An Open Letter to Republican Presidential Candidates on the Proposed So-Called Flat Tax

Tax Code Researcher Argues Direct Taxation is Unconstitutional

Submitted by C. Fenner Goldsborough

The so-called FLAT TAX that has been proposed by several of the current, Republican presidential candidates is one of two different types. The first and most frequently proposed type is a so-called “income”, meaning, in the generic or ordinary sense, a “receipts” tax on virtually all monies earned by our citizens. These proponents would authorize our government to directly and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY (in violation of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4) tax all wages, salaries irsand other earnings of all working Americans. Proposed rates would vary between 15 and 25% of what its proponents incorrectly refer to as “income”, despite the fact that both our Constitution and the statutory law in the I.R. Code forbid any such direct tax on the wages, salaries or other earnings of our sovereign state citizens.

The other, less-frequent proposal of a flat-rate consumption tax would be a new, also unconstitutional, unapportioned, direct federal sales tax on almost all purchases which would be added to the 5% or 6% state sales tax that currently applies in most states to purchases of almost everything except food and labor. The fact that several presidential candidates have openly bought into the IRS’ effective-propaganda lie that our citizens’ earnings are income-taxable because of the Sixteenth Amendment creates a likelihood that most of the other candidates might also support either a replacement, unconstitutional, federal, flat-rate income tax or an equally unconstitutional flat-rate consumption tax.

detroitrepub
Republican presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul takes a chainsaw to the Internal Revenue Code in a promotional video. Last June he proposed to “blow up the tax code” and adopt a “fair and flat tax.”

The indisputable fact that such proposals would be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to concern the FLAT TAX presidential candidates because their proposals incorrectly presume that, because the current graduated income tax was authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment the proposed alternative flat taxes (income or sales) must also be constitutional. This presumption is NOT TRUE as we in the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT and as this letter and the attachments included herewith prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Internal Revenue Service, acting as they do as an admittedly masterful propaganda organization, has deceived and bamboozled the American public, and some lawyers and most accountants as well, into either believing, or at least accepting, this IRS lie for over 102 years since passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913.

Even a superficial examination, however, of not only the Constitution but the current, statutory law embodied in the Internal Revenue Code along with a host of Supreme Court and appellate court decisions all prove that any such taxation of American sovereign, state citizens on their wages, salaries or other earnings has ALWAYS been prohibited by our Constitution, and is also not authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment. We in the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT, through careful research, have uncovered the truth about the IRS’ effective deception and trickery which has caused the vast majority of working Americans, through fear of the IRS, to volunteer themselves, by filing returns, into an improper legal status of “taxpayer”, which is a defined term in the Internal Revenue Code that is not applicable to sovereign, state citizens on their wages, salaries or other earnings by their own endeavors.

santorum
Republican presidential hopeful Senator Rick Santorum introduced his proposal for a flat tax in the Wall Street Journal on October 12

For a full history of the widely-misunderstood, limited authority in the Sixteenth Amendment, please access by attachment to this letter a five-page document THE LIMITED MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT. I would like to recommend that you take advantage of the information contained not only in this letter but also in the detailed addendum referenced above to educate yourself on this vitally important subject. By so doing, you will understand that the obvious and correct remedy to the continuing misapplication by the IRS of the taxing limitations in both our Constitution and the statutory law against the earnings of sovereign, American, state citizens is for our next president to force the IRS, as is his executive duty, with the aid of our Congress and our judiciary (and primarily our Supreme Court), to publicly acknowledge their long-standing misapplication of the law against the earnings of 200 million working Americans.

Consider also the incredibly positive stimulus to our failing economy such billions in taxes not owed would be as these multi-billions saved by our citizens were spent or invested in the marketplace! As a candidate for our nation’s highest office, your support of this positive, needed change would provide for you a huge advantage over all other candidates who were not aware of its dire need. Over 200 million working Americans who just got your promise of a BIG raise might very well thank you profusely by supporting your nomination and your election in November, 2016 to the benefit of the entire nation!. Please study and understand the truth of these allegations and the HUGE, positive election opportunity they offer you RIGHT NOW in your current campaign!

Yours very truly,

C. Fenner Goldsborough

Thomas Jefferson said, in agreement with Holy Scripture in Matthew 17:25 & 26:

“A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another…shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey, he is obligated to do so.”

“Two Enemies of the People are criminals and government, so let us tie the first down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first…”

“And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32 (KJV)

ADDENDUM #1-
The Limited Meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment


C. Fenner Goldsborough is the author of Super Scam: Megafraud in the Misapplication of the Income/Excise Tax. He is a former chairman of Free State Constitutionalists, a Baltimore, Maryland-based organization dedicated to education of the public on the taxing authorities and limitations of the U.S. Constitution and the Internal Revenue Code; in particular its violations by the Internal Revenue Service. A retired general insurance broker born and raised in Baltimore Maryland, Mr. Goldsborough presently resides in Northern Michigan. 

Leave a Reply

28 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Republican Presidential Candidates on the Proposed So-Called Flat Tax”

  1. Absolutely true. The original income tax was a tax on profits(outside the USA, I think). Trading one’s labor in exchange for money is not a “profit”. The original income tax was aimed at the wealthy, not wage earners. This letter will bounce off their heads like a tennis ball off a brick wall, because the candidates are all on TV, thus they are all paid actors performing a service, and couldn’t give a toss about the taxes you pay. When the collapse comes, whether a soft engineered landing, or a hard crash, the last few earners that don’t live paycheck to paycheck will be brought to heel.

      1. The comment is misinformed and a gesture of disengagement, in my view. It further goes a long way in essentially shutting down any potential discussion on a poorly understood yet extremely significant topic–indeed one that gives the lie to an entire field of major party candidates, even the outliers such as Paul, illustrating the extent to which our political system serves to perpetuate today’s major league money changers.

        1. If you’re referring to me, James, I can say that I have no objection to the various arguments that demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the 16th Amendment and/or its misapplication. I find many of them very persuasive, in fact. The problem is, the federal government doesn’t care; they just want the money. People like Irwin Schiff (Peter’s father) are testament to that. Irwin insists (well, maybe not anymore–he’s very close to death) that his willingness to suffer political imprisonment is beneficial in that his example is helping to end the illegal system of taxation in this country. Peter loves his dad, but believed from the start that he’s misguided, and can’t win.

          I agree with Peter. The Constitution has long since been abandoned. The courts are corrupt. The federal government acts with impunity. It can’t be “called out.” You can prove that the tax system is illegal, unconstitutional–or that it’s just fine the way it is because it was designed to affect almost no one (one variation on this theme is it’s only intended for federal employees, and those who have contracts with the federal government). You can “prove” it, but for the most part the judge does not care; your assets are confiscated and you go to jail if you act on such theoretical arguments.

          That’s what I meant by embedding the Treasure clip. Federales, indeed–greasy banditos. Note that they also want the guns.

          Call me a cynic. I don’t intend to “essentially shut down any potential discussion” about this nightmare. I’m just aware of what happens to people who fight back against the IRS by claiming the income tax is not applicable to them. Families are destroyed by those heartless banditos in Washington when you act that way.

          You mention that all the candidates essentially agree that the system we have is sacrosanct. My point exactly. The game is rigged, and all the power is on the side of the riggers. I don’t mind vigorous discussion of the rigging; to the contrary, I encourage it. I’m just saying that, short of an overthrow of the US government, we’re going to be stuck with some variation of the system we have, for the duration. It should never have been put in place. But Lincoln’s side won the war against freedom, making what happened to America in the 20th century inevitable. I read Lew Rockwell’s web site every day; I’m a Rothbardian–but most of the people Lew publishes are in my opinion dreamers. I’d love it if their dreams came true, because I agree with them. I’m glad Tom Woods and Gary north and all the rest are devoted to the fight, and write what they do. The more discussion the better, I say. But I am unfortunately realistic about these things.

        2. “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”-J.S. Mill

        3. I have been meaning to respond. The law is “theoretical”? US citizens have no right to a jury trial any longer? There is no court of public opinion? Granted, it is true such safeguards are potentially undermined given the public’s fear of The Beast remarks such as yours tend to perpetuate.

          I’m unconvinced you’ve closely read the post and its attachment, which is especially concerning given your prominent role as commenter around here.

          Further, the example of Irwin Schiff is misleading, particularly in light of his passing and his son’s tribute, which you may have read, where Peter recounts points he’s repeatedly made in past statements:

          http://www.schiffradio.com/death-of-a-patriot/

          Irwin Schiff was imprisoned mainly because he refused to relent in his public criticism and activism concerning the IRS. This was, as Ron Paul has recently remarked, at least as much of a First Amendment case as anything else.

        4. Odd that we’re having this discussion. I just re-read the post (I admit that I did not read the attachment). I certainly did read it closely enough the first time to arrive at a valid opinion, and I do not now change it now. Look at these four passages:

          “The fact that several presidential candidates have openly bought into the IRS’ effective-propaganda lie that our citizens’ earnings are income-taxable because of the Sixteenth Amendment creates a likelihood that most of the other candidates might also support either a replacement, unconstitutional, federal, flat-rate income tax or an equally unconstitutional flat-rate consumption tax.”

          “The Internal Revenue Service, acting as they do as an admittedly masterful propaganda organization, has deceived and bamboozled the American public, and some lawyers and most accountants as well, into either believing, or at least accepting, this IRS lie for over 102 years since passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913.”

          “…a host of Supreme Court and appellate court decisions all prove that any such taxation of American sovereign, state citizens on their wages, salaries or other earnings has ALWAYS been prohibited by our Constitution, and is also not authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment.”

          “We in the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT, through careful research, have uncovered the truth about the IRS’ effective deception and trickery which has caused the vast majority of working Americans, through fear of the IRS, to volunteer themselves, by filing returns, into an improper legal status of “taxpayer”, which is a defined term in the Internal Revenue Code that is not applicable to sovereign, state citizens on their wages, salaries or other earnings by their own endeavors.”

          All such reasoning is perfectly fine, as I said in the earlier comments. I find it compelling, and persuasive. I have also expressed this sentiment in frequent real-life conversations, for many years. I wish Irwin Schiff had prevailed. I once was an inveterate listener to George Gordon’s broadcast, and I agree with him, too. There are lots of people who have come at the issue from various angles, and I entertain all comers. Some are nuts. Some, too arcane for my grasping. But the problem is real, and should be understood by everyone. Alas, it won’t be. Not a chance.

          This is a practical matter that I thought should be brought into the mix: the corruption of the United States government. You say “The law is “theoretical”?” Indeed it is. Otherwise, Schiff would never have gone to prison. It was a Kangaroo court. (Kent Hovind can explain that in some detail.) You say “US citizens have no right to a jury trial any longer?” Sure, but if the fix is in–which it almost always is, in these types of cases–the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I read about the corruption of the courts very frequently, and one common theme is the ancient right of nullification: any juror has the obligation to vote “not guilty,” even if the guy obviously did it, if the law in question is deemed by the citizen to be unlawful. Which means that jurors are more powerful, under English common law, than judges–and it is frequently said that there is no one more powerful than an American judge in his courtroom. This is why corrupt judges routinely, completely unconstitutionally, instruct jurors that they are not allowed nullification–or, what’s more usual, given the sheer ignorance of most Americans regarding this matter, do not allow the defense to inform the jury of its rights and privileges in this regard, under very severe penalty. That’s part of a judge’s power.

          The list of depredations is endless; shelves of books groan under the weight of the documentation of the problems with the judiciary.

          The federal government, for the most part, simply won’t tolerate its courts to entertain such arguments in a manner that leaves open the window that the tax system would be jeopardized. As I wrote in this thread, lots of people have tested that premise, and have been cast into the cells for their optimism. All I was saying is that that’s the reality on the ground. I’m not wrong about that. Getting the legislative branch to face the issue is an impossible dream. Sorry if you think I’m throwing cold water on a real possibility. I’m not. These horrible people positively ENJOY putting people who prove them wrong in cages, and for far longer than murderers.

          I’m frankly surprised you do not recognize all of this.

          Finally, you say “There is no court of public opinion?” That, and $5.00, will buy you a venti cappuccino at the Starbucks of your choosing. The press will never, ever, allow the public to find out about these arguments. If you know a way to get the public to have an opinion about this matter, let’s hear it–because there are lots of other issues such a mechanism would be useful to apply it to.

        5. The above fails to address the use of Schiff’s case in the first place, which is, I repeat, not entirely appropriate for understanding the matter at hand. If the federal government prosecuted every US citizen for asserting their rights in this regard there would be thousands, perhaps millions, of cases to which you could point affirming your dire assessment of the judiciary–which is admittedly corrupt.

          Further, the IRS/DOJ’s approach is in fact acutely sensitive to the power of knowledge and public opinion, as the prosecution of Schiff amply demonstrates. Even the prosecution of such public figures has dropped off considerably following Cheek v. US (1991), of which you are perhaps unaware.

          http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/498/192.html

        6. Well, I certainly appreciate this chat.

          I guess there is a sense in which we can say that Cheek “proves” that “the system works.” The guy got all the way to the Supreme Court, after all, and the bad instructions to the jury (an honest jury, apparently) the judge that convicted him issued became a key to his exoneration.

          But was he exonerated? Not the way I read it. He was let off, it seems, on a technicality. The arguments he started out with were, in the end, irrelevant. What the system asserts (and that he denied) was not at issue; his reasons for stopping paying tax didn’t matter. His logic didn’t stop the madness. He legitimately did not understand the legitimacy of the system we groan under, I think, was the logic, even though he thought he did–so he can’t be held to account. Something like that.

          Then again, maybe it’s all going over my head. These terms of art I have no knowledge of, but suspect are in use throughout, cause me to suspect that a layman’s reading of the document you link to, as a normal reader of English, is not the meaning after all. I don’t know. And to think I once contemplated becoming a lawyer.

          Still, I find it curious, James. If it is as you seem to be saying, that Cheek caused a precipitous decrease in prosecutions of people who are fighting the tax system, it’s certainly a welcome surprise, because that case was concluded in 1991, and it seems I’ve heard of so many horrible persecutions since then. I guess I know just enough about this subject to get myself into trouble when weighing in about it.

        7. The decision is an acknowledgment that the tax code is too complex for most people (including many attorneys) to understand. More importantly, there is an intent behind the code having been crafted in such a way, which researchers including Schiff have sought to point out. As you know, there is an entire industry of tax preparation and tax law, with plenty of prestigious and highly-paid professionals benefiting from such complexity.

          Finally, you say “There is no court of public opinion?” That, and $5.00, will buy you a venti cappuccino at the Starbucks of your choosing. The press will never, ever, allow the public to find out about these arguments. If you know a way to get the public to have an opinion about this matter, let’s hear it–because there are lots of other issues such a mechanism would be useful to apply it to.

          OK, have a listen:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0yqy06ZEzE

        8. I’ve seen that before. I wonder how many people have. (He was a national treasure, in my opinion.)

          And I wonder how many who have watched it, who did not already agree with Irwin, were persuaded by it that his position is the correct one. I’m guessing: zero people. Because this television presentation does not present his case. It’s relatively even handed, sure, but most people that night were just waiting to move on to the sports scores.

          Honestly, James. Local news? They presented Irwin as an interesting crank. This is not a way of ensuring that new insights are filtered into the breast of the people at large. If not for YouTube, this would have been lost down the Memory Hole the moment it was broadcast.

          As for your point that “The decision is an acknowledgment that the tax code is too complex for most people (including many attorneys) to understand”, I did in fact glean that aspect of the document, but it brings to mind the immortal words of Bubba’s wife: “what difference, at this point, does it make?” I’m no beating-the-table tax accountant, who goes to the mattresses about such matters (in fact, I’m not an accountant at all). And perhaps this decision actually DOES do the job when those guys defend their clients when they refuse to file or pay tax–but according the the always 100% reliable Wiki, Cheek himself did not go that rout in later years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States).

          As I said at the outset: Call me a cynic.

  2. The whole idea of gradated income tax is pretty much taken from Marxism which is great in theory but lousy in practice because it really doesn’t address income equality but in fact creates it by taxing earned income at a higher rate then “unearned” income.

    Actually the founders Constitutionally included tariffs on trade with other nations and no tax on domestically produced products but various trade international agreements changed all that and for the most part has done more damage to our industrial base here then the Strategic bombing of Germany and Japan and creating a trade deficit here greater then all other industrialized nations combined.

    Now some moron wants to tax already overtaxed by various state taxes products and services. Does anyone see the complete idiocy of this “idea”?

    The taxing of income set at a percentage which applied to everyone isn’t really as looney as the above idea and would probably be fairer then that mine field known as the IRC.

  3. Deception is the only way to effect change under our current system. The occupant of the White House knows that better than anyone. Letters to politicians have never accomplished anything. The 2014 elections proved for the umpteenth time that voting is a waste of time. Congress has done nothing, unless you want to count becoming irrelevant as a worthy accomplishment. They have made taxation without representation an art form. The tax system will most likely be changed, and soon, but it will extract the same pound of flesh, and will continue to ask for more. People will have to be deceived into thinking they are getting a better deal if they are truly going to love their slavery. Our illegal tax system should have spawned a revolution, but never did. Maybe we do love our slavery just a little.

    Soon, the neighborhood kid won’t even be able to mow lawns without our controllers knowing it. People can barter, trade skills, and labor all they want, but in the end it won’t get you your blood pressure meds down at the pharmacy. Our way of life here is no longer a way of life at all, its a false religion. On three different levels we elect priests, who in turn, go to our controllers as intercessors, to negotiate our tribute. The final payment going to goddess Columbia, which may as well change its name to Atlantis.

    There is no way pleading with the government will change anything. Only through crisis will we see change to the tax system. Order from chaos. That is their core belief. If the masses had the power, and guts to create a little chaos of their own, they might get a fair hearing, otherwise, they laugh at us, especially us Americans(we still live pretty good). I do agree that taking the tax noose off our neck would spur economic growth, but the global elite do not want that growth just yet. They want collapse so they can get on with their plans. Those being, the end of cash, a single currency, and world government.

    As for my comment about everyone on TV being a paid stooge; well, maybe not everyone. Sometimes good people are assaulted by reporters in hallways. It happens. As for this income tax discussion, I’m hearing a lot of crickets.

    1. You hit it out of the park again, Rich.

      “The final payment going to goddess Columbia, which may as well change its name to Atlantis.”

      Lew Rockwell calls the place “Mordor.” Me, too.

      What I see on the horizon has something to do with too many “useless eaters.” America has something over 300 million people. Perhaps one third of them are not “working age”; they are too old or too young. They tell us that 94 million “working age” Americans are out of the workforce. That leaves around 100 million people actually working. But something like half of those are working only part time, or are otherwise underemployed.

      Look around. Is there a need for a hundred million people to return to the workplace, and 50 million more to step up from part time to full time? Guys running out to fill up your gas tank, and check your oil, for example? I see robots on the horizon, far as the eye can see. Fewer and fewer humans doing face-to-face jobs.

      They are going, in other words, to kill us, in droves, because our masters don’t need us any more.

      By the way, Rich: did you comprehend the message James intended by his reply to me this morning? Is it possible he doesn’t think I agree with that quote, or don’t practice that principle? Did anything I wrote indicate such a thing?

      1. Patrick, If that is the case I can’t see it. Perhaps he was replying to my first comment. It could be he thought it was a bit trollish. My dismissal of the candidates as actors could be construed as an attempt to suppress discussion. I have 38 years of tax returns and paystubs to back up my opinion, along with countless elections viewed in which this or that candidate promised us lower taxes. Nonetheless, opinion it is. I have also taken part in precinct caucuses, county conventions, and state conventions as a delegate, and witnessed first hand the sham that is the selection process.

        Now, more opinion. The reason we are in this tax mess in the first place: When there was injustice, good people stood by and did nothing. We were too busy writing letters and hiring lawyers, when in fact we should have stood physically in the way of the tax thieves when they stole our neighbors house, and plundered his business. They use force because it is all they understand, and our inability to meet force with force has gotten us to where we are now. 300 million people with no voice. When we stand by and watch them steal someone’s whole life without proof or a trial(why bother when they know the tax system is illegal), we are no different from the German people who watched their neighbors get dragged out of their house and forced into a boxcar.

      2. I’ve wondered what all these thousands (tens of thousands) of college grads are going to do, work-wise.

        Here’s an idea that’s sure to go over like the proverbial turd in the punch bowl: if women would withdraw from the work force, focus their attention and energy on husbands and families, all those positions would open up, employers would have to make the positions more competitive (thus driving up wages). With the increase in salaries and the decreased need to pay for childcare, families could once again live on a single income. Imagine that!

        Why are we all encouraged to work for others? Why aren’t we encouraged to open our own businesses? If government would get off the back of small business, lower (or eliminate) taxes on everyone, and develop reasonable restrictions on liability, there’s no telling what sort of innovation we’d see. Let the market dictate what’s needed, economically and educationally.

        But that make too much sense…

        BTW: I don’t understand James’ comments, either. Does he want us to discuss the merits of different forms of taxation?

        1. A good plan recynd, however, the masters of the universe have a plan too, and it doesn’t involve the family.

      3. I have no master(s).

        I have no need for a “job” in this dystopian “civilization”

        Nobody is going to kill me as long as I am savvy to their poisons, both of mind and body.

        Screw those bastards. I am prepared to be, and have on several occasions been voluntarily “homeless” (except Earth is my home, no matter what), and I will not be manipulated in mind or body by these sick fricks. “Homelessness” and “poverty” and “scarcity” is an illusion, the Earth provides a bounty of food (and “civilization” provides the silly amusement). I have been obsessed with scarcity of food in the past, and have now discovered that food is literally everywhere, and is completely free.

        I think far, far outside the box. And I need to do better at that, which makes life so very, very interesting. I continue to lose my addiction to “civilization” and “society”. It is a happy quest.

        I don’t follow, I lead my own life, and nobody else’s. People who follow are an endless source of amusement (and disgust) for me. People who seek to lead others are in theater number two, almost as amusing and ten times more disgusting, lol.

        Here, just enjoy a song:

        [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY8L7LWBCZc&w=420&h=315%5D

        Learn how to build a shelter. Learn how to find food. Learn how to find water. Learn the medicinal value of plants such as herbs. Learn how to divorce yourself of the TRAP called Civilization. I AM THX1138, the story untold after this fictitious character freed himself from his dystopian “civilization”. I live in a box, but not forever, and I hang around here for a while longer because I have family ties. I have a wonderful place to go and live and die in the forest that I don’t “own” and I hope to “retire” to in the future.

        Make your own beer and/or wine, it makes life so much more tolerable. Learn the lies you have accepted as truth, and be amazed at how you have been used and abused and deceived by the ones you trusted all your life, and then just let them go. Accept soil is the basis of your existence, and it contains germs. These germs are the basis of your life, don’t kill germs. Never, ever go to war, but defend yourself personally from evil people. There are endless vistas of land to retreat to. Learn new ways of living. Loving people are everywhere to be found. If they are misinformed, inform them.

        Children are a wonderful, joyous, and powerful source of new power for people, if properly informed. Educate your own children, and NEVER allow the state to do so. NEVER give your children to the state. Deliver your children to yourself at home. NEVER go to a hospital, NEVER. Your chances of survival are so, so much better if you follow this advice. Become your own “doctor”, and teach your children to become their own “doctors”.

        Create your own “civilization” however you want. There is NOTHING to fight for. Everything is amply provided. There is no shortage of water, food, love, tools, energy… there is no shortage whatsoever, but you have to leave the “matrix” to get it, and I understand that it may be frightening to do so.

        Don’t be afraid. Don’t be afraid of anything. Yep, stuff can happen, and you may die, but all evidence shows that you are intimately connected to the Entire Universe, and that your death is only a phase, a difference in existence. Embrace it. It is part of you. All of us are rebuilt by the microzymas (the nearly indestructible, transcendant, subcellural microscopic beings discovered by Bechamp) in new and improved forms.

        “Follow the Leader” was always a bad game doomed to failure. “Telephone” is also a failed game which they prove to us in kindergarten, beware the rumor mill.

        Well, happy trails!

    2. “On three different levels we elect priests, who in turn, go to our controllers as intercessors, to negotiate our tribute.”

      That was perfectly said. That’s EXACTLY what happens. Tribute, in effect, is extortion, and that’s what our taxes are: a way to appease the gods so that they don’t lock us up in a cage for a decade or more. Ask Kent Hovind how much fun federal prison is.

      Again, I have to refer to the good work done by Larken Rose’s “The Most Dangerous Superstition” and his novel, “The Iron Web”. He’s definitely one of the most important voices in the “liberty movement” (for want of a better term). Dean Clifford out of Manitoba is also another good one (available on YouTube).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *