Additional Pages

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Stop Paying Taxes Now

For a long time now the trend has gone against the Constitution. The latest Supreme Court ruling that proves that as long as it is considered a tax the people can be forced to buy anything. The penalty for not buying shoes, handbags, cars or any other crazy thing they want us to buy to pay off their political friends can be as high as the products themselves so long as it is considered a tax.

The First Amendment has been under fire by hate speech crimes, by the the fact that one supports life over abortion and the laws against protesting certain political figures as long as the Secret Service denies the opportunity.

The Second Amendment has been denied in every important way already.

The Fourth Amendment has been under fire since the passage of the Patriot Act and has been heightened under the Obama Administration who seeks to use drones to surveil every movement of the people and the development of the TSA into an intrusive and invasive police force. 106 independent political organizations (towns and cities) have been given permission to begin flying drones over our heads to keep track of us, to identify organizations pursuing their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Fifth Amendment has been by-passed by all manner of invasions from forcible DNA samples to surveillance techniques unheard of before.

The Ninth Amendment has never been given any weight in a court of law.

The Tenth Amendment has been trampled on by government coercion and extortion.

The big question to ask yourself is why is the Sixteenth Amendment sacred to a point of violation the due process clause?

The government has been given a charter to provide a certain society to its citizens, in trade, we agree to pay taxes. But, that has all been turned on its head. We are forced to pay taxes to a government that regularly and arrogantly violates all of the other amendments to the Constitution that protect the individual.

It has recently drifted into areas that it has no business being involved in such as the provision of health care, the bailing out of banks and other lending institutions such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it has bailed out unionized industries and provided low cost loans to green industry companies which have failed nonetheless and provided no relief to the taxpayers.

The president has, since the iinauguration, used the Executive Order to the point which constitutes an abuse of power all with no resistance from the Congress or the Supreme Court.

At some point the people need to step in and decide that certain abuses will not be tolerated. The only civil and orderly way to do so, the last resort given to us as citizens, without causing a civil war, is to withhold our tax payments, to stop paying taxes of any form in whatever way we can find. If that is to en mass refuse to file income tax returns, so be it.

This will not work if only a few people decide to do so, it has to come from the greater number of outraged citizens, too loyal to take up arms and too civil to protest such egregious actions of our government. The one and singular protest that will bring the government to the bargaining table is to cut off the funds they rely on to make the whole process work. IRS agents get paid from our tax dollars.

Obamacare will enlist thousands more IRS agents. It is time to take a stand before they have those reinforcements in place.

One's own conscience must be the guide on this initiative, but if there is a way to stop the abuses and return this government to a limited and responsible form it is only through tax dollars and the ultimate neutering of the Sixteenth Amendment. Otherwise, we might as well get used to the servitude we have been saddled with these past decades. 


  1. The government and the IRS effectvely nullified
    the "stop paying taxes" form of response to .gov
    abuse when they instituted mandatory withholding
    of taxes by employers. The vast majority of taxpayers have no viable choice in the matter. If you file a high level of exemptions the IRS will quickly fire off a command to your employer to resume withholding of taxes. It's a great idea that was long ago short circuited by the IRS. As long as businesses listen to the IRS first and foremost tax protests will be a minor annoyance at best....and those engaging in them will be crucified quickly.

    1. It's a choice for me, as my earnings are not technically a salary or wage subject to automatic withholding. However, I wonder what might happen if I simply refuse to send payments. The IRS has plenty of legal muscle on their side, after all.

  2. There are certainly many businesses who could do this as far as their business filing is concerned. Posted.

  3. Unemployed/self-employed (without biznezz lisense credentials) are essentially "Galt" and can just keep doing that. The trick is to reduce expenses to near-zero and invisible to SSN-based point-n-click audit while continuing to be useful to yourself and community. If you do get audited, they will get little or nothing, perhaps a "failure-to-file" fine. This will provide more time to PT and network FTF with good people in your area. Volunteer activities provide many nice contacts with people/places/stuff. Garden & bicycle: hardly any tax enforcement on these activities.

  4. Partially effective, since "company scrip" (FRNs) can be produced out of thin air and use is required by law. Additional FRNs entering the "money" supply diminish the value of those existing, thus creating invisible taxation. Confiscating your wealth by direct or indirect taxation matters not in the end. Thinking about using PMs for trade? How long before this little gem is rediscovered and implemented:

    "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"

    Einstein is said to have suggested that a well stated problem suggests the solution.

  5. I considered this option two years ago. Ann Barnhardt has been a high profile example of someone who has adopted this strategy and has even told the IRS to arrest her. The problem with the premise is the same one that has bankrupted (enslaved) us: the money spent by the government is not dependent on our taxes. The increase in our national debt in 2011 was $5 trillion. How does our nation pay these bills? They issue government bonds and print fiat currency as they please.

    And that must be the point of our efforts.

  6. Good idea if it had been done 20 years ago. We're way past any kind of populist or political solution.........

  7. TL,

    This is actually from Sig, but Blogger wouldn't let him post for some reason:

    IRS is a private, for profit corporation, a collection agency for the Federal Reserve. Study the difference between IRS Code Title 26 Corporate (Federal Court), and Title 15 private collection statutes(local Judicial Court).

    read this, very informative;

  8. Once again, my friends in the Patriot movement will do countenance ANYTHING other than secession. Completely ignore Lysander Spooner's vilification of the Constitution. Keep beating the drum about a document with absolutely no authority that is somehow supposed to regulate a government that ignores it...or has its Court interpret it in its own favor. Fixing DC will not work on any level. The ONLY way to vacate Federal taxation in one act is for a state to secede. For example...Can you imagine if Texas seceded? 24 million people instantly stop paying Federal taxes. That one act alone would bring DC to its knees. Open your eyes, friends. It will be either secession or civil war. There will be no third choice. Washington will be exactly like Moscow when states secede. There will be no troops in the streets of a seceded state...any more than there were Russian troops trying to stop secession in 1989.

    1. Mr. Longcore.....I would have to disagree with some of your commentary. Are you aware of the War of Succesion.....commonly known as the American Civil War ? Old Abe didn't take too kindly to a bunch good ol' boys south of the Mason-Dixon line telling the SOB to go fuck himself.

      I believe the states need to start implementing and enforcing states rights, at a minimum.

      DAN III
      "There Are Enemies Amongst Us"

    2. Pardon the typo/brain cramp...."secession".

      DAN III
      "There Are Enemies Amongst Us"

    3. Mr Longcore,
      The breakup of the USSR was not quite bloodless as you make it seem. OMON (SWAT) troops fired heavy weapons at civilians in Latvia. Lithuanians tried Tiananmen style tactics and were run over by the tanks. Sure, neither is a blip on the screen compared to US 1861-1865 or even Syria 2011-? , but the USSR was in waaay worse shape financially in 1991 than the USSA is today.

      That being said, I'll move back and volunteer to defend her in a heartbeat if Texas secedes in my lifetime.


    4. If Texas secedes, I'll move there. If any state will secede and end this big government oppression that takes our money in return for nothing, I will join it. The corrupt, profiteering Fat Cats of today are in the public sector, not the private.

  9. I get your point, Russell, but I'm not sure how it touches TL's essay, at least in principle. It seems to me that your disagreement is one of pragmatics...that is, how to get it done. I admittedly suck at Pragmatism, so I wouldn't want to get in the middle of that debate.

    I'm pretty good at Principle, though, and the principle seems the same. Indeed, principle-wise, I think I'd give the nod to TL if only because he is addressing individuals and you are using a State--some State--as the means to an end. As I believe the battle has always been between individualism and collectivism, I think his POV carries a bit more water. But then, as I say, Pragmatism has never been my strong suit.

    I do know this, though. While I believe, "Philosophy moves the world," I've also come to understand that since ancient Greece at least, this ongoing bullshit is ALWAYS about the money and nothing else. There may be a few sadistic thugs who simply enjoy being thugs, but as far as those pulling the strings and leading us along, it's ALWAYS about the money.

  10. Mr. K-

    Divide and conquer. That is what will happen if INDIVIDUALS stop paying their taxes. Let's think logistically. If you or me or anyone else mounts a campaign to convince people to avoid taxation by any means, the DC thugs will fall on him like nightfall. And as someone commented, because of IRS rules, and the fact that most folks are employees, to stop paying taxes is nearly impossible. So which is more likely in the real world? I submit that is is more pragmatic to foment secession than tax protests. I can give you a list as long as your male member of the benefits of secession. But there is almost no upside for the INDIVIDUAL to stop paying taxes. It's too easy for the IRS and DC to pick off the tax protestors one by one. That is their best use of fear and intimidation. A few citizens in Federal prison for tax evasion would scare the rest away. Pragmatism requires secession.

    1. "Pragmatism requires secession."

      You're way more studied at this than I am, so I'm inclined to believe you. Even strongly so, I'll say.

      But I'll also add that IMO Pragmatism plays a large role in what got us into this mess. As you know nothing defines the commie-libs, or whatever you want to call the "enemy," any better than that single word.

      To be clear, that's no argument against you and I don't pretend that it is. They mostly have two legs and two eyes as well. Correlation is not causation, and I know this.

      Neither is it necessarily not, I'd retort. I think there's a fair argument that there could be a causal relationship; Rand would be a good one for that.

      As I already admitted, I've always sucked at Pragmatism and so there's not much point in debating the matter...I couldn't give you a fair hearing! For now, and for various reasons, I'm stickin' with Principle. I hope we both succeed at achieving our goals; that's my wish for all decent folk.

  11. I recall reading somewhere, in the myriad of IRS forms that there is a form called "XXX" (as I forget the number and source)that you can fill out in lieu of your employer taking out Federal income taxes. Strangely enough, the form number is listed in regulations, but no such form exists.
    Many of the "Road whores" I have worked with do the 'single and 9' (dependants) and when the IRS asks the company to verify, they drag out to another jobsite.
    Possibly someone else can fill in the blanks to my (crappy) story.
    Last thing, keep in mind that Mandatory witholding started in 1943. Nice to 'slip that in' when nobody would question "Go Team" huh?

  12. I once wrote an article about a 50-state secession:

    However I have to say there is a problem with this approach; getting state governments to grow a spine. Let's face it, the quality of people running the state governments is hardly better than that of the people in the federal government.

    The nice thing about this approach is that it is personal. You change your own life, something you have some control of (unlike the fake "control" we have of governments). Start working in the black or grey markets. Check out from the "system". Stop measuring progress as how plugged into the matrix you are, how well you chase a dollar (that will be surrendered to the rulers).

  13. Seems to me that through out history and alive and current in the US of A that the default positon of the majority of the sheep (sorry, I ment the majority of the population) is both fear and apthey. Few (with the exception of the military during times of either real or precieved external threat) will not step up or take a stand. A sad commentary but I believe history proves this out.

  14. This is not about TL's post, but about a comment of Jim Klein's:

    "As I already admitted, I've always sucked at Pragmatism and so there's not much point in debating the matter...I couldn't give you a fair hearing! For now, and for various reasons, I'm stickin' with Principle. I hope we both succeed at achieving our goals; that's my wish for all decent folk."

    This speaks so purely to what a true conservative is about - allowing other ideas and principles, and wishing them well. As opposed to the Left, which will tolerate no principles but its own. And as opposed to those in our own ranks who are all about "my way or the highway" and "We don't need no stinkin' Jooz".

    I applaud you, Jim.

  15. "And as opposed to those in our own ranks who are all about 'my way or the highway' and 'We don't need no stinkin' Jooz'."

    I appreciate the kind words, Reg, but you should know first that my motivation is anything but being a "true conservative." Quite the contrary, I don't want to conserve any of this bullshit.

    But worse is the reference to the other thread, which has been bothering me for days now. To me, that thread was disgraceful and not because of anything that has to do with Israel, isolationism, anti-Semitism or even the sacred "Patriot" movement.

    I see nothing but individuals out there. To me, that thread was about nothing except one man making a threat against another, period. I've already written a few long comments and I keep scratching them because I can't stop rambling on.

    So as full disclosure, you should know that I thought Justin made Dan look positively brilliant by comparison, and he certainly did his ostensive cause of Israel no favors. Insults are one thing, flame wars happen, but that was way over the top IMO.

    I guess everyone knows Justin was bullshitting, but TL's blog seems like an odd place to be bullshitting about wanting someone else dead. Those uniforms aren't going to be bullshitting when they scream, "Stop or I'll shoot;" I don't see why anyone else should.

    You get the point. Jews died in those camps because of what other people believed. In principle, how can anyone possibly benefit by doing exactly the same thing again? Any way you cut it, that's what Justin was saying---"Because of what I believe, I think you ought to be dead."

    Maybe everyone can just pass on that, but not me. I know this is "divisive," but I figure we're already individuals. Still, thanks for the kind words, and I'm guessin' you won't do that again!

  16. Well, Jim, _I_ try to be a true conservative, so it doesn't even matter if you took it the wrong way. The fact that you are willing to allow another to think and do as they wish - within the bounds of each man's rights - is what I was praising.

    And frankly, I I didn't recall Justin simply threatening to kill the boy. Nonetheless, I was praising Justin for his willingness to accept Jews without frothing at the mouth like our pre-pubescent comrade Dan III. And, if you are going to be honest, recall that Dan III made the same juvenile offer/threat to use his Airsoft shotgun on me, when I made no such threat against him (since he isn't old enough to drive yet, I guess he couldn't come visit _me_, instead). Frankly, I'll take Justin's youthful zeal in wanting to deal with a pissant little anti-Semite as more morally valid than Danny boy's offer to point his toys in the direction of those he doesn't approve of.

    Just my personal opinion, but the reason I dislike muslims is because they seek to kill (and frequently succeed at it) non-believers, as well as wives, daughters, infidel sex slaves, and even their own kind when their ideology differs slightly. I feel the same way about those who would kill or otherwise rid the earth of Jews. Since they are both a threat (and often one and the same, as Ahmadinejad demonstrates), I see no reason to tolerate them. Even the fourteen year old ones.

    But you are quite welcome, as I believe your heart is indeed in the right place. BTW, in my lexicon,"conservative" is not a religion, political system, or ideology. A conservative is simply someone who wants to live and let live, but they apparently don't intend to let us. Sorry if you felt "tainted" by my describing you in that fashion.

  17. Good stuff, Reg. I didn't feel tainted by the charge of conservative; I just wanted to clarify. Besides, though I've never worded it this way, one of my fundamental beliefs is that one man can't taint another.

    "Just my personal opinion, but the reason I dislike muslims..."

    So you know, I'll NEVER understand a line like this. EVERY muslim? I can see the obvious relationship between islam and everything you might charge, but still I'll NEVER see anything but individuals out there. And lastly, this is what Justin wrote that IMO was way over the top. If I got carried away and wrote something as crazy as this, let alone here and let alone to Dan, I'd be back in a heartbeat apologizing...

    I hope to either change your little mind or help you on a far speedier trip. Your blood is far from treasure, at best fair compost for a small garden or bait for some rodents.

    It shames me to be so divisive, but the only way I would have your back is with a clear sight picture or crosshairs.

    Almost nobody really wants a war, Reg. But you know damn well it's better than 50/50 that there's going to be one. Anyone tells ME I'm going to be in their crosshairs, I'm taking it seriously.

  18. Why is the 16th Amendment sacred to the Leviathan? Because it isn't a right of the people; it is an absolute power of the government.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.