Compelling Interest

Things Swimming In My Head

I didn't think when I started this blog that I would ever be discussing politics, but once you've run into the family law system or have experienced other like trauma, you're bound to get around to it eventually.

Don't get the wrong idea, though. This is not about the upcoming presidential election, compelling though it may be. I am not going to wax endlessly about the candidates and what they said today and what they said yesterday and what they were wearing when they said it.

Right now, I am just going to spew out all that is swimming in my head, and you, dear reader, are assigned the task to search the internet and go to your local library and look into this stuff for yourself. Unfortunately, I can't claim to have the answers to what follows. All I can claim is that this stuff is relevant; it is important stuff; it is important now and especially important for the future.

Commence spewing:

1. Income tax. Are we or are we not truly liable to pay federal and state taxes on our wages? Look into it, friend. There is a lot out there on this subject, and has been for a long time. Watch the movie America: Freedom to Fascism. Ask questions. Get curious. The people who are imprisoned for not paying: are they being imprisoned lawfully, or unlawfully? Before you give a knee-jerk answer, how curious are you? What questions have you asked? Maybe they are being lawfully imprisoned. Maybe they are being unlawfully imprisoned to instill fear in the general population, to make people pay taxes for which they are not liable.

Wait! Before you go, think about this. Undoubtedly, you are familiar with at least one, if not several, historical instances where some government in some part of the world was up to no good, right? Or is your knowledge of history such that it has never occurred to you that an established government could or would do wrong?

If you can acknowledge that governments are capable of wrongdoing, are you capable of considering that your government, right now, could be hoodwinking the general population in some form or fashion? In light of the current administration, need I say more?

Well, reader, do you think that questionable politics is something new? Could our government have been up to no good during other eras, cooking up other schemes, trying to get away with this or that? I know you weren't born yesterday.

So, as I say, I do not claim to know the answers; and simply casting doubt on something is not the same as condemning it altogether. I have not stated that the income tax is unconstitutional. But others have - and they are intelligent people, just like you. Some of them are constitutional lawyers; some are former IRS agents; some are jurors who have acquitted those charged with failing to pay income taxes - acquitted because the jurors were never shown a law that makes your average worker liable for an income tax, even though they asked to see the law.

My question is: why is there a debate, and who is right? I don't know at this point. Do you?

2. The Federal Reserve is not part of the federal government. The government borrows money from this privately held bank and pays back the loans with interest. This is a retarded system for many reasons. Speaking of income taxes: studies have shown that ALL the money that is collected from the income tax goes to pay off the interest on these loans from the Federal Reserve. If this is true, then your income tax dollars are immediately turned into profit for a privately run bank. How do banks make a profit? By charging interest on the money they lend.

Once again, the government takes money from your wages and uses ALL of it to pay private bankers for their services. Is this sinking in? Are you thinking that this is a ridiculous system yet? The government has the authority to print its own money when and if it needs to. It doesn't have to borrow money from anyone. Who set up this system? When was it set up? Why? Look into it.

3. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." Citizen. Republic.

Do these things really mean anything anymore in this country? They used to mean a whole lot. These words used to resonate with the general U.S. population. Now they seem hollow, antiquated, even quaint. Why did these words mean so much to Paul Revere, Ben Franklin, Susan B. Anthony? Why did they mean so much for generations of Americans, and now we can hardly even come up with an intelligent definition of the words?

More important question: Let's say you are in a governmental body; you are in the business of governing. The population you govern is generally ignorant and disinterested in the meaning of "republic" and what it actually means to be a citizen in a republic. You, as one in a position of power, have ambitions to expand your powers to govern. The people's ignorance and disinterest: is this an advantage to your ambitions, or a disadvantage?

Does it feel like you and your neighbors are calling the shots in government, or does it feel like government is there to tell you and all your neighbors what to do? Why?

4. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said something to this effect: "The government will only get away with whatever the people will tolerate." If he didn't say it, he should have. Sizing up the current state of our governments, both state and federal, do you think "we the people" are tolerant of our governments, or intolerant? Which is the healthier choice for a republic?

5. Why is our population so generally apathetic to politics, when generations before us were very politically engaged? I'd like to propose this as one possibility: television.

Think about it: television is like a drug that keeps you in a stupor when you're not working. You get up in the morning and go to work. You come home and watch mostly meaningless programs that are filled with commercials that are telling you to buy certain products. So, after work, if you're not at home watching mostly meaningless programs, you're probably out shopping. Then you come home and turn on the TV to watch mostly meaningless programs and get marching orders for your next outing at the store. Then you go to bed, get up in the morning, and do the same thing - over and over again.

If you took all those hours you spend in front of the TV and turned them into hours of relating to your spouse and kids, fixing up or rearranging your home, reading books, researching your government, having people over to discuss current events, or just throwing a party because you have three hours to party because you're not watching TV, think of all the things you would have to think about, all the things you would discover, all the useful things you could do to bring about positive changes in your family, neighborhood, state, and country. If you actually felt like you were a free, powerful citizen living in a republic, would you really be squandering all of your time in front of the TV, or what I like to call "the electronic puppet show"?

(Seriously, if everything you saw on television was being done in your living room as a live puppet show, would you actually sit there and watch for three hours before you go to bed? Every night? Wouldn't you feel like you were overindulging and wasting a hell of a lot of time? Everything you see on television is just a really, really, really fancy, 2-D version of Punch and Judy, isn't it? Think about it.)

Anyway, so there is the drug which stupifies, wastes our time, and leaves us no time to think about things which matter. I think we like it so much because we basically feel powerless next to Uncle Sam and television offers a simple escape. We're supposed to just be, as George Carlin likes to say, "obedient workers." We get up, go to work, buy products on the way home, eat dinner, and watch the electronic puppet show. But, is it an escape, or part of the trap? If you were Uncle Sam, would you want the governed poking their nose into "your" business during their free time, or would you want them sitting at home, lost in a puppet show?

Do They Tax You for Going to Church, Too?

I have been running into a few different arguments against a federal (or state) tax on one’s wages, what we commonly call the “income tax.”

There’s the argument that there is no actual law that makes us liable for such a tax, and that enforcement of the income tax is based on bluff and fraud. There are numerous court cases where people have been acquitted for their failure to file income tax returns. Interesting.

There are arguments surrounding the 16th amendment to the Constitution. Some arguments put forth that the amendment was never properly ratified by Congress. Other arguments have to do with how to interpret the meaning of the amendment.

Other arguments link the supposed ratification of the 16th amendment to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in the same year, and how these were meant to compliment each other to the benefit of the very, very wealthy (J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, etc.).

One argument is that the courts simply cannot agree as to whether the income tax is an indirect tax, or a direct, unapportioned tax on wages. There are many court decisions on this point that completely contradict other court decisions. And the argument goes that if the law is vague, decisions must be made in favor of the citizen. In other words, when there is doubt as to whether or not a law has been broken, the court must rule in favor of the person who was charged with the violation. If the courts cannot agree as to what type of tax the tax on our wages is, then how can they rule against citizens who refuse to pay “income” taxes with any certainty or authority?

All of the above arguments have their merits, and certainly cast much doubt on our present tax system. I believe that any one of these arguments would be enough to abolish the income tax on our wages if the people would take a stand.

However, all of these arguments are tending to get mired in the “interpretation” of facts and history. There are a myriad of proponents and opponents on either side of every argument cited above.

But there is one argument that, to me, stands above the rest and is not really open to “interpretation.” The argument is that a person’s right to work is a fundamental human right; this right to work is not granted by any government. We are born with this right.

It follows then that if the government requires a portion of your hard-earned wages, then the government has given itself the means to control and/or even destroy your ability, or right, to work. Now, extend that to any other of your fundamental human rights. Do you have to pay a tax to the government when you make a speech, when you print something, when you associate with people of your choosing, when you practice your religion, when you get married, when you have a child, when you exercise your right to privacy? Absolutely not. Would it be right for the government to require payment when you exercise any of those rights? Absolutely not.

Then why do we have to pay the government when we exercise our fundamental right to work? If paying an income tax is truly required by law, then our decision not to pay that tax could put our right or ability to work in jeopardy, couldn’t it? If we had to pay the government when we exercise our right to practice our religion, then wouldn’t we put that right in jeopardy if we refused to pay the tax on that right?

Just as we do not attend church or synagogue to the benefit of our government, so attending our job every morning should not be to the benefit of our government. One is just as wrong as the other, whether there is a law requiring it or not.

If you choose to sell alcohol for a living, you apply for a license, you observe strict regulations, and you pay a tax to the government for the privilege of selling alcohol. You don’t have to sell alcohol, and no one is born with the right to sell it. It is a privilege, and you pay a tax for that privilege.

This is a far cry from the man or woman who clocks in at the distillery and puts in his or her 40 hours a week. Everyone knows, all around the world, that if that man or woman doesn’t work, they don’t eat. By showing up for work, the average wage-earner isn't exercising a privilege, they are exercising their fundamental right to work.

How can a government claim to legitimately lay a tax on that? To tax ANY fundamental right is to reduce that right to a privilege. Look at Wesley Snipes. Is he exercising his fundamental right to work? No, that "privilege" has been taken away for the next three years.

If Wesley had been going to synagogue all these years, and attending synagogue required a report on his attendance and a payment to the government for each attendance, would Wesley still be allowed to attend if he decided the payment was wrong and he stopped paying? Of course not. If he continued to attend without payment, he would be imprisoned for failure to pay. His only other option to avoid the "synagogue tax" would be to stop attending. So, what becomes of his "freedom of religion"? It doesn't exist. Connect the dots.

Americans have a choice to make in the near future: either continue to complain about the income tax for the next hundred years (like we've been doing), or simply abolish it. We have that right, and, if we stand together, we have that power. Many, many rich and powerful people would do everything in their power to stop us (and I'm sure they would come close), but this country wasn't founded to cater to the rich and powerful, was it? This country wasn't founded to be run by and for the super rich. There are some, even some in the lower and middle classes, who think it was. But I believe the Constitution would read much differently if that were the case - much differently. I believe that this country was founded so that you and I could govern ourselves, so that OUR government would serve rather than oppress.

The ability to directly tax a person's exercise of their right to work - I believe our Founding Fathers would have shuddered to think that the government they were fighting to establish would ever have such power. They certainly didn’t bestow that power on the government; in fact, they took measures to ensure that such powers would never exist. And, for about its first hundred and fifty years, our government never collected an income tax.

What changed? Why? Who made the changes? Dear reader, have you been doing your homework?

Why Tolerate What We Can Change?

I'm just going to riff here on income tax, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve.  This is all based on the homework I have been able to do thus far.  I am not done researching, but I want to give you some food for thought and encourage you to do your own research.

Do you like paying income tax?  Did you know that nobody in this country payed income tax until the early 20th century?

