Surviving the Religion of Mao
Posted: January 13th, 2008, 10:11 pm
For the links read this at: http://www.independentamerican.org/blog.php?blog=900
Sunday, January 13th 2008 — Christopher Hansen
I am continuing my research on the New American Civil Religion which is forced upon Americans by the Cult of the Black Robe (AKA judges). The cults’ presidents (Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc.) and Legislative acts, for I cannot call them law, that impose this Civil Religion of Socialism upon Americans. This Civic Religion forces Americans to obtain Socialist Security Numbers and pay taxes that did not exist in America until after the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 (The First Income Tax was established in 1862 AD as was the Office of the Commissioner of internal revenue (No Internal Revenue Service was ever established by Congress)). The Communist Manifesto’s Second Plank calls for a Graduated Income Tax. The 5th Plank calls for a National Bank to control credit (We have that and it is the Federal Reserve Bank). The Tenth plank calls for Free Government schools (I don’t need to tell you that we have those too do I?)
The problem I am running into is that many people refuse to believe that Communism is a religion. You see if Communism is a religion then the Planks of its Manifesto are like the Ten Commandments. They cannot be forced upon Americans or it would be in violation of the First Amendment. So here is a bit of today’s research for all interested parties to consider.
The most emotionally charged story I found was called Surviving the Religion of Mao
It is a radio interview with Author Anchee Min. Here is a small highlight:
From American Public Media, this is Speaking of Faith, public radio’s conversation about belief, meaning, ethics, and ideas. Today, author Anchee Min on “Surviving the Religion of Mao.”
Anchee Min: I was taught to write “I love you, Chairman Mao” before I was taught to write my own name. I never thought I belonged to myself. It was never “I love you, Papa” and “I love you, Mama”; it’s always “I love you, Communist Party of China,” “I love you, Chairman Mao.” What I want to say is that Mao was our religion.
When I was seventeen, life changed to a different world. The school’s vice principal had a talk with me after his talks with many others. He told me… “The policy from Beijing was a holy instruction. It was universally accepted. It was incumbent upon me to obey.”…
What I want to say is that Mao was our religion. His drive for goodness, his drive to liberate the poor people in America, save the American children was a religion and a strive for goodness.
I found this at Adherents.com
Religious Affiliation of History’s 100 Most Influential People
“Note that many influential philosophies (such as Marxist Communism or Confucianism) are not always classified as organized “religions” in the traditional sense, but are classified as such by sociologists because they are a primary motivational world view for individuals, cultures or subcultures. Also, many founders never considered themselves adherents of philosophies or religions which later bore their name (e.g., Martin Luther and Lutheranism).”
#27 Karl Marx, Jewish; Lutheran;Atheist; Marxism/Communism *founder of Marxism, Marxist Communism*
#66 Joseph Stalin, Russian Orthodox then Atheist; Marxism, revolutionary and ruler of USSR
#84 Lenin, Russian Orthodox;Atheist; Marxism/Communism Russian ruler
#89 Mao Zedong,Atheist; Communism; Maoism, founder of Maoism, Chinese form of Communism
So is Marxism or Maoist Communism a least a civic/secular religion? Can the Federal government establish a civic or secular religion?
[T]he government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds. Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577, *578, (1992)
We agree of course that the State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’ School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203, *225 (1963)
Are we not commanded by legislative acts (for I cannot call them law) to obey the 2nd plank of the Religion of Socialism in America? Are you required conform? And you coerced? If you do not believe you are try to survive without a Social Security Number (Mark of the Beast? (See 42 USC Sec. 666 (a)(13)(A)). And soon you can try to survive without the National ID with the REAL ID ACT. “I Vant Your Papers Pleeze!”
“But it is all about National Security” cries the Soccer mom and the Conservative. “It is about American Nationalism” cries the Veteran. “It is about the “sacred trust” of Social Secuirty and support of essential welfare programs, free government schools and Health Care for everyone in our time and in our country,” cries the Liberal. And yet it is all of those things and none of them. What it is is the demand for the government to “coerce uniformity of sentiment in support” of some politcal idea that steals from Americans their right to their religion and their liberty and even their pursuit of what makes them happy. It is an establishment of a Religion. It is unconstitutional.
Here is what the United States Supreme Court ruled back in 1943 during World War II.
National unity as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example is not in question. The problem is whether under our Constitution compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its achievement.
Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, *640-641,(U.S. 1943)
Is your consent coerced when you are forced under threat of arrest to sign a 1040 form under penalties of perjury even when you know you are just guessing while praying to God that the IRS says you got it right and does not call you in for an audit?
Can you honestly say you know what a “dollar” is when you sign that 1040 under penalties of perjury?
Do you know why you have to go to Tax Court if you have a dispute with the IRS?
It is because Tax Court is a particularized tribunal, an Article I Court and not a regular Article III court where you are to have rights. The buren of proof shifts to the Taxpayer in Article I courts. Do you know why?
Maybe this letter will answer some questions for you. It was a response letter to Joann H. Hoverale from Cynthia J. Mills, Disclosure Officer of the Internal Revenue Service, Philadelphia, Pa. Ms. Mills states:
“Dear Mrs. Hoverale:
This is in response to your Privacy Act request dated December 12, 1995.
The Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, it is special law. It applies to specific persons in the United States who choose to make themselves subject to the requirements of the special laws in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government.
The law is that income from sources not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. Government is not subject to any tax under subtitle “A” of the Internal Revenue Code.
This concludes our response to your request.
Sincerely yours, (signature of Ms. Mills)
Cynthia J. Mills, Disclosure Officer
This goes right long with the Supreme Court ruling in Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50, *83-84, (1982) which explains Congressionally granted rights and their difference between legislated rights and Unalienable God given rights:
Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress and other rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell’s and Raddatz’ recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution. Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress’ power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress’ power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.
So Taxpayer! What “rights created by federal statute” have you been granted so that you can work and earn a living? Why, taxpayer, are you required to go to a particularized tribunal (Tax Court) when seeking to vindicate that right? Are you being coerced into uniformity into the Cult of Socialism? How can the federal government send you to a particularized tribunal if you have not received a “right created by federal statute”? When did you become a cultist of Marxism or Maoism?
Remember that USC 26 (the income Tax Code) “applies to specific persons in the United States who choose to make themselves subject to the requirements of the special laws in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government” i.e. “the performance of the functions of a public office” i.e. “Congress creates a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies…”
Now when you are considering all of this consider what the United States Supreme Court ruled that our Government COULD NOT DO in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)and see if they are complying with this ruling from back in the early days of the Republic.
“I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a State Legislature, or that it is absolute and without control; although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the Constitution, or fundamental law, of the State. The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.”
USC 26 makes it so Tax Court judges are judges in “his own cause” because if they rule against the Tax code they are out of a job.
Social Security tax “takes property from A. and gives it to B.” So do Income Taxes.
The requirement that you sign a 1040 under penalties of perjury forces you to testify against yourself because everything you put on the form can be used against you in a court of law. How is that possible? Because you do not have a right but only those right granted to you by congress because you somehow accepted one of these unknown “rights created by Congress.”
In Tax Court you are guilty until you prove you are innocent. The burden to prove you do not owe the tax is on you. Why? Because if you have gone to Tax Court you have already admitted you are a “taxpayer” and have enter[ed] into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government and so Congress “clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right.” Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50
Laws concerning gold contract which were outlawed for years impaired the right to contract. So how could the government do it? Because the Cult of the Black Robe allowed it instead of upholding the Constitution.
The current actions by the IRS do not allow private citizens to choose which form of legal tender, whether gold and silver coins or non-redeemable Federal reserve notes, they will use to determine their wages also impairs the right to contract.
This New American Civil Religion of Socialism is being forced upon us. It not only is “against all reason and justice… the general principles of law and reason forbid them.” And yet it is occurring every day as the web of tyranny tightens with the devaluation of the Federal reserve note to steal your wealth, the USA PATRIOT ACT, surveillance without a court order, The REAL ID act, No Border Security, Anti-Second Amendment laws, forced government education, discrimination against Christians that refuse to become Socialist by being Card Carrying Socialist Secuirty Cultists.
So what are you going to do about it?
Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.–Haile Selassie
Thomas Jefferson, writing for the Congress in 1775 AD, stated:
“We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. – The latter is our choice. – We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. – Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.”
Choose you this day who you will serve. Your choice is as voluntary as our Founding Fathers in 1775 AD.
And remember this:Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. So will you be a Maoist and pray you survive the Religion of Mao or stand up now while there is still time? Voluntary slavery and all that.
See you at Gitmo or the ovens?
Sunday, January 13th 2008 — Christopher Hansen
I am continuing my research on the New American Civil Religion which is forced upon Americans by the Cult of the Black Robe (AKA judges). The cults’ presidents (Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc.) and Legislative acts, for I cannot call them law, that impose this Civil Religion of Socialism upon Americans. This Civic Religion forces Americans to obtain Socialist Security Numbers and pay taxes that did not exist in America until after the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 (The First Income Tax was established in 1862 AD as was the Office of the Commissioner of internal revenue (No Internal Revenue Service was ever established by Congress)). The Communist Manifesto’s Second Plank calls for a Graduated Income Tax. The 5th Plank calls for a National Bank to control credit (We have that and it is the Federal Reserve Bank). The Tenth plank calls for Free Government schools (I don’t need to tell you that we have those too do I?)
The problem I am running into is that many people refuse to believe that Communism is a religion. You see if Communism is a religion then the Planks of its Manifesto are like the Ten Commandments. They cannot be forced upon Americans or it would be in violation of the First Amendment. So here is a bit of today’s research for all interested parties to consider.
The most emotionally charged story I found was called Surviving the Religion of Mao
It is a radio interview with Author Anchee Min. Here is a small highlight:
From American Public Media, this is Speaking of Faith, public radio’s conversation about belief, meaning, ethics, and ideas. Today, author Anchee Min on “Surviving the Religion of Mao.”
Anchee Min: I was taught to write “I love you, Chairman Mao” before I was taught to write my own name. I never thought I belonged to myself. It was never “I love you, Papa” and “I love you, Mama”; it’s always “I love you, Communist Party of China,” “I love you, Chairman Mao.” What I want to say is that Mao was our religion.
When I was seventeen, life changed to a different world. The school’s vice principal had a talk with me after his talks with many others. He told me… “The policy from Beijing was a holy instruction. It was universally accepted. It was incumbent upon me to obey.”…
What I want to say is that Mao was our religion. His drive for goodness, his drive to liberate the poor people in America, save the American children was a religion and a strive for goodness.
I found this at Adherents.com
Religious Affiliation of History’s 100 Most Influential People
“Note that many influential philosophies (such as Marxist Communism or Confucianism) are not always classified as organized “religions” in the traditional sense, but are classified as such by sociologists because they are a primary motivational world view for individuals, cultures or subcultures. Also, many founders never considered themselves adherents of philosophies or religions which later bore their name (e.g., Martin Luther and Lutheranism).”
#27 Karl Marx, Jewish; Lutheran;Atheist; Marxism/Communism *founder of Marxism, Marxist Communism*
#66 Joseph Stalin, Russian Orthodox then Atheist; Marxism, revolutionary and ruler of USSR
#84 Lenin, Russian Orthodox;Atheist; Marxism/Communism Russian ruler
#89 Mao Zedong,Atheist; Communism; Maoism, founder of Maoism, Chinese form of Communism
So is Marxism or Maoist Communism a least a civic/secular religion? Can the Federal government establish a civic or secular religion?
[T]he government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds. Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577, *578, (1992)
We agree of course that the State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’ School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203, *225 (1963)
Are we not commanded by legislative acts (for I cannot call them law) to obey the 2nd plank of the Religion of Socialism in America? Are you required conform? And you coerced? If you do not believe you are try to survive without a Social Security Number (Mark of the Beast? (See 42 USC Sec. 666 (a)(13)(A)). And soon you can try to survive without the National ID with the REAL ID ACT. “I Vant Your Papers Pleeze!”
“But it is all about National Security” cries the Soccer mom and the Conservative. “It is about American Nationalism” cries the Veteran. “It is about the “sacred trust” of Social Secuirty and support of essential welfare programs, free government schools and Health Care for everyone in our time and in our country,” cries the Liberal. And yet it is all of those things and none of them. What it is is the demand for the government to “coerce uniformity of sentiment in support” of some politcal idea that steals from Americans their right to their religion and their liberty and even their pursuit of what makes them happy. It is an establishment of a Religion. It is unconstitutional.
Here is what the United States Supreme Court ruled back in 1943 during World War II.
National unity as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example is not in question. The problem is whether under our Constitution compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its achievement.
Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, *640-641,(U.S. 1943)
Is your consent coerced when you are forced under threat of arrest to sign a 1040 form under penalties of perjury even when you know you are just guessing while praying to God that the IRS says you got it right and does not call you in for an audit?
Can you honestly say you know what a “dollar” is when you sign that 1040 under penalties of perjury?
Do you know why you have to go to Tax Court if you have a dispute with the IRS?
It is because Tax Court is a particularized tribunal, an Article I Court and not a regular Article III court where you are to have rights. The buren of proof shifts to the Taxpayer in Article I courts. Do you know why?
Maybe this letter will answer some questions for you. It was a response letter to Joann H. Hoverale from Cynthia J. Mills, Disclosure Officer of the Internal Revenue Service, Philadelphia, Pa. Ms. Mills states:
“Dear Mrs. Hoverale:
This is in response to your Privacy Act request dated December 12, 1995.
The Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, it is special law. It applies to specific persons in the United States who choose to make themselves subject to the requirements of the special laws in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government.
The law is that income from sources not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. Government is not subject to any tax under subtitle “A” of the Internal Revenue Code.
This concludes our response to your request.
Sincerely yours, (signature of Ms. Mills)
Cynthia J. Mills, Disclosure Officer
This goes right long with the Supreme Court ruling in Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50, *83-84, (1982) which explains Congressionally granted rights and their difference between legislated rights and Unalienable God given rights:
Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress and other rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell’s and Raddatz’ recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution. Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress’ power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress’ power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.
So Taxpayer! What “rights created by federal statute” have you been granted so that you can work and earn a living? Why, taxpayer, are you required to go to a particularized tribunal (Tax Court) when seeking to vindicate that right? Are you being coerced into uniformity into the Cult of Socialism? How can the federal government send you to a particularized tribunal if you have not received a “right created by federal statute”? When did you become a cultist of Marxism or Maoism?
Remember that USC 26 (the income Tax Code) “applies to specific persons in the United States who choose to make themselves subject to the requirements of the special laws in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government” i.e. “the performance of the functions of a public office” i.e. “Congress creates a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies…”
Now when you are considering all of this consider what the United States Supreme Court ruled that our Government COULD NOT DO in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)and see if they are complying with this ruling from back in the early days of the Republic.
“I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a State Legislature, or that it is absolute and without control; although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the Constitution, or fundamental law, of the State. The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.”
USC 26 makes it so Tax Court judges are judges in “his own cause” because if they rule against the Tax code they are out of a job.
Social Security tax “takes property from A. and gives it to B.” So do Income Taxes.
The requirement that you sign a 1040 under penalties of perjury forces you to testify against yourself because everything you put on the form can be used against you in a court of law. How is that possible? Because you do not have a right but only those right granted to you by congress because you somehow accepted one of these unknown “rights created by Congress.”
In Tax Court you are guilty until you prove you are innocent. The burden to prove you do not owe the tax is on you. Why? Because if you have gone to Tax Court you have already admitted you are a “taxpayer” and have enter[ed] into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government and so Congress “clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right.” Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50
Laws concerning gold contract which were outlawed for years impaired the right to contract. So how could the government do it? Because the Cult of the Black Robe allowed it instead of upholding the Constitution.
The current actions by the IRS do not allow private citizens to choose which form of legal tender, whether gold and silver coins or non-redeemable Federal reserve notes, they will use to determine their wages also impairs the right to contract.
This New American Civil Religion of Socialism is being forced upon us. It not only is “against all reason and justice… the general principles of law and reason forbid them.” And yet it is occurring every day as the web of tyranny tightens with the devaluation of the Federal reserve note to steal your wealth, the USA PATRIOT ACT, surveillance without a court order, The REAL ID act, No Border Security, Anti-Second Amendment laws, forced government education, discrimination against Christians that refuse to become Socialist by being Card Carrying Socialist Secuirty Cultists.
So what are you going to do about it?
Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.–Haile Selassie
Thomas Jefferson, writing for the Congress in 1775 AD, stated:
“We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. – The latter is our choice. – We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. – Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.”
Choose you this day who you will serve. Your choice is as voluntary as our Founding Fathers in 1775 AD.
And remember this:Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. So will you be a Maoist and pray you survive the Religion of Mao or stand up now while there is still time? Voluntary slavery and all that.
See you at Gitmo or the ovens?