I've gotten lots of positive feedback about my silly song and video, "I Love My Country." (See below)
About the only complaint, which I got second hand, was that someone didn't like me making fun of his flag and his freedom. Well, the song doesn't make fun of the flag, but it does make fun of his LACK of freedom. What I suspect the person actually felt was that I was mocking his version of patriotism. And in a way, I probably was.
Occasionally someone tells me I'm a "true patriot." I assume they mean it to be nice, but I'm not fond of "patriotism" at all. What I'm loyal to, and what I love, is not about an imaginary line around a piece of dirt, or about people who live inside such a line. It's not about any flag, or any republic "for which it stands." What I care about is humanity, which requires free will, which in turn requires liberty. I don't much care WHERE it happens, or to whom it happens. I don't want freedom any less for the guy in Alberta than I do for the guy in New Mexico, nor do I feel any special connection or bond to one over the other.
The trouble is, what most people call "patriotism" is nothing but mindless pack mentality. They "love" what they call their country based purely on the ACCIDENT of where they were born. So, it follows, if they were born in Germany in 1900, they would have ended up as "patriotic" Nazis. What would be good about that?
Other people, when they speak of "patriotism," mean loyalty to the idea of FREEDOM, because of the role that idea played in the creation of this country. Okay, THAT is something worth feeling attached to, even if the idea was mangled and corrupted along the way (from the very beginning, actually). But I think the difference in how people react to my silly video depends upon WHAT they are loyal to. If they are loyal to a flag, or a piece of dirt, they will probably feel insulted by it. And they should be. If, on the other hand, they are loyal to the idea of FREEDOM, I think they will completely approve of the message.
First Black President to Reinstate Slavery? (March 21, 2009)
When tyrants want to take the next big step towards totalitarianism, they usually toss out some "trial balloons," both to see how people react and to begin desensitizing people to the new fascist agenda. If they're smart, they first propose a big leap toward totalitarianism, and then cut it back to a small step. By contrast, the peasants will not only be pleased with the smaller step, but will be trained to think that the larger step is at least debatably a good idea.
The American tyrants, and those in other countries, have done this over and over again with "gun control" (peasant disarmament), taxation, regulation, and so on. They suggest something startlingly bad, then scale it back to only mildly obnoxious, and pass it. And they keep doing it over and over again, until they've imposed all sorts of things that in the past seemed outrageous. And since hardly anyone thinks from PRINCIPLE, it works. Most people just compare what is being proposed to what already is, assuming that what already is must be more or less rational. For example, the feds steal HALF of what everyone earns, and then bicker over little increases here and there, each one of which doesn't seem all that important. Whether you're a 49% slave or a 50% doesn't make much difference, and those accustomed to their slavery aren't about to insist on 0% slavery. That would require them to think based upon PRINCIPLES, which most Americans are utterly incapable of.
A recent trial balloon of the Obama Regime came in the form of H.R. 45, proposing national gun registration, and enough "regulations" to basically amount to universal disarmament. It won't pass, not now anyway, but the Nazis wanted to see how people would react to the idea, and begin to get the people used to it. For now, they'll take smaller steps, like reinstating the "Depriving the People of the Means of Resistance Act" of 2009--also known as the reinstatement of the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban." (The weapons targeted there are NOT used in any significant amount of crime, but ARE used throughout the world to resist tyrannical regimes. So why does the GOVERNMENT not want YOU to have them? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.)
But, among all the fascist "trial balloons" already being floated by the Obama Regime--and there are quite a few--one recently came out that is particularly absurd. Again, the real intent, and the real long term goal, was included in the initial proposal, but has since disappeared from what is likely to pass in the near future. Again, the tyrants want us getting used to the idea, while pretending to "compromise" by toning down their fascism for the time being.
I am speaking of the Orwellianishly titled, "Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act. Now, anyone who has actually thought for a second or two about political philosophy will immediately recognize that having the word "volunteerism" in a "GOVERNMENT" Act is a bald-faced lie. The state is the OPPOSITE of voluntaryism and volunteerism. Everything it does, it does by forcible coercion, no matter how much fluff and spin is used in an effort to hide that fact.
As originally proposed, the law would have had the federal fascists beginning to consider the question of "[w]hether a workable, fair, and reasonable MANDATORY service requirement for all able young people could be developed." (That wording disappeared from the bill before the House passed it.) A fine synonym for "mandatory service" is "involuntary servitude," a.k.a. SLAVERY (prohibited by the 13th Amendment). In other words, Barack Obama and his fellow Stalinists are proposing reinstating slavery. Of course, it will be for NICE reasons, and have NOBLE goals, so the unthinking American public will probably fail to notice the PRINCIPLE involved: i.e., forced labor is a bad thing. (For now, let's ignore the fact that an "income tax" already amounts to slavery.)
As one who thinks from principles, let me make this perfectly clear: If anyone ever tries to impose a "mandatory service requirement" on MY kid, the results will not be pleasant. There's a reason for the Second Amendment. This is it.
As our "leaders" have been teaching us recently, the way to save the world is to throw money around. If huge corporations or banks are failing, flinging zillions of dollars at them is the solution. Well heck, since we know how to fix everything, why hold back?
I hereby propose a $300,000,000,000,000 bailout. Let's not waste time bickering over what's necessary and what's fair. Lots of people are having financial troubles, but with a wave of Congress' magic wand, we can have utopia on earth. I propose that every man, woman and child in the country get a check for $1,000,000 from Uncle Sam. Think of the debts that would be wiped out, the savings and investments it would lead to, and how much it would boost spending, thus causing an economic boom!
If there was a national referendum for such a plan, what do you suppose the vote would be? I'm guessing it would be about 80% in favor and 20% against. And of the minority that would instinctively know that such a "solution" couldn't possibly work, how many could actually explain WHY it wouldn't work? Would it even be as many as one in a hundred?
Socialism is for imbeciles. The level of economic stupidity necessary for socialism to sound good is astounding. Of the "concerned" and "caring" collectivists around (which is most of the country), how many could even begin to answer simple questions such as "What is wealth?" or "What is money?" To confuse currency with wealth, as most Americans do, is a sure sign of profound cluelessness. (I wonder how many supporters of the various "bailouts" also think that if you pull on the speedometer needle, it will make the car go faster.)
I don't necessarily think people who are stupid "deserve" to suffer because of it, but in the real world, they often do. Then along comes "government," which, by way of elections and legislation, allows the few thinking, responsible people to share in the suffering caused by the moronic masses. Every "solution" which the majority falls for is patently idiotic. The masses cheer when the tyrants promise to interfere with people actually accomplishing things, redistribute the assets and take away all incentives for being productive, and otherwise hamper any efforts to create actual wealth (i.e., stuff which people want). Then they push piles of paper around, as if that will make us all rich. And the public is so ignorant, even of the most basic economic principles, that even the most idiotic suggestions sound good to them. For example:
1) As mentioned above, if not having enough dollars is the problem, why not have the government give each person a million bucks? Would that fix everything?
2) if increasing spending fixes an economy, how about if we all stand in a long line, and everyone hand $20 to the person next to them? How about $1,000? Would that fix everything? (Or, if gifts aren't good enough, everyone could buy his neighbor's shoes for $1,000. Wouldn't all that "spending" save the day?)
3) If it helps the economy to redistribute wealth, how about if the government takes away all existing wealth and divides it up equally, 300,000,000 ways? Would that fix everything?
4) If the problem is lack of jobs, how about if the government gives a job to anyone who wants one, paying them $50 an hour to carry empty boxes around in circles. Would that fix everything?
5) If a lack of credit is the problem, how about if the government gives everyone a new, federal credit card with a $1,000,000 line of credit? Would that fix everything?
6) If "corporate greed" is the problem, how about if government outlaws making profits, forcing companies to sell things at prices that would just make them break even? Would that fix everything?
One of the neat things about freedom is that it naturally discards stupid ideas. If your ideas don't work, most people won't volunteer to pay for them. If you have a good idea, on the other hand, people will be eager to invest in your idea, or pay you for your idea. Government, on the other hand, consists of people who are too clueless to be successful in the free market, and whose success (in politics) is measured by how well they can lie, who then come up with really bad ideas and forcibly impose them on the rest of us (and send us the bill). Oh, how I would love to live in a society in which economic irresponsibility and stupidity only harmed those with the stupid ideas making the stupid choices. Thanks to government, however, the results of stupidity can be equally shared by all.
I just watched a video about the "national debt." It went on and on about fiscal responsibility, the problem with the deficit, how bad it is now, and the projections for how it will get a lot worse. But underlying the seemingly virtuous message was a huge, utterly insane assumption--the assumption underlying almost all discussion you'll hear about such things: the notion that there can BE a "national debt."
In literal terms, without the authoritarian propaganda spin, here is how things work: A bunch of liars and crooks, declaring themselves to be our rightful rulers, steal tons and tons of money from the rest of us. They then spend far MORE than they steal, and declare that the difference, the debt, is OUR responsibility. And almost everyone accepts that as true.
It's not.
Those wearing the label of "government" borrowed money from people, promising to pay it back. How would they do that? By continually taxing you and me. EVERYONE, Americans and foreigners, who bought Treasury bonds, or by any other means loaned money to any government, on the promise that the government would later pay it back, was banking on the fact that the tyrants would be able to continue robbing YOU and ME. That is how "investments" in all levels of "government," from federal stuff down to local "municipal bonds," work.
To be blunt, if you were one of those who invested in SLAVERY, by lending money to "governments"--whether here or anywhere else--you DESERVE to lose everything, and I hope you do. The notion that I somehow acquired some obligation to pay YOU something, because a thief promised to keep on robbing me to pay for things HE bought, without my consent, is idiotic. It's also an insult to my intelligence and yours.
So why aren't Americans outraged? Because they're indoctrinated and/or stupid. Imagine that a thief steals your wallet. He then goes on a shopping spree, buying $300 worth of stuff. Then, to his horror, he finds that you only had $200 in your wallet. To fix the problem, he sends YOU a bill for the remaining $100 "deficit." Would you feel obligated to pay up?
Well, if the thief called himself "government," and you're an average American, apparently you would. And then you would get together with all the other duped morons, wring your hands, and ponder what can be done about the problem. But the problem is not one of finances; it's one of philosophy. As long as you think YOU are obligated to make up for the scams of the crooks who call themselves "government," you are doomed. If you think they'll ever cut back on their power (spending, regulation, taxation) to be nice to YOU, you're an idiot. They will happily borrow and spend you into absolute poverty.
To those of you stupid and/or evil enough to have loaned money to the U.S. government, or to any other government, on the promise that they'd later rob people like ME to pay you back, I wish you the worst of luck. I hope you never see a dime of what you "invested" in the slavery industry. And don't tell ME I have some obligation to pay off a debt that POLITICIANS incurred. When you're talking to me, don't use such idiotic terms as "national debt." The nation doesn't owe anyone anything. The people who SPENT the money-- the crooks in DC--might owe it. I don't.
There's a very easy way to fix the "federal budget deficit" and "national debt" problems: ignore them out of existence. To any who have invested in oppression and government extortion, the joke's on you. You're not quite as bad as the thieves you financed, but you're pretty darn bad. And when the day comes, which is fast approaching, when all your "investments" disappear, don't come crying to me. You deserve it, for the exact same reason that people who invested in the slave trade industry two hundred years ago deserved to lose everything. Next time, try investing in trade, instead of theft.
Not long ago, I sent out a message titled "You Are the Militia," encouraging people to arm themselves. I said, more bluntly than many "gun rights" folks do, that I want you, the public, to have the ability to kill government agents, both military and police. No, I wasn't telling you to go out and start gunning down feds (as my message also explained), but I firmly believe--as did the Founders--that the people should always retain the ability to forcibly resist their own government.
Well, the government folk who monitor what I do didn't really like that. (Of course, that doesn't surprise me. Tyrants prefer to be able to use violence whenever they want, without their victims having the means to resist.) So Floyd Miller at the DOJ wrote a letter to the U.S. Probation office, complaining about my message.
(As many of you will recall, this is the same Assistant U.S. Attorney who lied to the court, lied to the jury, and violated federal law, the Constitution, and DOJ policy, in order to get me convicted for a crime he knew I hadn't committed. The whole story, in all its gruesome detail, is found in my book, "Kicking the Dragon," which I'm sure the DOJ is working on banning as we speak.)
Below is the text of Mr. Miller's letter to U.S. Probation. The comments inside brackets [like this] are mine.
- ----------< Begin Mr. Miller letter >------------
It is my understand that you are the probation officer who is supervising Larken Rose.
[Actually, I've been off of "supervised release" for almost a year.]
Mr. Rose was recently released from prison after serving time for a tax fraud conviction.
[First, it wasn't "recently"; it was almost two years ago. Second, this guy can't remember what he had me wrongfully imprisoned for. It was misdemeanor willful failure to file, not tax evasion, and not any kind of fraud.]
I am sending you an e-mail which Mr. Rose recently posted on his website which, at a minimum, is troubling to say the least.
[First it was sent to my e-mail list, not posted on my web site. Second, of course it troubles fascists to think of having to oppress a populace that is armed.]
I am not certain whether the contents of the e-mail violate any of the terms and conditions of his supervised release.
[Even when I was on supervised release, there was no condition about "Don't say stuff we don't like," or anything else having to do with saying or writing anything.]
His comments clearly run afoul of civilized behavior.
[This from the guy who signed off on having a dozen Gestapo morons carry out an armed invasion of my home because I said things they didn't want people hearing. How "civilized" was that? Below are some more examples of comments from other people that Mr. Miller would no doubt think "run afoul of civilized behavior."]
If you confront Mr. Rose with this matter, he will probably cite his First Amendment Right to say whatever he pleases about the United States.
[If I was still on supervised release, I would.]
My concern is that other individuals who read his postings might be mentally unstable and decide to follow the suggestions of Mr. Rose.
[First of all, the only suggestion I made was to buy a rifle. I specifically explained that "I'm not telling you to go start gunning down feds." So far the only mentally unstable person I know of who misunderstood my suggestion was Mr. Miller. Second, my message in one place qualified my suggestion with "If you are mentally stable," and in another place said that I encouraged "all sane, responsible people" to be armed.]
For this reason, I write to memorialize this situation.
[Where will the statue be erected? This guy is the master at trying to use big words to sound educated, only to demonstrate how ignorant he is. I think he meant he wanted to make a record of my heretical comments, but that's not what "memorialize" means. (He's the same one who claimed, at my trial, that I thought I was the only one in "the continental United States" who understood the tax code. Huh?)]
Please consider whether this is a matter which should be brought to Judge Baylson's attention.
- ------< End of Mr. Miller letter >-------
There are so many issues this brings up, I hardly know where to begin.
First of all, the letter, and even the government monitoring of what I do, is absolutely and obviously intended to have a "chilling effect" on free speech--mine as well as yours. Tyrants know that they can silence a LOT of dissent without banning anything. A letter or a visit from a government thug, a thinly veiled threat of "legal" action, or even just letting people know that what they say and do is being watched by disapproving government eyes, makes a LOT of people choose to shut up, in order to avoid trouble for themselves. (As for me, I'm too dense to take the hint, so don't expect me to shut up any time soon.)
Peter Goldberger, the attorney who handled my sentencing and appeal, apparently didn't like Mr. Miller's little censorship attempt either, and decided to write him a letter. It's worth noting that Mr. Goldberger and I have differing views about lots of things, including the Second Amendment, but we agree that people with different views have the right to EXPRESS them. (Or, as Voltaire put it, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.") The following is the text of the letter that Mr. Goldberger sent to Mr. Miller:
- ------< Beginning of Mr. Goldberger letter >---------
Thank you for sending me a copy of your October 14 letter to U.S. Probation Officer George Reed concerning my client, Larken Rose. Your "understanding" of this case is deeply flawed. Mr. Rose was not convicted of "tax fraud" but rather of misdemeanor failures to file returns. Nor was he "recently released from prison." His release from BOP custody occurred on December 29, 2006. His period of supervised release expired one year later.
Contrary to your unsubstantiated assertion, the e-mail you copied and enclosed was never "posted on his website." (The truth, as I'm sure you know, is that the IRS is "monitoring" Mr. Rose's communications, or at least some of them.) Your suggestion that his expression of his political and legal opinions might even conceivably "violate any of the terms and conditions of his supervised release"--even if he were presently under supervision-- and your further suggestion that the Probation Officer might "confront" him about his political writings are designed to achieve a "chilling effect" on that expression. As you should be aware, the First Amendment prohibits you from engaging in such conduct in your official capacity, even when you feel Mr. Rose's "comments" may "run afoul of civilized behavior." If some "mentally unstable" (or any other) person were to engage in illegal behavior, which you suggest is your sole "concern," that person can be held accountable. The First Amendment does not permit provocative (or even "troubling") writings to be suppressed because a reader might interpret (or misinterpret) them as calling for unlawful action.
The government's continued surreptitious monitoring of Mr. Rose violates his First Amendment right to express his opinions and conclusions--whether you and I agree with them or not. Even though such political surveillance by the Executive Branch has become all too common in the last eight years, it remains unconstitutional and un-American.
If you disagree with me on these important matters, I would be most interested to know the nature of and basis for that view.
- ------< End of Mr. Goldberger letter >---------
In addition to First Amendment issues, Mr. Miller's letter also brings to mind a bunch of philosophical issues relating to the Second Amendment.
Breaking the law is illegal. That's a truism. The government is never going to say that breaking the law, or resisting "law enforcers" is okay. And that is true no matter what "the law" is, be it laws against murder, laws enforcing slavery, or laws saying that all Jews have to get in the cattle cars to be shipped off to their deaths. (There is one noteworthy, really weird exception to be found in the New Hampshire state constitution, and a couple of others, which recognizes the "Right of Revolution"--the right of the people to resist oppressive government.)
MOST robberies, murders, and other assaults in history were "legal" (done by government agents), and therefore RESISTING them was, by definition, illegal. It was a CRIME to help a slave to escape; it was a CRIME to hide Jews from the Nazis; it was a crime to disobey the commands of the thugs of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. And so, for much of history, the good people were often the "law-breakers," and the "law-enforcers" were often the bad guys. And that's why I always want the people to have the means to forcibly resist the government. And I'm not the only one who has ever thought so.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." [Thomas Jefferson]
I wonder if Floyd Miller thinks these words "clearly run afoul of civilized behavior."
"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression." [James Madison]
I wonder if Mr. Miller would like to send a letter to the probation officer of the "Father of the Constitution" for making such a "troubling" comment.
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." [Alexander Hamilton]
Someone ought to confront this guy about his extremist, inflammatory rhetoric. And this guy, too:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." [George Washington] We can't allow talk like this! Something must be done!
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." [Patrick Henry]
Are these wackos suggesting that the common rabble should always retain the means to use violence against government agents? If we allow people to say this sort of thing, it might inspire some nutcase radicals to forcibly resist government! Oh, wait. It already DID inspire that. We now call it "The American Revolution."
As it happens, the JPFO just put out a great video about the Second Amendment, which can be found here:
(P.S. I have to wonder, since Floyd Miller is black, what he would think of someone a couple of hundred years ago advocating that slaves be armed, so that they could "illegally" win their freedom, by force if necessary. I'd be all for it. Would Mr. Miller advocate his own "legal" enslavement?)
False Confessions (May 26, 2008)
Back in history, authoritarian regimes would accuse dissidents of crimes, and then torture them until they confessed. It was a lot easier than trying to actually prove guilt using evidence and reason. Plus, it was a fine way to punish trouble-makers who hadn't actually committed any crimes, but who were making things inconvenient for those in power.
Luckily, today we have a system of due process, rule by law, and a fair administration of justice.
Actually, we don't. We still have a system that functions mainly by forced confessions. Consider the fact that the vast majority of cases are settled by "plea bargains"--most of those now in prison never had their day in court. Whether or not the guy actually did what he "confesses" to, a plea bargain is a coerced confession. It is the control freaks saying, "We'll be nicer to you if you say you're guilty, but we'll make things really bad if you make us have to take you to trial, to actually try to PROVE your guilt." And over 90% of the time, defendants accept the plea, and never go to trial. Sometimes--and I know of a few cases personally—people choose to plead guilty to something they DIDN'T do, rather than facing the possibility of receiving a worse sentence if they go to trial.
In my own case, the IRS only tried once to get me to plea bargain. I think it was pretty obvious that that wasn't going to happen (the phrase "when hell freezes over" came up). But that was not the end of their attempts at getting a forced confession out of me. After my conviction, at the sentencing hearing, the DOJ prosecutors were having tantrums because I hadn't yet recanted my legal conclusions regarding the income tax. Anyone at the trial knows that the government produced absolutely NOTHING disputing my conclusions, and thus didn't give me the slightest hint of a reason to doubt those conclusions, and yet Shawn Noud (DOJ prosecutor) complained that I was not properly "rehabilitated," because I hadn't yet admitted that I was “wrong about any of the 861, [my] 861 position.” To his credit, Judge Baylson answered by saying that he had never ordered me to say I was wrong, though he had "encouraged" me to file back returns, take down my web sites, etc.
Here are the judge's own words, from what he said right after the verdict in my case: “If you will reconsider your position, and you will file the tax returns for the years you have not done so, and enter into an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service for payment of back taxes due, penalties and interest, I will take that very much in your favor at the time of sentencing. If you refuse to do so, that will also be a factor at the time of sentencing.” In other words, if I would file back returns, reporting my income as taxable (whether I believed it was or not), the punishment would be lighter. I did. And if I hadn't done so, the punishment would have been a lot worse, probably several YEARS worse. So I signed returns, swearing that I thought I owed the tax, though I didn't. In other words, those returns constituted coerced false confessions.
But it gets worse. Mr. Noud then complained that, if I wasn't forced to say my legal conclusions were incorrect, I might later say that I “was forced to file tax returns.” So not only did he want a forced confession; he wanted me to be forced to NOT SAY that it was a forced confession. Of COURSE I was coerced into filing tax returns. Anyone with a brain cell could see that. But, like the inquisitors of the past, the DOJ thugs wanted me to confess to something that wasn't true, and then wanted to coerce me into saying that I WASN'T coerced. (Incidentally, that is an essential element of all plea bargains, too: the one being coerced to sign the plea has to sign a thing saying he wasn't coerced into it.)
Obviously some at the DOJ have the exact same mentality as the inquisitors during the Spanish Inquisition: You should recant your beliefs, not because we provided any evidence of logic to counter your beliefs (which we can't do), but because we HURT you. Think I'm exaggerating? Try this on for size:
Floyd Miller, the lead prosecutor in my case and in Tessa's case, openly admitted that if Tessa would do a plea bargain, he didn't expect her to do any jail time, and wouldn't ASK for any. But when she refused to do that--when she wouldn't plead guilty to something she hadn't done--Mr. Miller's response was, "This is war!" So, based on the DOJ's own comments, my wife did NOT spend a month in prison for committing any alleged crime; she spent a month in prison for NOT FALSELY CONFESSING.
Does anyone still think the "Department of Justice" gives a damn about justice? Again, in my case alone (and mine was only one among many, and not even the worst) the actual evidence demolishes all the rhetoric about "rule of law," "due process," and systems of "justice," and reveals the feds for what they are: lawless, dishonest, power-happy thugs. In fact, as I've said before, the number of ways in which the feds lied and cheated in my case alone could fill a book--and did.
If you want your own copy of the complete story, with all the evidence of government wrongdoing you could possibly want, you can order my new book online at: http://KickingTheDragon.com, or by sending $22 to the address shown below. (Orders will be filled in the order they were received, once the books come back from the printers, which should be in just a couple weeks.)
Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
(P.S. A couple people have suggested that a few of my recent messages were really thin-veiled attempts to get you to buy my new book, "Kicking the Dragon (Confessions of a Tax Heretic)." I apologize if anyone thought there was a veil. Just to make it perfectly clear: I want you to buy my book. Furthermore, I want my family to make some money off of it--maybe even enough to eventually break even from our ongoing extortion by the feds. However, I also want people to think that anything they buy from me is well worth the price, and this book is no exception.)
Sanction of the Victim (March 17, 2008)
Authoritarianism is so deeply ingrained in people that those who perpetrate evil in the name of "authority" often get indignant when you resist what they do, even if only with words. As long as the automatons are "doing their jobs," they think they have the right to be spared any inconvenience, or even any criticism.
I, on the other hand, think it's very important for the perpetrators of evil to feel the displeasure and/or animosity of their intended victims, even when the victims "comply" with authoritarian commands. Most evil is committed out of mere OBEDIENCE, instead of out of malice, and it takes a LOT of pressure to make people go against their obedience to authority.
Some people choose rather dramatic means of resisting. Here's one example:
While I don't advocate that people do such things, I certainly don't condemn those who do, either. Most people have enough to lose that they don't want to engage in civil disobedience (which, by definition, is "illegal," and exposes people to significant retaliation by the control freaks).
But even if, like me, you "cooperate" with a certain level of injustice for your own safety and (relative) freedom, don't ever give the oppressors the "sanction of the victim," as Ayn Rand called it. In other words, no matter what you go along with yourself to avoid trouble, don't ever talk as if the OPPRESSORS are in the right, and their VICTIMS are in the wrong. Whether it's a power-happy beat cop, an IRS bureaucrat, or any other person who imagines himself to have the right to forcible control you when you haven't committed force or fraud, be sure to politely remind them that what they are doing is evil, and that "just doing their job" doesn't make it okay.
Because of how we're all trained, like dogs, to grovel at the foot of every supposed "authority," however, this is often a difficult thing to do. During my stay as a political prisoner, one guy I was in with was amazingly eager and willing to repeatedly, yet politely, tell various BOP "guards" (who didn't actually "guard" anything, since it was a minimum security prison "camp") that they are nothing but unthinking pawns of an oppressive regime. It was fun watching their reactions, which often took the form of existential insecurity under a flimsy veil of pretended self- righteousness. Authoritarians like to imagine themselves as the good guys, but somewhere down inside a part of them knows it isn't true. I think those of us who actually believe in freedom should take every opportunity to remind the agents of evil that they aren't the good guys. In other words, even when you must bow to the demands of tyrants as a matter of self-preservation, be sure to convey the message of: "I will do as you say because you have the ability to lock me up or kill me if I don't. I don't do what you say because your commands are justified. They aren't."
In short, don't ever give your sanction and blessing to your own subjugation and victimization, even when you "comply."
Sincerely, Larken Rose
Accuracy Not a Priority (January 26, 2008)
There are countless 861-bashing articles coming from the mainstream media recently. Because of the Wesley Snipes trial, they really need to keep people from looking at it, so they say "frivolous" over and over and over again, and stress the nasty things which happen to anyone who says "861." And getting the facts right doesn't seem to be a high priority for them--insulting, demonizing, and threatening non-conformists is their only goal. The following link gives an example: a "story" (hit piece) written by "Enrolled Agent" (meaning she has IRS permission to represent people) Eva Rosenberg. It was posted on MSN's "money central," as well as the "FoxBusiness" web site.
Here are a few things the author got dead wrong:
1) The article claims that Wesley Snipes "was indicted on eight counts of tax evasion." There are NO counts of tax evasion (26 USC 7201) against Mr. Snipes. There are two charges relating to filing claims for refund, and six charges of misdemeanor willful failure to file tax returns.
2) The article calls me a "tax protestor," quoting Steven H. Kassel, another "Enrolled Agent" who has been demonstrating profound ignorance of the law for years on online discussion boards. A tax protestor is (obviously) someone who protests a tax, which I'm not doing.
3) The article says I maintained a web site "challenging Section861 and the constitutionality of the income tax." Both, of course, are dead wrong. I don't "challenge" ANY section of the tax code, and I've been saying the tax is perfectly constitutional for almost a decade.
(Amazingly, the article says that for the details of my trial, one can go to the "Quatloos" web site, as if that substance-free slander-fest is accurate or reliable. If you want the details of my trial, stand by for a book which QUOTES what happened.)
4 & 5) The article includes this: "Do tax protesters lose every single case? Have they no victories whatsoever? Well, there is one. Tommy K. Cryer was acquitted of tax evasion in U.S. District Court in Louisiana on July 1, 2007." Two more glaring errors (not including the continuing misuse of the term "tax protestor"). First of all, Mr. Cryer wasn't tried for tax evasion. More importantly, there is "one" victory? What about Lloyd Long? What about Vernice Kuglin? What about Joseph banister? What about the 17 defendants in the huge case in California that were all acquitted? (The case name eludes me at the moment.)
(The article then tries to downplay Mr. Cryer's acquittal, by saying that when you "read further," you "learn that he was only acquitted of misdemeanor charges for willfully failing to file his 2000 and 2001 tax returns." That's all he was TRIED for! So he was "only" acquitted of the ONLY charges against him.)
6 & 7) Speaking of Mr. Cryer's acquittal, the article says this: "Once again, a court case didn't touch on the constitutionality of income taxes. All it did was settle a civil matter of willfulness." Two more blunders in one sentence: Mr. Cryer wasn't challenging the constitutionality of the tax, and the issue of willfulness is entirely a CRIMINAL, not a "civil" matter.
The question is, are such "reporters" so incompetent that they don't KNOW how many things they're getting wrong? Or do they not care whether they're telling the truth, as long as the message serves their agenda?...
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
Being Reasonable (December 18, 2007)
It seems that when collectivists run out of other excuses for their anti-freedom agenda, they fall back on calling real limiting of government "unreasonable" or "impractical." For example, Mona Charen recently opined that doing away with the IRS (as Ron Paul suggests) isn't a "serious" proposal. The underlying message is clear: dramatic change--in fact, any change that is significant at all--is unreasonable, impractical, and so on, BECAUSE it would be a dramatic change.
What an odd concept. Suppose your morning ritual consisted of getting up, taking a shower, getting dressed, having breakfast, hammering a nail into your foot, and driving to work. And suppose you had been doing that for all of your working career, until some radical, wacko extremist suggested that perhaps you would be better off if you completely removed the sticking-a-nail-in-your-foot part of your morning routine. "Well, I can't just stop it entirely! That's impractical! It's unreasonable! Perhaps I could use smaller nails, or hammer them in not quite as deep, but do away with the act altogether? Come on, be reasonable!"
Allow me to quote myself (from my book, "How to Be a Successful Tyrant"):
Familiar Chains Another huge way in which the peasants' lack of objectivity helps you is their relativistic view of life. If they grew up in slavery, they will think that slavery is inevitable and proper. They will assume that whatever their rulers have always done (as far back as they can remember), rulers always should do. They will choose familiar tyranny over "upsetting the apple cart" every time.
Peasants fear change. Like animals that have been caged for too long, a group of peasants that has been enslaved for decades, if you offer to "let them out" (i.e., give them freedom), will beg to be let back into the cage. Peasants crave whatever is predictable and familiar, even if it happens to be tyranny. So train them to become accustomed to tyranny, and most of them won't even want to be free.
This cannot be overstated: the outlook of "that's just how things are" is the tyrant's best friend. If the peasants are accustomed to giving you a chunk of what they earn, they will think that's how things should be, and they will literally be afraid of not being extorted. If the "government" regulates everything, they will assume that that is necessary and good. If they grew up in a society in which all parents must surrender their children over to government-controlled indoctrination centers (euphemism: "public schools"), they will assume that it is how things should be.
Put another way, the peasants decide what things should be like from the starting point of what things are already like. They might want a little bit more of one thing, or a little bit less of another, but only very rarely will a peasant come to the realization that your entire regime, and everything it does, is insane, unnecessary, and destructive to society. This is because reaching such a conclusion requires both objective analysis (which in turn requires independent thought) and intellectual confidence.
Republican politicians, and 99% of their supporters in the media, don't have a shred of principle among the bunch of them. You see, a principle is a position you take because it is what is RIGHT, even if it's unpopular, or dangerous, or not politically expedient, or different from what is being done today. What does it mean when principles are outranked by what is "practical" or "reasonable"? It means those principles are worthless.
A little over a century ago, doing away with slavery seemed to be a pretty darn "impractical" and "unreasonable" thing to do. And it was, but it was also the RIGHT thing to do. For that matter, having a full-scale revolution against the British Empire was pretty darn impractical and unreasonable, but in retrospect we applaud it. So when did this nation become such a bunch of wimps that we won't get rid of evil, anti-American, tyrannical abominations like the IRS, because doing so would be "impractical"? When did "give me liberty or give me death" get changed into "don't make waves; just go with the flow"? Often one's choices are to make waves, or to drown. This country is about to do one or the other, by either "making waves" with Ron Paul, or by sinking with the latest in a long line of "reasonable," "practical" tyrants at the helm.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
Self-Ownership (August 26, 2007)
Almost everyone is a part-time collectivist. Most people have a few things which THEY want imposed on everyone else via "authority," but when something they don't like is imposed upon THEM, they get all self-righteous and indignant about it. Well, to paraphrase (and slightly mangle) the "golden rule," if you don't want other people doing it to you, DON'T DO IT TO THEM!
If I go around randomly killing people, others have the right to stop me by force, not because they own me, but because they own THEMSELVES, which logically implies the right of self-preservation. But if I'm not stomping on someone else's self-ownership, NO ONE has the right to use force to control me. If I want to smoke pot (I don't), have a rifle (I do), wear women's underwear (I don't), eat cheeseburgers (I sometimes do), marry an aardvark (I don't), say nasty things about politicians (I do), or hit myself in the head with a baseball bat (I've felt like it on occasion, but haven't yet), no one has the right to forcibly stop me. And calling the control "law" makes exactly NO difference to whether the control is justified. If the "government" doesn't OWN me, it has exactly ZERO right to do a thing to me, unless it's defending someone ELSE'S self-ownership (in which case, anyone would have the right to stop me).
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." [Thomas Jefferson]
Sadly, people rarely think from principles, so they play both sides of the fence. Your average "liberal" will holler about his rights to smoke pot if he wants to, and then turn around and advocate the robbery of almost everyone in the country, in order to fund things HE likes (art, welfare, whatever). Meanwhile, the average "conservative" insists that he has a right to own firearms and drink his beer, but wants the "law" to forcibly stop someone else from doing LSD.
"Boo hoo! My rights are being infringed!" Well, if you're advocating that anyone ELSE'S rights be infringed, serves you right! If you think it's just fine for the "legal" thugs to kick down doors, drag people away, and put them in cages, because they had a LEAF the politicians don't approve of, then when those same thugs rob and control YOU, don't whine about it. Or, to quote a far more eloquent expression of the same sentiment:
"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck." [Frederick Douglass]
Sadly, things are discussed in terms of legislation so often these days that most people have a hard time differentiating between "That's a bad idea" and "That should be illegal." There are LOTS of choices people make that are stupid or dangerous (physically or otherwise)--everything from eating too much junk food, to snorting coke, to skateboarding, to sitting in front of a computer too much (that's me), to sleeping around, to watching too much TV, to drinking too much beer--the list goes on and on. Acknowledging that you have no right to use VIOLENCE to stop those things is worlds away from saying you CONDONE such choices. But if you want to be allowed the responsibility to make your own choices, and you don't want to be a complete hypocrite (and a fascist), you have to also allow other people to make choices you think are stupid.
My advice: Treat everyone as if he owns himself. Because he does. Don't advocate that he be forced, "legally" or otherwise, to do ANYTHING, except for refraining from infringing on someone else's self-ownership. And if you do advocate using non-defense force, don't pretend to believe in freedom; and when you then find such unjustified force aimed at YOU, you damn well deserve it.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
On Independence Day and Flag Burning (July 4, 2007)
Today is Independence Day. Today Americans across the country will show great reverence for an empty symbol, while showing disdain for a worthwhile principle. We celebrate with great fervor the signing of the Declaration of Independence, while showing absolute contempt for the ideas expressed therein.
What is it we are celebrating? Independence? Independence from what? We rejoice at having thrown off a tyrant who taxed us at an average of two to three percent, in order to establish new tyrants who tax us at over fifty percent. Having been thoroughly indoctrinated into the insane notion that "our" government supports liberty and justice for all, we schizophrenically condemn the actions of King George III, while remaining silent about the far more intrusive, oppressive, unjust actions of the current tyrants we mislabel as "representatives."
Let us set aside our picnics and parades for a moment, and think back to this nation's birth, and see what it is we should be celebrating. In his famous "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech, Patrick Henry stated that "it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope," and that "We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts." How many eyes are shut in this country today? How many Americans today "having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?" On the other hand, how many Americans have this attitude?: "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."
Few. Very few. And who could say the following today, and not be condemned by the masses as an extremist lunatic?: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."
And what of the Declaration itself? How many Americans who pledge allegiance to a flag today can even remotely relate to the message of that document? The Declaration has become a revered relic, whose words have lost all meaning to most of those who worship it. We repeat the words, but the spirit of the message is long since dead. Let us revive it, put it into the modern vernacular, and assess just what the modern American response to the sentiments expressed therein might be: When a government infringes upon the rights of the individual, instead of protecting those rights, the people have the right and duty to throw off that government, violently and illegally if necessary. How many flag-wavers believe that? One percent? Probably less.
History shows that people will tolerate injustice they are accustomed to, rather than doing what it takes to get rid of a familiar system which oppresses them. Amen. And so it is with the dim, fading shadow of this formerly great nation. As long as we have our couches and our TVs, we will do nothing about tyranny in this land. So long as we are enslaved in comfort, we do not resist.
Much of the Declaration is a list of oppressions and injustices, "injuries and usurpations," committed by King George III. The Declaration proclaimed such wrong-doing to a "candid world," to justify their illegal, treasonous (and righteous) rejection of the government they were under. In short, the complaints of the Founders against King George III pale in comparison to the complaints modern Americans should have against the far more oppressive regime they now call "their" government. As one example, the Founders complained that the British Crown had "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." In contrast to modern America, that complaint seems laughable. Today almost three millions people are employed by the federal government alone: a full one percent of the population. State and local governments employ even more. The level of micromanaging and regulation is far beyond what King George ever would have dreamed of. One look at the Code of Federal Regulations, which takes up an entire book shelf, will tell you that.
Desperate to hallucinate something superior about this country, people now resort to saying that, though we're not actually free, we're more free than other countries. In reality, however, the U.S. does not have the most freedom, either economically or socially, anymore. In fact, the U.S. has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.
So what is it we should celebrate about this country, and its independence? There is no substantive reason to celebrate. All that is left is unthinking pack mentality: we "love" it simply because we're here, the same way the people in every other country "love" what they are familiar with--the same empty herd mentality which enables tyrants to perpetually play the game of war.
How many this "Independence Day" will say the following words?: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands." Only the familiarity of those words, and our unthinking repeating of them, hide from us the evil insanity underlying such so-called "patriotism." Blind allegiance to a flag and a government is nothing to be proud of. (The reference at the end to "liberty and justice for all" is now nothing but a sad Orwellian lie.)
The ideals which drove the American Revolution are stone dead in the hearts and minds of the American people, who have been trained to view subservience and obedience as virtues. The following are the words of a current leading contender for the Presidency: "Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do" (Rudy Giuliani). And millions would vote for him.
To wave the American flag in public, to carry it in parades, either demonstrates profound psychological denial, or profound historical and philosophical ignorance. If the flag represents what this country and its government has become, it deserves to be burned in contempt and disgust. If it represents the ideals from which this country was born, it deserves to be burned out of respect and sorrow, rather than desecrated by flying it atop the giant shrines of tyranny in a land where freedom has died.
Sincerely, Larken Rose
Advocating Your Own Enslavement (May 10,2007)
Many liberals argue that, while there really are nasty tyrants around the world, Republican politicians like war only because it preserves their oil interests, allows them to set up puppet governments, triggers a nationalistic, authoritarian-worshiping response among the people, creates a common enemy which is a distraction from their own misconduct, or gives them power in other ways.
Meanwhile, many conservatives believe that Democratic politicians want a welfare state and all manner of government "programs," not to help people who deserve it, but to essentially buy votes, and keep people helpless and dependent, thus increasing the power of politicians.
Well, they're BOTH right. What is amazing is how the pack-mentality of the political-party adherents causes selective blindness. Why is it they can so easily see the bad intentions of the would-be tyrants in the OTHER "party," but can't recognize the EXACT SAME METHODS when employed by the "party" THEY are loyal to?
For example, Rush Limbaugh does an excellent job of illustrating how the leftist politicians support gun control, public education, Social Security, all manner of welfare programs, confiscatory taxes, etc., not because they give a damn about the common good, but because those things GIVE THE POLITICIANS POWER. Meanwhile, for some odd reason, Mr Limbaugh (and many others) can't recognize that the supposedly "conservative" politicians support causes like a huge military, perpetual war, the bogus "war on drugs," and other pro-authoritarian agendas, for the same reason: to increase their OWN POWER.
When someone associates himself with some group, team, or party, he WANTS to think well of it (and think ill of its opponents). But the lengths to which people CHOOSE blindness is amazing. People remain so focused on some opponent--be it a foreign country or just a different political party--that they fail to see that there is only ONE thing their so-called "leaders" ever care about: their own power.
If you believe Republican politicians care about individual freedom, you're off your rocker. If you believe Democrat politicians care about individual freedom, you're off your rocker.If you believe that the people who run for public office--who try to get into POSITIONS OF POWER--don't WANT to control you (i.e., want to leave you in freedom), you're delusional. Be they Republicans Democrats, or anything else, they seek those positions because they WANT TO DOMINATE OTHERS. Why do you think both parties so rarely REPEAL stupid authoritarian controls (even those they pretend to oppose), and instead find some NEW form of government control to advocate?
There are extremely rare exceptions, and I hope Ron Paul is one of them. Even Ronald Reagan, who often proclaimed government to be the problem, not the solution, ended up advocating fascist authoritarian control via the "war on drugs," among other things. That's what an authoritarian system does: it encourages ever- expanding authoritarian power, and squelches any attempt to reduce such power. The failed "Republican revolution" of 1994 demonstrated that quite well, showing that even people who proudly proclaim an intent to REDUCE the power and size of "government" will end up supporting MORE and BIGGER "government." It's the nature of the beast. Controlling people is what "government" does; it's what it IS. Why would anyone expect a system of CONTROL to strive to do away with itself? You might as well "vote" for a Mafia boss who promises to do away with the Mafia.
Why would anyone believe that voting between two people, each of whom is SEEKING A POSITION OF ENORMOUS POWER, would ever result in more individual freedom? And why do you think everyone is indoctrinated--by the mainstream media, the "education" system, and the government--to believe that "democracy" is what leads to freedom and justice?
If you don't understand how modern tyrants scheme and manipulate, you will end up inadvertently helping their attempts to achieve power. (If you vote, you already have.) Your intentions won't matter. Your goals won't matter. Your principles won't matter. Their power will increase, and your freedom will decrease. You will complain, protest, and vote again. And you will get more of the same.
"The truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame?
Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again---truth be told--if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to [politician]. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent."
That quote is from the movie, "V for Vendetta." If you haven't seen it yet, see it. And, while I'm giving authoritarian-style commands, I might as well command you to read my book, "How To Be a Successful Tyrant" , before you vote again, or support any "party," or any "government" program, be it welfare, military, or otherwise. Stop accidentally advocating your own enslavement. Know your enemy, and stop HELPING him. Furthermore, think for yourself! I command it!
Sincerely, Larken Rose
January 25, 2007
Suppose today you learned that the U.S. Congress passed a law that said the following:
Section 1: A tax is hereby imposed on the importation of automobiles into the U.S., including all cars, pick-up trucks, vans, and SUVs.
Section 2: See Section 3, which provides that the vehicles listed in Section 1 may in some cases be excluded from the tax imposed by this Act.
Section 3: Automobiles manufactured by the following companies are subject to the tax imposed by this Act: Honda, Mazda, Mercedes, Peugeot and Ferrari.
Now suppose you were in the business of importing Hyundai's into the U.S. Would you think the tax applied to the business you were doing, or not? While you do import CARS, where the law specifies which MANUFACTURERS are subject to the tax (a different issue entirely), Hyundai isn't there. Should you just ASSUME that the tax also would apply to Hyundais, even if that's not specifically pointed out?
There is a principle of law, expressed in Latin as "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," which dictates that where the law specifically lists matters to which it applies, an "irrefutable inference" must be drawn that what was NOT listed was intended to be omitted. (It only makes sense for the law to work that way, so we don't have to guess at what the law requires.) Specifically regarding tax laws, the Supreme Court says that they should NOT be interpreted in a way that includes "matters not specifically pointed out" (Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151). (The Court then said that in case of doubt, tax laws should be interpreted in favor of the citizen, NOT in favor of the government.) So, in our example above, if the law doesn't specifically point out that Hyundais are subject to the tax, you should conclude that they are NOT.
Now compare that hypothetical example to a few actual citations from the current income tax regulations:
Section 1.61-1 says that "gross income" means "all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law." By itself that doesn't tell us much, since it just means "everything that isn't exempt is taxable," which is a truism.
Sections 1.861- 8(a)(3) and 1.861-8(b)(1) say that the items of income listed in Section 61 of the tax code (things such as compensation for services, interest, rents, business income, etc.) make up what are called "classes of gross income." Then those regulations say that those "classes of gross income" "may include EXCLUDED income." In other words, we're again told that they may be exempt. And the regs direct us to another section...
Section 1.861-8T(d)(2) gives a list of non-exempt income. On the list is certain foreign income of Americans, U.S. income of foreigners, and other matters related to international corporations and federal possessions. The domestic income of the average American, on the other hand, is conspicuously
NOT on the list.
So we're told about certain items of income, we're told they're sometimes exempt, and then we're told that income is NOT exempt when it comes from certain types of INTERNATIONAL trade. And this is just what we saw with the older income tax regulations, as well. Compare that to our hypothetical car-importing tax.
I want to interrupt things here for a quick word about "prejudice." People often "pre-judge" things before they have all of the evidence--sometimes before they have ANY of the evidence. That is "prejudice." When looking at the hypothetical car- importing tax above, you have no prejudice, because you've never heard of it before. You look at what it says, and based on that alone decide what it means. On the other hand, when it comes to the federal income tax, the average American starts enormously biased and prejudiced, because he thinks he ALREADY KNOWS what the law taxes. Hardly anyone has seen the tax laws; they just go by what "everyone knows." Since most people start with a deeply ingrained belief that most Americans owe federal income taxes, when they look at the law itself they will be starting with the foregone conclusion that it means that most Americans owe the tax. Without that prejudice, it would be perfectly reasonable--dang near unavoidable--based on the citations above, to suspect that the tax applies to INTERNATIONAL trade, but not to purely domestic commerce. But since that flies in the face of "conventional wisdom," people have a hard time even considering the possibility that that could be true. Our long-held beliefs and baseless assumptions get in the way of our objectivity. Consider the following:
1) The tax code has an index. If you look under "Income tax" and look up "citizens," you will find only entries about citizens living or working OUTSIDE of the United States. Why?
2) If you look at the instruction booklet for the infamous 1040 form, where it talks about the issue of "income," it says that Americans must report income they receive from OUTSIDE of the United States. It does NOT say the same about their domestic income. Why?
3) Most of IRS Publication 525, titled "Taxable and Nontaxable Income," deals with which ITEMS of income are or are not specifically exempted. But when it comes to the issue of COMMERCE, the only thing the publication says is that Americans must report income they receive from OUTSIDE of the United States. Why?
4) In fact, EVERYWHERE you look in the law books regarding the issue of commerce, you will find INTERNATIONAL trade discussed. The IRS has something called a "cumulative bulletin," in which all its rulings are published. When it comes to income from INSIDE the U.S., the entries are always about foreigners. When the income is from OUTSIDE of the U.S., American citizens and residents are mentioned. But again, domestic income of the average American is NEVER mentioned. Why?
5) Subchapter N of the federal income tax statutes is titled "Tax based on income from sources within or without the United States." As the name implies, this is where the law addresses the issue of COMMERCE: when domestic income is taxable, and when foreign income is taxable. Once again, it's all about FOREIGN income of Americans and domestic income of FOREIGNERS. And once again, the domestic income of Americans is not mentioned at all. Why?
6) To top it all off, as we'll see in the upcoming messages, there are specific sections of the tax code which give the rules about determining taxable DOMESTIC income (and different sections for determining taxable foreign income), and for over 80 YEARS those sections have showed income from within the U.S. to be taxable for FOREIGNERS, but NOT for the average American. Why? Isn't it a little weird for the rules about domestic income to FAIL TO SAY that such income is taxable for the 100,000,000 million Americans who report it every year?
There are a lot of things in the law itself which suggest that the tax is a tax on INTERNATIONAL trade, not a tax on the income of the average American. But since most people are so sure (based on what they've always heard, but not based on the law) that all Americans owe this tax, they are actually incapable of believing their own eyes. They immediately seek to explain away the evidence, in order to preserve their long-held, but utterly baseless beliefs. In the next message, we'll see what I consider to be the most blatant example of that.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
STOP THE LIE in Copyright , MMALinks.netCopyright , DishonestMoney.com