President Reagan appointed a commission in the early 80's to expose corruption and inefficiency in government.  It was known as the Grace Commission.  One of the findings in the report was that not one nickel of the income tax collected by the IRS goes to pay for the services that we expect from our government.  Our hard earned dollars are merely paying the interest on the money loaned to the government by the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE corporation.  It is no more "federal" than Federal Express.  It is run by private bankers.  Your income tax money pays the interest on the money the bankers loan to our government.  It pays the interest - that is their profit.  How do you feel about that?

Our government does not need to borrow money from anyone.  The Constitution gave Congress the power to issue its own (our own) money.  But Congress illegally delegated that privilege to the already privileged.  This occurred with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  Now, when Congress needs money, instead of making its own it borrows it from a private corporation - at interest.  Whose idea was this, anyway?  The bankers!  The IRS was then created to collect a direct, unapportioned tax on our wages under the color of law.  The income tax as it is collected now is unconstitutional - it is illegal - and the government knows it.  And this tax lines the pockets of the extremely wealthy.  This is no accident, folks.  How do you feel about that?

Please research the case of Whitey Harrell, an IRS lawsuit against an Illinois man that occurred only a few years ago.

Please see the movie by Aaron Russo entitled America: Freedom to Fascism.  I know the title sounds alarmist, and I am not an alarmist.  Just view it as a study guide to give your own research some direction.

We are a lazy and tolerant nation, and let's not be surprised that some enterprising people have figured out a way to take advantage of the fact.  They say that power corrupts.  They say that money corrupts.  Is that just theory, or do we not expect to see a few object lessons?  Look around.  Do some homework.  Ask questions.

In future posts I will be giving some interesting quotes and facts about the IRS and the Federal Reserve, and I will be discussing the ideas of liberty and property, and how those ideas are connected.

If any of you have thoughts, facts, or opinions on these subjects, please share with the class (leave a comment).  All I ask is that no one be alarmist, frantic, or half-cocked, and that no one direct readers to groups or sites that are trying to make a buck off of this type of conversation.  No one at the Federal Convention of 1787 was getting rich spending their summer trying to put together our Constitution.  Therefore, no one who is engaged in this conversation should be turning this into a money maker.  My opinion.

Remember, low tolerance is essential for a healthy republic.  High tolerance is to the advantage of those who would corrupt the system for their own gain.  The corrupt and greedy have not been sleeping, people.  They have been wide awake and busy for a long time.

But You'd Be Wrong

I just did my Navy weekend, and on Sunday I got my heart torn out.

I was part of a work party on Sunday morning that was to go clean up some spaces for a cargo handling unit. When I pulled up to the building it became clear that the unit was getting ready to ship out on a deployment. A big bus idled in front of the building while families stood around and hugged their loved ones who would be leaving shortly.

The work party I was with comprised of only six sailors, and we stood in two groups of three chatting and waiting for our chief to show up and give us our orders. When he arrived he said we would simply stand by until the unit and their families had gone.

So, I stood there with a couple of my shipmates and made small talk, all the while observing the people around me. There were tears everywhere, and if I looked at these people for too long, especially at the children, I would start tearing up, too. I finally had to turn and take a few steps away from it all.

An announcement was made, and people began to board the bus. The tears began flowing anew. One man had his two boys with him and his parents. The older boy, who was probably seven, was crying softly. The younger boy was dry-eyed and just observing everything. A couple years younger than his older brother, he apparently wasn’t able to comprehend what was going on – just a little too young.

I was standing about 20 feet from the door of the bus, and a little forward of it. A few feet in front of me, a line of senior enlisted and an officer had formed a line to shake the hands of their departing shipmates and to wish them luck. Soon after the last couple of sailors had boarded, I saw one master chief lean over to another master chief standing next to him.

“It doesn’t get any easier, does it?” he said.

The other master chief replied simply, “No.”

The chiefs and the officers stepped back a little, and I got a view of a small family that had gathered at the side of the bus, about ten feet away, near the center: a mother with her two boys. I couldn’t really see the younger boy who was huddled up next to his mom; from his height I figured him to be about four. The taller boy stood a little closer to the bus and looked up into the dark windows. He looked to be 10 or 11.

The boy was crying some, staring up into the windows. Suddenly the idling engine roared a little to get the bus to move, and the wheels began to turn and the engine grew even louder. If you had seen a picture of the boy’s face at this exact moment from where I stood, and you didn’t know the context of what was going on, you might be fooled into thinking that he was grinning, but you’d be wrong. The boy was weeping.

Goddamn wars.

For Liberty

[This post is intended for the widest possible dissemination. Please forward to local and national politicians, newspapers, other websites, friends and family. Unedited copies are authorized as well as excerpts for the purposes of a news story. If you wish to comment, please do. If you wish to discuss, please e-mail me at bassman349@juno.com. Thank you. Also, I do not want it thought that this endeavor is to define the rest of my life's work. No, once this is in the bag, I will be working on overhauling our family law system, and I'm also going to see to it that Congress restores the good names of Admiral Kimmel and General Short by naming a couple of the Navy's big, shiny new ships after them. There is much more to be done than what immediately follows. Thank you for reading.]

January 11, 2009

To All Americans:

I am Kurt Henning, United States citizen, currently residing in the great State of Illinois.

I am writing this primarily as a private citizen, but also as a serviceman, but only as it relates to an oath I took when I entered the service. (Be it known that neither the Navy in general nor my chain of command have endorsed this message nor anything contained herein. For everything contained in this letter, I take full responsibility.)

I joined the Navy on November 20, 2003. On that day I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Ostensibly, the role I was to play in support of the Constitution was in the repairing of our Navy’s aircraft. But deep down, I knew there was some deeper reason that I had found myself in the service of our nation. I didn’t know what that deeper reason was – maybe one day I would help pull a shipmate out a of a burning fighter jet and save his life, or maybe I would give first aid to a wounded comrade on the field of battle. I didn’t know, but I was open to anything – anything that I considered honorable, significant, and worthy of our American heritage.

Before I took the oath in 2003, I had become something of a student of the very Constitution I vowed to protect. My studies did not cease on the day I was sworn into service; if anything, my studies have increased.

“We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

That’s a tall order, and frankly, based on their excellent knowledge of history, the framers of the Constitution didn’t expect the United States to last much more than 150 years before they figured the whole thing would collapse under diverse pressures, both foreign and domestic. I took an oath to ensure that, as far as it is up to me, it will last. Many men and women have served over the years, in both civilian and military capacities, to ensure the same thing. Many have given their lives.

The framers of our Constitution were very aware that the greatest dangers to our personal liberties come not from outside of our country, but from within – in fact, they recognized that the very government they were establishing posed the greatest of all potential threats to personal liberty.

Should we be surprised then to learn that such threats actually exist and are currently at work over two hundred years after the establishment of our government? Should we be shocked and retreat into a state of denial?

In fact, we can be surprised and we can be shocked, but we who have taken the oath to support and defend our Constitution cannot retreat – we cannot recognize a threat to our Constitution, from whatever source derived, and then deny its existence and allow that threat to proceed unchallenged. This is surrender without a fight, which is against our nation’s military Code of Conduct.

It is understood that mankind has come into this world with certain “unalienable rights,” rights he has either enjoyed freely (if he’s been lucky) or has had taken away by force (which has often been the case throughout his colorful history).

Before governments were instituted among men, it was understood that men and women would have to spend their days working to provide for life’s basic necessities and common comforts – foraging, growing crops, hunting, fishing; making clothes, furniture, tools, shelter. This principal was put very succinctly in the Christian Bible where it says: “If a man will not work, he will not eat.” This principal existed long before established government – it was not introduced or created by governments. The right to provide for one’s needs through labor is, therefore, not a privilege bestowed upon people by their government, but a natural, or fundamental right. It always has been, and always will be. Tear down any existing government, and the people who were under that former government will still find it necessary to labor for their basic needs, no matter how that former government suppressed, supplanted, or honored the peoples’ natural right to work in order to provide for themselves.

Governments come and governments go, but man’s basic need, and therefore natural right, to provide for himself remains.

What a man gets for his labor, or work, is called the “fruit” of his labor. We refer to it (the fruit) more commonly as “compensation.” This usually comes in the form of money, but can also be an exchange of goods or services. Whatever the form of compensation, the compensation becomes the laborer’s private property, to be disposed of according to the wishes of that laborer – the “fruit” (most likely some form of money) can be exchanged for food, a shirt, a chair, and these in turn are understood to be the private property of the individual who purchased them.

Theoretically, an established government could lay a tax on the fruits of a man’s labor; it could demand a percentage of the compensation a man receives for his work. Theoretically, such a government could confiscate a man’s private property or even his rights to property for failure to pay such a tax. Such a government could even imprison the man who failed to pay such a tax or failed to even fill out the paperwork which would show the government the total amount of that man’s compensation for a year’s work (something a government has no need of knowing, unless it’s purpose is to calculate a percentage of the man’s total compensation and collect that percentage as a tax).

Governments cannot, that is, should not lay a tax on the exercise of a natural right, as a natural right does not originate from government. Governments do not grant natural rights as natural rights are antecedent to government. Our government was established to protect our natural rights; it can grant privileges, and can lay a tax on those privileges appropriately. Who will ever argue that the necessity to labor to provide for one’s needs is a privilege? If we should choose not to enjoy this privilege, who would then provide for us? The government? If a man should choose not to pay a tax on his right to work in order to provide for himself, would the government then prefer to imprison him and provide for that man at the government’s expense? What kind of government would prefer that?

Obviously, this “theoretical government” is not theoretical at all. It is the very one under which we live. And what other natural or fundamental rights are taxed when we choose to exercise them? Do we owe taxes to our government when we worship our God according to our faith? Is not our chosen form of worship a privilege we pay for? Do we fill out paperwork which tells the government with whom we peaceably assemble, and then send in the taxes due? Do we express our opinions on diverse subjects on government forms and then pay a tax on the privilege of free speech? Do we fill out paperwork and send in the tax due every time we plead the Fifth? How much does it cost nowadays to plead the Fifth? If I go to jail and am not punished in cruel or unusual ways, do I send a check to the United States Treasury? For what amount? When my person, home, papers, and effects are not unreasonably searched and seized, how much tax am I liable for every time that doesn’t happen?

The Bill of Rights, Article IX: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Where exactly in the Constitution has our natural right to work to provide for ourselves been reduced to a privilege, bestowed upon us by our benevolent Uncle Sam for a fee?

The income tax has been debated hotly since before I ever arrived on the scene. The Supreme Court has chimed in; lawyers, doctors, professors, pundits, politicians, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers have had their say. Some blame the bankers, others the Congress. Irwin Schiff, Tommy Cryer, Larry Becraft, Christopher Hansen, Aaron Russo, the We the People Foundation, the FairTax people, the IRS, the lower courts, the Federal Reserve, the 16th Amendment – many voices, much clamoring, much debate. But nothing has changed in almost one hundred years where the income tax is concerned, except that it continues to oppress more and more.

We have a basic need and a natural right to work in order to provide for ourselves and our loved ones. This natural right to work is being taxed by the government. If we do not pay the taxes due upon exercising this right, our private property can be seized and sold at the government’s discretion; if we fail to file yearly returns or if we even make a mistake on those returns concerning our right to work, we can be fined and imprisoned. We are required by the government to provide information regarding our yearly income (the fruits of our labor) that the government can potentially use against us in criminal court, yet the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says we cannot be compelled to incriminate ourselves. What kind of government does that sounds like?

To me, it doesn’t sound like a government our Founders strove to establish; it doesn’t sound like a government so many thousands of our ancestors and loved ones gave their lives for; it doesn’t sound like a government I would want to support or defend.

Thankfully, my oath was to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” not the government that currently operates under it. The difference is crucial, and must be appreciated.

I, Kurt Henning, understand every person’s basic need and natural right to work so they can provide for themselves – it is one of the essential ingredients in our pursuit of life, liberty, property, and happiness. Therefore, I look at all that has been said and written and argued on the subject of the individual income tax over the course of almost a full century, by both high and low, and I am able to say: I don’t care.

I don’t care. I don’t care. I don’t care.

I don’t care who said what and when. I don’t care if the Supreme Court ruled in favor or not in favor. I don’t care what the 16th Amendment says or doesn’t say; if it was properly ratified or not (and frankly, considering all the controversy it seems to perpetuate, I would have to say that those who drafted and ratified the thing did a piss-poor job – a high school civics class could have done better). I don’t care what Schiff, Cryer, Becraft, Hansen, Russo, or the candlestick makers have said. I don’t care what the lower courts have ruled. I don’t care if the IRS is good, bad, ugly, or evil, and I don’t care what the Internal Revenue Code says. I don’t care if the judges who have ruled on individual income tax cases are angels or demons. I don’t care if there have been, are, or ever will be conspiracies between the bankers, Congress, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the Department of the Treasury, Department of Justice, the judges and the lawyers. I don’t care who has gone to court and if they won or lost. I don’t care what the government is or isn’t doing with income tax revenue. And I don’t give a damn how ANYONE defines or fails to define “income.”

If, by legal or illegal means, the governments of the United States and the individual States themselves are laying a tax on any one of our fundamental rights and have thereby reduced that right to a privilege, and it has been allowed to go on for even a month, we’re all wrong – Supreme Court, 16th Amendment, Congress, the Presidents, We the People, and all definitions of “income” included.

“But, Kurt, this is just the way our system works! To change it would cause a tremendous upheaval!” Who wants to die for a broken, oppressive system? Isn’t that the pitiful plight of communist and fascist armies? “Don’t rock the boat” should prevail over my fundamental rights? If my rights have been usurped and trampled on, the boat has already been rocked.

“But your right to work and provide for yourself is not a natural right after all because this or that mishmash, or because someone who lived a few hundred years ago said it wasn’t, and we still read his books,” says the person with the law degree or who sits on a bench and wears a black robe. Bullshit.

“It’s not patriotic to criticize your government, especially if you’re in the military.” General George Washington would have your head on a platter for saying such a thing. He’d probably cut it off himself.

“We’ll never change this. The government will never give up such a vast source of revenue.” That, at least, is true – if you have given up the notion that we live in a republic. If that’s the case, the Pledge of Allegiance will have to be altered.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the ____________ for which it stands.” Does our flag not still stand for a republic? Did that change and no one told me? So then, what have you pledged your allegiance to? If it’s not a republic, then what is it? And it’s not a republic if the people don’t retain and exercise their power over their government.

“But how will the government pay for all the stuff it’s supposed to do?” That has already been provided for in the Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution has a provision been made for Uncle Sam to directly tax my fundamental right to work and provide for myself, reducing that right to a privilege for which I must pay. And if that’s what the 16th Amendment actually accomplished, then it is inherently unconstitutional and has no force of law. It must be repealed.

The arguments will go on and on until we remember, and take seriously, the fact that WE are the government. OUR government derives its power from the governed – WE are the governed, therefore WE have the power to tell government what it will and will not do. That’s our job.

The debates, interpretations, court battles, rulings and challenges can continue forever, but I finally realized that nothing will change the current state of things where income taxes are concerned until I reach the point where I can say:

“I, Kurt Henning of the United States, hold this truth to be self-evident: that all citizens of the United States who have reached the age of majority and who are physically able have the natural right, the responsibility, and the duty to provide materially for their own well-being and for their family, that this right must be exercised freely in forms of work or labor of their own choosing, and that with the fruits of their labor (compensation, usually in the form of money, which automatically becomes their private property) they can acquire other forms of private property such as food, clothing, and shelter in order to sustain themselves and their family, and that after the necessities of life have been provided for, they are at liberty to use whatever remains of the fruits of their labor for whatever they deem appropriate. The federal, state, and local governments cannot claim ownership of any portion of the fruits of their labor unless it is freely and voluntarily given to any or all of those governments. No government – federal, state, or local – can punish any citizen in any way, shape, or form who chooses not to donate any portion of the fruits of their labor to any or all of those governments.”

I now know why I joined the Navy – so I would take that oath and contemplate it as I continued my private study of the Constitution. The Constitution was debated, drafted, and revised numerous times in the summer of 1787, and finally ratified in 1789. It was ordained and established by the People of the United States to secure the blessings of our liberty. Since then, it has faced numerous enemies, both foreign and domestic. Thousands upon thousands have sacrificed their lives for its preservation. I have looked around and have come face to face with a direct attack on several of our liberties in the form of the income tax. Any governmental attack on personal liberty, mine or yours, is an attack on the Constitution, which was carefully crafted to protect our liberty. We protect the Constitution so it can protect us. If we leave the Constitution vulnerable to government encroachment, it is at our own peril.

Though I grew up with this form of government oppression and did not recognize it for most of my working life, I have come to recognize it finally and am simply repulsed at its very existence. And, as a citizen whose duty it is to help govern this republic (not because I’m in the military, but because I am a citizen), I am compelled not to roll over and just let it continue. I am compelled to stand and say, “Stop! We took a wrong turn, and regardless how long we’ve been on this course, no matter how we got here, we will change to a better, to a just course. Now.”

I have reached the point where I can and must say this, and things will change. Our right to work and enjoy all of the fruits of our labor must be fully restored and protected. It must be wrenched from Uncle Sam’s hands. Our government has made a killing by charging us for something we have a natural right to do – earn a living and provide for ourselves. The Constitution already enumerates how Uncle Sam will be provided for; he has nothing to worry about. We must stop believing that working in this country is a privilege from the government for which we pay a fee or go to prison. The joke is on us.

If I am alone in saying this, change will be slow. But if I am among a throng who say this, if my flag truly stands for a republic, change will be swift and sure. I am not waiting anymore. I took an oath, and I mean to act on it. Come with me.

To My Friends in Utah

Word has come to me that there are many people in the State of Utah who have taken it upon themselves to learn the ropes of what it is to be a citizen in a republic. You would think we’d pretty much have it down after over two hundred years of practice, but freedom is a funny thing. We, the People, are free to be lazy, apathetic, and we are free to forget. And by and large, we have forgotten.

Can you imagine if we were to hear of a group of North Korean citizens who were organizing to reacquaint themselves with what it means to be citizens in a communist country, as if they had forgotten? “Okay, let’s go down the list again of the rights we’ve had stripped away, shall we? Who would like to…? Gosh, you all look so hungry.”

Here in America, the Land of the Free, we’ve boiled our citizenship in this great republic down to this pathetic mantra: “I’m a good American – I pay my taxes.” Next time someone says that to you, ask them what the alternative would be to not filing their income tax returns. They’ll have no trouble reciting the well-known litany: fines, confiscation of private property, imprisonment.

“I’m a good American – I pay the government every year to keep my ass out of prison.”

Is this what we mean by “Freedom isn’t free”? It’s like saying you’re a good person because you gave some money to a guy – never mind that he was pointing a gun to your chest.

Citizens of Utah, appreciate what you will be doing this February 20th and 21st. You will be sending delegates from each of your “mini republics” to a Convention, modeled after the Federal Convention of 1787, and there your delegates will bring together their hearts and minds – they will discuss, they will debate, they will problem solve. Citizens from other states will be there to observe the process and to take what they have learned back to their own states to recreate what you are doing.

Many of us have read of such things, we have seen movies and plays that depict our Founding Era, we have heard the stories of a great republic. But there is no substitute for doing. And that is why I so envy each and every one of you who will be participating in this event.

There were many frustrations at the Convention in 1787. Many ideas from good-hearted, earnest men were shot down, feathers were ruffled, occasionally tempers flared. But all who were there agreed that, times being what they were, accomplishing something was better than accomplishing nothing. It was a humbling realization; nothing grandiose about it. Your exercise in Utah will not reach a state of perfection in any sense; nor will it transform this nation’s political awareness overnight. But the something you will accomplish will go a long way in a nation that has had nothing for so long.

How foolish we have been as a nation to pin our hopes on the person we send to the White House, or on the people we send to the Congress, as if they are to run this nation. Isn’t that our job? Don’t we send them to Washington to do our bidding instead of having millions of us show up every time there’s a vote? But after we vote them into office and send them on their way, we pick up the paper, we turn on CNN or NPR, and what do we do? We roll our eyes, or shake our fist, or sigh in disgust. We do everything but what we are supposed to do, and I have to admit that this has described me for most of my life until fairly recently.

Make no mistake, those people we roll our eyes at in Washington will “little note, nor long remember” what you do this February in Utah. They don’t care if we assemble; they don’t care if we debate. They don’t care what we discuss; they don’t care if we care. They don’t care if we march; they don’t care if we make the ten o’clock news.

Friends in Utah, there is only one thing the people in Washington and those in our state capitals do not want us to do, and it is the very thing our Founders took pains to set us up to do – govern.

We, the People of the United States, must stand up and take the place that has been prepared for us by those who understood so well the principles of liberty and its preservation. Utah, show us how it’s done; remind us; take us to school. May this be the beginning of a wake up call this nation will never forget; a wake up call that gets our full attention and gets We the People back to work – a wake up call that finally pulverizes that which the politicians have labored for generations to protect: America’s giant snooze button.

-- For more details on the Utah Convention of Liberty, visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UtahLiberty

So Simple, an 8th Grader Can Understand

So, I just got back from a piano tuning lecture/demonstration at a local middle school. They were holding a Career Day in the music department and had various people coming in to talk about the various career paths that exist in the music world (just in case those music performance degrees don't pan out...ahem).

I came in to talk about the wonderful world of piano tuning (just in case those music performance degrees don't pan out...AHEM!). One of the talking points the staff wanted me to hit was "Average Salary." So, I start talking about the average salary for a tuner whose business is doing reasonably well, and I had to mention a couple of the cons of being self-employed. For instance, if you don't work on a given day, you don't get paid that day. There is no personal (paid) time off, no sick days, no paid vacation.

Another con is taxes (no pun intended). The self-employed are taxed as employees, and as employers. Lots o' taxes to pay. And then I just couldn't help slipping in my conviction that the income tax is unconstitutional, and did you ever notice that when we are taught about the rights we enjoy in this country we never hear about our right to work, that we have a fundamental right to earn a living to sustain ourselves? Then I said, "But that's a whole other lecture!" and started to get back on point.

"So," I went on, "what exactly does a tuner do?"

Just then, one of the 8th graders raised his hand and said, "You mean...we have to pay the government to work?"

"Well," I said, "we need to get back to the subject at hand, but, bingo! Do some research."

Then we got into the finer points of tuning unisons.

When Did God Become an American?

I went to Barnes & Noble today on a whim – I just felt it was time to browse and see if anything might catch my eye. And then I saw it, in the American History section: The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State. I look forward to reading it. It had to catch my eye because for the last couple of weeks I have been pondering a blog post that would use the very title given to this post. I have been pondering for a few reasons.

It is a fact that God is never mentioned in our hallowed Constitution. Does this strike any of my readers, especially my religious/patriotic ones, as odd? It certainly struck me when I first became conscious of it. When I went to look for myself, I fully expected to find a reference in one of two places, if not both: the beginning and/or the end. He wasn’t there. And he wasn’t in the middle. No “and God willing” or “seeking His divine providence” or “with the blessings of Almighty God.” Nothing. Nothing even close.

Another thing: many of us are aware of the fact that the original Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the phrase “under God.” One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And another: Did you know the United States has an official creed? And guess who isn’t mentioned.

Do we ever utter the word “God” when we sing the National Anthem? Is there a pattern here?

The Declaration of Independence certainly mentions God – that is true. But if you were writing a letter to the Pope declaring that he no longer has authority over you, don’t you think at least some of your arguments might make reference to God? Would it or could it be a completely secular letter? King George was the secular ruler of England and the Colonies, but let’s not forget that he was also head of the Anglican Church. Is it reasonable to expect that the authors of the Declaration would make no reference to God when they were declaring independence from the English equivalent of the Pope?

But once the dirty work of independence was done, once the appeals (both secular and spiritual) had been made and the fighting drew to a close, the Founders got down to the business of setting up a government that would be, as far as humanly possible, fair, just, impartial, and benevolent. A month into the Federal Convention of 1787, Ben Franklin submitted a letter arguing that each day’s session should begin with a morning prayer. The meeting was adjourned before a vote was taken, and the matter was never taken up again. The members of the Convention were saying as delicately as possible to their esteemed colleague: “No, Dr. Franklin. We can pray with our respective congregations or in private. Not here; not now.” Religion was no longer a touchstone for the Founders as it had been during the Revolution; religion was now something to be protected from government influence and intervention.

Today’s America seems to want it both ways: government needs to protect religious rights, and at the same time religion’s influence needs to be inserted into government as far as possible. To be more specific: my brand of religion needs to be inserted as far as possible.

I don’t need to ponder this for very long before I see the hypocrisy and the danger in it. We do both our religion and our government harm when we insist on blending the two – we weaken them both and pose a potentially grave threat to our society.

Will anyone argue that nationalism (patriotism) and religiosity have blended and morphed into something wonderful in the Middle East? Can we not recognize the one as nitro and the other as glycerin? What is the difference between Islamic fundamentalists marching around with AK-47s and imposing their societal rules on the population and the Salem witch trials, or the Crusades?

Our Founders were pretty wise – they knew history and they were students of human nature. They knew a bad mix when they saw one.

Civil government is one thing; religion is another. Good civil government is not influenced by religion, does not favor any brand of religion, and protects freedom of worship for all citizens so long as forms of worship do not infringe on the natural rights of others.

Religious, patriotic Americans would do well to acknowledge that God is as much American as he is Iranian; as he is Russian; as he is Japanese, Mongolian, Chinese, Somali, Cuban, Spanish, and even French. God favors no flag if he has truly created all men equally.

God is not flattered by the inscription on our money; he does not celebrate the Fourth of July from the back of a Ford pickup; he does not watch NASCAR. God does not smile upon our baseball games, apple pie, and Main Street, and he doesn’t tune in every time someone blares “God Bless the USA” over the loudspeakers. He takes as much joy in watching a young boy enjoying a local festival in a little, dusty Iraqi village as he does watching another young boy sitting on top of his daddy’s shoulders at a Memorial Day parade in a little, dusty American town. He made both boys; he loves them equally. God is not political; we are.

If “all men are created equal” as we love to spout, then let’s stop holding on to this infantile notion that God loves America like he loves no other nation on earth. Love God the way you feel he calls you to, and be glad you live in a country whose civil government protects your right to do so. But to wrap God in a flag, any flag, must be viewed as an insult to his power and dominion over the affairs of all men whom he has “created equal.” God doesn’t fly a flag; he doesn’t need to. He’s just God.

If we really want God to bless the USA, perhaps we need to ask him to bless the whole world instead. What, are we afraid he might forget us?

Latest Thoughts On the Income Tax

There can be no doubt that every American has been born into this world with the right to support themselves through their labor, to earn the bread they eat, to work to support themselves and their families. We are not born with this right because we are Americans, but because we are living, breathing beings. Indeed, every living thing has the right to sustain itself while it lives on this earth.

Unfortunately, for almost the last hundred years, we Americans have been forced to purchase this right to work by the imposition of the income tax. Therefore, this right has become a privilege – a privilege that will see us imprisoned if we dare to earn our keep without paying the government for the “privilege” of working.

If we begin at the prison cell and work our way back from it, we usually find some crime that has been committed, a crime that, when it took place, violated the rights of another individual. But where the income tax is concerned, if we work back from the prison cell all the way back to what led there, all the way back to the beginning of the train of events that eventually led to the slammer, we find someone…getting a job; working; earning a living – not committing a criminal act.

My children will be of working age within the next few years, and until then, the government has no claim on their liberty or property, as it should be. But as soon as they begin earning an income, they will immediately live under the threat of the confiscation of their property, and imprisonment. Their right to remain free and to keep the property they acquire will become conditional – conditioned upon the payment of fees to the government – a direct tax levied on their income. If they stop working, the threat vanishes. If they return to work, the threat returns. Until they begin earning an income, the threat does not exist.

By purchasing our right to work, we are also forced to purchase many other rights we consider to be fundamental. If I file income taxes and pay them, thereby staying out of prison, I get to: keep working (a fundamental right), keep my property (a fundamental right), preserve my liberty by staying out of jail (a fundamental right where no real crime has been committed), continue raising my children (a fundamental right), continue worshiping where and as I choose (a fundamental right), associating with whom I choose (a fundamental right).

We balk and sneer at the “pay to play” schemes that seem to arise out of the Illinois government every so often. The income tax is the biggest “pay to play” scheme ever devised. By paying for one fundamental right, we end up paying for almost every other one.

We are not a free people; this is not the Sweet Land of Liberty it once was. In fact, between the end of slavery and the beginning of the income tax, one could argue that this has been the Land of Liberty for only the short decades that came between those two institutions.

Probably the single biggest hindrance to people taking a stand against the income tax (other than ignorance) is the fear of imprisonment.

1. You’re not around to raise your children (if you have them).

2. You could lose your job.

3. Your reputation could be damaged, which could jeopardize future employment opportunities.

4. As a result of 2 and 3, you could lose some or all of your property.

5. You could damage or even lose your marriage (if you have one).

6. Possible damage to self-esteem.

Our so-called heroes of the American Revolution risked their very lives in order to rid themselves of the burden of tyrannical government, and we won’t risk jail time? They had children, they had spouses, they had property, they had reputations to protect. They had everything to lose that we have.

How many would-be heroes of the Revolution ended up standing down to avoid being labeled a “rebel” or “trouble maker” by their neighbors? But we sing the praises of those who stood up and risked it all. How selfish of us to cower at the thought of a prison term.

Take a look at a few of the people we idolize: Martin Luther King, Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Joan of Arc – all did time in the slammer. Should we blush and be ashamed of admiring them? They were jailbirds. They took a stand on their beliefs which brought them into direct conflict with the authorities of their day, yet we lift them up as examples of courage and integrity; as those who would not compromise what they believed to be right, even though it meant being incarcerated. The Founding Fathers themselves were guilty of high treason, punishable by death; they were the worst of lawbreakers in the eyes of the authorities. Are we wrong to celebrate these criminals and clap at the fireworks every year?

It is utterly un-American to pay the government money so we can exercise rights we were born with, the same government that was set up to preserve and protect those very rights. A right that must be purchased is no longer a right – it is a commodity that belongs to the State.

The income tax has been dressed up so that we don’t typically recognize it for what it truly is – it is seen as an annoying, necessary evil; a mere annoyance. We are taught that it is inevitable – “death and taxes.” It is even dressed up as a sign of patriotism: “I’m a good American – I pay my taxes. I’m doing my share.” Look at how the income tax companies cloak themselves in the flag and use the Statue of Liberty in their ads. One well-known company is even called Liberty Tax. Coincidence? And when these companies hire some minimum wage worker to stand out on the side of the road during tax season to attract business, what do they dress them as? Lady Liberty. Why not a little "truth in advertising" and dress them up as a prison guard with a billy club?

And it seems rather curious that our right to work, our right to earn a living so we can eat, is never mentioned in our government-funded schools when we learn of the long list of rights we enjoy in this country. Later, when we learn of the income tax, we never see it as being in conflict with our fundamental right to work – we don’t see the discrepancy; our right to work is simply not on our radar like so many of our other rights are.

Men and women have died to protect America, the Land of Liberty. Is there any Liberty left to protect when we are forced to pay for it or face imprisonment? Why would we fight to protect a system that is no different than the Mob demanding protection money from the shopkeeper so his shop won’t be burned to the ground? It’s the same heavy-handed system. It’s called extortion which, in this country, is considered a crime. And when you are being extorted, you might as well be in prison because, in or out, you are not free.

Fort Hood

Now is the time for all who share in the shallow thinking and callous disregard for their fellows shown by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to raise their voices throughout the internet and show their true colors. Show America what you have in common with the now notorious Major Hasan: send your death threats, engage in your Muslim bashing, tell the Muslims to “go back where they came from.” Throw your vindictiveness at people who are different from you, at people with whom you disagree about this or that. While the odd Muslim may rise up and show us their dark side, let’s overwhelm them with a general chorus of good old-fashioned Christian American bigotry, name-calling, nastiness, and bald-faced hatred. Let those true colors shine forth!

You who will attend worship services this very weekend and praise God from whom all blessings flow - will you between now and then spew your filthy hatred about, curse your fellow man, reveal your own lack of love? You fool; you hypocrite. You are no different in God’s eyes than Major Hasan. Hearts are revealed at such times as these.

What’s in your heart?