Happy Thanksgiving all!

What are you thankful for?

I am thankful for the few Americans that are willing to stand up to this tyranny!

What would you do if someone told you for the purposes of taxation, you were not an employee when you went to work as a private-sector worker? Would you believe them?

26 USC § 3401(c) defines an “employee” as follows:

Employee For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

Admittedly, at first glance you read the word “employee” and go, oh yeah, I’m an employee. But let’s break out some old school grammar and get down to what this says.

The first part of the sentence are the people eligible – “officer, employee, or elected official.” The second part of the sentence are the location limiters – “United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing”

So what we have is…
Officer, employee, or elected official of… the United States
Officer, employee, or elected official of… a State
Officer, employee, or elected official of… any political subdivision thereof
Officer, employee, or elected official of… District of Columbia
Officer, employee, or elected official of… any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing

Are you any of those?

You may be going, “well, it says that the definition ‘includes’!” Of course. In laymen’s thought, why would congress name “Employees of… whatever” if the term “employee” includes all these employees already. If you are an employee of the United States (think, FBI agent or something), then aren’t you already an “employee” by common definition. Of course you are. So why define it again?

The answer is simple, because when words are defined in law, they ignore all common definitions. For instance if Congress decided to say “for the purpose of this chapter, ‘gas’ is to be defined as natural gas” then whenever you read the word “gas” then you would know that the law was not referring to gas that you pump at BP or QuickTrip, but rather natural gas.

Likewise, for Title 26 (tax law) the word “includes” is specifically defined. So, we can conclude that the word “includes” no longer means “in addition to” but rather whatever they defined it to be. In this case, in horrible wording, they defined it to mean inclusive of things within the same scope. Confusing right?

Let’s try to make an example. “For the purposes of this chapter ‘gas’ includes natural gas and bio gas.” So for this, we would conclude that natural gas and bio gas are “gasses” but we could also conclude that gas from landfills is included as well because landfill gasses are a type of bio gas. We could also say that town gas is included because it is a sub-type of natural gas. However, we could not conclude that gas put in your car to be a “gas” under this law.

So, who cares if you are or are not an employee? Well, everyone should! Only these select “employees” are the ones that make “wages” (also a custom term) and wages are taxable. Title 26 does not specify how to handle your money if you are not making “wages.” So if you are not an “employee” and you don’t make “wages” then you are probably paying more taxes then you should, permitting that you read and know the law.

Check it out. You might be surprised.

It seems like a no brainer to me. If you are having money problems, you need to sit down and know where all the money is going. With the government, it is no different.

Enter HR1207 and S604, Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 and Sunshine Act of 2009 respectively. The former has 313 co-sponsors and the later has 30 co-sponsors.  So this equates to 72% of the House and 30% of the Senate that are signing onto this bill. So why has this bill barely moved with so much support? HR1207 has been sitting since Feb 26, 2009 and seems to be getting currently stalled in Committee.

Why?

Why would we not want to audit the Federal Reserve and learn where our money is going? My only answer is… because someone doesn’t want us to see.

If you are in support of knowing where our money goes, please consider doing a few things – (1) Sign the HR1207 petition HERE (2) Sign the S604 petition HERE and (3) Contacting your Congress-critter HERE.

As our government spends more and more it seems wise to have more control over the money we have to give them.

There is a new bill out, HR1919, that will make it possible to stop the withholding of money from your paycheck (No more mandatory W-4).

I love this for multiple reasons. First, it will allow you to keep your money and spend it on things you want and need. If you want to, you can invest it and make some money with it. This is versus giving it to the government and earning nothing off of it. (In other words, $500 in your bank account earning interest for a year is better than paying $500 to the government and earning no interest).

Secondly, it will cause the government to be more responsible. It is easier for us to ignore the fiscal doings of government when the money never even hits our pocket. If it is in our pocket and we have to cut a check at the end of the year, we are more likely to wonder where that money is going. I also think that it will make people more aware of how wasteful the government is and how much we TRULY do give up to the government.

Third, and this may not make sense to some of you, it will cut the presumption that we are voluntarily indulging in taxable activities. What is and what is not a taxable activity.

111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1919
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding of income and social security taxes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2009
Ms. FOXX (for herself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. BARTLETT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. PENCE, Mr. KINGSTON, and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means——————————————————————————–
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding of income and social security taxes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Withholding Tax Repeal Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) At the onset of the Civil War, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which imposed a tax on personal incomes and to assure timely collection, taxes were ‘withheld at the source’ by employers.
(2) The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the war and in 1872, the income tax was abolished and along with it, the Federal withholding mandate.
(3) With passage of the 16th amendment to the Constitution, Congress swiftly passed legislation creating a Federal income tax, withheld before employee salaries were paid.
(4) In response to growing taxpayer criticism of the withholding mandate, Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo stated that ‘it would be very advantageous to . . . do away with the withholding of income tax at the source’ because it would ‘eliminate a great deal of criticism which has been directed against the law’; a statement reflecting the sentiment which ultimately led to the repeal of Federal withholding authority in 1917.
(5) In the 1920s and 1930s, income taxes were due on March 15 following the end of the tax year and could be paid either in one lump sum on that date or in quarterly installments.
(6) With the onset of World War II, fearing that taxpayers might refuse to pay the higher tax rates and surcharges associated with funding the war effort, Federal officials, lawmakers, and political leaders such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the military crisis to draw on Americans’ sense of patriotism and resurrect the Federal withholding authority as a ‘temporary wartime measure’.
(7) The campaign to reinstitute a permanent system of withholding overcame public hostility with the passage of the Withholding Tax Act of 1943 which incorporated suggestions proffered by Beardsley Ruml to eliminate individuals’ 1942 tax liabilities by counting amounts paid or withheld in 1943 as tax payments for that year.
(8) Since that time, Congress has stubbornly refused to repeal the Federal withholdings mandate contained in the Withholding Tax Act.
(9) In fiscal year 2007, the Internal Revenue Service refunded overpayments amounting to over $248,625,001,000 more than actual individual income tax liabilities, effectively denying interest payments otherwise owed to taxpayers and amounting to a hidden tax.
(10) These overpayments are returned annually in the form of tax refunds to taxpayers who often confuse the payments as a reward.
(11) According to an April 2007 report released by the Joint Economic Committee, millions of families, many in the bottom fifth income percentile, have either zero tax liability or receive a net transfer from the Government due to the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Child Tax Credit. Those without Federal tax liability would benefit the most from keeping their entire paycheck, rather than temporarily surrendering portions to the Government.
(12) The absence of the Federal withholdings mandate leaves employers and employees free to negotiate alternative, private means of collecting and paying Federal income taxes, thereby allowing individuals to voluntarily earn interest on their withhholdings.
(13) The Federal withholdings mandate allows the Federal Government to disguise tax increases and hampers Federal accountability and transparency by requiring the assistance of an intermediary tax collector.
(14) Complying with the Federal withholdings mandate imposes costly burdens and legal liabilities on employers forced to act as de facto IRS agents, without compensation for lost time and resources.
(15) Referring to the Federal withholding mandate in his work Public Finance in Democratic Process: Fiscal Institutions and Individual Choice, 1986 Nobel Prize winning economist James Buchanan stated that ‘The individual who does not have possession of income before paying it out cannot’ sense ‘the real cost of public services in a manner comparable to that experienced in a genuine act of outpayment.’.
(16) In CATO Institute study, Charlotte Twight has noted that ‘[W]ithholding is the paramount administrative mechanism enabling the Federal Government to collect, without significant protest, sufficient private resources to fund a vastly expanded welfare state.’
(17) The Federal tax withholding mandate was listed by Human Events in 2005 as the fourth ‘Most Harmful Government Program’ and seventh ‘Worst Tax Law’ in 2006.
(18) The National Taxpayers Union notes that the incremental nature of withholding masks the true cost of Federal income taxes, which would be much more apparent if individuals had to write monthly, quarterly, or annual checks to the Federal Government.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purposes of this Act are–

(1) to increase transparency and accountability in the Federal tax system by providing the public with a more accurate account of–

(A) the annual tax burden; and
(B) the Federal budget deficit;
(2) to decrease the overall tax burden and increase the personal wealth of taxpayers by allowing for the personal collection of interest during the fiscal year on overpayments that are otherwise used by the Federal Government to partly avoid interest payments;
(3) to decrease the burden on employers by freeing them from the task of collecting income tax withholdings from their employees; and
(4) to end the deceptive practice of masking higher tax rates from taxpayers.
SEC. 4. REPEAL OF FEDERAL INCOME AND SOCIAL SECURITY TAX WITHHOLDING MANDATE.

(a) In General- The following sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are hereby repealed:

(1) Section 3102 (relating to deduction of social security tax from wages).
(2) Section 3202 (relating to deduction of railroad retirement tax from compensation).
(3) Chapter 24 (relating to income tax withholding).
(b) Requirement of Estimated Tax Payments for Employee Social Security Taxes- Subsection (f) of section 6654 of such Code is amended by striking ‘minus’ at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ‘plus’, by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4), and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:

‘(3) the taxes imposed by section 3101(a) and 3201(a), minus’.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to amounts paid on or after the first January 1 occurring after 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. CONTINUED VOLUNTARY TAX WITHHOLDING.

(a) Authority of the IRS- Nothing in this Act may be construed to limit the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to accept voluntary tax payments from employers electing to continue collecting Federal income taxes from employees.
(b) Voluntary Employer Participation- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent voluntary employer sponsored withholding of Federal income taxes on behalf of employees.
(c) Voluntary Employee Participation- Nothing in this Act shall be construed–

(1) to require any employee to participate in an employer Federal income tax withholding system, or
(2) to prevent any election of an employee to opt in to an employer Federal income tax withholding system, with all terms and conditions for participation being negotiable between the employee and employer.

If you support such an idea, I urge you to write your Representative.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time.

Pretty scary if you ask me.

John was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called ‘pullets,’ and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs.
He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.
This took a lot of time,  so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters.
Each bell had a different tone,  so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing.
Now, he could sit on the porch And fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.
 John’s favourite rooster, old Butch,  was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch’s bell hadn’t rung at all!
When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for  cover.
To John’s amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn’t ring.
He’d sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.  John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well. Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making…  Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren’t paying attention.
    
 
Vote carefully next year, the bells are not always audible.

YES! Self-verification for a free-government-paid-cell-phone. LOL. What next, LCD TVs?

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx

The truth is SO SEXY!

When someone mentions “slavery” we immediately think of black people being forced to work for free. If they do not work for us for free then we beat them with fists, whips, or threaten death. Sure the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, but I contend that slavery still continues today and with even greater fervency than it did in the past.

The 13th Amendment reads:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Definitions:
Slavery:

Peonage:
18 USC 1581: (a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)
Forced Labor:
18 USC 1589: Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person— (1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person; (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or (3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)

Involuntary Servitude:

18 USC 1584: Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)

So what the 13th Amendment outlaws is you forcing people to work for free for repayment of a debt. You cannot hold someone captive by phyiscal force, threats of physical force, or legal coercion to be bound into compulsory service against ones will. In Bailey v. Alabama 219 U.S. 219 (1911) it was decided by the Supreme Court that one could not be forced to refund money (link).

Later on in 1988 in the Supreme Court case of United States v. Kozminski it was decided that you could not place someone in [psychological] fear of involuntarily servitude. The Court held that, “[a] holding in involuntary servitude occurs when an individual coerces another into his service by improper or wrongful conduct that is intended to cause, and does cause, the other person to believe that he or she has no alternative but to perform labor.”

With this said, what does that make of the taxation scheme of America?

We are told that we must pay taxes. The good old saying of “Two things in life are certain, death and taxes” is familiar to many Americans. But, why are taxes so certain? If the 13th Amendment does not allow us to be forced into physical labor and the courts have ruled that you also cannot be forced to believe that you have no option of working against your will, then why is it that you are working against your will?

If you don’t think that you are enslaved, then try to tell the IRS or the government that you are not going to pay taxes anymore. They are going to threaten you with penalties, fees, court, levying on your paycheck, coming and taking your property, and lastly… putting you in prison. Back in the “slave days” if a salve said they were not going to work for free, they were beat. Today, if you say that you are not going to work for free, the IRS threatens and sends the dogs after you. Same thing but different methods of accomplishing the same thing – salvery.

In United States v. Warren, 772 F.2d 827, 833-834 (CA11 1985) the court specifically said, “Various forms of coercion may constitute a holding in involuntary servitude. The use, or threatened use, of physical force to create a climate of fear is the most grotesque example of such coercion.” (link)

Ask any American, do you fear the IRS and they will probably say “yes” or they will say “no, because I do everything they say.” I plea now to you, how is this not a “climate of fear”? Either you pay the government out of fear or you do whatever they say out of fear (i.e. highway robbery).

It is important to note at this point that I am not against taxation itself. But, I am against forced taxation. If you tell me that I must pay taxes on every dollar I earn, then how is that not slavery? Would it be any different if the government told you that you can keep 100% of whatever you make at Job A and then you have to come to Job B (government factory or something) and work for free? I contend, no. Just because the government does not force you to work in a certain location, them demanding a percentage of your earnings is still them forcing you to work for free – is it not? If you do not understand what the difference is between forced taxation (direct) and voluntary taxation (indirect), I suggest you read up on each and decide what type of taxation the Federal/State Income Tax really is. (Crash course: Direct taxation is a tax that you cannot avoid and essentially says, you are a human so pay it. Indirect taxation is a tax that you can avoid, such as a tax on liquor which you can circumvent by distilling your own, buying from someplace that does not have tax [Indian Resevervation maybe?], or simply by not buying liquor.).

If you disagree with me, then I’d be happy to entertain your thoughts. I’ve yet to find anyone that can rebutt my case above. Even if you feel that paying taxes is your duty then that still does not answer my question of whether or not taxation as it is now is slavery or not. The issue is, does the government force you to give them a cut of your labor pay otherwise they threaten you?

Furthermore, if you agree with me then why are you continuing to be a slave – either by choice or by your silence. Is this what you want of your children, friends, and neighbors – to be enslaved in fear? Is it somehow OK for your government to enslave you instead of an individual? As I started out, slavery can no longer be considered just for black people – it is for everyone. You are living it now and have been for some time…

By Matt Cover (original here)

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a ”serious question.”

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Audio HERE.

Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studed the issue and concluded:

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question, e-mailing  written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami.

“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked the speaker’s office.

“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?” CNSNews.com asked. ”If so, what is that limit?”

Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’”   The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

The release further states: “On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation.  There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”

So much for that damn pesky Constitution…

But there you have it, the Commerce Clause. Ha!