Tuesday, November 26, 2002

I have a friend, his name is Doug. I found him through blogger.com

I was logging into blogger one day to update one of my blogs and a blog title in the recently updated screen caught my eye. "Blog aginst the machine"

well i followed the link and found Doug. His blog was crazy. He just let it all hang out there. His hopes and dreams, his struggles and weaknesses. Real transparency. A real guy that made a choice 10 years ago to stop filing tax returns.

now the IRS is trying to get him to admit that he owes $75,000.

Doug has copies scanned of all of his corusspondace with the IRS. It is a great way for me to see how the IRS does their dirty work.

A common theme that you can see comming from the IRS is the tactic that they are trying to get the "taxpayer" to admit that he is a taxpayer. Why dont they just say that you owe it and take it? Its not that easy for them.

Why do I so dislike the IRS? Because the work just like Satan, literaly. Ask Elaine about Spiritual Warfare. Ever seen The Matrix? Here is the scene I am talking about, the Agents haul Neo off to some windowless cell and try to interigate him. He acts tough and refuses to cooperate. But they take away his ability to speak.

Satan will try to shut you up with all kinds of consessions. Sell your inheritance for a bowl of soup.

My message to Doug today is this. Whatever happens I will stand by you. So will others. Your parents. You have people to call out to when you feel like breaking down. Call on God. Like King David hiding out in the caves, running for his very life. God will hear you. Call Elaine, ask her to pray with you.

Happiness is not found in an Exempt paycheck as you have found out. And you wont find it by signing over half your check to the Fed via the IRS.

Your lonliness and depression will only be healed by Jesus Christ.

I am praying for you man. I am with you reguardless.

Monday, November 25, 2002

I have a very limited amount of time for this blog. It is solely for items that pertain to my continuing awareness of what the law says in regard to taxation and issues of freedom.

So just because I don’t have an entry every day like Doug doesn’t mean that I am giving up on this blog. 10 years from now I will be able to look back and see my progression from voluntary servitude to an unfair tax system to a man that no longer talks of freedom, but lives free. A man with children that have no idea why they would ever need a SSN. What good is a AmerSoc number when God will provide everything that we need? His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He is watching me. He is the source of everything I have. I am just the steward.

So how about that Freedom Drive 2002? Way to go Bob Shultz! I was reading about it on the Devvy site. I did not sign the Petitions but I will read them and see if it is something that I can put my name to. I will not act in haste, but I will take deliberate steps.

Read the petitions here.

I started reading Larken Rose’s report on Taxable Income. That will take some time to get through. I am sure that the video is easier to follow.

Something that is not hard to follow is this. 299 questions asked of our government at the Truth-in-Taxation Hearing. After reading just the first 32 I feel that this would make a great addition to anyone’s IMF. Certify that and smoke it. I would feel much better knowing that this would be read by a jury (as long as they can think independent of the hive).

In the area of dispelling false arguments, please read this from Devvy, start with Part 1 of Patriot Arguments and work your way down. Some very good grounding to keep from being pulled in to really dumb superstitions about all kinds of things. Most research is compiled from Larry Becraft. I have made it through Part 3 and already have let go of any desire copyright my name.

Tuesday, November 05, 2002

I love history. This is a great article about what is a militia. Sent to me from Gordon Phillips.


MILITIAS: YOUR BEST DEFENSE AGAINST FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES -- by Jim Kerr, staff paralegal at the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship.

We are truly a 'Nation under God,' if for no other reason that the form of government we have (a Republic), is based upon principles that come right out of the Bible; and, of course, Congress has declared the Bible to be the Word of God. [See Public Law 97-280, 96 Stat. 1211 below] When we apply these basic principles on a National scale, a condition called 'liberty' exists, whereby we enjoy all the rights that the Creator has endowed us with.

In this installment of our series about the draft, we will examine national defense, as provided for by the Framers, and how that system has been altered over the years. However, it will be necessary to begin by comparing and contrasting libertarian government with imperial government. Having established this foundation, we will then explain the differences between militias and standing armies; show that the Founders and Framers intended for militias to protect us against foreign and domestic enemies, so as to avoid the problems standing armies create; and finally, we will examine the piecemeal process whereby militias were replaced by standing armies.

Libertarian Government vs. Imperial Government

There are basically only two kinds of government structures: imperial and libertarian. The Imperial model, where a ruler, be he a king, emperor,
president, etc., is the sovereign, and governmental power descends from the top, down. The people are mere subjects; and the subjects frequently feel a sense of security, believing they are protected by the ruler, who is the sovereign. Rights are deemed privileges granted (or denied) by the sovereign. This kind of government is most common throughout history, primarily because it provides an efficient means of plundering the subjects.

The libertarian model is grassroots in nature, where governmental power descends from the bottom up. The people are the sovereign, and the rulers are mere servants of the people. The people have rights that originate from the Creator, and the government is instituted to protect these rights, which include life, liberty, and the right to own property. In this system, nobody is plundered. For a fuller analysis of this important principle, you can order the Reasonable Action Newsletter # 241: Sheriffs, Counties, and our Republican Form of Government.

Militias And Standing Armies

Organized national defense takes the form of either a standing army or a militia. Militias are based upon the Biblical, grassroots premise of rule from the bottom, up, and exist in truly libertarian nations. Militiamen collectively defend their rights, and they plunder nobody; not even foreigners. Insofar as foreign nations go, they mind their own business.

Conversely, standing armies are imperial in character. While they may sometimes be used to protect life and property, history teaches us that they are more frequently used to assert the will of a sovereign (e.g., king, president, secretary general, etc) over foreigners. Sometimes, standing armies are used to oppress their own kinsmen, as was the case with the Waco Massacre.

The Founders and Framers understood what and who the militia were. As George Mason, in the debates in the convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia (June 14, 1788) stated: 'Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people....'
'[A] militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves....' [Ascribed to Richard Henry Lee.] 'Who are these militia? are they not ourselves.' [Letter from Tench Coxe to the Pennsylvania Gazette (Feb. 20, 1778)] The militia is composed of the people generally possessed of arms which they know how to use; and a standing army is some formal military group separate and distinct from the people at large.

Madison also appreciated the value of militias, as is reflected in his Federalist No. 46 where he argued that the power of Congress under the proposed constitution '[t]o raise and support Armies' (art. 1, § 8, cl.12) posed no threat to liberty because any such army, if misused, 'would be opposed [by] a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands' and then noting 'the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,' in contrast to 'the several kingdoms of Europe' where 'the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.'

The Federalist Papers at 299 (Rossiter, New American Library). Plainly, Madison saw an armed people as a foundation of the militia which would provide security for a 'free' state, one which, like America but unlike the 'kingdoms of Europe,' was not afraid to trust its people to have their own arms. The militia consisted of the people bearing their own arms when called to active service, arms which they kept and hence knew how to use. If the people were disarmed there could be no militia (well-regulated or otherwise) as it was then understood. That expresses the proper understanding of the relationship between the Second Amendment's preamble and its substantive guarantee.

Justice Joseph Story, in his highly esteemed Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) described the militia in this manner:

'The militia is the natural defense of a free country against foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample the rights of the people. The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.'

Establishment Of The Militia

Being informed of the sentiments of the day, we can see why the Articles of Confederation prescribed that 'every State shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.'

Later, in the Constitution, we find:

Art. 1 Section 8, Clause 15-16. [Congress shall have the power] to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Amendment II. Right To Bear Arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A unique characteristic of the 2nd Amendment is the inclusion of an opening clause which sets out its purpose. This Amendment prohibits the federal
government from infringing upon our God-given right to keep and bear arms; and that this is necessary for our collective right to defend ourselves.

Pursuant to the Constitutional provisions relating to militias, Congress passed the Militia Acts of 1792 (the first, passed May 2, 1792, providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia; and the second, passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia).

The Militia Act of 1792, enacted May 8, 1792, defined the militia as 'each and every free able-bodied white male citizen ... who is or shall be of age eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years ...' and required each to 'provide himself with a good musket ... or with a good rifle...' 1 Stat. 271 (1792).

This remained law for 111 years, into the 20th century, until it was repealed in 1903 with passage of the 'Dick Act,' which created the National Guard.

After the Spanish-American war of 1898 federal defense policymakers, assisted by a group of retired professional military officers, began to lobby for changing the state militia system. Secretary of War Elihu Root initiated the program of reorganization in the military establishment, resulting in the passage of The Dick Act in 1903. The Dick Act signified the beginning of the demise of the old, essentially state-controlled, system. The Act required the states to submit to numerous federal requirements regarding the training, housing, and equipping of the state militias. The Dick Act was the first in a series of moves by Congress, that made the states offers they couldn't refuse: 'free' training and equipment in exchange for relinquishing control. The states happily complied. (cf.: 'The rich rule over the poor. The borrower is servant to the lender.' Proverbs, 22:7)

On January 3, 1916, President Wilson further diminished the powers of the People as a Militia under Title 32 U.S.Code. This Act authorized the use of the newly constituted 'National Guard' to serve beyond the borders of the United States. The inability to order the militia beyond the borders of the United States arose from the fact that the role of militias was defensive. However, the 1908 Act was clearly a violation of the Constitution, a fact that did not escape the attention of the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army nor the United States Attorney General, both of whom acknowledged this portion of the Act unconstitutional. See United States War Department, Digest of Opinions of the Judge Advocate General of the Army: 1912-1940 644 (1942).

Undeterred, Congress passed another National Defense Act in 1916 as America was gearing up to become involved in WWI, the war that made the world 'Safe for Democracy' (or communism, as the case may be). Among the increased requirements imposed upon the states (and the Regular Army who had to administer these requirements) Congress devised a clever way to sidestep the Constitutional prohibition against foreign use of militia troops: President Wilson was authorized to draft state Guard members into federal service as reserve troops. For its part, the Supreme Court upheld this constitutional end-run in Arver v. U.S., 245 U.S. 366 (1918) (ruling that the power to draft members of the National Guard into the Regular [standing] Army, as well as the power to compel civilians to render military service, was granted to the President by the Constitution). Thereafter, President Wilson began drafting whole regiments into the Reserves. Furthermore, the National Defense Act, as a condition precedent to the receipt of federal funds, forced the states to cede most of whatever control over the militia that remained, including the constitutional prerogative to appoint officers to command the militia.

Do you see the pattern here? The federal government imposes ever increasing and costly demands upon the states; and the states are forced to accept federal money so that it can comply with these demands, along with the loss of control that goes along with the money. Furthermore, by a piecemeal process, a standing army was created, taking orders from the President. What was once rule from the bottom up, has now become rule from the top down.


Public Law 97-280, 96 Stat. 1211

Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the 'Year of the Bible.'

'Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

'Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

'Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States;

'Whereas many of our great national leaders-among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson-paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is 'the rock on which our Republic rests';

'Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;

'Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and

'Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it

'Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national 'Year of the Bible' in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.'

Approved October 4, 1982.