Details
Category: Politics

PROSECUTOR TO HOMESCHOOLERS: NO COMPROMISE—YOU’RE GOING TO JAIL!

Juergen and Rosemary Dudek of Archfeldt, Germany, were sentenced to 90 days in prison in July 2008 because they homeschool their children. Their sentence was overturned by an appeals court because of a legal error, and a new trial was ordered. Their new trial began November 16. German news reports indicate the judge appears disposed to seek a compromise. But prosecutor Herwig Mueller has vowed to appeal any sentence that does not include jail time for these parents, who have been in the spotlight for years because of their insistence on homeschooling. This was the same prosecutor who appealed the lower court sentence of only a fine, saying to the family, “You don’t have to worry about the fine because I will send you to jail.”

The new trial was continued to next week after more than seven hours of testimony. This included an outburst by Mr. Mueller when Mr. Dudek asked the local school officials if they knew the current laws that criminalize homeschoolers were based on laws from 1938. Mr. Mueller loudly protested: “All those Nazi laws have been suspended, and this one is democratic, and you’ve got to accept it, and that’s it.” Mr. Dudek disagrees. “The ‘schuhlpflicht’—the laws that require school attendance—are on the books in the German states,” he explained, “and have been traced back to the ‘Reichsculpflicht Gesetz’ [federal compulsory attendance laws] which was passed in 1938. Except for the removal of references to the Nazi party, these laws are identical or substantially the same as the laws passed by Hitler’s government, criminalizing parents who keep their children home for school.”

Remember, Hitler believed in “get ’em while they’re young.”

Details
Category: Politics

-- or --

Delusional Tax Feeders Populate the Berea Municipal Court


An article appeared in the July 16 News Sun regarding the fact that Berea Municipal Court had installed a lock box for payments of waiverable citations. In that article, Ray Wohl, Clerk of Courts at the Berea Municipal Court was quoted as saying “This was done to improve customer service,” and “It's not about time and money for us. It's about the convenience of the people who use our court.”

Ray Wohl suffers from what I call, the "government delusion". The government delusion is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of all delusions. It is the belief in non-existent "states" and "nations" and that "government" is both legitimate and necessary. People who suffer from this delusion also believe that government has “customers” and provides its “services” just like any other business.

In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the "United States," it’s claimed only "government" can provide the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is nonsense if only for the reason "government" has no duty to protect anyone or their property, as the case of Bowers v. DeVito clearly points out:

"The constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the states to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616.

But the best reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It’s that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then "government" is not "necessary" to "protect" what doesn’t exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don’t "protect" them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of tax feeding men who wear badges or the right colored uniforms, nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire or become the customer of people who don’t even acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn't:

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.

Again, Mr. Wohl believes that he is merely doing business, that the Berea Municipal Court, when it comes to “waiverable citations” has “customers” and is providing them with a “service”. I guess the real questions are: Who are the actual customers of the Berea Municipal Court? Does receiving a citation qualify one for their wonderful customer service?

Does Mr. Wohl even recognize that he is a member of "government?" What exactly is “government?” Have you ever seen a “government?” While there are varying degrees, as George Washington was so keen to point out, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force...”

There you have it, the first president of this country explaining that “government” is, at the very least, one man violently controlling the life and property of another man. In some places this violent control is “decreed” to be for the latter’s “own good” and “protection” and hailed as the “best system in the world.” You may recognize that violent control over a man’s life and property is what we like to call slavery. Slavery is a form of “government,” and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with “government.” “Govern” means “control”, not “protect”. Have you ever noticed the word “protect” is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern?

“govern. To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 530.

In “democracies” and so-called “democratic republics,” slaves are given the false choice of choosing new masters. The old plantations can be seen as “political subdivisions” such as “cities,” only smaller: “nations” have “presidents,” “states” have “governors,” “counties” have “commissioners,” “cities” have “mayors” and “councilmen” and “clerks”, plantations have masters.

