Government destroys our lives through the confiscation of our money.
In Chris Brown’s recent
article titled “How to ‘Shun Socialism’” he addresses one of
the, if not the, most common threats to people everywhere: money and the
forceful confiscation of that money in the form of taxes. Money is a
representation of time and thus a representation of our lives.
When we spend our time
earning money, we exchange our lives for that sum. How we use our lives, which
includes our money, is such a basic freedom few would argue against. Those who seek to take away your right to
choose what to do with your time, by forcibly taking your money, are
consequently taking away your life. Their rationale seems to be “we know how to
spend your money better than you do” and back up their demand with the threat
of prison time or worse. This sounds to
me like a good description of Satan’s plan as he wanted to dictate our
probation here on the Earth. President
Benson confirmed that this life is a continuation of the war in heaven. Knowing that the control Satan wants over us
can be accomplished through the forceful confiscation of our money, any demand along
these lines should be a “red flag”, “hold the phone”, “what just a minute” and
“not so fast my friend” for all.
The Founding Fathers
gained a firm grasp of law from their studies of Blackstone’s Commentaries on
the English Law, the scriptures, and other classic works. Knowledge of law was actually common among
everyone during this time period as it was an integral part of all formal and
informal education. Due to this general
knowledge, the Founders did not seek enshrine all common law into the Articles
of Confederation nor the Constitution.
The English common law has
its origin in the Ten Commandments and Mosaic Law. “Thou shall not steal” was
and is the law almost everywhere. When anyone took your property or your life,
they were a criminal and the law dealt with their crime. Taking from one to
give to another has been discussed at LDSFreemen.com by many. It can not be
clearer that this is a crime, no matter how well intended the purpose of the
taking or how large of a majority of people believe it is a legitimate function
of government.
It is quite acceptable for
someone to donate of their own free will to benefit the common good and solve
the needs of the community. I remember when Jimmy Carter was President, though he
did not owe any income taxes one year, he chose to donate six thousand dollars
to the government anyway. I am almost certain his reason for doing so was more
political than magnanimous. Even back then six thousand dollars wouldn’t go very
far toward the needs of the government.
Ron Paul has made a
careful study of many of the problems affecting the country and felt that the
best way to get to the root of these issues was by exposing the Fed. The proof in the correctness of his strategy
is unfolding in the broad segment of support he has received for HR1207 and now
with S.604. The control of money is of great
interest to so many across the nation.
I have always felt that
everyone, whether they be Independent, Republican, Democrat, Green, Blue,
Black, Red, Labor, Management or other, could be united by one thing – their
pocketbook.
The Constitution has a
glorious provision in Article 1 Section 10:
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of
Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of
Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the
Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” (emphasis added)
Many countries have laws
and constitutions; however I have yet to find one that has this important
point. If anyone finds one that prohibits the government from impairing
contracts, please let me know right away.
This section of the
Constitution clearly states that the State governments cannot impair contracts.
This is one of the most important prohibitions the Constitution provides yet it
is also one of the most abused. The Constitution, like any set of laws, is only
as valid in restraining governments as the morality of those it is suppose to
restrain. No law can legislate morality. The inspired Constitution of 1787 is
no different. Just like we always say “the Church is a perfect organization
however the members are not perfect” so it is with the Constitution. It is inspired but the ones who govern under
it are certainly not perfect and many are far from inspired.
One example of how men can
manipulate the Constitution is the taxation imposed by the U.S. government. Most
reading this already know that the Constitution does not provide for a personal
income tax. The sixteenth amendment did not grant any new powers to the
government. This was decided the Supreme Court case Stanton v. Baltic Mining
Co., 240 US 112 (1916). However, if someone wishes to engage in a business or
enterprise that is taxable by the federal government that is a different story.
That person is then made liable for the tax that they contractually to enter
into with the government. The sixteenth amendment is explained very clearly here.
The freedom to make contracts
for legitimate purposes is superior to the statuary laws of the U.S. For
example, if a contract includes the agreement to keep the terms secret, no
court, government agent, or law can make you reveal those terms. If you breach
the contract in a court because the judge threatens you with incarceration, you
can then be sued for breach by the other party to the contract. Your course of
action then is to then sue the judge. Because judges know the law well enough,
they will not threaten you into a breach of contract. I have witnessed this for
myself and know of others who have successfully used this defense in federal
court. The PATRIOT Act may try to sidestep this important freedom but it cannot
do so in a Constitutional context.
In other countries the
law is superior to contracts. If the judge insists you reveal the terms of the contract,
you have no choice but to comply. This
also precludes any recourse to sue the judge after the fact.
A contract is not valid
if an individual is made a party to it without their prior knowledge. There
must always be a good understanding of the terms by all parties to a contract.
Studying contracts and
the elements that constitute them is vital for everyone. In my opinion this is one of the greatest
failures of the public schools. Contractual arrangements are omnipresent in our
society and so know knowledge of them is of critical importance.
Most people are only
liable for income taxes because they have entered into a contract to make
themselves liable. I have never met anyone who was made liable for the federal
income tax that had not first entered into that liability by contract. I know many
people from all over the country and have only met a few who used their
knowledge of the Constitution to avoid making a contract with the government to
be liable for an income tax.
When enough people learn
that they are not liable for an income tax except on a voluntary contractual
basis or become aware of the actions of the Fed through an audit, we will
finally experience the change politicians always promise. Perhaps then people
will finally be willing to rid themselves of a government who wants to take
their life/money. In the meantime, if you have made a contract to pay income
taxes or you are in business in a territory or district that does make you
liable, please by all means keep your covenants and pay your due tax.
Marvin Colley has been studying and
teaching the functioning of law for the ordinary person for over 20
years.
