…You think TAXES are a problem?

Before all the “Tea Party” events swirl through the news, there’s something I have to get off my chest.

Despite what you’ve been told about the cause of our Revolutionary War, you’ll be half-way through our Declaration of Independence before you see taxation mentioned, and then only in regard to imposing taxes on us without our consent.

After that, guess what?

Taxation doesn’t appear again.

Even “taxation without representation” (not in the Declaration, and the phrase was popularized later in the conflict) isn’t so much about taxation, as it is about colonists’ right to proxies in the seat of power.

Taxes are a symptom, not the disease.

You see, the real reason our founders declared independence from England was King George’s “refusal to assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” The Declaration cites the King for 27 violations of rights that Englishmen were due by written law. It was Rule of Law instead of rule of tyrants that our founders wanted — not anything unreasonable or even new.

Of course, from the moment the US Constitution was made law, politicians resisted its limitations on their power, such that by 1799, just ten years after ratification, both Madison and Jefferson wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions to reassert federalism …or face annulment and dissolution of the union!

They demanded Rule of Law under existing constitutions as written…and they meant it.

Right now, we do not operate under Rule of Law by the constitutions as written. We are under Common Law, or law by judicial decree. There is a good place for Common Law. It’s not a bad thing. But where legislation and constitutions apply, what’s in play is Civil Law and Statutory Law. The difference in practice is huge; and as predicted by our founders if the borders are breached, ultimately fatal.

No political power is any longer bound by any written laws. In fact, as the courts are servants of the greater political/finance machine, there are no real limits on political power at all.

So you have no rights. Forget the laws plainly written down, the rules are what people in robes decree.

You have no second amendment because you have no constitution. You have no first amendment because you have no Rule of Law. You’ve got nothing that can’t be taken away from you. Not your property, your rights, or your life.

I’m scratching my head wondering why we think we have any other issues?

But no. We divide and conquer…ourselves.

Second Amendment advocates campaign against our constitutional right to sin without civil punishment (as long as we don’t hurt others).

Those who call themselves “First Amendment Champion” typically oppose the very first right mentioned in the First Amendment’s five enumerated rights.

We each have our favorite rights, but we doggedly, stupidly, deny others theirs.

And so we have none at all.

And we think, on Tax Day, that how much of the Fed’s monopoly notes we feed the meter is, in itself, a problem?

Taxation out of control is only a minor symptom of a fatal disease, and we’re running out of time.

Right now we can communicate with amazing ease. We can travel unimpeded. We can form groups and meet. But because we won’t even ask for constitutional Rule of Law, these are not rights; they’re conditional privileges with increasing conditions and decreasing privilege.

Soon, we will lose these privileges to the degree that opposition to our oppressors will be very, very difficult.

You think I’m kidding? You think I’m in mouth-breathing hysteria mode beyond any reason? You think that happy days are, as the experts tell us, just around the corner?

I hope you’re right, and I’m very wrong.

But what I see is that our government is blowing the great bubble even bigger for one huge, stinking, bloody pop.

Read any history book. Then look at current events and see that those who’ve been wrong every time before are today called “pundits,” “experts” and “leaders,” while those who’ve always been right are called “fringe” and “losers.” Our language and culture is increasingly debased, perverted. We’re turning the excelsian hope of 1776 into the dystopian muck of 1984.

Look at all the fallen nations before us and imagine what they must have been thinking in their final days.

I’m betting they all thought, “surely not! That could never happen to us!”

Well, on a happier note, God is in control.

He knows that we’re not!

In that, I find some comfort.


The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://wedeclare.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/you-think-taxes-are-a-problem/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

10 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Andy,

    Thank you for bringing this up. The above is exactly why candidates like yourself and Ron Paul don’t make many fans with Republicans. Not being able to interpret written law scares conservatives more than liberals. I have been saying for years that a Libertarian would be better off running on a Democratic ticket. Liberals are much more open to honoring others rights in defense of their own. Not to mention the base of the Democratic party are not in their hearts socialists (just naive and lack understanding of free market economics).

    None the less I will be going to the tea party rally next week for only one reason. I don’t see taxation it’s self as dangerous but how it is collected in this country. Income tax is a blank check to government. Raise it to 75% we still have to feed our families. Any other form of taxation is easily governed by the black market. I think if our focus was only on repealing the income tax, and we succeeded, it would be much more difficult for the judiciary to be influenced by the greater political/finance machine.

    Always a pleasure to read your stuff. Keep it coming.


  2. Andy,

    I agree. This economic problem has been going on for years, and it has to do with two things: excessive greed, and no solid foundation for the currency, primarily the latter. When the US abandoned gold, it was over. Sure, borrowing and spending huge amounts of money may work for a couple of decades, but then what? We will face another downturn, then another, then another. And inflation is something we are going to have to deal with in the very near future because of the massive amounts of currency being put into circulation. This is an ongoing cycle that has to be stopped. At one point or another, people have to realize that we must live dollar for dollar instead of spending money that we don’t have. We can base a dollar on water, and it would be more valuable than today’s currency. In fact, water would be perfect. It would give people and companies incentive not to be greedy and pollute less.

    Good work as usual, Andy!

  3. Rights guaranteed by our Constitution are ignored as acknowledged by Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee as he noted in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947),

    “The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It’s benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person.” McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.” [Emphasis added]

    Few understand that the a court room is the lion’s den at the end of a fight for rights. We need to belligerently claim our rights at all times and in all places, not just before we face the gallows in a last ditch effort in a courtroom where there are no observers. Your rights can drop out from under your feet like a gallows hatch at the whim of uninformed or clueless jury or caviler judge.

  4. Andy, I’m bringing over your quote from Facebook:

    “Nicolas, WE are not regulated by constitutions! Politicians are leashed by constitutions…THIS IS THE POINT!”

    What powers did a federal government have before the creation of the constitution which you say does not regulate us? Did not the invention of federal powers at Philadelphia serve, by definition, to regulate the people?

  5. Bill –
    I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that the judge in 1947 claimed that your “rights are ignored.”

    I read this opinion years ago, and from my interpretation, is says that you have only those rights which you choose to exercise. Nobody can exercise them for you. In the case of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, you must specifically assert that right in person. If you don’t assert that right, it will not magnanimously be granted to you. Likewise, the Supreme Court has ruled that you can only claim the 5th Amendment right if you are guilty! It makes sense: if your answer would not incriminate you, then the 5th Amendment doesn’t apply. The opinion further states that if you are given in to promises of leniency, or other lies perpetrated by the government (prosecutors), then you have waived your right.

    Your rights exist only if you exercise them. In a like manner, if you refuse to own a firearm, do you still have a 2nd Amendment? Maybe, but you can’t exercise it without owning one.

    It’s also a fact that our rights exist primarily to protect the unpopular (unpopular with either other citizens but PRIMARILY unpopular with the government). For example, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect our right to hunt, or to target shoot, or even to defend ourselves from common criminals – the Founding Fathers assumed that those were common activities which were necessary to feed ourselves, and keep our families safe. No, the 2nd Amendment exists solely to protect OUR right to defend ourselves from THE GOVERNMENT.

    The entire Bill of Rights exists to allow ourselves to defend against government tyranny, but if we willingly waive our rights by refusal to exercise them, then they go un-exercise, and may as well not exist in the first place.

  6. It is my understanding that the Bill of Rights protects only those rights peculiar to being a state Citizen and every one today claims to be a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States.

    “The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government, it does not protect those rights that relate to state citizens.

    See: Slaughter-House Cases and Jones v. Temmer

    We may still have the states but no one (i.e. the state citizen) with indefeasible rights appears to home.

  7. It is the nature of people seeking power to use their best means to acquire power. Judges use courts. Others use guns. You should read the constitutions and judge for yourself. Because ultimately, Harry, it’s up to you and your neighbors, not judges, which rights you claim, and which you give up.
    It really is as simple as that.
    You have the rights you defend, and lose those you don’t.

  8. Rights are won and secured on the battlefield and our Founding Fathers already won our Bill of rights. But we the people have allowed them all to slip away. Of course our natural rights as described in the Declaration of Independence were given to us by our Creator and they are indeed unalienable. But argue this point with a FEMA or BATF agent sent to take your food and self protection and search and sieze whatever they can and will … without a ‘Constitutionally authorized’ warrant, as guaranteed by the 4th amendment.

    14th Amendment to the Constitution

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    An interesting amendment. Due process of law and equal protection under the law. Wow, how that is violated daily.

    Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I would rather avoid the battlefield by using the law which is codefied and written within our Constitutions and legal code to remove from office and place into jail ‘all’ oath breakers. 18 U.S.C. 1918 is clearly written law.

    18 U.S.C. 1918:
    “Whoever violates the provisions of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) ‘advocates’* the overthrow of our constitutional form of government [and] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day or both.”

    * Advocate: To speak in favor of or defend by argument. To support, vindicate, or recommend publicly. Black’s Law Dictionary

    Heck, for an elected or appointed official to even merely ‘suggest’ changing our form of government can send them to jail without passing GO or collecting $200, what could possibly happen to those elected and appointed officials who have ‘already changed’ our form of government?

    If this situation weren’t so serious it would be laughable. We the people are truly dumb.

  9. I agree completely, Harry. Bring all your thoughts and research to the Citizen Tribunal. It’s time to get serious and publicly judge our lot.

  10. I agree that it is up to each individual man and woman to belligerently claim their Creator given inherent and indefeasible rights. The U.S. Supreme Court also agrees. To wit:

    “All persons are purported to KNOW the law and UNLESS YOU belligerently claim YOUR rights YOU are CONSIDERED [i.e. “deemed”] to have acquiesced [i.e. waived you right to claim your rights], and ignorance is no excuse.”

    According to the U.S. Supreme Court “avoiding the battlefield” is impossible if you want to exercise and enjoy your Creator given rights. However, if one must “belligerently” claim their own rights on the battlefield, then it would be wise to choose when, where and how that battle will be fought.

    A man’s unalienable rights cannot be claimed for you by an attorney. Such a claim of rights is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The question is, what is the best way for a man born free and independent within the states of the Union to belligerently claim HIS Creator given rights?

    The 14th Amendment surely is an interesting amendment. However it appears to have nothing to do with a free man’s Creator given rights. To wit:

    “The term ‘resident and citizen of the United States’ is DISTINGUISHED from a ‘citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a SPECIAL class of citizen CREATED BY CONGRESS.” U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. 829 (1873)

    As we know, WHAT Congress creates, Congress controls.

    This is probably why Congress – i.e. federal government — can come into the States to govern, regulate and supposedly protect “its” special class of citizens who “reside” therein.

    By what Act of Congress did Congress “create” this “special class of citizen” and for whom did they specifically create it? Also, when was this special class of citizen created?

    “No white person born within the limits of the (several) United States and subject to THEIR jurisdiction… or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under THEIR laws, OWES his STATUS OF CITIZENSHIP to the recent [13th, 14th and 15th] amendments to the Federal Constitution. The PURPOSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT … was to confer the [special] status of citizenship upon a numerous CLASS OF PERSONS domiciled within the limits of the United States who could NOT be brought within operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them WITHOUT citizenship. Such persons were NOT white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country…” Van Valkenburg v. Brown 43 Cal 43,47 (1872)

    If this court decision be correct and true then why are so many “white persons” born within the several states of the Union claiming to be 14th Amendment citizens of the United States?

    Could it be due to ignorance? Is a white person’s making such a claim evidence of fraud on their part or is it evidence of their making an error due to ignorance. If an error has been made should not the one who made it correct that error once they become aware of it? How can such a mistake be legally and lawfully corrected? I mean, what are the legally formalities that one must follow in order to correct the record as to their status of citizenship?

    “A ‘citizen of the United States’ is a [14th Amendment] citizen of the federal government.” Kitchens v. Steele, 113 f. Supp 383

    “Residence and citizenship are wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution. …” U.S.C.A. Amend. 14, Sec. 1 Note 25, Steigleder v. McQuesten, Wash, 1905,25 S.Ct 616, 198 U.S. 143 L.Ed 986

    In what ways are they different?

    In order to “qualify” to vote a person must be a citizens of the United State and a “resident” in the State in which he offers to vote.

    All men are born free and independent of all governments. When they reach the age of majority they must voluntarily choose to submit themselves to the dominion of the government of their choice IF they wish to do so. If they claim to be a citizen of the United States on some government form it they appears they will be “considered” or “deemed” by government to be what they claim to be.

    It clearly is in the best interest of Congress (to maintain dominion over such persons born free) to not question this claim in order to maintain dominion over them.

    “A citizen cannot complain because he has VOLUNTARILY submitted himself to such a [non-republican] form of government. … he owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres MUST PAY THE PENALTIES.” U.S. v. Cruikshank

    If you claim to be a “14th Amendment citizen of the United States; which citizens are completely subject to the jurisdiction [i.e. its jurisdiction not their jurisdiction as in Amendment 13] thereof, then you cannot question the validity of the public debt of the United State authorized by law. You MUST PAY THE PENALTIES and boy are the “penalties” a rising these days!!!

    But how, where and when did you “voluntarily” submit yourself to the dominion of such a non-republican form of government as exists within the 10 miles square in Washington DC? That is what I would like to know.

