Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact


“Many a man stumbles across the truth, then picks himself up and hurries on as though nothing had happened.”
-Winston Churchill


In 2003, I revealed the hidden mechanisms by which most Americans have been improperly subjected to the "income" tax for decades.  Shortly thereafter, I had the pleasure of displaying concrete corroborating  evidence-- furnished by the federal government itself-- of the truth of what I said.


This was not "evidence" of the sort offered by "tax honesty" entrepreneurs, which typically takes the form of a triumphant display of some out-of-context fragment of code, statute or judicial dicta capable of being perceived, if the light is right, as supportive of the huckster's assertions; or the announcement of having successfully slipped through the cracks for another year.  Nor was it even just more of the already-voluminous and comprehensive body of statutes, regulations, history, judicial rulings and logic of which 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' is comprised.


Instead, what I displayed to the eyes of any who would bother to look was an on-paper, explicit acknowledgement by the federal government that every penny of mine that had been taken from my earnings during 2002 in anticipation of an "income" tax thereon-- Social Security 'contributions' and all-- constituted an 'overpayment' (that is, was in excess of the amount owed as tax-- again, every penny).  This acknowledgement was accompanied by a full refund of all of that money-- $10,152.96-- even after an initial refusal by the IRS.  In every particular (and as is made unmistakable by the evidence posted-- including both what was filed, and what resulted), this occurred precisely as I said it would-- and for the reasons I said it must-- in CtC.  In several different ways, this event was a first in American history.


But it was far from the last such event.  Since that first acknowledgement of the unique accuracy of what is taught in CtC, and first complete refund, tens of thousands of CtC readers have received the same-- many for several years in a row, now.  Hundreds of thousands of explicit, unambiguous acknowledgments of many different kinds have now issued forth from federal and, so far, 35 state offices across America (along with a growing number of local tax offices, as well).


Readers have secured transcripts showing zero "income" and zero tax owed, have recovered money garnisheed away from them for old tax 'debts', have shut down liens and levies, seen 'Notices of Deficiency' evaporate, and much more.  These victorious warriors for the rule of law, including doctors, nurses, professors, CPAs, attorneys, pilots, engineers, teachers, truckers, IT specialists-- in short, Americans from all walks of life-- have amassed and shared with the world a vast body of additional, unambiguous evidence that what I have presented in 'Cracking the Code-...' is the simple, never-before-revealed absolute truth about the law; and that what that truth offers to America is clean, proper and lawful liberation from an ancient and evil scourge that has destroyed lives, eroded the Constitution, and fastened upon us a pelf-swollen, arrogant, despotic and out-of-control government.


Indeed, even the increasingly desperate efforts by the state and federal governments to thwart CtC-educated Americans invariably confirm the accuracy of my message.  Such efforts are focused on one goal-- excluding informed filings from being admitted into the record at all, based upon one absurd, corrupt pretext or another.  The reason for this is simple and unambiguously revealing: Once those filings are admitted, the law, which these governments wish to evade, must take its course-- to the benefit of the filer.


Such efforts are thus of a kind with the repeated failed efforts of the IRS to suppress my book and my voice, because once the truth is really understood by any American, nature takes its course, and that American is lost forever as a resource to the exploiters of ignorance, and becomes instead an implacable warrior for liberty and the rule of law.



Nonetheless, in the face of all of this evidence-- in the face of these clear facts-- some of you reading these words have steadily and resolutely averted your eyes from this truth, or, seeing it, have remained silent.  This, even while you rail against the predations of the unbridled state on a daily basis.


Why do you not look, why do you not speak?  The solution to the predations about which you complain is in your very hands, but you sit idle and mum!  Why?  Has the concept of the rule of law, or the very idea that it can be upheld, and can prevail if vigorously championed become so alien to you that you do not recognize what you see?


Maybe you just can't be troubled to do the reading and studying needed to take in the truth and make it your own?  I know the reading and studying can be grueling, but you know what?  You get what you pay for.


Look at it this way:  Most of you would willingly spend years of your lives and vast amounts of money to improve your education, primarily just for the sake of getting a job that pays more money.  Those of you who have gone to college, or specialized training schools, did just that.  Are your rights, and the rule of law for yourselves and your children, not worthy of a small fraction of that effort and expense?  (This is not to mention the additional benefit of regaining control of up to 45% or so of your earnings year in and year out-- a much higher return-on-investment than most forms of higher education will offer.)


