged in any taxable activities
or having received more than the exemption amount of
"income" prompting a requirement to file at all, I
realize that until I file rebuttals to the errant
"information return", your agency will presume that I AM
under such an obligation, and will harass me
accordingly.
I am sure that immediate response is not a problem, as
you must have the information I seek on your computer,
available in seconds for printout and mailing. I have
enclosed a SASE for your convenience.
If I do not receive your answers within 30 days, and
from that point until I DO receive answers from you
instructing me otherwise, I will use a photocopy of the
errant 1099-__, with explanatory attestation and the
"corrected" box checked, to rebut the erroneous 1099-__
allegations; and I will declare what I believe to be my
correct "self-employment income" received amounts and
calculate other figures accordingly, on your form 1040,
as my study of your forms and related instructions and
the regulations under which you operate leads me to
believe is proper.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.
____________________________/__/__
I think all will agree that this exercise could be
fun and interesting even for those in no confusion or doubt
about the use of 1040s and related instruments. For those who
are, this should help clear things up considerably, and at
minimum, allow them to file with confidence, knowing that in
combination with the inevitable silence that these inquiries
will elicit, they will have equipped themselves with a legally
invulnerable reason for having done so.
Early Speaker List For The First Annual CtC Summer Symposium
SOME SPEAKING SLOTS ARE BEGINNING TO BE FILLED for the
Symposium July 3rd and 4th. So far we are scheduled to enjoy:
Dr. Greg Belcher delivering a talk on outreach
opportunities and procedures-- what you can do, some proven
ways of doing them, what to expect and how and when to
follow up and/or move on.
Brian Wright, co-founder of the Michigan
Libertarian Party and early Free State Project activist
explaining the natural harmony of CtC's revelations about
the tax and the law generally with the libertarian ethic and
political principle, and how the former produces practical
implementation of the latter into American public policy.
Shane Trujo, Michigan State Coordinator for the
Tenth Amendment Center speaking on nullification and other
Tenth Amendment issues.
Katie Hendrickson, Communication Coordinator
for AFP Michigan (Americans for Prosperity) sharing the how-tos
on the use of "social media" for word-spreading and
excitement-generation about CtC's liberating message.
Additional topics will include:
The legal and political history of the income tax;
The nature of the American Constitutional and legal
structure overall;
The principles and procedures at play in an
accurate, educated filing;
Effective presentation in an administrative and
legal contest;
Dealing with "legacy" filing (or non-filing)
issues;
The powers and principles of the common-law grand
jury;
More...
Please keep in mind that the Symposium
will immediately precede this years Seventh Annual Declaration Day
Party, and all attendees of the none are invitees to the party, with
which we will close a wonderful several days of community
gathering, sharing, learning and growing.
THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO GET YOUR QUESTIONS
ANSWERED, TO MEET FELLOW MEMBERS OF OUR UNIQUE COMMUNITY OF EDUCATED
ACTIVISTS, AND TO GET YOUR SPIRIT ENERGIZED!
SO, MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE YOUR PLANS to be part
of this important inaugural event in SE Michigan July 3rd and 4th-- and at the
Declaration Day party on the 5th!
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.
WRITE A NICE, FRIENDLY AND BRIEF introductory note
explaining what will be seen at the link-- cryptic
is bad; excited is good-- and then send this WMI
(weapon of mass instruction) far and wide.
"I am a great believer in luck, and I find the
harder I work, the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Bitcoin holders can donate in that medium by clicking
the button below:
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:
May 24- In 1798, a
popular rebellion against the British puppet "Kingdom of
Ireland", inspired by the American Revolution and supported by
Protestants and Catholics alike, begins. In 1830, the B & O
Railroad, the first revenue-generating federally-subsidized
railroad, began service. In 1883, the Brooklyn Bridge opens to
traffic after 14 years of construction. In 2000, Israeli troops
begin leaving Southern Lebanon after 22 years of occupation. In
2001, the Democrats regain control of the Senate for the the
first time since 1994 when James Jeffords becomes an
independent.
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.
READING
AN OTHERWISE GOOD COMMENTARY by the ACLU's Jameel
Jaffer recently, I had to suppress a groan before the
end of the second paragraph. Like far too many
journalists and pundits do routinely today, Jaffer had
adopted the false validating language deployed by the
law-defying community to keep the rest of us from
recognizing its offenses.
Here is the offending passage in this
article about the federal government's contempt for the
Fourth Amendment (and the Constitution in general):
In two significant but almost-completely
overlooked legal briefs filed last week, the US
government defended the constitutionality of the Fisa
Amendments Act, the controversial 2008 law that codified
the Bush administration's warrantless-wiretapping
program. That law permits the government to monitor
Americans' international communications without first
obtaining individualized court orders or establishing
any suspicion of wrongdoing.
Ouch! Word to the very good Mr. Jaffer and
all others putting fingertips to keyboards in the
interest of speaking truth: That "law" DOES NOT "permit
the government to monitor Americans' international
communications without first obtaining individualized
court orders or establishing any suspicion of
wrongdoing." Congress can make no such law-- the Fourth
Amendment
prohibits warrantless searches (and says nothing
about that prohibition protecting only Americans from
such searches, by the way).
What that "law" does is
deny victims of illegal
government searches from recourse to American courts in
order to enjoin or punish the transgressors. It
doesn't "permit" what is impermissible; it simply thumbs
the state's nose at the rules, and instructs the state's
courts to do the same.
The difference between the reality of this
contempt for Constitution and the fiction that the
enactment somehow authorizes the plainly illegal
behavior on behalf of which it was sought and passed is
night and day. But the daylight is hidden when
journalists and commentators don't give a little thought
to what they're really describing, and say it plainly.
In this case, Mr. Jaffer spends his entire
commentary very properly criticizing the government's
position, but only after having surrendered the argument
at the very beginning. Those of us who respect the law
can't afford to be giving it up in this fashion.
WE HAVE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE DEBATE, and
we can only do so by thinking clearly and speaking
plainly, and never letting the law-defiers' ambitions be
the measure of our reality.
"Political language... is designed to make
lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give
an appearance of solidity to pure wind." "In a time of
universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary
act."
IF YOU AREN'T ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH THIS
OUTRAGEOUS ASSAULT ON THE RULE OF LAW, which is being
pursued purely in order to
suppress the liberating, state-restraining
truth about the tax and perpetuate a corrupt abuse of
Americans' generous assumptions about the goodwill and
honesty of their public servants, click
here.
Do you have a victory to share?
Click
here to learn how to do so.
If you're working on one, and just getting stonewalled
or speed-bumped, you can still be recognized! Go
here to learn what to do.
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!!
The Supreme Court’s recent decision on prayer at
government meetings reminds me that Supreme Court “season” is upon
us, and for the next two months or so, we can expect to see the
court decide on a variety of cases that can have profound impacts on
the lives of citizens and non-citizens alike. The court’s decision
in Town of Greece vs. Galloway has produced a lot of commentary on
both sides, with much discussion about the dynamics between
justices, and how Justice Kennedy must have been in a pro-prayer
mood that day, since his decisions appear to be made on a variety of
unknowable whims.
Nearly all of this commentary contains the assumption
that it is perfectly normal, and probably laudable, that the Supreme
Court has the power to decide the legality of virtually everything
under the sun, from the death penalty to where local governments can
build strip malls.
If there was ever any doubt that public schooling has
been an immense success when it comes to conditioning children to
blindly accept even the most implausible myths of governance, we
only need look to the high regard in which most Americans hold the
Supreme Court. The fact that nine modern philosopher kings are
empowered to sit in judgment of every American law and custom, right
down to whether or not a city council meeting, in a town virtually
no American could find on a map, can include some bland prayer time.
It troubles no school child that he is taught that democracy is the
source of legitimacy for all governments one minute, and then the
next minute is told he should fully trust nine lawyers in robes in
Washington, D.C. to have the final word on law for 300 million
Americans.
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..."
May 25- In 1787, the
convention called to revise the Articles of Confederation--
primarily by authorizing the federal creation to claim a piece
of the action when its property, powers and privileges were
profitably exploited (duties, excises and tariffs), to impose
apportioned taxes on the states, and to regulate the commerce of
state governments with each other, with foreign nations and with
the Indian tribes-- begins. In 1837, Quebec revolts against
British rule. In 1961, John F. Kennedy proposes landing an
American on the moon before the end of the decade. In 1977,
'Star Wars', the first installment in a wildly-popular six-part
story of rebellion against an arrogant imperialist Leviathan, is
released. In 2012, SpaceX's 'Dragon' becomes the first private
spacecraft to reach the International Space Station.
There is little more important to the long-term health of America than
how our children are educated..
Something to think about; Walter Jones' primary win
speaks volumes;
the meaninglessness of "denial of cert"; more...
HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN
when
30 million other Americans-- or even just 3 million-- know what you
know about the "income" tax?
Leviathan thinks about it-- a lot.
You
should, too.
*****
WALTER JONES HAS WON HIS PRIMARY IN NORTH CAROLINA. Thank goodness,
and don't miss the lesson here.
Jones is a Ron Paul Republican who, despite 20 years in Congress as
a staunch conservative, was powerfully-- almost frantically--
opposed by the Republican "leadership" and those who pull its
strings these days. This is almost certainly because Jones IS a
staunch conservative in the real sense of the term, not a
pseudo-conservative of the Republican "leadership" stripe, who call
themselves "conservative" just to distinguish their brand of statism
from the only slightly dissimilar Democratic version.
The "leadership" wants Jones out because, being a real conservative,
he opposes US spending of blood and treasure messing around in other
people's business, even just in the form of "foreign aid" (a program
wonderfully described by, if memory serves, P. J. O'Rourke, as being
the taking of money from poor people in rich countries and giving it
to rich people in poor countries). Jones, like any true statesman,
wants to restore the republic, which means relinquishing the empire.
Anyway, despite his own party's "leadership" fielding a candidate
against him supported by
massive spending, Jones won his primary with votes to spare, even
though his district is heavily military, being the home of Marine
Corps Camp Lejeune and Air Station Cherry Point. The fact is, the
people want what Jones wants, not what the nominally "conservative"
Republican fat-cat types want.
The next time you see some name-only "conservative" bloviating on
the tube or in the papers-- which means anyone in Republican
"leadership", change the channel or turn the page. These folks speak
for no one but themselves and the rich donors to whom they answer,
and their interests are not American interests.
I very rarely advocate in favor of individual Congressional
candidates (maybe in part because it's so rare to have good ones to
advocate). But I think the lesson of Walter Jones' victory is that
this may be an election season in which we could actually end up
with a much better national legislature, with some effort and
activism on behalf of the right candidates.
Here in Michigan, we have at least three instances of the same game
playing out in which Walter Jones just starred. Michigan Republican
congressman Justin Amash, whose legislative initiative to shut down
the NSA came within a dozen votes of passage in the House last
summer, is a four-square genuine conservative and patriot being
opposed by his party's leadership and a special-interest-serving,
business-as-usual alternative republican candidate in this summer's
primary. Kerry Bentivolio is another genuinely conservative
incumbent being attacked by his own party's high-rollers and facing
a well-financed pseudo-conservative primary opponent.
In Michigan's 8th district, genuine conservative and
Constitution-respecting state congressman Tom McMillan is running
for the seat being relinquished by the odious Mike Rogers (thank
goodness). McMillan would be the anti-Rogers, and a great addition
to the US House's Liberty Caucus, but he, too, faces a Republican
leadership-favored opponent. There are doubtless many like Amash,
Bentivolio and McMillan elsewhere throughout the country.
We don't yet know how these Republican leadership attacks on
candidates standing for liberty and the rule of law will end, but
Walter Jones has shown us how they can and should. I urge everyone
to identify the solid REAL conservatives running in their own areas,
and show them support.
*****
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT has failed to grant
certiorari to a virtuous case brought by journalist Chris Hedges and
others challenging the NDAA's "indefinite detention" provisions.
Hedges and his associates are understandably upset, and the choice
by the Supremes is disturbing.
However, the court's refusal in Hedges' case is no more disturbing,
and no more an egregious abdication of responsibility than was the
same court's failure to grant cert in my own appeal after
egregious misconduct in the lower courts in defiance of
Constitutional provisions and Supreme Court precedents, or its
failure to do so in regard to the transparently unlawful orders
made to my wife, Doreen, and me to testify with government-serving,
government-dictated words and pretend them to be our own. Many other
virtuous cases are similarly disregarded by the Supreme Court.
In addressing the high court's behavior recently in a
motion to dismiss the current effort to punish my wife and me
for not dancing to the government's tune by prosecuting Doreen for
alleged "contempt of court", I put the matter in a way that I think
Mr. Hedges and associates might find helpful in finding a useful
perspective on their real issue:
Finally, there is the failure of the United States Supreme Court to
grant the Hendricksons' Petitions for Certiorari regarding the
initial appellate ruling. Like the decisions in the lower courts in
which the Constitutional issues were never considered at all, this
response to the Hendricksons' Petition is not a ruling on the merits
in any sense of the concept, even were a merits ruling in
contradiction of the overwhelming points made in section A. of this
argument possible (among which are actual direct and repeated
Supreme Court rulings plainly and flatly upholding Mrs.
Hendrickson's position in this Motion and brief).
The
failure of the Supreme Court to take a case in and of itself says
nothing whatever about the merits of the case, or prior rulings in
the case. The court is petitioned 10,000 times each year, and only
has time and resources to hear 75-80 cases out of those 10,000 (see
http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9). Consequently, its
failure to grant cert. to any given case means nothing at all about
the merits of that case or of its treatment in the courts below.
All that Supreme Court denial means is that 75-80 other cases out of
the 10,000 on offer struck the justices as MORE egregiously in need
of attention than the one denied. This is particularly obvious when
the High Court has already spoken to the issue of the denied
petition in clear consistent rulings, and its granting of cert would
just call for a repetition, perhaps more loudly, of what it has
plainly said before. No case could be a better example than the one
here, concerning issues the court has endlessly ruled upon with
rigid consistency in unequivocal support of Mrs. Hendrickson's
positions, thereby telling us all what WOULD be the outcome had it
not felt compelled to advance 0.008% of the cases competing for its
attention to the front of the line ahead of this one.
The point is that Supreme Court
supervision of appellate courts must now be recognized as
systemically defective, and its decisions to review appellate court
rulings and opinions no longer credibly authoritative of anything,
either as to the law or even as to its own view of those lower court
actions. This will be small comfort to Chris Hedges and company
today, perhaps, but it should help us all maintain a proper
perspective on Supreme Court behavior generally, and on the
appellate court decisions it fails to review and supervise.
*****
DO YOU KNOW WHY THE LIBERATING TRUTH ABOUT THE INCOME
TAX is spreading so slowly, and not being taken up and trumpeted by
the alt-media (at least)? Do you know why that truth is not a big
presence in public consciousness, supporting you in your
conversations on the subject with your friends, family, co-workers,
bosses and professional service-providers?
The reason is that very often when someone first hears
about that truth, the next thing he or she does is go to the
internet and "google"
CtC or me. What comes up in greatest number or most prominence
can strongly influence whether that person moves forward or
backward, and unfortunately, what often comes up most strongly are
DOJ and troll posts rich with disparaging and misleading propaganda
about either subject. The reason this is so is because YOU are not
posting contrary material rebutting the lies and misrepresentations.
If we are all going to get the benefit of this
liberating truth, I cannot be the only voice correcting the record
on the internet about "what the courts have REALLY ruled" in regard
to
CtC. I can't be the only one debunking
the efforts to disparage
CtC by misrepresentations of the
kangaroo-court assaults on me.
Whether the truth wins out here involves a battle of
pens, not swords. YOU HAVE TO BE IN THIS BATTLE, or it may not be
won for years. On the other hand, if you DO get into this battle and
get thoughtful posts up all over the internet designed to address
the specific problem I describe here, it can be won very quickly
indeed. Please do your part.
I never thought I would see the day in this
country when I could be ordered to sign my name to words
dictated by the United States government, not to mention
words I believe to be false. I've seen this sort of thing on
TV where American hostages are giving testimonials with
ski-masked, armed captors ensuring that the Americans spoke
the words that would spare their lives.
With considerable dismay, I now see our
judiciary employing the same tactics that terrorists impose
on their victims. Doreen Hendrickson has been ordered to
perjure herself, that is to sign her name to documents that
say things the government wants said, even though she
believe these things to be false.
Seven years ago, Federal Judge Nancy Edmunds
(ED Michigan) ordered Doreen to make this false testimony,
and to declare that it is her own testimony.
Three-and-a-half years later Edmunds added a requirement
that the fact that the testimony is coerced and not Doreen's
own be concealed (as asked of her by the IRS and DOJ).
Doreen now faces trial on charges of criminal
contempt of court for resisting these plainly illegal
orders. This is not the first trial, though-- it is the
second government shot at Doreen.
The trial judge in Doreen's first trial last
October
actually ordered the jury to disregard the
unconstitutionality of the orders Doreen is accused of
"criminally resisting" (at the request of the team of
attorneys from Washington flown in to prosecute her).
Doreen, completely a legal amateur in every way, took on the
government's conviction-by-any-means-necessary specialists
all by herself. Still, the government could not get the jury
to convict.
Despite the huge effort put on by the team of
three DOJ attorneys during the four-day trial, at least some
members of the jury recognized that the law and the facts
are entirely on Doreen's side. But the government
desperately wants this conviction. It views the preservation
of certain key myths about the income tax to be at stake,
and so it is coming back at Doreen again.
Let me be clear. Doreen is not being put
through this for refusing to testify. She HAS already
testified. The government just doesn't like what she said,
and is trying to coerce her into saying things more to its
interests. (Can you say: suborning perjury? How about: raw,
banana-republic-level corruption?)
Though the testimony involved is on tax
returns, this fact is not relevant. The only relevant issue
is that a federal judge has completely overstepped her
authority.
No one in this country can legally compel
custom testimony...Not on a tax form...Not on a contract...
NOT ON ANYTHING!!!
Please help to uphold the principles on which
this country was founded. Today, it's Doreen and a tax form.
Tomorrow...
Please join me in taking serious notice of this
precipitous descent into Stalinism in an America already
dangerously far down the road to complete lawlessness and
barbarism.
Read the document that follows. Some of the
material will be easy, some will call for a little more
effort, but all will be crystal clear, even the legal briefs
linked at the end.
Remember, in this country, the law is YOUR law,
and the only ones who can enforce it against government
operatives who take liberties with the rules are the rest of
us. They can't be relied upon to police themselves, as what
you are about to read will make obvious.
Sincerely Yours,
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.
May 26- In 1868,
President Andrew Johnson escapes impeachment for allegedly
disregarding a Congressional enactment (the Tenure of Office
Act) by a single vote. In 1879, the invading British military
gained control of Afghanistan, formalized under the Treaty of
Gandamak. In 1896, Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia, begins
his reign. In 1927, Ford ceases production of the Model T. In
2004, the New York Time publicly admits to contributing to Bush
administration lies about Iraq being in possession of "weapons
of mass destruction".
What Do The People Do About The Rogue State??
The
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.
"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
[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?
May 27- In 1933, the
Federal Securities Act, requiring securities sold in interstate
(state-to-state) commerce to be registered with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, is enacted. In 1935, the United States
Supreme Court unanimously declares the "New Deal" "National
Industrial Recovery Act" unconstitutional. In 1997, the same
court rules that Paula Jones can pursue her sexual harassment
suit against President Bill Clinton while he is in office.
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."
-United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
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
in the first pic above?
Tasty freebies for Brian's co-workers-- candy and brain-candy
all in one:
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:
May 28- In 1503, James
IV of Scotland and Margaret Tudor of England are married and a
"Treaty of Everlasting Peace" between the two countries is
executed. The peace lasts ten years. In 1774, the first
American Continental Congress convenes. In 1930, the Chrysler
Building-- then the tallest in the world-- opens in New York
City. In 1934, the first quintuplets who will go on to survive
infancy are born to Oliva and Elzire Dionne. In 1952, the right
of women to vote is recognized in Greece. In 1964, the
Palestine Liberation Organization is formed. In 1996, Hillary
Clinton's "Whitewater" business partners-- James and Susan
McDougall and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker-- are convicted
of fraud. In 2012, the rampant infection of Iranian computers
with the joint Israeli-US malware cyberweapon 'Flame'
was announced.
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.
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 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.
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'?"
May 29- In 1660, after the death of Cromwell,
the English monarchy is restored with the enthronement of
Charles II. In 1736, Patrick Henry is born. In 1790, Rhode
Island becomes the 13th of the several states to ratify the
current United States Constitution. In 1848, Wisconsin is
admitted to the union as the 30th of the several states. In
1913, Stravinski's 'Le Sacre du Printemps' premiers in Paris and
provokes a riot. In 1953, Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay
reach the summit of Mt. Everest. In 1954, the first "Bilderberg
Conference" begins.
"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:
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!
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.
below.