    It appears to me that the “powers that be” only “consider” or “deem” us to be members of this special class of citizen CREATED by Congress. Perhaps they are making this consideration based on some government form like a voter’s registration form on which one has checked a box indicating, under penalty of perjury, that they WERE citizens of the United States and qualified to enjoy the “elective franchise” or government ascribe privilege to vote for those to whom they consented to be subject to.

    In any case, if we were born free and if we wish to, for the first time, exercise the rights of freemen then we must dispute the presumption that we knowingly with intention and purpose (i.e.VOLUNTARILY) submitted ourselves to such a non-republican form of government and are valid members of this special class of citizens created by Congress for “freedmen” [not freemen] who alone would owe exclusive allegiance to Congress.

    Allegiance of the “freemen” is to the people in whom the sovereignty devolved at the end of the War for Independence, not to the federal or state governments.

    “People [not 14th Amendment persons] of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative.” U.S. Supreme Court in Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9, 20

    How can we “dispute” this “disputable presumption” that white people born within the several states are members of this special class of citizen created by Congress for the “freedmen” only?”

    Perhaps we could go into the County Court in a non-adversarial action and correct our citizenship status. After that is done we can rightfully and belligerently claim our right to claim the rights we were born with.

    I surely could be mistaken in some of my conclusions but Congress clearly created a special class of citizenship for a special class of persons born in the United States who had no possibility of being naturalized or of acquiring citizenship under the Constitution.

    “The 13th Amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government.” 125 Fed 322, 325

    Notice the 13th Amendment allows voluntary servitude in the United States.

    “The amendment [the 14th] REVERSED and annulled the original policy of the constitution.” U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794

    How so? By making “citizenship of the U.S. primary and citizenship of the State secondary? Before the amendment one had to be primarily a citizen of his state in order to be considered a Citizen of the United States as that term was used in the Constitution.

    “… the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause [of the 14th amendment].”

    So “citizens of the United Stats” are not protected by the firs eight amendments to the Constitution. Could this be why “equal protection of the law” and “due process” can be ignored by the States when it comes to dealing with 14th amendment citizens of the United States residing in the States?

    The “privileges and immunities” of 14th Amendment citizens of the United States are different than the “privileges and immunities” enjoyed by “the Citizens of each State in the several States” referred to in Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

    In Powe v. U.S. 109 R2d 147, 149 (1940) we read:

    “… [in federal laws] a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that ‘citizen’ means ‘citizen of the United States,’ and NOT a person generally, NOR citizen of a State …”

    Here we have three (3) classes of persons, one “citizens of the United States” who are subject to these federal laws, two “a person generally, and three, a “citizen of a State” who are NOT subject to these federal laws. Who are these “persons generally” referred to in this case?

    If one is a “person generally” or a “citizen of a State” they could AVOID subjection to all federal laws that relate or apply to “citizens.” Am I correct on this point?

    “A person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State [dual citizenship], but his rights of citizenship UNDER one of these governments will be DIFFERENT from those he has UNDER the other. U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542

    It the “citizen of a State” in view here the secondary State citizenship” of “citizens of the United States “residing” in the State? Is that “citizen of the State in which he resides” different that being a white person “Citizen of a State?”

    Finally, “… the term ‘citizen’ in the United States, is analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government.” 14 CJS Section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122

    What change of government is in view here?

    ANALOGOUS. similar or comparable in certain respects but not in origin and structure. Webster’s

    SIMILAR. nearly but not exactly the same or alike; having a resemblance. Webster’s

    Exactly how is the term “citizen” in the United States similar or comparable to the term “subject” in the common law and how exactly does it differ?

    Clearly a “citizen of the United States” is completely “subject” to Congress, but this citizen does have certain government ascribed 14th amendment privileges and immunities that someone who is subject to another government or sovereign in this world might not have. Is this how the terms differ?

    To me the problem is a matter of ones status of citizenship. Are you claiming to be one of the sovereign people or are you claiming to be a subject/citizen of the federal government; a special class of citizen, created and controlled by Congress?

    It appears to me that one must first correct his status in order to be able to belligerently claim his Creator given rights. “Fourteenth Amendment citizens of the United States have only 14th amendment privileges and immunities, similar to but different than the “privileges and immunities” that the Citizens of each State have in the several States.

    If everyone claims to be a citizen of the United States controlled by Congress then there are no sovereign people inhabiting the States to any longer control Congress. The original policy of the constitution [i.e. people sovereign and government subject] has been reversed and annulled by the 14th amendment which makes such class of citizens “subjects” and Congress “sovereign.” At least that is how it appears to me. Please correct my error in any of the above. As all can see I have more questions than answers.

    May peace be upon your house in these troubled times.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: