Diamonds Live Forever by Bill Buppert

Publisher’s Note: I will be attending a two-day red dot pistol course with Modern Samurai in March. Email if you think you want to join us.

 Alex at ammo.com has penned another barn-burner on the vile income tax. Here’s a taste of his brilliant jeremiad:

“Progressivism reached its zenith during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, when progressive reformers finally got their wish as the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. This ratification settled any constitutional questions about the legality of this controversial tax. It started out as a relatively limited tax, with individuals making below $20,000 paying a rate of one percent, and the rich – those making making more than $500,000 – paying a seven-percent tax.

Supporters of the income tax sold it as a tax that would only target the filthy rich. But as history has shown, government encroachments have a tendency of growing over time. In 1917, the lowest tax bracket paid two percent, although the highest income earners saw their taxes skyrocket to 67 percent.”

Remember that this wretched slave instrument reached a peak marginal rate of 94% under RedDR.

In other news, the local brain-damaged mandarins in DC have deployed an elite “straw inspector unit” to police the plastic straws still in circulation since the ban by Mordor on the Potomac this month. The straw tends to be a single use item in restaurants so I wonder at plastic cups, plates, takeout boxes and utensils, are those next? Aren’t Styrofoam cups also petroleum products? Of course, one good way to dispose of Styrofoam is to mix it with gasoline for a primitive napalm variant.

In the state of VA, one of their violence brokers in the political brothel quaintly called the VA House of Representatives is proposing a bill that would allow a mother in collusion with her doctor to murder and dismember her child within seconds of leaving the birth canal. So the Governor-Comrade Ralph Northam (CPUSA-VA) who is for delivery day abortions received $2 million in campaign donations from Planned Parenthood (who benefit from abortions for procedures and the human dismemberment market), but Planned Parenthood is supposed to be a non-profit organization which receives funding from the government…. which means they are essentially throwing money back in forth to benefit each other. Since 1973, the infanticide industry in the US has slaughtered over 60 million babies.

I suspect that bediseds th callous disregard for life evident in all collectivists, this is also a long play on organ harvesting and trafficking by the usual suspects with government cover.

“Virginia House Democrats propose legislation to allow abortions up until the moment of birth:

Todd Gilbert (R): Where it’s obvious a woman is about to give birth…would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion?

Kathy Tran (CPUSA-VA): “My bill would allow that, yes…”

NY has joined the homicidal madness and RI is doing the same thing. It would be interesting if someone took the time to see the text of these bills and their similarity since they are all being proposed at the same time. I suspect one would find Planned Parenthood and associated medical combines doing this to increases the number of bodies that can be harvested for profit. The state is almost to Peak Evil.

You can’t make this shit up. Infanticide has been a progressive pipe dream for over a century. Keep in mind that politicians are death fetishists first and foremost. For serial killers, psychopaths and sociopaths, political office is the ultimate cloaking device to practice your evil in public and rob the taxpayer at gunpoint to pay for your sumptuous living.

As most of my readers know I am guilty of othering and demonizing communists, I do not consider them human beings worthy of my consideration or protection. They are the enemy of all moral and free men. Surprisingly, Radio Free Europe published a great retrospective on the Romanian elimination of their communist overlords in a style I hope to see repeated in the future.

We all know communists now, you don’t just see them on TV or whatever media you consume (I recommend you never watch another news broadcast for the rest of your life. They are strangers in the supermarket, that car with the Obama or Pantsuit Negan sticker on their car; they may even be friends and family. Their creed is a gun to your head.

There are communists amongst us!

When the government comes to take away evil private guns, they will use evil government guns to do so.

I have been listening to ProfCJ’s Dangerous History Podcast starting at #53 and I am now on episode #124 and it has been a wild and informative ride. I can’t recommend it enough.

I appeared on his show here when we discussed irregular warfare together for several scintillating. episodes. I have been on radio silence podcasting since that time.

I used to support him on Patreon but I have quit that Soviet outfit for its noxious communist policies. I urge you to do the same. He is now on SubscribeStar. Enough of my money is robbed from me to support the state and I wish to take the crumbs I’m left with and invest them wisely.

Twitter addiction, yes, I had it and went cold turkey on Monday of this week. I will check the feed once a month. My editor said you’ll sell more books if you use Twitter. No more.

I remain an expat of the libertarian diaspora and have joined the small but growing collapsitarian intelligentsia.

This has been a longer than usual “bits and sods” but there it is. -BB

 

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Mahatma Gandhi

One of my favorite websites is The Captain’s Journal and it just so happened that I was called out unfairly and mis-characterized in my beliefs and called an atheist, I want to briefly set the record straight and I did so in an earlier screed.

Pardon me if I make this particular essay more personal than the usual analytical and rhetorical flights of fancy I publish.

“Donk” was kind enough to send a response to my essay and gave me permission to publish it:

“Bill,

I apologize if I incorrectly generalized you as an “avowed atheist,” however, the statement was based on two things. First, I recall an exchange we had several years ago in the comment section of one of your blog posts, I do not recall if it was here or at another blog. The exchange dealt with Romans 13. I agree that it does not mandate the disciple of Christ to slavishly obey the state, regardless of how benevolent or malevolent. But I also recall stating that man is fallen and sinful and that a community needs to have some method to redress violations of natural law between individuals. Your responses in this exchange is what started my assumption, apparently incorrectly, that you were an atheist. Second, I recalled reading one of your blog posts where you essentially said you were an atheist and that you encouraged your children to be likewise. Perhaps I misread the blog post and/or am mis-remembering what you meant. So, to clear the air, I admit to being wrong and assuming incorrectly and sincerely apologize.

That said, I hope you took the following comments as a compliment and not a back handed one – I truly do find wisdom and truth here on your web site and reading your posts have helped me develop a clearer picture of how I see the world as it is.

Lastly, I have gone through many of the stages of becoming “woke” to the world as it is (to borrow an idiotic, yet current term); shock and anger being the most prominent. My comment regarding LEOs is not to diminish their tyrannical role in our society. It’s just that I have grown tired of the ranting and choose to concentrate efforts on building tribe/community and looking to what will remain/build upon after the inevitable collapse of Leviathan. I find much useful information in the comment sections of liberty blogs, however, it is frustrating to have to wade through a sea of righteous keypounding to find the occasional pearl, that’s all.

In closing, love the T-shirts (have them both) and equally love the stares at the local small town events – especially from the coproaches.

Donk

PS, please feel free to publish my mea culpa anywhere you choose.”

Thanks Donk and I mean it, a gentlemanly comportment will win me over every time and you have done so in spades.

So again, some clarification. I am not an atheist I am a Spinozan deist with a very strong Stoic streak; both theists and atheists (who tend to make the state their Godhead) simply bore me spiritually, morally and intellectually. Both seek to prove a null beyond the ability of the human mind to apprehend, I do not even want to waste a second of my short life in this mortal coil debating the notions.

We home educated all of our children and they have attended a dozen churches in the Catholic and Protestant sects including Mormonism (oh my!); my wife (who is a Buddhist) and I purposefully wanted their spiritual and/or religious catchments to be formed on their own without us informing that part of their growth. Does that mean we absented ourselves from their moral growth? Absolutely not, the dinner table and weapons range provided many discussions and debating (I was a debate coach in the homeschool communities we circulated in) sessions on what it takes to be a moral human being in every facet of inquiry.

I am proud to report all of my children have arrived at their spiritual destinations for now in a wide variety of religious ports of call. All my boys are Stoics and one professes to be a Christian and one is a lapsed Christian who has moved on from the faith. Both of my girls are still on their journey and one is now a Christian.

Good for them.

In the home education world, we were always the odd man out since most home educators have a Christian basis for their journey.

I can break bread with Christians as long as they are moral humans opposed to human slavery and think the Ten Commandments are pretty hard to beat. James Wesley Rawles is deeply religious and he is a friend I respect fiercely for his many great and gentlemanly qualities.

I’ll leave it that.

We are the remnant; my readers whatever your religious affiliation seek to live lives free of the state and its poisonous influences, I salute you.

You’ll also note that William Wilberforce (a devout Christian) adorns the masthead of this very site. His faith led him to almost single-handedly influence the course of anti-slavery in the United Kingdom.

Your personal master in this coil or the supernatural ether is yours and yours alone.

Go in peace.

Bill Buppert
thirdgun@hotmail.com
17 Comments
  • Donk
    Posted at 20:13h, 31 January Reply

    So, the 16th amendment was never legally ratified regardless of what you have been taught. A “Federal” reserve, debt based monetary system could not exist without the 16th amendment.and an argument could be made also without the 17th, coincidence they were passed together – meh. Oh, the 17th was not ratified either – look it up.

    So, we have all been on the tax plantation for over a hundred years paying interest and interest only on Uncle Sam’s bar tab (regardless of what Denninger says).. Been on the SSI plantation since 1937 even though it was never deferred compensation but always a ponzi scheme built on the backs of progeny. Armed robbery via Mao’s tenet regarding power and its origin.

    What to do, what to do? We could go all Joseph Bannister but I do not have the time, knowledge nor resources.. In fact, we could be like the 20 “Tax Patriots” I worked with at a VA shipyard 25 years ago who rightfully concluded the same and did not pay their Fed taxes. Everyone to a man went to prison. Now, if that number had been 20,000 or 20,000,000 – what then?

    Most of us mew and meow but do nothing. Well, I am done mewing and bowing the knee to Caesar. I have finally realized that they are not stealing my money but my life as the former flows from the latter. My life is bequeathed by the Creator and none but Him to it is owed nor none can spirit it away unless allowed. I encourage you my fellow members of the remnant, the libertarian diaspora to no longer give one iota of your time, treasure or liberty to anyone you do not deem worthy.

    PS.

    BB, as I said in my personal email to you I am truly, genuinely humbled and honored you would accept and publish my apology as it was heartfelt and sincere. I also mentioned before that common courtesy and sense are all too lacking and we should strive for more of both and a willingness to admit we are wrong and atone when so. I respected you before, even more now. I raised my son telling him honor was a gift a man gives to himself – I meant it then and live it as best as I am able since.

    Hopefully considered your friend and compatriot,

    Donk

  • Jim Davidson
    Posted at 08:27h, 01 February Reply

    Hi, Bill. Great essay. Already missing you on Twitter, but I understand your priorities and may follow suit in a few weeks.

    In June 2018 I was accepted as a member of the religious society of Friends of the Truth, which was founded in 1647 by George Fox. While Fox was being tortured by the English government in prison, he was asked by one of his tormentors, Gervase Bennett, why he was quivering. Fox said that he trembled at the word of God. Bennett said, “Oh, so you’re a quaker.” Fox would eventually go so far as to say that Friends are “the people known as Quakers.”

    At the Dayton meeting we have a large poster which says we know that everyone has different experiences, different names they call the divine, and we find inspiration in the life of Jesus. We seek fellowship with all seekers. I find our practice of meditative worship without any leader, everyone sitting in around a rectangular carpet facing inward, to be very peaceful. Several times I have experienced the touch of the Holy Spirit with a message.

    Generally the message I am prompted to speak is the same. “We here are at peace but there are others elsewhere who are suffering in wars. We here are free, but there are many in bondage. Here in this room those who are healthy enough to be here are present, but absent are many who need healing, and there are many others across our community and around our world who are ill. We here have plenty of food, but there are many in our community and many more in our world who need food. We each will go home to a safe place, but there are many who have no homes. And so I pray that the homeless find shelter, the hungry find food, the sick find healing, the prisoners find freedom, those at war find a path to peace, and I be shown a way to help.”

    My mother gave me Marcus Aurelius’s meditations. She herself avowed agnosticism, saying, “I don’t know if there is a God, and I don’t think anyone else knows, either.” I miss her. Stoicism is a good sound philosophy, and Abolitionism is, too.

    • Bill
      Posted at 10:19h, 01 February Reply

      Awesome comment, Jim. I admire the Quakers and Shakers and other outliers b/c they don’t get caught up in the jingoism so common in Western protestants.

      Stop by more often and you will be amazed to discover what a time vampire Twitter is, I went cold turkey.

      Bill

  • dann
    Posted at 10:58h, 01 February Reply

    “Progressivism reached its zenith during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, when progressive reformers finally got their wish as the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. This ratification settled any constitutional questions about the legality of this controversial tax.
    – – – – – – – – – –
    Bill, and by extension, Alex at ammo.com, Donk, et al;
    in re the quote at the head of this missive [and for what it’s worth I am stating that whether or not ratification actually took place – it doesn’t really matter] no constitutional question was settled!

    Let me quote a passage from two supreme court cases [incidentally, heard within a few years after 1913]:

    “The Sixteenth Amendment MUST BE construed [1] in connection
    with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect
    attributed to them before the Amendment [i.e., the 16th] was adopted.”
    Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, at 205 (1920) [emphasis added]

    ________________________
    1 Construe: to analyze the arrangement and connection of words (in a sentence or sentence part). To understand or explain the sense or intention of, usually in a particular way or with respect to a given set of circumstances. To construe a sentence, or sentence part, especially in connection with translating.

    STATEMENT:
    “The Sixteenth Amendment did NOT place any additional burden on the
    American people.
    It placed a prohibition on the courts from treating a tax
    with regard to “income” as anything other than an Indirect [2] tax.”

    PROOF:
    “[T]he 16th Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of taxation
    but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary [3] power of
    INCOME TAXATION possessed by Congress FROM THE BEGINNING
    from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation
    to which it inherently [4] belonged…”
    Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co, 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916) [emphasis added]
    ________________________
    2 There are two classes of taxes in the Constitution: ‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’. “Indirect” taxes MUST BE uniform! “The, so-called, “income” tax is uniform, it is not apportioned. “Direct” taxes MUST BE apportioned therefore, the, so-called, “income” tax is not a “Direct” tax, it is a “uniform” “indirect” “excise” tax. Doubt? Go back to “Brushaber” and “Stanton” for supreme court rulings. “Apportionment” takes place when Congress decides the amount of money it wants to take in from taxation and then ‘apportions’ that amount among the states – according to population. Also – and, again, according to the supreme court – an indirect tax MAY NOT be placed on a constitutionally protected right. The “right” to one’s “earnings” is constitutionally protected. [See: Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.S. 2d 453, 455-456 (Tenn. 1960)]

    3 Plenary: Complete in every respect: Absolute, Unqualified.]

    4 Inherent: Belonging by nature or settled habit.]

    [NOTE: Unlike the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment, the 16th Amendment did not repeal any other part of the Constitution.]

    Now…

    …IF IT IS TRUE that there are only two classes of taxes, “Direct” and “indirect” then the, so-called, “income” tax has to be one or the other.

    IF IT IS TRUE that a “Direct” tax has to be apportioned among the states according to population, and the, so-called, “income” tax is not apportioned, then it must be an “indirect” tax.

    IF IT IS TRUE that an “indirect tax must be uniform, and the, so-called, “income” tax is “uniform” throughout the country – and it is true that there are only two classes of constitutional taxes – then the, so-called, “income” tax HAS TO BE an “indirect tax” [which has to be uniform].

    IF IT IS TRUE that [per: Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.S. 2d 453, 455-456 (Tenn. 1960)] a tax MAY NOT BE levied on the right to receive…earnings which is a right belonging to every person, and this right is not a privilege bestowed by government, and a Right canNOT be taxed as a “privilege”, then what is happening???

    IF IT IS TRUE that the highest court in this land stated [per: Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co, 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916)] that the 16th Amendment did not change the constitutional requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned, and the, so-called, “income” tax is not apportioned, then the 16th Amendment does NOT authorized an un-consititutional un-apportioned “Direct” tax on every person’s earnings.

    IF IT IS, also, TRUE that the highest court in this land stated [per: Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 10-11. (1916)] any argument that the 16th Amendment treats a tax “on” income as a “Direct” tax is wholly without any truth, then does this not mean that the, so-called, “income” tax is NOT a “Direct” tax. And, if it is not a “Direct” tax – and if it is true that there are only two classes of constitutional taxation, “Direct” and “indirect” – then the, so-called, “income” tax must be an “indirect” tax.

    IF IT IS TRUE that [per: Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.S. 2d 453, 455-456 (Tenn. 1960)] no [“indirect”] tax may be levied on the right to receive earnings then how is it that the government, through the “internal revenue” bureau is collecting a tax on the earnings of almost everybody?

    NOTE: the only time a “Direct” tax can be said to be levied on any person’s “earnings” is if congress votes to authorize a tax of a certain specified amount of money and then apportions that amount amongst the states according to population. This would make such a tax a “Direct Apportioned Tax” per Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and, A1, S9, C4 of the federal constitution. The states would then assess all individuals a proportion of the tax to be paid and this would then, ordinarily, be paid by the individuals out of their earnings.

    IF IT IS TRUE that the “tax” referred to in Jack Cole v. MacFarland is shown by the Redfield v. Fisher [] to be an ‘indirect” tax – which an ‘excise’ tax is – then we are still stating that the, so-called, “income” tax is an “indirect” tax.

    “The individual, unlike the corporation, CANNOT BE TAXED FOR THE MERE PRIVILEGE OF EXISTING. …the individuals’ RIGHTS to live and own property are NATURAL RIGHTS for the enjoyment of which AN EXCISE** CANNOT BE IMPOSED.”
    Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, at page 819 (1930) [emphasis added]

    NOTE: the use of the word, “excise”, places the, so-called, “income” tax, properly in the category of an “indirect” tax which the Redfield court, among others, affirms, cannot be imposed on a Right. “Excise” taxes, “Impost” taxes, and “Duty” taxes are all different names of taxes that are in the ‘nature’ of “indirect” taxes.

    Of note is that while the term “direct tax” is mentioned in the federal constitution, there is no mention of the word “indirect” in relation to the practice of uniformly collecting taxes. This term, or word was arbitrarily used as a means to denote “impost”, “excise” and “duty” taxes – as a direct opposite to the constitutional term “Direct tax”.

    IF ALL OF THIS IS TRUE, then how is it that juries are convicting people for evading paying a tax that they do not owe!

    Ignorance!

    All the jurors believe, firmly, that they all must pay taxes; why should they believe someone who is making the statement that they don’t have to pay taxes..?! Which is why one should never make a negative statement: “I do not have to pay taxes because ____________.”

    [Remember, one cannot prove a negative!]

    Now one has the onus of proving what they say is correct. Government attorneys will use case law to prove one is right in one case and that one is wrong in the same case..!

    NEVER MAKE A STATEMENT! [wash, rinse, repeat]

    Always ask for the proof that one is a “taxpayer” as described at 1313(b) and 7701(a)(14); ask to be shown where in the statutes – if at all – you are shown to be “…subject to…” a revenue tax.

    Essentially, you have to convince the jurors that they, also, have no obligation to file. Good luck!

    The question was asked [above] “then how is it that the government, through the “internal revenue” bureau is collecting a tax on the earnings of almost everybody?”

    [The secret… everyone who is filing federal, so-called, “income” taxes, is… VOLUNTEERING …to do so. They are swearing under oath (when they sign their tax forms) that everything they are doing (such as filing) is the truth. In other words, they are saying that they owe those taxes!!! And if they want to ‘claim’ that they owe those taxes, why should government correct them – it has nothing to gain. That is why, if you fail to sign your return, it will be sent back to you for your signature.] [yes, of course, the ‘gun-in-the-room’ voids the signature! Again, good luck!]

    • Bill
      Posted at 12:50h, 01 February Reply

      Corrected, Dann…

  • dann
    Posted at 11:07h, 01 February Reply

    Apologies!!!

    Correction: re the sentence:

    “The, so-called, “income” tax is not uniform, it is apportioned. “Direct” taxes MUST BE apportioned therefore, the, so-called, “income” tax is not a “Direct” tax.”

    It should read:

    “The, so-called, “income” tax is uniform, it is not apportioned. “Direct” taxes MUST BE apportioned therefore, the, so-called, “income” tax is not a “Direct” tax, it is a “uniform” “indirect” “excise” tax. Doubt? Go back to “Brushaber” and “Stanton” for supreme court rulings.

  • Devin S
    Posted at 18:00h, 01 February Reply

    Thanks for yet another great article Bill. I am also a huge fan of Rawles and Survival Blog, great wisdom can be had there, I am also glad to see he is at least Libertarian. I am also a born again KJV Only Christian and I may not agree with all your philosophical views (beyond the political), we can still agree on virtually everything else. You often say things that I have said for years and been very much criticized for. Even though I could heatedly disagree with your religious (or lack there of) views, I can greatly appreciate your inquisitive mind, admiration for Natural Law, opposition to all forms of slavery, opposition to murder of babies, and your general desire for truth and facts. I was homeschooled from 5th grade through graduation (guess what, I can socialize too, sorry always have to make that plug in jest), but from an early age I have been fiercely independently minded, I question everything and want to learn it for myself, I appreciate that same drive in you and your writings. Please keep it all up.

    Oh, and if you don’t mind, will you write up a list of all your terms you use with a description, every time I come across one I laugh out loud. Coproaches, lol!

    • Bill
      Posted at 06:51h, 02 February Reply

      Devin,

      In the end, your religious worldview is only between you and your creator or whomever you apprehend as your bridge but we can agree that love instead of fear and a pro-life attitude in everything is the morally optimal path to take.

      None of that can happen with any government outside yourself.

      Intellectual curiosity should never die…

      The List? Probably not, looking back, it would be a monumental task to take that on but I urge all my readers to adopt them as they wish and I don’t even need any credit, just spread the word.

      I hope I answered all your questions earlier on 1/29/19.

  • J M
    Posted at 04:07h, 02 February Reply

    Per the technicalities of income taxation, 16th amendment ratification or lack thereof, apportionment, etc… Its sort of like the Wall or 9/11 conspiracy debates. A great diversion from the actual issue that it matters not what you say to the Rulers. They will still rob you, maim you, jail you or kill you.

    Have fun at the Jedi class, Bill! I’m jealous. Then again, I do not have an RDS’d pistol yet either. On the to do list for 2019.

    • Bill
      Posted at 06:55h, 02 February Reply

      Thanks, JM. I agree 100%, I just don’t care what machinations led to the illegitimacy of the all the amendments to the wretched Constitution. The whole robed government employee system is designed to rubber-stamp ANYTHING expands the state and protects its powers to steal and kill from its host population.

      I will write an AAR for the class.

      Some Jedi here.

  • olde reb
    Posted at 15:15h, 02 February Reply

    If you get hold of the government report on Constitutional Questions regarding the income tax, there was a paragraph that the 16th Amendment does not have any bearing on an income tax imposed upon salaries, wages, or remuneration for labor—and you would probably conclude they are all fouled up. They are not.

    The Pollock court held the income tax issue they were adjudicating (a tax on earnings from real estate and from stocks and bonds; i.e., capital investments) was unconstitutional. The income tax on wages and salaries (which they repeatedly distinguished as NOT BEING ADJUDICATED) was voided on rehearing. It could be reinstated by congress by legislation.

    In South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988), the court definitively identified the 16th amendment was overruled in 1935. The two cases related to bond issues.

    The citizen of the United States has a Constitutional Right to the pursuit of a livelihood under the clause of Liberty in the 5th and 14th Amendments. Such a Right is not a suitable object for revenue taxation. No court has held otherwise.

    Taxation is a matter of sovereignty, and that over which the government is not sovereign is not a suitable object for taxation. If a tax on a citizen’s earnings were to be valid, the entire earnings of the citizen could be confiscated. The sovereign We the People who created government would be relegated to slaves. The entire constitution could be stood on its head with just one law.

    Indictments for income tax charges cite 26 USC ##7201-7215. The Supreme Court has held those statutes apply to ALL taxes collected by the IRS; they therefore cannot allege violation of a “known legal duty” as required for a valid indictment. A list of 100 appellate and SC cases has been compiled of those statutes being applied to a multitude of other than income taxes.

    The IRS forms contain a caveat of “taxpayer’s name” that individuals sign under threat of perjury. A signature, over this line, under threat of perjury, is deemed to acquiesce to the status of a taxpayer and no additional allegation is required in the legal process. Lawyers who aggressively challenge this procedure face bogus criminal charges and loss of license. Collection of the bogus tax is a scam.

    Ref. http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/liberty/index.html

    • Bill
      Posted at 08:41h, 03 February Reply

      Olde Reb,

      I get it but you will not prevail in the King’s Court, the robed government employees will rule in favor of their masters, every time.

      One reason for this is because Rule of Law is a myth; it is impossible.

      I explain here: https://zerogov.com/the-myth-of-the-rule-of-law-an-analysis-by-bill-buppert/

      Hence mo natter how sophisticated and compelling your argument[s], you will lose against leviathan.

  • olde reb
    Posted at 20:48h, 02 February Reply

    Search for Joe Bannister as the IRS special agent who asked his boss to identify the law that imposed an income tax. He could not.

    The 1939 IRS code, Title 26, section #1, read anyone with income must pay the tabulated tax. [After challenge,] the 1954 rewriting, without material change, read that anyone “with taxable income” must pay the tabulated tax.

  • dann
    Posted at 08:26h, 03 February Reply

    olde reb, et al…

    …in re:

    “read that anyone ‘with taxable income’ must pay the tabulated tax.”

    WHO is “anyone ‘with taxable income'”?

    a “taxpayer”.

    who or what is a “taxpayer”? such a person is defined at sections 1313(b) and 7701(a)(14) i’ll save the trouble of looking it up:

    §ection 1313. Definitions. (b) Taxpayer. Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term
    “taxpayer” means

    any person SUBJECT TO a tax

    under the applicable revenue law.
    [emphasis added]

    §ection 7701. Definitions. (a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or
    manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof –
    (14) Taxpayer. The term “taxpayer” means

    any person SUBJECT TO
    any internal revenue tax.

    [emphasis added]
    Both of U.S.C. 26.

    look, the whole thing is a scam but i think it is important to understand what is going on so i’m submitting this ‘for information only’ – do with it what you will.

    the key words are “subject to” – a [quote] TAXPAYER (one word) [unquote] is a person who is “SUBJECT TO” a revenue tax.

    what makes any person “SUBJECT TO” a revenue tax? a section in the internal revenue code [irc] much like the two i listed above.

    if there is no section in the irc that lists what you do [remember, the, so-called, “income” tax is an INdirect excise tax on an activity, or event, or happening, or incident, or occasion; it is “ON” a revenue taxable activity – it is not a Direct tax which is on people and/or property [money is property] then one is NOT “SUBJECT TO” any revenue tax. one would be a “NON-TAXPAYER” per the Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. U.S .

    one example of a person who would be “SUBJECT TO” the, so-called, “income” tax would be a “distiller” or “importer” of alcoholic beverages. the “revenue taxable activity” would be ‘distilling’ and/or ‘importing’ – the tax is not on the property, that is, the alcohol itself but, rather, is ‘laid’ on the “activity”.

    FACT: Congress can call a tax by any name it wants.

    PROOF:
    “It is not necessary[,] to uphold the validity of the tax imposed by the United
    States[,] that the tax itself bears an accurate label. Indeed, the tax upon
    the distillation [verb] of spirits, imposed very early by federal authority, now
    reads[,] and has read[,] in terms of a tax upon the spirits [noun] themselves,
    yet the validity of this imposition has been upheld for a very great many years.

    “We do not think it profitable, however, to make the label as precise as that
    required under the Food and Drug Act. Congress has the power to impose
    taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any
    constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will.”
    Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 277 F.2d 16, at 17, 19-20 (3rd Cir. 1960)
    [emphasis added]

    in trying to figure out all this hocus-pocus, a congressman asked for an explanation – and had that explanation entered into the congressional record:

    The following is an excerpt from page 2,580, of the House Congressional Record of 27 March, 1943. [Though not itself “law”, it is based on the rulings of two (2) Supreme Court cases: Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., (1916), and, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., (1916), both of which are case law. [Both were heard and settled after 1913 – and neither have been overturned.] To wit:

    “The income tax is, therefore, NOT a tax on income as such. It is an EXCISE tax with respect to certain ACTIVITIES and PRIVILEGES which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is NOT the subject of the tax: it is…

    …the basis for determining the amount of tax.”

    the Browns in new hampshire and Larken Rose, to name just afew of people, made the mistake of making statements that they ‘did not owe a tax because _________.’ remember, one cannot prove a negative! always put the onus on the other side to prove that you are what they say you are.

    again, it’s a colossal scam but at least it can be advantageous to know what the magician is doing.

    One final NOTE: Even “volunteering” to pay the, so-called, “income” tax [i.e., by filling out and signing a W4 Form] does not make one a “taxpayer” as defined in the internal revenue code and in the Economy case. [But… if you do “volunteer” you will be treated by the Internal Revenue as if you are a “taxpayer” as defined at 26 U.S.C. 1313(b), AND, 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(14).]

    EXPLANATION: If there was a tax laid on ‘all persons of the opposite sex’, you could “volunteer”
    to pay that tax – and actually pay it – but, paying the tax would never make you a ‘member of the
    opposite sex’ as defined by law – and nature. You would just be a “volunteer” who was subject to
    all the laws regarding a tax on ‘persons of the opposite sex’.

  • olde reb
    Posted at 09:06h, 03 February Reply

    In the event the Federal Reserve is a acceptable topic of interest, you may find an academic and mathematical based conclusion that the FR embezzles from the US government at . https://thedailycoin.org/2018/08/16/a-look-at-the-federal-reserve-through-a-different-lens/

    • Bill
      Posted at 09:49h, 03 February Reply

      We are in violent agreement on the Ponzi scheme of the Fed.

      All government landholdings no matter how vast are plantations and the Helots who pay the taxes have no influence whatsoever on the direction of the size of government .

      You will NEVER vote your way to freedom.

  • Dirk Williams
    Posted at 15:11h, 13 February Reply

    And I thought I’d made it to the ” recovered statist” category. I pay my taxes for one simple reason. It allows me freedoms not available from behind the wall. Shit’s all funny money anyways. I’ve been in the federal courts when those who didn’t pay, tried the same arguments, oddly enough the courts blew right threw issues raised to the ” where’s the Kings money”. And would you like time to reconsider your position. Zero amount of amusement on their part.

    Na, I’ll pay my freedom tax, don’t like it, just have seen outcomes & consequences.

    It’s been my experience that to live in the jungle, it’s best to play jungle games, follow jungle rules.

    Bill, I’ve not mentioned this but before I went into law enforcement, I almost became an IRS thug, out of SF. I interviewed after testing. Was offered a gig. “Enforcement” 1984.. I just knew it wasn’t right,

    In the early 90s, these guys were training right alongside us at SWAT schools, sniper schools, and warrant execution schools. Their kit was the best available at the time. AND, they became very proficient!

    Do not underestimate these folks!

    Dirk

Post A Reply to Dirk Williams Cancel Reply