Perhaps you're intimidated by the government's PR campaign against me?  If so, you really don't belong in this arena at all.  Perhaps that propaganda campaign has succeeded in planting the seeds of doubt in your mind about the revelations of CtC?  If so, you really haven't been paying attention, haven't bothered to read my responses and learn of the eventual outcome-- and are hopelessly naive about the lengths to which the riders of a plush gravy-train will go in an effort to keep rolling for a little while longer, to boot.


Or perhaps you cultivate the notion that however I am able to demonstrate the truth of what I say about the law, it doesn't matter, because it just reflects a temporary glitch in an otherwise seamless conspiracy of corruption, so vast and insurmountable that you are relieved of responsibility to act?  A clever mental gymnastic, certainly; but nothing but cheap and phony excuse for inaction.  The only conspiracy against which one cannot act is a conspiracy of which they are a part.


The fact is, the vast conspiracy to which America is in thrall is merely a conspiracy of mutually-tolerated apathy and willful blindness to the evidence and the truth.  It is a conspiracy by which those who would prefer to just talk or complain, and cultivate denial of the truth in the vain hope that some silver bullet or magic word will be revealed which will restore and defend their liberty for them without the trouble of actually defying the beneficiaries of the status quo with their own testimony, forgive and enable each other.


You can do better, and your efforts are needed.  Put aside the misleading distractions, the excuses, the haring off after 'silver bullet' miracle-cures, and your fear.  Open your eyes, recognize the truth, and act.  Although still benefiting from a lap-dog mainstream media and a massive inertia and infrastructure, and still sticking it out and playing tough (did you think it would hold up a white flag and cry "Mercy!"?), Leviathan stands naked and vulnerable before you for the moment.  But the moment could quickly slip away.  If it does, and is lost, it will be you that will bear the blame.


"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

-Samuel Adams, Architect of the American Revolution




"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so."

--  Uncle Remus


Do you imagine that you know what 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' says without having read the book (or that CtC is missing something relevant to the "income" tax)?




But sadly, you're not alone.  That's because there is a whole department of the IRS devoted to nothing but issuing disinformation about CtC, and dissuading people from reading, or confidently acting on what they learn in, the book.  A big part of this effort involves disseminating carefully crafted, inaccurate "summaries" of, or disparaging commentaries on, the book-- among, and through members of, both the "tax professional" and the "tax honesty" communities.  This is done in recognition of the fact that some will then presume that they know what the book says, and not bother reading it for themselves, or will misconstrue and misunderstand sporadic tax-agency efforts to resist CtC-educated filings.




Why this massive and focused effort?  That's simple.  The "income tax" scheme has been entirely laid bare and entirely undone in CtC


Readers of CtC are routinely winning victories in restoring the rule of law over the tax.  Each such victory adds to the mountain of hard, incontrovertible, and in many cases highly comprehensive on-paper evidence that this book (and this book alone) contains the liberating truth about the tax.  Each such victory makes the concealment and denial of the liberating truth about the tax that much more difficult.





SADLY, TAX AGENCY EFFORTS against CtC get help from within the "tax honesty" community.  For example, some folks who have already gotten their feet wet looking for the truth about the "income" tax elsewhere dissuade themselves from reading CtC and actually learning that truth.  They might hear things about the book's contents that sound familiar, and then make the mistake of imagining that they already know what's in the book.  This is because over the years, many researchers have made varyingly accurate observations about certain things which REALLY ARE elements of the "income" tax, and are thus properly a part of the complete picture of the subject.  Some of these same things may make an appearance in CtC, and evoke that superficial sense of familiarity for some.


However, this sense is highly misleading, even only insofar as those individual elements are concerned.  When taken in the past, these "snapshot" observations of aspects of the law had been made and considered in ignorance of other key elements of the "income" tax, and without any understanding of the all-important context within which they exist.  It is only now, in CtC, that all the pieces are in place, the context is revealed and the puzzle is solved.  Thus, even the seemingly old and familiar is truly new in CtC.



FAR WORSE, some people will be deliberately dissuaded from reading CtC for themselves, or, after reading the book, face efforts to discourage them from acting on what they have learned, by others in the "tax honesty" community.  This especially disturbing dynamic has its own little hierarchy of bad behavior.


In some cases these efforts to dissuade their fellows from learning the actual truth about the tax will be undertaken by folks who have simply convinced themselves that they personally have already figured it all out (or someone else they know has done so), and because what THEY believe to be the truth is either not found in CtC, or is presented in a fashion contrary to their understanding, CtC must be wrong.  Those in this group are well-meaning, but are seemingly incapable of recognizing that despite what they imagine they see when reading some portion of law, or some judicial ruling, or some conspiracy theory that has caught their fancy, there is absolutely no evidence of any kind demonstrating the correctness of their cherished belief.


At the same time, these folks have become highly practiced in the exercise of rationalization, mentally insulating themselves from perceiving the unrelenting and completely unprecedented four-year-long-and-counting accumulation of hard evidence of the fact that CtC, and nothing but CtC, has nailed it-- simply because that evidence is so inconvenient to their preferred view of things.  Whenever this type of stubborn theorist is forced to confront reality, he or she lives in hope that some fatal flaw in CtC will eventually be revealed, muttering, "Just you wait...!"



Others in the community who will engage in this destructive behavior of hindering the spread of the actual truth about the tax comprise those who have been aptly labeled "PAY-triots".  These folks make a business of capitalizing on the misfortune-- and often desperation-- of their activist but ignorant neighbors, selling "services" (or expensive seminars or "information packets", etc.) which they claim will solve the victim's tax problems.  These operators have learned the age-old lesson that people in trouble will pay a lot for what is claimed to be a way out, and quite frankly, they just don't want their market to learn the truth about the "income" tax.


Does this sound harsh?  There's a simple test that will prove the truth of this in any given case.  Go to anyone holding forth as an  "income tax problem solver" and ask for help.  If your correspondent is honest, he will promptly and freely make you aware of what you're going to see as you continue reading this page.  He might still assert that he has something better to offer-- if he somehow believes this to be true-- and try to make a case for that alternative...  But any correspondent purporting to peddle relief from the "income tax scheme" who FAILS to promptly and freely make you aware of what you're going to see as you continue reading this page is a scam artist whose interest is your money, not your well-being.


(The same test can be applied to those who constantly circulate "news" and "views" on the subject of the tax by email or in newsgroups and forums.  Any of these folks that do not regularly direct the attention of their readers to the constant victories posted on this site, and to other CtC-related news, have to be presumed to be deliberately trying to prevent knowledge of these things from making its way into the community.)



Then there are those in the "tax honesty" community who will dissuade others from learning the liberating truth about the tax by prominently adopting and encouraging a sort of a know-nothing, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" attitude, by the nature of which "demanding answers" is seen as virtuous, while seeking them out somehow is not.  That is, "Don't distract me with the facts-- I've got the 'tude, and I'm on a roll!"




Look at what those who actually HAVE read the book have to say...


...and at what has been done by some of these true American heroes, so far.


Even the couple of courts which have allowed themselves to be co-opted into the governmental effort to discourage the spread of the knowledge uniquely presented in CtC have actually only emphasized the accuracy of that knowledge.  For instance, a federal district court was persuaded in 2007 to cooperate with a DOJ/IRS PR pretense of "enjoining" a tax-preparation professional from helping clients with returns of a certain, carefully specified description intended to be confused with those which might be made pursuant to what is taught in CtC.  The idea was to imply, to those who have never actually read the book, that what is conveyed therein "has been rejected by the courts".


Nothing could be further from the truth, and, in fact, an educated consideration of this "injunction" reveals that not only does it not actually say what the IRS wants it to be understood to say, but its careful language is made necessary by the fact that the court CAN'T dispute what is really taught in CtC.  To begin with, though, a little background revealing the pretexts for this assault, as discussed in a May 4, 2007 losthorizons.com newsletter article about this affair:


Accounting Professional Don Gray Faces Harassment Over A Minor Paperwork Slip-Up


Don Gray, a professional accountant who has been providing services to CtC-educated Americans for the last 18-months or so, has been made the target of an IRS effort to have him enjoined from offering tax-return preparation services because he neglected to keep his Michigan state public accountancy license up-to-date.


The government's filing is thick with the usual ridiculous mischaracterizations of a return filed by a knowledgeable person.  Over and over Gray is accused of helping prepare returns based on a claim that "wages were not income", for instance.  As is the 'service's' well-established pattern in struggling to respond to CtC-educated Americans: When it can't dispute what IS said, it pretends something has been said that it CAN dispute...  The words "false" and "fraudulent" also make their predictable couple-of-hundred appearances, unsurprisingly without the slightest evidence or explanation being provided, or even referenced, in support of these inflammatory libelous-in-any-other-context expressions.


Don is credited by the government with explicit credit for helping recover $188,587 in amounts erroneously withheld or paid in for Americans in 7 states, a record for which he can be justifiably proud.  For no particular reason given, though, the filing goes on to accord victories reaching as high as an aggregated $1.5 million to Don "based on IRS estimates..."  (Since Don hasn't been able to furnish me with more than a total of just a few thousand dollars worth of victory evidence for posting, I thought about posting the IRS claim and bumping my "victory" total by $1.45M, but since doing so would mean taking the agency at its word-- and since Don dismisses this figure as absurd-- I just couldn't do it...)  One of the allegations in the government's filing is that Don failed to sign some returns that he prepared?!  Maybe this is where the IRS gets to its $1.5 million-- by ascribing to Don credit for returns he had nothing to do with?


Ah well, the ways of the agency are inscrutable, by design.  You know the old saying, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your b______t.


The only substance in this filing appears to be the assertion that Don had included the acronym CPA in the list of his considerable credentials on returns he helped prepare for a brief period of time, stopping doing so a few months ago when it was pointed out to him that although he IS, in fact, a state-certified public accountant, just as he had claimed, a provision of the certification holds that only a Michigan-certified public accountant who has stayed current on his registration requirements can use the state's certification to call themselves a CPA.  It's a way of ensuring an incoming $220 biannual fee from guys like Don, you see...


As Don explains:

It is the various states that regulate the licensing of CPA's, not the federal government.  When I became recognized by the state of Michigan back in 1986 as a CPA, the requirements were that you pass the AICPA exam, which was 19.5 hours long, and that you have 2 or more years of what the state refers to as "qualifying" experience.  I won't get into what counts as qualifying experience, but suffice it to say that I had it because they gave me the certificate. 

In order to continue to be licensed with the state, you have to send them $220 every 2 years, and report 80 hours of qualifying continuing education.  Now, I have to complete continuing education for my CFP certification as well as my state insurance licenses every 2 years as well, which I have done for many years.  The reason is because I do financial planning as well as provide insurance products where appropriate for my clients.  Most of this continuing ed would satisfy the CPA requirement as well, so if I had wanted to renew my license, I wouldn't have had to take much in the way of continuing ed beyond what I was already doing.

However, as I stated in an earlier email, since I haven't done accounting or auditing in a number of years, I didn't see the need to send the state $220 every 2 years, etc., so I didn't.  I was registered with the state as a CPA, which is a lesser fee, and doesn't require reporting continuing ed.  However, registration expires every 2 years, and I didn't get a renewal form from the state.  So my registration ended 12-31-03.  Being registered doesn't give you the right to practice "public accounting", it just keeps your name on file.  However, my CPA certificate is still valid with the state, until and unless the state revokes it.  In talking with the state board of accountancy, they advised me to wait until September, 2007 before attempting relicensure, if I want to because I would have to take 80 hours before they would relicense me, and then another 80 hours over the next 2 years.  The reason is because you have to have the hours done within 12 months of relicensing, and I haven't taken any continuing ed yet for my CFP or insurance licenses yet because they're not up for renewal until later this year.

It's a real shame that a good American like Don, who has, according to the government's own words, helped many folks exercise their rights and stand up for the law, should be victimized as part of the increasingly desperate efforts of the IRS to shore up its rapidly-crumbling little castle-built-on-ignorance.  I hope everyone will join with me in wishing Don the very best as he prepares to deal with this outrageous, and fundamentally petty, assault.


Aren't You Glad That Thugs Engaged In Corrupt Efforts To Suppress The Truth No Longer Control The Disposition Of YOUR Wealth?



Now, here are portions of the DOJ press releases touting the eventually issued "injunction" (I have put "enjoining" and "injunction" in quote marks for reasons that will be clear in a moment...):


Mr. Gray stated that he prepares conventional federal income tax returns and he prepares federal income tax returns based on the book Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth about Taxation in America by Peter Eric Hendrickson.

Mr. Gray has asserted that: (i) that his customers had no income and (ii) that his customers' wages are not taxable income. The position that his customers had no income or that his customers' wages were not taxable are variations of the argument that the I.R.C. does not define "income" and that wages are not "income."



As anyone who has read CtC knows, "wages" certainly ARE "taxable income".  Indeed, there is no body of information on the planet that makes that fact more clear than CtC.  No CtC-educated American would ever declare that "wages are not income".


I can't say from my own personal knowledge that Mr. Gray never said such a thing, of course (though I doubt he ever did).  However, to declare him to have said it, and to declare that to do so is wrong, is to say nothing whatever about what is taught in CtC.  The fact is, by virtue of the language above, Gray has been "enjoined" in reference to something that he probably never did, and in any event certainly never would do pursuant to what is taught about the law and the tax in CtC.


On the other hand, the court in this case very carefully, explicitly and revealingly DOES NOT condemn, nor prohibit Gray, or anyone else from, acting pursuant to what IS taught in the book-- such as that not all earnings in the form of pay-for-work are "wages" (as that term is explicitly defined, and meant, in the federal revenue laws); nor are all money-making enterprises "trades or businesses"; nor are all receipts "income" (or even potentially "income" except as exempted or excused from that status by some act of Congress)...  The court doesn't do these things because it cannot, for the simple reason that all these things are true.


This court had a perfect opportunity to flatly and plainly say, "All earnings (or receipts) are "income"" (or "All earnings are "income" unless exempted by law"), or "All pay for work is "wages", or ANYTHING that actually disputes what is revealed in CtC.  This court certainly WOULD have said these things, if it could have.  The fact is, you could pore through court rulings for the next ten years and not come across a single ruling in which a judge dared to make the ridiculous and flatly wrong assertion that all earnings, or all receipts, are "income".  None ever has.  But those beholden to the gravy-train that is the misunderstood "income" tax sure don't want YOU to be conscious of that.


Instead, this disingenuous court says nothing more than what CtC itself teaches-- that "wages" are "income"-- while carefully avoiding the subject of what constitutes "wages" (and what doesn't).  (The reality of the latter subject doesn't escape the IRS and, so far, 30 state tax agencies, of course-- all of which continue to issue ten of thousands of dollars in complete refunds each and every month since the "Gray" injunction, just as they had been steadily doing for years before it.)  The sordid truth is that this court groped its way to accommodating the DOJ and IRS desire for some press release fodder by cheap semantical gimmickry and careful misdirection, hoping that the rubes will take its integrity on faith and not actually study this ruling.


(By the way, speaking of semantical gimmickry, Word to the Gray court:  "The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code." U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit, 1976).  The closest thing there is to a "definition" of "income" in the IRC is an elaboration of "all income, from whatever source derived".  All this language says is that everything which DOES qualify as "income" within the context of this body of law is to be considered subject to the law's provisions.  As such, it is no more of a definition of "income" than is provided by defining "froogle" as "all froogle, from whatever source derived".  That is, this language doesn't define "income" at all, but only defines the class [of whatever "income" is] that is comprehended by the law.  Obviously, this was recognized by the wiser-- or more honest-- jurists in the Ballard case, who were also doubtless aware that "income" is a Constitutional term not capable of Congressional or Executive department definition [see Eisner v. McComber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)], and that the jig is long since up as to the limited meaning of "income" even without doing a comprehensive analysis of the term:

"We must reject… …the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts-- everything that comes in-- are income…”  United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918) [because otherwise, the tax would be an unconstitutional capitation... -PH]

Further, no matter what the Gray court chooses to admit or comprehend about the definition of "income", does it REALLY mean to suggest that it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to not have had any?  Where do they get these people??!!)


The summary of all of these facts is clear and straightforward: Every possible means by which the unique, liberating accuracy of 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' could be demonstrated-- short of an IRS press conference declaring its surrender and dissolution-- is plainly and thoroughly manifest.



Read the book.


Learn the truth.


Spread the word.




NOTE: There are a number of folks now amongst the CtC-educated who came to their new knowledge of the truth about the law only after having embraced errors, and having engaged in associated bad practices in the past-- often for years.  Some of these folks ARE suffering harm of one kind or another from the ongoing (or newly-emerging) ill effects of these bad practices, even though they have since attempted to correct their situations with what they now know.


Inevitably, the troubles these belatedly-CtC-educated activists are experiencing are sometimes mistaken by ignorant observers-- or even by the victims themselves-- as being related to their CtC-educated actions, when the reality is that the troubles are being visited upon them DESPITE their CtC-educated actions.  (Unfortunately, even the most perfect knowledge cannot undo, reverse or rectify every misstep taken in ignorance.)  It is incumbent upon anyone encountering stories about "CtC-related" troubles to gather sufficient background information to reveal what is really going on.  See the "Help!" page for more on this.




Just to set the right tone as we proceed, I'd like to point out that:

Individual Virtue Is The Most Powerful Weapon Against A Corrupt State


Ever wonder what lies behind the studious institutional enmity toward moral consciousness we see all around us in America (and elsewhere) today?  It is an institutional recognition that the greatest stumbling-block to the core ambition of the unbridled state (the unhindered exercise of power on behalf of its clients) is the stature of individual morality as a popular value.  This is because while all the mundane costs of compliance with the state can be manipulated in the state's favor, the moral cost of compliance with illegitimate state behavior cannot be.  The only tool the state has in that regard is the undermining of morality in general.


I will offer taxation as a convenient model: It is easy to see that merely by manipulating the rate of any given tax, the state can make the cost of resistance-- either resistance as a matter of political opposition, or even as legal resistance to the misapplication of the tax-- greater than the cost of compliance, if the only considerations are out-of-pocket expenses and expenditures of effort.  If these were the only considerations, and everything else about it remained the same, would anyone invest much in opposition to, for example, an actual aggregated net "income" tax burden of, say, 5%?  Or 10%?  Even when the tax was being misapplied in defiance of the law, resistance wouldn't be worth it.  Indeed, at the right rate, even the trouble of saving receipts and calculating deductions wouldn't be worth bothering with.


However, when the cost of compliance with any policy or demand involves the violation of moral principles, the calculation is quite different.  In that case, a moral person will find no price of resistance too high.


Continuing with the "income" tax example: When compliance with the state's ambition requires false testimony about oneself and/or others (such as is discussed in 'The Criminal Rites Of Spring'), and/or cooperation with, or acquiescence to, the illegitimate use of force against others, a moral individual simply cannot comply, regardless of the cost of refusal, and regardless of how inexpensive any other cost of compliance is made to be.  The two positions-- respect for, and embrace of, morality; and cooperation with, and participation in, institutionalized immorality-- simply cannot co-exist.  A moral person will choose the course illuminated by the instruction, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's", understanding that while Caesar is entitled to look after his legitimate interests, he is entitled to the cooperation of others in doing so only insofar as that cooperation is compatible with God's requirement's.


Thus, the subversion of morality is necessary to the state's purpose, and is cunningly and relentlessly practiced.  This subversion is often highly specialized, as in this "income" tax-related example excerpted from 'Why It Matters' in CtC:

Effectively presented as an involuntary requirement, the scheme corrupts our fundamental principle of equal treatment under the law with a progressive structure under which some citizens are able to force a benefit for themselves out of the pockets of their neighbors.  This callous design, intended to maximize the protective political support for the scheme by invoking Shaw’s principle that, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul”, engenders institutional endorsement of the proposition that a form of slavery is a fundamental element of social justice.  (Where the tax lawfully applies, of course-- as an expected cost of voluntarily enjoying the benefit of federal privilege-- unequal treatment is no more unfair than is having to pay more for good seats at the show).

This is a particularly noxious perversion, in that under this “justice” a heavier burden is extracted from some Americans precisely because they have already made a greater contribution to the common weal than others.  After all, one earns one’s unprivileged receipts solely by serving the interests of one’s neighbors.

Furthermore, contrary to the many false intellections marshaled to support this aspect of the scheme, the more such receipts that one’s good service brings in, the less demand one places on, and the less benefit one has from the community resources-- making the progressive structure of the tax even more obscene.  The reality is that a successful wealth-producer has typically been more adamant and persistent than others in defying and surmounting the public infrastructure and its typically sclerotic defense of the status quo. (The exception is those who have used government to their advantage; their gains, of course, are the lawful objects of the “income” tax as properly applied).

As to public services, the well-to-do place far less demand on such expenses than others-- they draw no public welfare, they are privately insured, they live where the local services are equitably paid for out of (typically) high local tax rates.  In other words, they pay their own way.  The vigorous efforts of many in positions of authority and respect to seduce Americans into accepting the standing of these truths on their heads, in order to ensure that the gravy-train of professional fees, bureaucratic power, and re-election will continue, is a national scandal.  That these efforts have largely been successful is a national shame.

Similar efforts are focused upon many other areas in which the ambitions of the state and its clients are hindered or inconvenienced by an upright citizenry insistent on lawful, limited government.  Paralleling such targeted efforts is a general pressure against morality, in service to the understanding that once any corrupt practice is excused, forgiven, or rationalized, the rot will soon spread.


John Adams observed, "Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics", and he and the other Founders wisely equipped us with a fundamental law which is fully supportive of our private virtue.  Enjoying the benefits of that virtuous fundamental law simply depends on the firm embrace of that same private virtue by each of us-- one by one.




Regarding A Shameful Hypocrisy Within The "Tax Honesty" Movement

Despite the constant (and often highly detailed) acknowledgments of the earth-shaking, life-changing truths in 'Cracking the Code- ...' by the federal and state governments constantly being added to this site, the mainstream-media blackout of CtC continues.  This is not all that surprising, given the mainstream-media's comfortable position as part of the status quo.

However, many "leaders" of the so-called "tax honesty movement", who themselves amount to an alternative media specializing in news of particular interest to their own community, remain stubbornly silent-- or even actively disparaging-- about CtC, as well.  What a shame.

And what hypocrisy.  The IRS and state tax agencies are reluctantly admitting the accuracy of 'Cracking the Code-...' on a daily basis, while self-professed "adamant enemies of the income tax" refuse to.

Some of these prominent and influential "leaders" appear to be so heavily invested in one or another misunderstanding about the "income" tax as to be unwilling to acknowledge the contrary truth out of sheer pride.  Others have doubtless concluded that if it becomes widely-known that the problem over which they have made a career (or at least a bid for fame) has been solved, they're out of a gig.

Although I do so reluctantly, when I apply the reasoning that an honest but mistaken man, upon learning of his error, either [forthrightly] ceases to be mistaken, or ceases to be honest, I'm afraid I can't help but begin to think of some of these "leaders" as being part of a "tax DIS-honesty" movement.

“Many a man stumbles across the truth, then picks himself up and hurries on as though nothing had happened.”
-Winston Churchill




Some Words For Those Who Recognize The Truth And Seek To Share It


It is important to recognize and understand the irretrievably ignorant, the ostriches, and the calculated cynics which anyone seeking to shed a little light and take a step closer to the restoration of liberty in our lifetimes inevitably encounters on a regular basis.  Understanding these folks will make it easier to reach them more effectively, and to know when to simply move on, as well.  Here is the first of a few observations that might help:


The Irretrievably Ignorant


Even a fiction for which no evidence exists whatsoever, and which is, in fact, dis-proven by ALL available evidence, will be indelibly etched in the minds of some people if it has been presented to them since childhood.


For instance, many people really did believe the earth was flat at one time, despite the fact that most spent their entire lives in view of both a visibly curved horizon, and the routine sight of ship's masts sinking as the vessels moved into the distance.  Against this evidence, available to any who cared to take note of it (and on the basis of which the ancient Greeks had gone so far as to calculate the circumference of the Earth many centuries before the 'flat-earth' nonsense was finally laid to rest), was set the mere repetition-from-childhood-onward of the absolutely unsupported contrary assertion.  Rather shamefully, that mere repetition proved to be enough to rule the perceptions of millions.  Even after the truth began its ascendancy, and was being broadly advocated, some men and women went to their grave unconvinced.


So it will be with some people to whom, for instance, the demonstrable reality of governmental jurisdictional limitation is presented (along with the related, fully conforming, words of the law).   The notion that the federal government exercises general jurisdiction throughout the country has been drilled into American's heads since birth, and some will simply never perceive the truth no matter how much evidence is laid before them.  Every occasion of the government's respecting its boundaries when they are properly invoked will be dismissed as an inexplicable anomaly, one after another, and another, and another...  Happily, the ranks of such unreachable minds-- about whom Tom Paine was thinking when he observed that, "Reasoning with one who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to a dead man"-- are thin.


Still, I do not counsel hasty surrender to such adamant ignorance.  Some correspondents will be of the type whose automatic response to any idea with which they are unfamiliar is to be scoffing and dismissive-- thus looking much like the irremediably ignorant-- while actually being amenable, upon reflection, to evidence and reason.  But I do urge you to recognize an un-reason-able mind when it manifests itself consistently, and move on.


Ostriches And Calculated Cynics


If one can successfully cultivate the fiction that nothing can be done about a problem, even when its existence is recognized, then one can quiet one's conscience, excuse one's sloth/cowardice/co-option/parasitism/etc., etc.


The far larger contingent of reality-resistors which will be encountered in the course of one's light-shedding endeavors are a more venal lot.  They are not at all inherently incapable of comprehending the truth, like the irretrievably ignorant-- in fact, they absolutely can comprehend the truth, but deliberately choose to evade doing so.  To the irretrievably ignorant, the whole subject of the legitimate authority of government in America is like the elephant examined by the six blind men in the ancient fable-- that is, effectively imperceptible.  But to ostriches and the calculated cynic, the overall subject is perfectly manageable.  Nonetheless, aspects of the subject yet have a very pachydermic character even to these latter types, as the relentless governmental efforts to exceed that authority over the last century have become, to ostriches and calculated cynics, the "elephant in the living room", famed for its ability to go unremarked.  Both are fully aware (or could be) of the presence, shape and dimensions of the beast-- and, to add a little something to the metaphor, the hazard it represents to others in the room; both, salving their consciences with the idea that nothing can be done anyway, avert their eyes from the beast as a matter of policy.


In the case of the ostriches, the underlying motivation for refusing to regard the beast squarely is simply fear.  Ostriches catch a glimpse of the hungry and unscrupulous countenance of the beast, and their stomachs take a powder while their heads go straight for the sand.  There is no more to be said-- ostriches are the kids who turned the lunch money over to the school bully with no thought other than gratitude that they were then allowed to go on their way.  Their policy of aversion is a reflection of an ostrich's sense of his or her own incapacity for effective resistance to the predations of the more ambitious and confident.




Calculated cynics, on the other hand, are a wholly different breed.  Calculated cynics are those who are able to perceive the beast; are capable of regarding it without weakness in the knees; and in many cases, actually have a pretty good handle on both its inherent destructiveness and its illegitimacy.  Nonetheless, the calculated cynics have come to accommodation with the creature, and, like the ostriches, look away-- but not uncontrollably.  Calculated cynics look away deliberately.


Whatever the individual fashion in which the decision manifests itself, calculated cynics-- to a man-- have decided that standing in the way of the ambitions of the beast is simply too inconvenient to be considered.  For some this is because they find themselves permitted sufficient space in "the living room" for their immediate comfort, and will not risk that known, tolerable circumstance for the uncertainties of change.


Others actually rely on the presence of the beast and its blundering destructiveness.  They make good livings out of recommending in which direction the beast should next careen; or offering for public consumption their clever and well-styled complaints about where it last careened, and why this was a good or bad choice of places for trampling.


Still more, indeed, the majority of this breed, simply recognize that to squarely acknowledge the beast-- and all its implications-- is to be compelled to stir themselves from whatever else presently takes their fancy.  Unwilling to be troubled, or dislodged from career or comfort, these and all the other varieties of calculated cynics adopt a studied position that opposition to the beast is futile, whatever the law might say; that corruption and decline is the lot of all nations, whatever the aspirations of the citizenry; and that only a fool would stand up and stand out, because, as everybody knows, "You can't fight city hall." 




Happily, however discouraging an encounter with any of these types can be, all the irretrievably ignorant, ostriches, and calculated cynics combined make up only a small minority in an America blessed with a deep-rooted tradition and heritage of intelligent, open-eyed inquiry, stalwart personal fortitude, and unflinching self-sacrifice in the cause of liberty.  Although the effort may at present be an exercise in regaining lost ground, the teller-of-truth-- who, after all, is doing no more and no less than pointing the way to freedom and prosperity-- will find no shortage of proper heirs to that virtuous legacy.  So, know the lost causes and the closed minds when they are encountered; know the special cases and the idiosyncrasies that inform them; and know that in the end, your efforts will be successful.





Arm Yourself Against Deceptions


For the identification and discussion of many of the current "silver bullets" and other distractions being deployed to keep the "tax honesty community" divided-and-conquered, please visit

'Comments Regarding Various "Tax Protestor/Tax Honesty" Misunderstandings Of The Law'.


These include misunderstandings (or misrepresentations) about 'ALL CAPS NAMES'; Social Security and the significance of having had a number assigned; 'section 861'; the 'UCC'; 'repeal provisions in the IRC's'; and many others.  Some or all of these are constantly recycled into circulation in an effort to keep Americans from learning, and staying productively focused upon, the actual nature of the "income" tax.




For a general "income" tax site map, please see

'A Lost Horizons "Income" Tax Subject Site Map'




Still In Denial?


Continued denial that what is presented in CtC (and only in CtC) is the truth, the exact truth, and the complete truth about the income tax is just that: Denial. It is dishonest and inexcusable, and nothing but a comfort to the enemies of liberty and the rule of law. Get over it.


Yes, the fact that upon acknowledging this truth you will find yourself honor-bound to stand up and do something, is scary. But the alternative is contemptible; and the long-run consequence of a widespread failure to act is a whole lot scarier. Think about it.


Read the book.


Spread the word.


Stand up and act.



"The Tax Code represents the genius of legal fiction...  The IRS has never really known why people pay the income tax... The IRS encourages voluntary compliance, through FEAR."

Jack Warren Wade Jr., former IRS officer in charge of the IRS Nationwide Revenue Officer Training Program, in his book ‘When You Owe The IRS’