“Government” is just a group of men and women providing the service of protecting “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” at the barrel of a gun. We have no choice in accepting and paying for their wonderful services. Their services are so valuable that we’re compelled to accept and pay for them. And yet they define people such as myself as radical extremists?

To keep this short, I’ll use statements from politicians themselves i.e., their sacred “law” that’s worshipped, revered and most important, feared. Compare the following:

  1. “tax. A forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition or contribution assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment by authority of a sovereign state upon the persons or property within its jurisdiction to provide for public revenue for the support of the government, the administration of the law, or the payment of public expenses. 51 AmJ1st Tax § 3.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1255.
  2. “The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1051.


The first is a kinder, gentler way of describing the second. Both are accurate descriptions of how men and women pretending to be “government” operate. I like the second one because it’s actually the definition of “racketeer.”

The government delusion is that “government,” a racket, is legitimate and necessary. That’s absurd. Maybe if you believe a service should be provided at the barrel of a gun then yes, you’d think “government” is legitimate and necessary. And if you're delusional you probably think that “government” is a “business” providing “service” to “customers”.

The government delusion is exposed with nothing more than no service or product should to be provided at the barrel of a gun. If the alleged “services” which the men and women “doing business” as a pretended “state”, “nation”, “county” or  “city” are so valuable, then people would voluntarily accept and pay for them.

Some people attack this by asking, “But who will build the roads?” and “Who will keep us safe from harm?”, yada yada, ad infinitum. The answer is simple: Anything done under the guise of consent can be done by consent.

Most people in this country go to great lengths to be productive, and not be a drain on society. Yet hilariously, they are always imposed upon by tax feeders in “government,” who themselves are nothing BUT a drain on society.

If the men and women pretending to be “government” actually want to be viewed like any other business providing a “service” to “customers”, they only have to do one thing differently (and here’s the “radical extremist” part): provide their services on a voluntary basis like everybody else.

I challenge Mr. Wohl to go over my history of appearances before any judge, magistrate, clerk, or officer of the Berea Municipal Court and show me when I was ever a “customer” of the court, seeking it’s alleged “services” and not merely the subject of violent property expropriation, the result of which any real resistance to their claim on my part would have been violent force to put me in a cage, to be tasered, beaten, kicked, shot and possibly even killed.

 

Details
Category: Politics

Whenever I speak of forcible resistance against "government," some people respond with things like, "How can you be for violence?" And almost everyone who says that is both delusional and hypocritical.

I admit, compared to almost everyone else, my political views are very extreme. For example, I don't advocate that anyone ever be forced to fund something that they don't want to fund. I don't support robbery, even when the stolen loot is to be used for something supposedly noble or beneficial. No Democrat or Republican can honestly say that. Though they differ on how the loot should be spent, every single one of them advocates that I be robbed, under threat of violence, to pay for things that I don't want. And, of course, they also advocate that you be robbed to pay for things that you don't want.

I don't. Ain't I extreme?

The trouble is, even though every Republican and Democrat advocates the initiation of violence against millions of people who haven't harmed anyone, the way people see reality is so warped by the "authority" myth that they can't see that what they advocate is coercion. They think that calling it "law" or "taxation" somehow makes it legitimate and disqualifies it as violence. And yet they know that anyone who doesn't pay the federal Mafia's extortion fees will be punished, with either extra robbery or imprisonment (or death if they continue to resist). It's not that they are unaware of the violence behind all "laws"; it's that they think it's automatically righteous when "government" does it, and so they don't call it violence.

The most bizarre example is the people who say, "I abhor violence, so I'm for gun control." Oh, really? And how, exactly, will this "gun control" be imposed? By friendly suggestion? By rational argument? By a group hug? Or by men with guns forcibly disarming the general public? "Gun control" is violence. Even worse, it is the initiation of violence against people whose only sin is having the ability to defend themselves. And using violence against someone merely because that person possessed the means to protect himself is violent, evil, hypocritical and insane.

And such lunacy is the direct result of the belief in "authority." If, for example, a burglar broke into someone's house, and the homeowner pulled out a knife and threatened to attack the crook if he didn't leave, how would most people judge that? Most would obviously see the invader as the bad guy, and the guy trying to chase him away as the good guy. But if the burglar happens to be called a "tax collector," and tries to forcibly rob someone, and his intended victim resists, nearly everyone would loudly condemn the victim of the extortionist as being a nasty, "violent" criminal.

That is why, when I say that using force to defend against those who initiate violence -- even when that violence is called "law" or "taxes," and even when the attackers call themselves "government" or "law-enforcement" -- most people view me as the violent one. This is because almost everyone truly believes that when you make an actual crime (trespassing, robbery, extortion, assault, kidnapping, murder, etc.) "legal," it ceases to be a crime. They further believe that resisting a crime, when the crime has been "legalized," is a horrible thing to do.

Almost everyone in this country advocates constant, widespread violence, but they are too deluded to know it. Often the violence is fairly hidden, because the mere threat of authoritarian retaliation (for not paying "taxes," for building something without a "permit," for possessing an "illegal" weapon or an "illegal" substance, and so on) is often enough to coerce compliance. In those cases, statists can pretend that people obey "voluntarily," though that makes about as much sense as saying that someone "voluntarily" gave his car to a carjacker, in order to avoid being shot. But even when the government violence is overt and bloody, as with the "war on drugs," or foreign wars, or even a lot of traffic stops these days, statists are still unable to see that what they are advocating is BRUTAL, BLOODY VIOLENCE. Worse yet, when I suggest that it would be justified to use whatever force it takes to stop such aggressive force, the statists see me as the "violent" one.

To illustrate this hypocrisy, I like to make the following offer, to anyone and everyone who considers himself peaceful and civilized: "I will never initiate violence against you myself, nor advocate that anyone else do so." When I ask if someone will do the same for me, he always says "yes." And almost no one who says that actually means it, as a simple follow-up question easily illustrates: "So you don't advocate that I be forced, via 'taxes,' to fund anything that I don't want to fund?" That's when they start to backpedal, make excuses, start to use vague euphemisms about one's "fair share," and so on. "Okay, so you won't promise to refrain from advocating the initiation of violence against me. That's good to know."

Here is a very simple principle that almost everyone understands: "Don't ever start a fight, but if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself." And yet, because of the cult belief in "government," that simple rule gets turned completely upside-down: "It's okay to start a fight with everyone in the country (via 'taxes' and other 'laws'), and okay to violently crush anyone who tries to defend himself against your attack." Well, if such lunacy is considered to be an acceptable, civilized, mainstream attitude -- which it is in this country, and throughout most of the world -- then I'm happy to be "extreme."

Details
Category: Politics

In political discourse we commonly hear the argument that without a government, there would be no roads, police, fire department, schools, or any other services (now financed by extortion).

Who would finance and maintain roads, without taxes?

 

First issue: benefits and obligations


Benefitting from something (directly or indirectly) does not create an obligation.

Furthermore, a service being provided in a free market does not require all beneficiaries to pay.

Even-further-more, economic transactions are not isolated and independent events.

When the supermarket across the street gets their electric bill, they don't send me a piece of it. Why not? When I shop there, I benefit from being able to see stuff. I also benefit from it being a nice temperature inside, even if it's $%@*&!# cold outside. How heartless of me to go in, buy some sushi, a hunk of pepperoni, and a bag of candy corn, and only pay for those things! What a freeloader I am.

Start with basics. "Wealth" is stuff people want. Without coercion, there are two ways to gain wealth: make what you want by yourself, or make something someone else wants, and trade with them (and others) to get what you want.

Fred wants his lawn mowed. Two kids are considering the job. One lives three houses away, and the other lives 8 miles away. The second one has additional "expenses" involved in getting Fred's lawn mowed (whether an expense of time and effort, like pushing a mower eight miles, or an expense of paying someone money to drive him).

Fred doesn't give a rat's ass about those expenses. Fred is not obligated to give the kid extra money for a car ride. Fred is not obligated to give either kid anything, until an agreement has been made. If Fred is actually trading, and not being a charitable organization, the only factors in his decision are "What do I get?" and "What do I lose?" That's all. He loses a few bucks; he gains a mowed lawn.

On the flip side, the only thing the kid considers is "What do I get?" and "What do I lose?" The answer to the second question is very different for the second kid, since he loses more in the deal than the first kid. But that's only relevant to his decision, not Fred's.

Back to the supermarket across the street. What does it get, and what does it lose, by making a deal to sell me sushi, pepperoni, and candy corn? It obviously loses the actual physical stuff it gives to me, but it loses a lot more, too. (Yeah, I know "it" is an imagined entity, but for simplicity just pretend one person runs the whole thing.) "It" knows I don't want to shop in some dark, cold cave. So it loses money making a warm, well-lit, orderly, accessible, etc., etc. businessplace.

Accessible? What does that require? Roads. On the supermarket's private property are roads and parking lots (really wide roads). Where did they come from? Why didn't they send me a bill for them? Because it was part of their premeditated loss in the deal to sell me sushi, pepperoni, and candy corns. A parking lot is really damn expensive (compared to a hunk of pepperoni). What if that was all I ever bought there? Would I be freeloading then? No.


Second issue: free choice and mutual agreement versus coercion or threat of violence.

There are many stores between my house and Okefenokee Swamp which I have only been to once, and only spent $10 or so at. However, they each cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build, maintain, keep stocked, etc. Hardly seems fair . . .unless you understand economics.

The fact that I benefit from something in no way obligates me to pay for it. (While this sounds a bit commie-ish, it ain't.) I only acquire an obligation to pay when there is an agreement that I will pay something for something. If this were not so, I would be the Freeloader King on my way down to Okefenokee. I hear a cool song that I didn't pay for, while looking at nifty scenery I didn't pay for, driving down a road I didn't pay for (state roads not in my state), while munching on circus peanuts I didn't pay for (but my buddy did).

"But, HOW WILL THE ROADS WORK?!?!?!? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!"

Damned if I know. It ain't mine to fret about, not because I don't want roads, but because I'm not the one who will be making and maintaining them. The problem with collectivists is that they have such a fetish for micromanaging everything that they think they neeeeeeeeeeeeeed to know every detail about how something will work. It never occurs to them that it isn't that way now. Here is statist logic as applied to lunch: "How can I be sure someone will make me a sandwich for my lunch? I neeeeeeeeed lunch! How will they get the grain to make the bread? How will they transport it? Who will pay for the building and equipment to make bread? What if they make bad bread? What if they charge $1000 for one sandwich? What if they decide not to bother selling sandwiches anywhere near me? I neeeeeeeeed lunch! What if they just do nothing??!?!? I'll die!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!"

As idiotic as this is, it is precisely the same logic that statist have regarding the concept of roads without the omnipotent state running the show. ("What if no one makes roads? What if they charge too much? What if they don't make a road for me? . . .") What if you get a grip and stop pretending the world should be, or could be micromanaged?

The usual result of collectivist crises such as this is to advocate state coercion to solve the problem. Trouble is, it never solves the problem, it removes the incentives to do the job well, and it is immoral. (Other than that, it's a good idea.)

Back to Fred. Politicians decide that a Fred neeeeeds a mowed lawn, so they create the Department of Lawn Mowing. While there is no true economic link between what Fred gets from the Department, and what is stolen from him, the supposed "benefit" makes him tolerate the robbery . . .and when he is being particularly idiotic, makes him grateful that he is being robbed. "After all, if there were no Department, and nobody was willing to mow my lawn <evolves into control-freak crisis> . . ."

Adding coercion is immoral. I don't give a rodent's behind if you think Fred benefits from something; the deals in which he gets stuff and loses stuff are his to make, not yours. You have no right to force him to pay for something he did not agree to pay for, any more than my buddy can send me a bill for the circus peanuts he gave as a gift. (And if he tried, he wouldn't be my buddy.) Fred's benefit is irrelevant. However, Fred cannot use other people's stuff without their permission. If he has permission, it doesn't matter whether he had to pay for that permission or not.

But we neeeeeeeeed roads! So let's starting robbing everyone. A road is not a right. In fact, nothing is a right if someone else has to make it for you. Luckily, when the control freaks stay out of the way, self-interest does a marvelous job of making the customers rich. This is something that most people are pitifully clueless about. The big meany evil corporations do not rob their customers; they make them rich. When Fred is in a store, he is still thinking "What do I lose?" and "What do I get?" Without coercion (like the state uses), the business has to make sure Fred gets something he wants. This is true even if Fred isn't paying for that particular thing (like heating in the store).

I have stuff, and produce stuff, and people want it. That, plus an understanding of economics, puts me in real good shape when it comes to stuff I want. I like roads. They are easier to drive on than rocks and trees. Without the state, someone will make them for me. How can I be so sure? I can be sure for the same reason I can be sure that I can walk across the street and get lunch tomorrow, without any politician forcing anyone to make it for me.

As a side note, lots of people like roads. Examining the conclusion of the statists' predicted crisis regarding roads is very telling. The control-freaks must really and truly believe that without the state, hundreds of millions of people would be sitting in their houses, wishing they could get places . . .and no one would take the opportunity to make lots of money fulfilling that desire. If someone will go to the effort to make it so that I can buy a hunk of pepperoni, then someone will damn well make sure I can get there to buy it.

I could guess at who will build the roads, even without a toll system where the users pay directly. I might guess oil companies; I might guess supermarkets; I might guess tire companies, car companies, restaurants, etc. But it is slightly pointless for me to guess, and only eggs the collectivists on for their desire to have everything pre-ordained by threat of force.

What I do know is that adding coercion to the problem reduces all the factors that make it likely the job will be done well (as well as being friggin evil). Consider Fred's decision about getting his lawn mowed, if he was the state. "What do I lose? Whatever I choose to give. What do I gain? Whatever I choose to take." And if the boy was the state, the same thing applies. Coercion reduces the incentive to give the other guy a deal he wants (since you don't need his agreement any more). This is so obvious, and so basic, and yet so foreign to most people. Gack.

Details
Category: Politics
Almost every day we read or hear something about how our “taxes” are being used for some idiotic or immoral act.  We’ve all heard about the $500 hammers, the wasted money on studies that just don’t make sense, etc.
 
Well, let’s take a close look at reality.
 
First, let me ask you a question.
 
If I were a counterfeiter who was so good that no one was able to tell I was counterfeiting, would I ever need to go to work to buy a new printing press?  More ink or paper?  Pave the road in front of my house?  Buy a tank?  Obviously, the answer would be no.  If I could print up all the money I wanted and no one could tell, I could just buy up anything I wanted as long as I had the amount needed printed for the purchase.  Unfortunately for us — we are the unwitting pawns in a game that is being played with our future, and the future of our children and even our grandchildren — that is exactly how it works.
 
Once upon a time there were these pretty smart guys who put together a rather interesting limited government that was supposed to guarantee freedom for all the folks living under it.  It actually worked pretty well for a few years.  It wasn’t perfect, as the men who put it together weren’t perfect, but it was probably the best form of government ever devised by man in written history.
 
There must have been much more oxygen in the atmosphere or something, because the village idiot of the day seemed to be a lot smarter than the likes of our current Emperor George (not to mention the vast majority of the rest of us).  If you read the writings of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, James Madison, Samuel Adams, Daniel Webster, William Blackstone, Frederic Bastiat and Lysander Spooner, just to name a few, you’ll find that they were well educated and presented their ideas of what they believed would work using very sound reasoning, logic, and common sense.  One such man was Judge Roger Sherman.
 
Roger Sherman was a businessman back in the time of the Revolutionary War era.  He had some pretty bad dealings due to the monetary system that existed in the colonies and Europe prior to the revolution and the drafting of the federal constitution.  Since he was a well known guy being versed on economics, he was influential in the drafting of the monetary clauses of the federal constitution.  Writing booklets or pamphlets were an instrumental driving force behind men’s thoughts towards seceding from their bond to England and Sherman was no exception.  His booklet “A Caveat Against Injustice, or an Inquiry into The Evils of a Fluctuating Medium Of Exchange” was instrumental in causing people to realize the evils of a fiat paper money system at that time in history.
Unfortunately, the hens have allowed the fox to build the hen-house and install the security system.  Via the public education (indoctrination) system here in the United States and elsewhere, the truth has been effectively kept out of the minds of most people.
 
Here’s what Roger Sherman did.  He was the most instrumental in the drafting of two sections of the federal constitution.  Article 1, Section 8, which states, in part: “The Congress shall have Power ... to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures”; and Article 1, Section 10, which orders, in part that: “No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”
 
Why did he do this?  Because he realized that if the monetary control was placed in the hands of the people, there would be freedom and prosperity.  He understood the system of paper money that was in place in the 13 colonies and in Europe and suffered firsthand because of how it was used for theft.  If only gold and silver coin were to be allowed in circulation there could be no inflation and no theft of the people’s earnings and savings due to a dishonest paper fiat debt monetary system.  It was also one of the ways that the people could maintain control over the government — by the withdrawal of their support by holding back their taxes from the state or federal governments if those governments seemed intent on trampling their rights as free men.  Without the tax support to pay for wars, there would be no war.  Without the tax support to pay for the Gestapo, there would be no Gestapo.  Who's gonna work for free?  On the other hand, if the monetary control is placed in the hands of private bankers, the people lose that control since they would not have that leverage.
 
President Andrew Jackson had to fight tooth and nail to squash the central banking paper money scam in his time.  His gravestone reads “I killed the bank.”  He got us back on to a real money system again.
 
Up until the war of Northern Aggression (war for Southern Independence, war between the States, “civil” war?), gold and silver coins were used for trade and commerce.  Yes, there were bank notes issued, but they were all backed at par with the denomination stated on the note.  If a bank was audited and found to have less gold in its vaults than it had bank notes in circulation, it was tried for theft or conversion.  Abraham Lincoln, who was noted for violating the constitution in many instances, started the paper money scheme to finance the Northern aggression against the South.  The only plus to this was that he wasn’t charging interest on it and a few years after the conflict, all the “greenbacks” were out of circulation.  Knowing what I do know about that man, I can’t figure out why he wasn’t tried by the people for treason and hung, but that is a topic for another day.
 
But it wasn’t long before the paper money scam came home to roost again in the form of the deceptively named “Federal Reserve System.”  For the historically or economically ignorant, when it comes to the Federal Reserve System, it is not “federal” and there is nothing in “reserve”.  The word “system” was used to deceive the public into believing that the government was decentralizing financial power, but in fact, the entire “system” is a centralized private banking cartel which the government legalized through the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act under president Woodrow Wilson.  For a while there was some small residual backing, but that all ended in the 1970’s thanks to president Nixon.

Looking at the information above, can you see what has happened?  Since the fiat banking cartel has been able to completely control the current monetary system via our own government’s complicity, you could literally keep all of your tax dollars and it wouldn’t mean doodly-squat.  As a matter of fact, if no one in the country paid federal taxes at all, but the public continued to believe that those little, green pieces of paper had value, everything would go on as it does now.  Roads would still be built, the bombs would still drop, the soldiers would be paid and the Homeland Security Gestapo would still be receiving paychecks.  Why?  Because the counterfeiter can print all the paper money or make all the book entries they want.  Why?  Because the people have lost track of their contract with their public servants; the federal constitution.  They have screwed up and don't realize that they're being royally screwed.
 
The way the scam is set up, the government can have an unlimited supply of paper money backed by nothing to do whatever the hell it wants to do, while the banks are able to collect perpetual interest on nothing.  Meanwhile, what are you asked for when you go for a so-called “loan?”  Signature on the dotted line pledging your house, your car, etc.

So here we are about 150 years after the War Between the States, or about 90 years since the creation of the Federal Reserve System and what do we have?  A monetary system that is antithetical to the federal constitution.  A system of theft that has continued and will continue until enough people wake up, make waves and cause a change.
 
Just to illustrate what has happened, allow me to offer a couple examples:

Scenario #1:  Say a man earned $3,500 in 1964 and stuffed it in his mattress.  A second guy earns the same $3,500 and puts it in the bank.  And yet another earns $3,500 and trades it for gold coins.  At the time of the gold investment (1964), that would have been $35 Federal Reserve Notes per ounce, or the equivalent of one hundred $50 US Liberty coins.  Now, in 2005, the first man will have the same $3,500 in Fed Notes, but they are now only worth about 1/10 of what they were in 1964.  He’s effectively had $31,500 worth of purchasing power stolen from him.  A new car in 1964 was about $3,500 in Federal Reserve Notes.  A new, full-sized decent car today is about $35,000.  The second man would have about $9,000 in Federal Reserve Note value with interest accrued.  He has effectively had $21,000 in purchasing power stolen from him.  But the last man could trade in his gold coins and would have $35,000 in Federal Reserve Note purchasing power.  So which lost value; the gold or the paper?
 
Scenario #2:  During the Roman Empire, a one ounce gold coin could have bought you a fine toga, a pair of hand crafted sandals and a belt.  Basically, the standard “suit” of the day.  Today, we can walk into any men’s store and with a one ounce gold coin purchase a nice suit, a pair of shoes, and a belt.

The real value has not changed in thousands of years when expressed in terms of real money.
 
So what does this all sum up to?  It simply means that taxes are there for the purpose of stealing the labor of the people and to make them erroneously think they are supporting the government.   The system is also a form of social control and is butressed by instilling fear into the public over the consequences of nonpayment.
 
Now let’s take a look at what others have said:
 
“When plunder has become a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” — Frederic Bastiat in “The Law”
 
“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency.  By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” — 1980 Annual Report, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, p. 6  
 
Now let me ask you.  Isn’t confiscation of the wealth of the citizens a nice way of saying “theft” or “stealing”?
 
“All the paper money issued today is Federal Reserve notes.  The real backing for the nation’s money is faith in the strength, soundness and stability of the American economy.” — The Hats the Federal Reserve Wears, FRB of Philadelphia, p. 4
 
“Faith” is what backs our monetary system.  Your faith.  Do you have faith?  If so, how much?
 
“The Federal Government, with the cooperation of the Federal Reserve, has the inherent power to create money -- almost any amount of it.” — The National Debt, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, p. 8
 
“Almost?”  Why only “almost?”  What keeps them from printing all they want?
 
“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.”  — John Locke (1690)
 
If the money you earn has no value and you are forced through fiat paper legislation to take it for your labor, are you not having your property (labor) destroyed and are you not being reduced to nothing but slavery?  Is not the state at war with the people?
 
How about this:  Public schools (i.e. government schools — the Communist Manifesto’s 10th plank) in which students learn to exchange labor and production (assets) for checks and banknotes (liabilities) — all “dollars” of which were created, at no cost, in a government-protected bank.
 
“A check is just a bit of paper, but you’re happy to have it.” — The Hats the Federal Reserve Wears, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, p. 5
 
Confidence in “credit” is furthered by taxation.  In fact, governments go to great lengths collecting far less of “it” than they spend -- to sustain an aura of value.
 
“If ... government refrains from regulation [e.g., taxes] ... the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent, and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer.” — The Economic Consequences of the Peace, John Maynard Keynes, p. 225 [February 1920 edition]
 
Taxes do not pay for the government that sanctions a credit system — but they are necessary to sustain the confidence in those devices by which the public IS taxed.
 
“... Keynes argues that inflation is a ‘method of taxation’ which the government uses to ‘secure the command over real resources, resources just as real as those obtained by [ordinary] taxation.’  ‘What is raised by printing notes,’ he writes, ‘is just as much taken from the public as is a beer duty or an income tax.’” — 1980 Annual Report, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, p. 10
 
Mayer Amschel Rothchild is quoted as having said, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.”
 
When the money is nothing but paper created on a printing press with absolutely no control from the people, the people become slaves to the creators of the money.  But when the people create the money with their labor (gold or silver), then and only then can the people be free, and the money becomes the servant of the people.  As long as we are under a debt fiat monetary system and refuse to enforce the law of the land via Article 1, Section 10 on the several states, the federal government will be in control of our very lives from the point that your birth certificate is placed into interstate commerce as a pledge against your life and your future ability to be a taxpaying slave on the global plantation.
 
So what is the answer?  What would happen if the people of just one county in one state came together and refused to pay property taxes or any form of tax or any payment at all unless they did so in gold or silver coin?  Everything the state requires us to pay for from driver licenses to property tax to license plates is supposed to be paid for with gold and silver coin.  This could be done.  But do you have the intestinal fortitude to try it?  Start trading in your Federal Reserve Notes for 1/10 ounce, 1/4 ounce, 1/2 ounce and 1 ounce gold coins.  Use them with friends and neighbors by buying and selling with gold.  Figure out a fair exchange rate and start using them.  If you’re a plumber making $50 in Federal Reserve notes per hour today, offer your rate at $5.00 in gold coin.  This will help people see the disparity between the worthless paper and gold.
 
How hard is it to get this through our heads?  Taxes on the national level pay for NOTHING.  They are simply there for the purpose of social control and to take purchasing power away from us so that we can’t compete as much for goods and services in the marketplace.  The IRS is just a big vacuum cleaner to suck up all that paper money.  In another words, it helps to control inflation, even though every piece of paper backed by nothing IS pure inflation.  On the local level, since the states and cities don’t print their own money, they need taxes.  The taxes they are supposed to be collecting are supposed to be in gold or silver coin.  The states were supposed to keep the federal government bound to an honest monetary system by forcing them to coin money and regulate its value.
 
In summary, the rules (constitution) say that gold and silver should be used instead of fiat paper money issued with no backing except the faith that it will purchase and pay for services and goods in the marketplace.  The taxes we pay at the national level are there to make us THINK we are supporting the “government” or paying for those $500 hammers.  The only way back to an “honest” monetary system is for the people to trade in their Federal Reserve Notes for gold and silver coin and then get the states to bring the federal government into compliance to coin money and regulate its value.  What are they going to do?  Confiscate our homes and property if we refuse to pay with F.R.A.U.D. (Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Devices) paper anymore?  It would be a “Miracle on Main Street.”
 
One final note, according to F. Tupper Saussy:
 
“The absence of rebuke is taken to mean the people consent to the disobedience.  Jim Woods, who wrote the Foreword to Miracle On Main Street, was a brilliant inventor for whom intellectual and personal freedom were tools of his trade.  To Jim, Article I Sections 8 and 10 of the Constitution were the linchpin that held the whole American apparatus together.  Keep the linchpin in place and the apparatus can run forever.  Remove it and everything falls apart.”

So now you know why everything is falling apart.

  1. TAXATION IS SLAVERY
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • Politics