THEN FOLLOW-UP WITH THIS IN A DAY OR SO:
How To Speak And Write The Liberating Truth About The Tax
This community must become an intellectual force concerning the income tax. Here are a few tips for participating effectively in this very important project.
ALTHOUGH APOCRYPHAL IN ITS ORIGIN, the observation that, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing" is wisdom. Evil must be fought; lies must be countered with the truth.
In the arena in which the people and the state struggle against each other for supremacy, the battle is fought on several levels. Good men must fight on each of those levels.
For instance, the contest for who will command and dispose of each American's resources must certainly be joined on the level at which legal claims are made and rebutted. Each man and woman who wishes to remain in control of his own property, and the product of her own hard work must, in the face of all challenges, assert his ownership, and rebut claims made against her, each or both in the manner provided for by law.
But this immediate and small-scale engagement is not enough to defeat the evil of collectivist assaults on individual rights, even just in the area of taxation. The efforts of evil in this area are not only on the individual level.
The fact is, the need for fighting on the individual scale arises only because evil works hard on a much larger scale. Progressivist mythology about the nature of the "income" tax has been patiently taking root in the public mind for decades, and it is because of the success of that effort that those who know the truth about the tax must engage in the small contests. 75 years ago, no American had to argue with any payer or tax agency about the legal status of his earnings, or rebut false assertions simply in order to keep what belonged to her.
That the small battles must be fought today are because the larger battle has gone unfought. Good men must begin acting in the arena on THAT level, and quickly.
This community of educated Americans-- YOU, I mean-- must begin fighting the bigger fight. You must begin establishing yourselves as the intellectual counter-weight and corrective to the progressivist and statist myths about the tax. Failing to do so means staying mired in "trench warfare on Groundhog Day"-- winning each skirmish (in some cases only after some effort), but having to re-capture the same ground again, year after year.
FIGHTING THIS HIGHER-LEVEL BATTLE IS IMPERATIVE, but it is far easier than you might think. In this contest you have not only the truth on your side, but all the necessary facts have been assembled for your use. All you really HAVE to do is share them and put behind them your own energy.
What's more, fighting this higher-level battle is fun and very satisfying. Each salvo you launch into the public discourse makes you Neo with your hand extended in the "bring it" gesture while secure in the knowledge that you are armed for bear with unbeatable truth. Each presentation you send out into cyberspace is a persistent and multiplying mote of light.
You DO NOT have to be an expert debater (or a debater at all). You DO NOT have to write scholarly papers, or do research (although both are encouraged). You DO NOT have to defend anything.
All you have to do in order to be the critically-important intellectual counterweight to the myth-mongers and their false message is to put the facts into circulation.
You can put the facts into circulation individually. You can email around, for instance, just the following: "Did you know that the income tax really began in 1862? Look at what it says in the preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code! You can see it right here. How about that?" Nothing more need be done; no explanation is needed.
If someone writes back to say "So what?" you can just reply that you found it intriguing, and leave it at that. THE SEED WILL DO ITS WORK-- not everywhere, but somewhere, and that's all that's needed.
Again, YOU DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN OR DEFEND. If asked, nothing more need be said than, "I thought you'd find it intriguing. I did."
OF COURSE, YOU CAN ALSO WRITE YOUR OWN ARTICLES, and that's a great thing to do. As regards this latter option, I offer a few guidelines to help everyone in the community speak in the same language, so that the overall message is as clear to the larger community we are trying to educate as possible.
1. Never use the expressions, "income", "wages", "trade or business", "employee", "employment", "employer"-- with or without the "up-antenna" quote-marks, except to refer to the statutorily-defined things to which these apply as used in tax law. That is, don't ever call NON-federally-connected gains 'income'. Don't ever call non-federally-connected pay 'wages'
Indeed, it is best to not only never use the expression 'income' to refer to anything but [what really should be called] "fed-come", or 'wages' to refer to anything but [what really should be called] "fed-wages" when trying to educate others about the tax, but to never do so even just in casual conversation. Nothing will be more confusing to someone new to the truth about the tax than hearing you refer to NON-federally-connected gains with one of these words after you have just explained that all "income" is subject to the tax, or when they later see a court ruling or statute declaring that "all income is subject to the tax".
One of the hardest things for people to deal with in coming to understand the tax is that statutes and court rulings about those statutes (and the things those statutes concern) are entirely context-controlled. Consequently, when, for instance, the expression 'income' appears in either, only the statutory thing that goes by that name is being spoken of, not what goes by that name in common speech.
The US Supreme Court has explained this:
“Words having universal scope, such as 'every contract in restraint of trade,' 'every person who shall monopolize,' etc., will be taken [by everyone who understands how the law works], as a matter of course, to mean only everyone subject to such legislation, not all that the legislator subsequently may be able to catch.”
American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909)
As this observation by the court indicates, when a tax-related ruling is made upholding the application of the tax to "income", it is only referring-to the variety of 'whatever comes in' that is subject to the tax, and is NOT saying that what is subject to the tax is "whatever comes in". Those who can apply the appropriate cognitive filter can read such rulings (and the statutes with which they are concerned) without misunderstanding.
But without the filter misunderstanding is easy, and acquiring and making proper use of that filter is especially hard for people who have been subjected to a life-time of conditioning dedicated to suppressing its application in regard to the tax, as has been true of all Americans alive today. We have to guard against contributing to the confusion in others, even if we are able to keep things sorted-out properly in our own minds.
It's simply an unfortunate reality that the manner in which the income tax is constructed, and the voracious appetite of the unscrupulous State for resources which has informed its administration over the last 75 years, have combined to entirely co-opt a number of formerly societally-owned expressions. At this point it is no more appropriate to use these terms with any meaning other than the statutory ones than it would be to describe your heterosexual but light-hearted and whimsical uncle as "a very gay fellow".
So, NEVER say, for instance, "they can't tax people's wages". You may be meaning to say that they can't tax what average people earn, which we're all in the habit of calling 'wages', but what you will be heard to say is, "when I was telling you (or will tell you in a minute) about a class of taxable-activity earnings called "wages" in the law, I was speaking gibberish. I hope you can figure it out.
Don't even try to avoid this problem by a qualifier, like "they can't tax people's un-privileged wages". (Or "private-sector wages", or "common-meaning wages", etc..) You have told them (or will tell them) that there is a thing in the law called "wages" that are relevant to the tax. Use that expression to begin with and throughout to mean nothing but that thing. When not meaning that thing, use [un-privileged] 'earnings', 'pay', 'gains', 'receipts', and so forth. Apply the same principle to every other defined term in the tax law whose label mimics a common word.
2. Remember and adhere to the fact that the tax is on activities, NOT the dollars (or dollar-value) those activities produce. The dollars are just the measure of the amount of activity conducted, and the medium in which any applicable tax on those activities will be paid.
This can be a clunky thing to incorporate in an explanation about the tax tax. But it is a fact that helps people grasp and retain how the tax can properly and without internal contradiction be demanded from some folks and not from others.
It's not easy to see the difference between Joe's paycheck and Sam's paycheck. But it's easy to see the difference between Joe's work as a federal regulator, exercising powers that only exist because the federal government exists and are only Joe's to administer by permission of that government, and Sam's as a baker (or plumber, or whatever) doing what is his to do by right, and which can be done whether the federal government (or any government) exists or doesn't.
Likewise, it's not easy to see the difference between the dividends Nancy receives on her investments and those received by Sally. But it's easy to see the difference between Nancy receiving the benefits of investment in federal activities (which is participation by proxy in those activities), also only possible by the existence and permission of the government, and Sally getting her part of profits achieved by activities done purely by the rights of the doers.
All that said, don't belabor this point. Explain it up front, and then explain that subsequent use of the expression "income" (or "wages" or whatever) is to be understood to really mean the activity which is measured by the receipts known as "income" (or "wages", etc.).
3. Draw on at will, and closely adhere to, the facts and analysis concerning the real meaning and effect of the 16th Amendment and the origin of the tax in 1862 found at losthorizons.com/The16th.htm.
4. Use common sense, rely on your audience's common sense, and use analogies whenever possible.
1. Be positive, and upbeat. I have been well criticized for an occasional excess of snarkasm and derision in discussing government behavior (for instance, in many, if not most, of the 'Every Which Way But Loose' postings). Let me be the only one guilty of that sometimes off-putting demeanor. Like in a marketing campaign, you want to show smiles, not grimaces or anger.
2. Be positive and upbeat!!
4. Point out how dramatically better-off America and Americans will be when the proper scope of the tax is again widely understood and respected, and when that understanding and respect has had its effect. Use this or this or this, own your own formulations.
5. Draw on, and communicate, your own passion and energy and resolve. DON'T let yourself get knobbled by any sense of the difficulty involved in communicating the truth, or of standing up for the truth. Push any such hindrances aside by looking inward and taking stock of what makes YOU rise and act.
Proudly let YOUR OWN resolve and sense of purpose inform your words and expressions to others. You will be amazed at how inspiring you will be when you push aside the rest and let your dedication to what is right do the talking with its own graceful, shining and powerful voice.
HERE ARE SOME USEFUL GUIDELINES, HINTS AND PERSPECTIVES for customizing or making more effective the mailings that you do:
You must view the task before us exactly the way the civil rights activists viewed their task.
Do you think every journalist out there is incapable of taking an interest in what CtC has revealed, or the outrages to which the government has increasingly resorted in its efforts to suppress or discourage the spread of those revelations? YOU ARE WRONG.
Do you think every lawyer or judge or law-school professor or CPA is incapable of taking an interest in what CtC has revealed, or the outrages to which the government has increasingly resorted in its efforts to suppress or discourage the spread of those revelations? YOU ARE WRONG.
These people are NOT incapable of taking an interest in what CtC has revealed, or the outrages to which the government has increasingly resorted in its efforts to suppress or discourage the spread of those revelations. Nor are they frozen against those things.
These folks have simply been conditioned, all their lives, to reflexively view anything outside or contrary to their existing understanding of reality with extreme skepticism-- just as everyone else does. Breaking through the firewalls of skepticism REQUIRES PERSISTENT EFFORTS.
It also requires creative efforts. No one will be persuaded to take seriously, and invest precious time and effort into the idea that the state has been lying to everyone for 75 years about the true nature of the income tax, if nothing but that is said to them.
But even hardened skeptics WILL be persuaded if you-- each and every one of you in your thousands upon thousands-- draw upon this and this and this and this and especially this in applying your best efforts to write and send messages to persuade.
DON'T MIX MESSAGES in writing your persuasive letters or emails! There is nothing but harm in adulterating the 100% scholarly CtC revelations with any other content, even content you might 100% believe to be just as true (and with which I might also agree).
Even though I maintain a robust, utterly persuasive, and, I believe, completely correct page on the fact that the "official" story about 9/11 is nonsense on stilts, I would never include a reference or allusion to 9/11 in a persuasive letter inviting someone to put his or her skepticism on hold and open up to learning something remarkable, important and unexpected about the income tax. I don't know that person's beliefs about 9/11, and frankly, as much as it can be proven that the "official" story is not true, so far nothing whatever can be proven as to what really happened.
CtC is completely different. Every single assertion in CtC is nothing but a fact, easily proven by simply reading the relevant statutes and the historical records, not to mention by the ten-years-and-more of reluctant but steady acknowledgments of the accuracy and completeness of those facts by government agencies across the country-- admissions that never would be made in the first place, and more, never repeated, were they not compelled by what CtC reveals about the tax and the law.
That is how CtC must be presented to others: A simple product of scholarship, beyond skepticism by virtue of its demonstrably-accurate research and conclusions. Any and all of its demonstrably-accurate research and conclusions welcome any challenge or test.
Any and all of CtC's demonstrably-accurate research and conclusions are distinguished and emphasized by the concerted effort of the executive and a corrupt judiciary to evade them by any means necessary, including behavior as demonstrably and unambiguously corrupt and invalid as the facts it seeks to evade are demonstrably and unambiguously correct.
USE THE FACTS.
You might want to just do a "Burma-Shave" routine, sending one fact presented in this study, and the evidence proving it, to the same recipients each day over a week or two. Then send a bullet-point list of everything you have shown and a link to this page.
DO NOT try to explain the facts, or the implications from the facts. Just present them.
SHOW your correspondent that the 1939 IRC preamble flatly states that the laws it reflects go back to 1862, long before the 16th amendment. Include the .pdf here by which this is proven. Say no more about it.
SHOW your correspondent that the current IRC is the same. Include the .pdf here by which this is proven. Say no more about it.
SHOW your correspondent that the income tax is an excise, and what that means by sending this .pdf, and perhaps this one, as well. SHOW your correspondent that the income tax cannot apply to the subjects of a capitation (and what that means) by sending THIS .pdf.
SHOW your correspondent that the 16th amendment changed nothing and merely restored the application of the tax to taxable gains in the form of rents and dividends as had been the case pre-Pollock, by sending this .pdf.
And so on, finishing with a bullet-point list of all that you have shown, and a link to this page.
USE THE CORRUPT EVASIONS.
Perhaps send those evasions, too, as a series of "Why would a court...?" or "Why would the Department of Justice...?" questions, one a day. No explanations or answers to the questions-- let them do their own work. Again, finish with a bullet-point summary at the end and a request that your correspondent use his or her common sense and add it all up.
Or do something different. Use YOUR creativity.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SOURCES OF MEDIA CONTACT INFORMATION here and here. I have no real idea of how accurate this information is. Please test it with your wake-up calls, and share with me any others of which you know or become aware.
Use the phone book, other internet resources, or any other means you can think of to get your messages to every journalist and every legal professional out there. Make full use of the corrupt behaviors of the courts, in the simplest and starkest terms possible-- even after the revelations of the Orwellian FISA court contortions, many folks still imagine that the federal courts remain honest arbiters of what is true or lawful, and will do so until the dishonest and lawless behavior of those courts in service to the executive branch's war against CtC is plainly laid out before them.
THIS IS THE BATTLEGROUND, my friends. Please take your places upon it, and start fighting.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, DO IT!!! Never forget: You can't score the goal if you don't take the shot.
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do."
-Everett Hale (...and every other person who has ever deserved liberty...)
A New Flyer By Brian Harriss
Get this great new word-spreading tool as a printable .pdf here.
CtC Warrior Brian Harriss shares another great flyer
Another New Outreach Tool!
THE EVER-PRODUCTIVE BRIAN HARRISS has shared a new outreach tool-- a simple printable flyer for distribution to co-workers and friends. As always, Brian makes persuasive and important points in simple terms accessible to everyone. Get the flyer in a single page version here, or in a larger font, front and back format here.
AND DON'T FORGET ABOUT the wake-up-to-the-lie consciousness-raising handout here...
"It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime."
SHARE THESE FILMS AND LINKS: