Reasonable Action
Welcome! Below is an article by permission of Bill Huff, Editor of the SAP Fellowship news letter "Reasonable Action". Thank you Bill and SAPF. This usually 24 page newsletter comes out about every other month. Below is a small sampling of the many excellent articles from our news letter available only to our members. You are in store for a treat! As members we receive some of the best insightful discussions on issues related to our liberty, as you will soon discover. As citizens of this historically great country of ours let's be sure it remains ours by taking "Reasonable Action"! Enjoy!
Exam Certified Independent Representative for the
Save A Patriot Fellowship
"Reasonable Action"
Newsletter of the SAPF
The following is a sample article from a past edition of the Fellowship newsletter, "Reasonable Action." (Subscriptions are available to SAPF members only.) All articles Copyrighted at Common Law by Save-A-Patriot Fellowship.
ARTICLE
THE WAY THINGS OUGHT TO BE...DE JURE!!!
The ways things are and the way things ought to be – are seldom the same (so said Aunt Beverly in Harry’s War - available in the book shop on page 22). But because we are now experiencing gross disobedience to the written law within many government agencies, we constantly find a disparity between the statutes made pursuant to the Constitution and the day-to-day operations of the government agencies charged with the responsibility of acting only within the authority of the laws – as written. The laws say one thing, yet many in responsible positions within government persistently promote a line of reasoning, application and enforcement, contrary to the original intent as expressed in the written laws passed by the Congress. The widening of this gulf between objective experience and the written law, is confusing, frustrating, extremely dangerous and in fact, represents a significant threat to all of our liberties. To allow agents of government to exercise powers not granted according to law, is to invite chaos and ultimately national extinction. This principle is critical in relation to the lawful limitations regarding enforcement and jurisdiction – the place where government touches the lives and rights of individual citizens. This principle is no less applicable to mankind than gravity.
In this article, we will begin to explore some of the many examples of these principles at work. Additionally, we hope to give the reader some of the tools necessary for immunizing one’s mind against many of the verbal devices being used to confuse and ultimately deprive citizens of essential rights and privileges. The difference between what the law actually says (intent) and what can be derived through sophistry, is the alchemy that can convert your liberties into hard assets and political power. The judiciary of course, is the most corrupt link in the chain being forged for you and your children. They are the ones who use fallacious reasoning to deprive you of your rights, to garner wealth and power, and to pervert justice.
A brochure from a despicable organization created for the purpose of profiting from the fear and ignorance of the average American clergyman (another weak link), proclaims: "A courtroom is the wrong place for the clergy to learn about IRS law." We might take it a bit further and say, a courtroom is the wrong place generally, to learn anything about law whatsoever. A courtroom is more likely a place of de facto legal theory - not de jure law. It might also be quite accurately said that a seminary (in most cases) is the wrong place for the clergy to learn about the Word of God. It is most certainly true in our experience, that a law school is the last place we can expect an attorney to learn about tax law or the Constitution. A recent letter I received from a lawyer with an M.B.A., J.D., said, "The study of primary source documents is almost unheard of in our so-called public schools and is rare in undergraduate courses. Indeed, in our law schools there is scant attention given to fundamental issues of constitutional history and interpretation. Law schools are merely vocational, teaching the student, 'how to think like a lawyer.' The situation is so grim that I do not believe we can talk about preserving our liberty, rather, we must regard it as a matter of restoration."
He was writing to endorse the Elementary Catechism on the Constitution (available in the book shop - page 22) which he commended as a most excellent and invaluable work. I will go so far as to say that, if sufficient numbers of our citizens understood the principles outlined in that little book from 1828, and if they were courageous enough to assert their rights in accordance with the law, this article; even this entire organization, would be unnecessary.
We have come to a place where brainwashing is quite appropriate. Our brains have become exceedingly dirty. Consider the following words where in 1825, the Virginia legislature (speaking of the methods for teaching students the fundamental principles of government), rather dogmatically stated: "...none should be inculcated which are incompatible with those on which the Constitution of this State and of the U.S. were genuinely based, in the common opinion."
That’s right! Madison and Jefferson were advocates of inculcation (brainwashing). Thankfully, we have the very list of materials they recommended (See the list from Madison and Jefferson on page 53 in the Catechism on the Constitution – available through the book shop – page 22). Now that we know the exact materials that were recommended by the founding generation, we have no excuse but to wash our own brains and those of our children. The common opinion spoken of above, is an indication that the political environment of 1825 was a Constitutional consensus that had to be preserved by teaching it exclusively to those [our children] whose best inheritance it is. As we read the Founders and the Framers, and even their contemporary periodical literature, it becomes clear that theirs was a Constitutional consensus. The general public was versed in Constitutional principles and all those who assumed the trust of public office were expected to keep it inviolate. If they failed to fulfill their oaths, the public was aware enough to call for their immediate censure and if necessary removal.
In contrast, parents today are being taught not to leave liberty to their children, but to inculcate them with the government’s idea of security. The most important reason for the disparity between the way things ought to be de jure, and the way they are de facto, is ignorance. The only solution remains - education, education, education. Webster says ought means: 1. To be held or bound in duty or moral obligation. Noah Webster would obviously agree: we ought to inculcate our children and ourselves with the right stuff.
According to Black’s Law, Fifth Edition, the term, De facto means: "In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus, an office, position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a de facto corporation. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who had claim and rightful title to the office or power, but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession. MacLeod v. United States, 229 U.S. 416, 33 S.Ct. 955, 57 L.Ed. 1260. A wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure: thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. Compare De jure..."
Black’s Fifth defines De jure: "Descriptive of a condition in which there has been total compliance with all requirements of law. Of right; legitimate; lawful by right and just title. In this sense it is contrary to de facto (q.v.). It may be contrasted with de gratia, in which case it means ‘as a matter of right,’ as de gratia means ‘by grace or favor.’ Again may be contrasted with de æquitate; here meaning ‘by law,’ as the latter means by ‘equity.’"
When an elected official says, "Well... the Constitution doesn’t say we can’t do that," his impeachment and/or removal should surpass lightning in its swiftness. He is openly declaring that he does not either understand or regard the most basic premises of Constitutionally limited government under the rule of law. This is tantamount to an ideological declaration of war on our Constitutional form of government. Not to understand this principle is not to understand the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In the Elementary Catechism on the Constitution (see book shop), the question and answer regarding the Tenth Amendment is helpful: Question 331: Has the United States Government any power but such as is contained in the Constitution? Answer: No.
Can it be made more clear? Are there still those who would admit to extra-constitutional powers? The people must show the political tenacity that will force public servants to be just that – public servants, under the rule of law.
Much of our national dialogue and resources are wasted in endless controversies over reforming government programs that have no Constitutional basis or origin. Those who promote these should be reprimanded and removed from office rather than petitioned and pled with. For instance, if "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States (Article I, Section 1, Clause 1), can we admit to the popular notion of the validity of executive orders and still maintain that "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or that shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; (Article V - Clause 2)?" If the Constitution placed all law-making powers exclusively in the hands of the Congress, what part of the law-making authority is available to be exercised by the executive? Although we can easily find law-executing powers placed under the authority of the executive, we find that the clause that could be considered to have come closest to giving the executive any law-making powers, clearly stops short of granting such powers: Art. II, Section 3, says in pertinent part, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,..."
The executive has a very important role to play in the process of law making. According to Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, the President has the power to negate or veto bills passed by the Congress. This provides the executive with an opportunity to stand in the way, calling attention to legislation he views as either inappropriate or unconstitutional. When the veto is invoked, more attention can be directed toward the validity or usefulness of a particular Act or a specific provision within a Bill before the Congress. According to the Constitution, the President’s objections to a proposed bill must be entered in the Journal of the House that originated it – and the measures must be reconsidered. If the House of the bill’s origin considers the President’s objections and passes the measure over them with a two-thirds majority, the bill must be sent to the other House, along with the President’s objections. If the other House also passes the measure with a two-thirds majority, it becomes law despite the objections of the President. Here we see how a competent and principled (I can dream can’t I?) President could do a great service in exposing (and possibly preventing) bad legislation. We can also surmise that if he is to perform this task (of exercising the veto power) faithfully, he must recognize the separation of powers that gives him only a negative against proposed laws, while it leaves all legislative (law-making) powers, in the hands of the Congress – the Representatives of the States and of the People.
Orwell’s pigs, in Animal Farm put up a sign which read, "All Animals are Created Equal." Later, the pigs added, "But Some Animals are More Equal than Others." Anyone who accepts the notion that the executive can make law (apart from even the approval of the Congress) in a Constitutionally limited Republic, where the entire legislative power is vested in the Congress and where all powers are limited, delegated, enumerated, specific, separate and distinct, is accepting the same Orwellian logic. In their mind, the Constitution is saying, "All legislative powers herein shall be vested in a Congress – but some additional law-making powers shall be vested in the Executive and a few shall be vested in the Judiciary."
If a former president e.g., Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush, issued executive orders that had the de facto effect of making law, we don’t need to shuffle around looking for some obscure Constitutional excuse for what they did. However, we do ourselves an even greater disservice if we are taken in by those who not only condone the unconstitutional acts of the past, but accept them as precedents, rather than condemn the unlawful acts of present office holders. To buy into this, would represent an abandonment of our whole plan for Constitutional government - not even enforcing the first line of Article I. If you want to strike up an interesting conversation, just ask someone: "How many time does the President have to do something before it becomes lawful?"
Note: Consider the significance of the language of Article VI, Clause 2, where the Constitution distinguished between treaties made (previously) and treaties that shall be made. The reason for this distinction is that all future treaties had to be made pursuant to the Constitution or as the context declares, "under the Authority of the United States." The popular notion advanced by media, educators, the courts, various government agencies – and even many ill-informed, though sincere patriotic Americans (that the Constitution can be superseded by treaties) was not something our Founders and Framers would have ever entertained.
Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist #33, said, "It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed."
James Madison, speaking in the framing convention said, "Does it follow, because this power [to make treaties] is given to Congress, that it is absolute and unlimited? I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation... the object of treaties is the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations and is external." Notice that Madison’s understanding would preclude all fantasies of any powers conferred by treaties allowing any entity in the federal government to alienate any great, essential right with regard to the citizens in the States of the Union. His position was de jure and (at the time), de facto.
Mr. Jefferson too, had a very "narrow-minded" opinion regarding treaty law: "By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only the objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated...It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States; for surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted [forbidden] from doing in any way." -1801 from A Manual on Parliamentary Practice.
It should also go without saying, in a Constitutionally limited Republic, whatsoever is not authorized - is forbidden. Otherwise, there would be no point in reserving rights to the people or the States - and certainly no purpose for making Article V provisions for changing the document, so deliberately cumbersome.
We watch (and are entertained) by the present effort called the Conference of States (if you think these spiders have given up, you might want to have a look at their WEB page on the Internet), that bemoans the cumbersome nature of the amendment provisions in Article V and wants to eviscerate the Tenth Amendment by bringing it under the sole discretion of the federal judiciary, while they are in constant disobedience to many of the limitations placed upon them by their State’s as well as the Federal Constitution. As if this one "all-important" change they are promoting will turn them into constitutionalists overnight. What a laugh. The fox is asking for original exclusive jurisdiction over the hen house.
We agree with Messrs. Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson in their observations above: treaty law cannot (de jure) be used to undermine the essential rights of citizens living and working within the States of the Union. The power to tax being the power to destroy, our Founding Fathers knew far better than to permit direct taxation of individual sovereign citizens. The creature was never to be given an absolute power to destroy the creator.
Though we can understand the anxiety and frustration of many in the patriot movement who are often discouraged and disappointed in their many and diverse off-point efforts to get someone in government to perform according to his oath to the Constitution, we realize they have oftener than not been subtly led to the place of exerting energies and exhausting valuable resources to accomplish goals that have been carefully designed for them by the opposition (as a means of keeping them busy). Nothing should infuriate a sincere patriot more than to find out he has been occupying himself with a mindless, ineffectual task that was specifically designed to keep him out of the real battle. Such is the case where many organizations expound endlessly upon the principles being violated by government officials and after reaching a climax of exposing some profound conspiracy, direct the victim to write his congressman (who, in most cases, should have already been removed from office), or worse yet, to make a huge contribution (tax-exempt of course) to some 501(c)(3) corporation that is nothing more than another part of the real problem. What can we learn about real liberty from a tax exempt organization that has crawled to (or into bed with), the government – to beg for its privilege to exist?
Once upon a time, a moron was standing along the street in front of his own brand new parked car. A man came along and suggested a test: he was willing to bet the moron was incapable of standing inside a circle he had drawn on the sidewalk with a piece of chalk. The moron (being a typical moron) took him up on the bet. After he had assumed his position inside the circle, the man took a baseball bat, bashed in all the windows in the moron’s car and literally covered it with dents. The car was obviously a total wreck. Much to his surprise, when he looked back toward the circle, the imbecile was doubled over in hysterical laughter. The man, befuddled, asked the moron, "What in the world are you laughing about. I’ve been destroying your car – and all you can do is laugh?" To which the moron triumphantly replied, "But I stepped out of the circle when you weren’t looking!"
Such is the case, where misinformed patriots spend vast resources and years of time striking at the wrong toe of the beast in a circle that was carefully drawn for them, while the true remedies at law seem too technical, or even in many cases, too simple for them to avail themselves. Whoever said liberty could be inherited by the ignorant, and lazy? Those who are too lazy or ignorant to use the tools left for us in the due process of law, and the informed assertion of rights according to law, will never either deserve or possess liberty.
I have come upon a question that puts many of these extra-constitutional arguments to rest in a hurry. This is only the culmination of my being exposed to other dogmatic constitutionalists over a period of time. When anyone suggests one of the bogus arguments for this or that solution (that is void of Constitutional principle and/or ignores existing remedies at law), I ask the question: "Would you support an amendment to make the Constitution the supreme Law of the Land?" That is often all I need to say for someone who is ready to hear. If there are administrative remedies they must be exhausted. If the issue is one that can be properly handled in the courts, that avenue must be pursued. If a judge or any other officer of government has violated his oath he must be impeached and/or removed and punished. If the American public continues to demonstrate that it can’t even gather the resolve to impeach and remove such a president as Bill Clinton (who obviously has little or no regard for the Constitution), what kind of message are we sending to those in high office?
We have often stated that the issue of ratification versus non-ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, has nothing to do de jure, with the taxes being fraudulently collected from American citizens in the States of the Union. However, it does provide a glaring example of a government act, deliberately and palpably aimed to test the resolve of the people (as well as their ability to perceive and jealously guard against encroachments on their rights). If the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified, the National Archives would be able to produce certified copies of the State documents that made it so. Instead of saying it was ratified by the States, they typically refer to an announcement by the Secretary of State that said it was ratified, without ever producing the pertinent documentary evidence. If, as we suppose, the federal government was engaging in a grand fraud upon the American people; using the alleged amendment as part of a conspiracy to make the citizens think they could now be taxed directly, it remains a matter of critical importance. If the federal government would attempt to fraudulently represent that an amendment was ratified when it was not, this points to a vast gap between our de facto and de jure governments that was well underway by 1913. If they want to contend that the Sixteenth Amendment was duly ratified, and if it is as important as the IRS would have us believe, why don’t they just go over to the National Archives and make copies for all of us. If they cannot, I would suggest that a whole lot of dead people have a lot of explaining to do. No matter, they left copious documentation. Those who are willing to learn how to read, can now learn the truth.
The solutions remain the same. If, as in the case of the de facto administration of the Internal Revenue Code, we are dealing with Constitutional laws misapplied, we can reasonably expect to find our remedy within the administrative procedures of the tax code and regulations themselves. If, as we teach at the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, the code is Constitutional (but misapplied and/or fraudulently applied), we can also reasonably expect to find the provisions for proper and limited enforcement within the written law somewhere. Conversely, if we were dead wrong, nothing like a provision for extricating American citizens living and working within the States of the Union, could be found. What we have found, is that all of the necessary information is there in minute detail. It only seems "encrypted" to those uninitiated in legislative construction, legislative intent, and in recognizing the limitations within the legal definitions of terms - all indispensable features of law in our Constitutional Republic.
The reason subtitle "C" is Constitutional, is that it was created through treaty law (another oxymoron - when surreptitiously applied to American citizens in the States). Whereas we read in the law that the Secretary must assign a number to an alien (a mandatory requirement), we also read that he must also assign a number to "all other applicants (a voluntary act on the part of the applicant)." If as most wonderful caring hospital nurses contend, the number is required to be applied for upon the birth of an American citizen, we might reasonably expect the mother to be shown some written law. Instead, we see bureaucratic subterfuge wherein the Social Security Administration implies that each child must have a number before leaving the hospital. One possible remedy: those who are so inclined, could politely thank the nurse (since they always wanted to own a hospital), and then go to the nearest police station to swear out a warrant against the hospital for kidnapping. There have been a few hospitals who changed their tune once the parents told them to keep the baby. This tactic has proved very disconcerting for some hospital staffs. If we are speaking strictly de jure, it should be noted that if the number was mandatory for Americans living and working within the States, it would be assigned to them without any need for an application, as in the case of legal aliens. However, it is not! As the SF-83 Form at the Office of Management and Budget specifically states, it is required only "to obtain or retain a benefit."
Do you see how the case above involves de facto versus de jure? No law requires babies in the hospital to receive the mark. But, when push comes to shove, the situation changes from de facto to de jure in a hurry and the hospital staff has been given a valuable mini-seminar in Constitutional principles. Such is the case time and time again where fully-informed citizens are prepared to assert their rights in accordance with the law. To understand the rule of law is to understand the vital differences between de facto and de jure. To consistently assert one’s rights in accordance to law, is to be a constant object lesson to your fellow citizens in all sorts of situations.
Recently, the level of ignorance displayed by many government agents who, more often than not, act outside of their lawful authority, has been reflected in their rhetoric. In more than one instance, IRS agents have been quoted saying, "I am the law," and "the intricacies of the law are irrelevant." In a recent deposition, an IRS agent being questioned regarding his lawful authority for a particular action, stated that the specific statute under consideration gave rise to the authority he was claiming existed for his previous actions. On cross-examination, when he was asked to point out just where in the language of the written statute, he thought the alleged powers had been conferred, he retorted gruffly, "I’m not a lawyer!"
This is a nation of written laws only. Those charged with law enforcement are required to know the extent and the limitations of their authority - and to act accordingly. Our written law is de jure and de facto where everyone is acting according to law. Any disparity between the two must be dealt with properly and lawfully, either by administrative procedures, the courts, impeachment and/or removal from office, prosecution of criminal and civil violations or, in milder cases, at the ballot box. The most serious offense any government officer can commit, is to injure a fellow citizen while exceeding lawful authority. When you consider that we have troops dispersed over the entire globe without the Constitutional authority having been given to our current Commander-in-Chief, the potential magnitude of his crime becomes overwhelming. How many of our most precious young people are in harm’s way for political and even commercial reasons, without the Constitutional mandate for a Declaration of War?
Citizens who are not willing to learn how to expedite lawful remedies are not equipped to be self-governing.
Those who would petition the Congress for a more equitable tax plan while ignoring Constitutional provisions that would either prevent or quickly retire any government deficit, are only asking for more comfortable chains. They don’t really abhor socialism, they would merely prefer a milder form (something that taxes someone else more and/or gives them more benefits).
The current Republican majority is a great example. They are quick to insist (contrary to what Mr. Clinton and the Democrats are saying about their desire to kill Medicaid and Medicare) that they would only decrease the percentage of annual growth. Prior to now, they would have had us all believe they were the party adamantly opposed to all socialism. Now we see they only want to control the annual growth rate of their brand of "fiscally responsible" socialism. Haven’t they been talking about an amendment to balance the de facto budget? Perhaps the Republicans could be more appropriately described as the right wing of the national socialist party (if it walks like a duck - if it quacks like a duck...). If you are given to understand that the Constitution makes no provision for any redistribution of wealth whatsoever, you can begin to realize how many in government should be impeached and/or removed. Would there be anyone left?
Who doesn’t remember Representative Henry Gonzalez [D-TX], raising the annual token diatribe on the House floor; calling for the audit of the Federal Reserve - the de facto bank of the United States (which was never provided for in the Constitution), violates several specific provisions of the Constitution, and therefore should never be audited de facto, but must be abolished de jure. Whoever advocates auditing the FED is naively being drawn into a de facto argument about the virtues of something that must be destroyed and can never do good - only harm. Yet realize it is the States who are mainly at fault for this debacle. If they would throw off the federal chains they imposed on themselves by failing to observe and enforce Article I, Section 10 Cl.1 provisions for nothing but gold and silver to be their lawful money of account, they could be free of the FED in a hurry. This could be promoted through bold initiatives within the several States to teach the law and their Constitutions from primary source documentation, thus exposing the fraud of the Federal Reserve Bank, fiat paper currency and fractional reserve banking.
Instead they hang around year after fiscal year like hungry mongrel dogs under their master’s table. Satisfied to give the federal government five dollars (in tax anticipation coupons) in hopes of getting back only one. What did your average politician score in mathematics?
The recent shutdown of non-essential government workers was an interesting experiment. At one point, a government attorney stated he was concerned that they soon might not be able to provide for the protection of life and property. He failed to clearly add that the only lawful functions of government are the protection of life and property. So you see, the number of de facto versus de jure government workers is not the same.
If you look at the pie chart in the 1040 booklet, you can easily distinguish de facto from de jure budget figures. All wealth transfer programs comprise payments not authorized by the Constitution. While you can volunteer to contribute to the government’s welfare entitlement programs, the Constitution creates no mandate for the government to pay you anything. If the welfare state were shut down completely, there would be no remedy at law for those who have paid into the system. You have no standing at law against your benefactor. Entitlements, like so many other things provided for by government largess, are precisely the opposite of what the general public has been led to think of them. Put simply: no one is entitled to any entitlements according to law. They are doled out according to the good pleasure of the Congress. The social compact often spoken about by contemporary New Deal Democrats, is nothing in the form of a contract. It is more in the nature of a con game; a Ponzi Scheme.
The difference between the written laws made pursuant to the Constitution and the unlawful actions of many in government, is the difference between de facto and de jure. Those in government who are committing sins of omission and commission (not doing what they are required by the Constitution to do, or doing that which is expressly forbidden by laws made pursuant to our Constitution) must be removed. They are standing between the American people and their Constitution and are guilty of nonfeasance, malfeasance and/or misfeasance. We should no more beg them to abide by the Constitution than we should increase the allowance of an overgrown teenager who beats his mother while his father is at work.
How many of the new tax plans even hint at reducing spending to within Constitutional limits as a means of granting relief to the American taxpayer (as a contradistinction to a citizen who may not be a de jure "taxpayer")? Why don’t the Senators and Representatives tell the people what they really mean? They should be saying: "Realizing the American public is too hooked on socialism to give it up; and, realizing we can continue to do anything we want to fool you into voting for us in exchange for benefits; we in the Congress are going to be gracious to you all. We’re going to redesign the tax plan so the money being siphoned off to our mentors and benefactors, the international banking establishment, will not be as noticeable as it is right now, until, in just a few short years, through a totally cashless system, the sacking of the United States will be complete, and you will have no choice but to join the other faithful socialist proletarians on the global plantation." Mark it well, when we have totally abstract money – we will have totally concrete slavery.
If you master the concepts contained in this article, you will soon be able to sort the rhetoric of the campaign season that lies ahead, with great facility. To accept the way things are, de facto, and not insist that things be moving toward the way things ought to be, de jure, is to give up; to surrender. To fight the battle in a way and/or in a place carefully prescribed for you by a powerful, resourceful and clever adversary, is to be defeated by never having engaged in the real battle. This might be sufficient to get you high marks in outcome-based education, but Constitutionally and lawfully speaking, it is simply off-point. Why should anyone follow you, if you don’t know where you’re going, or where we’ve been?
We are left with an educational problem on the one hand, and an enforcement problem on the other. Education must be accompanied by the assertion of rights according to law, effective law enforcement that is limited to the protection of life and private property, the swift removal (with discipline and if necessary, prosecution, conviction and incarceration) of each and every office holder or government employee that exceeds authority and/or neglects lawful responsibilities. We cannot ever accept the way things happen to be, until and unless our objective reality coincides with the rule of law.
To fight the battle de jure, we must learn the law; know the law; teach the law; enforce the law; and remove everyone from office who fails to obey the laws and the Constitution. We must tirelessly work to make de facto and de jure one and the same in this Constitutionally limited Republic. This can only be done by each one of us assuming full responsibility for our own education and that of our children. But as faith without works is dead, liberty without the assertion of rights according to law, is also dead, So, our learning must be thorough and accurate enough to give birth to only lawful, reasonable action. If this can be done, we will have come close to that level of popular virtue, the norm in 1789, when de facto and de jure were wed.
"Arbitrary power and the rule of Constitution cannot both exist. They are antagonistic and incompatible forces, and one or the other must necessarily perish whenever they are brought into conflict." - J. Sutherland 1936.
"...the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind..." - from the Virginia Ratification document - 1788.
Remember, the first level of resistance to tyranny is education. All those who would short-circuit our time honored system of due process merely because of their ignorance are either lazy, ignorant or anarchistic. The place for violence is not yet, we still have recourse to the written law.
Recent acts and rhetoric from many in government who are trying to hold out against the truth, show them to be the true desperadoes in this contest. Time and history are on our side.
A Personal Invitation
I invite those of you who currently may be experiencing challenges with the IRS or just wish to explore your options under the law to message me at:
We will be glad to get back to you.
[
The law says WHAT?!] [ They told the truth!! ]
[ NEW VICTORY EXPRESS!! ] [ HELP US HELP AMERICA! ]
[ Reasonable Action ] [ The Truth Behind the Income Tax! ] [ Products ]
[ Social Security? ] [ Tax Basics 101 ] [ Just the Facts ] [ What is SAP ]
[ UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ] [ GAO AUDITS THE IRS! ]
[ Do you love America? How about the IRS? ] [ Why I did this site ]