“Government is essentially the negation of liberty.”

- Ludwig von Mises

Earlier today Libertarian Party national chair candidate, and future presidential hopeful, Wayne Allyn Root posted an article on his own blog Root for America entitled, “Lessons Obama Should Have Learned From Watching the Super Bowl.” While the article is light-hearted and even entertaining for some I suppose, I came away from it asking myself, “When is Mr. Root going to learn his lesson about Libertarianism?”

In his missive Mr. Root says:

“Sports gambling (and all forms of online gaming) needs to be legalized. Our country is bankrupt. We need to use Nevada as a role model for the nation and legalize, regulate and tax “sin,” like any other business. Legalizing medical marijuana and online gaming has the potential to bring in $300 billion in new tax revenues. That could pay down government debts, or allow us to lower taxes for our hardworking American taxpayers.”

No matter how you look at things, this is Republican rhetoric not Libertarian philosophy. He calls for the government to “legalize,” which says the government has the right to tell us what we can and cannot do with our hard-earned cash. He says “regulate” and “tax” which again says government has a right to our money that we all work hard for. Why doesn’t he just come right out and say, “It is okay for the government to steal from us.”

Oh wait, he did say that! That is exactly what he is saying here! It hit me like a bolt of lightening and I could hardly believe my eyes, but that is what he is advocating. He is saying it is okay for the government to take our money, just like they are already doing for so many inappropriate things. It is little wonder he lost his last presidential bid for the LP nomination to a couple of late-comers to the race, even after he had campaigned hard for more than a year.

And people wonder why some folks question Mr. Root’s “Reagan Libertarianism.” If it talks like a Republican and walks like a Republican, it is probably a Republican. This is what America sees and is being told is Libertarianism. It is a lie.

Mr. Root is actually advocating a new government agency, possibly two, which will regulate and tax gambling and medical cannabis. While Libertarians everywhere are calling for less government, this man who wants to be the next national chair and our next presidential candidate actually advocates more government.

Surely Libertarians deserve better representation than this. One would think if a man is attempting to become the leader of a political party, he would at least have the decency to educate himself properly in that party’s philosophy. He should at least know what the majority of the members believe and advocate before he goes representing himself as one of them. Unfortunately, what Mr. Root has shown in his latest offering to the American public is how little he really knows about Libertarians and our philosophy.

Mr. Root would do well to remember something that Libertarians have known for a long, long time. Something even the third president of the United States knew and warned us about over two hundred years ago. More government equals less freedom. All day, every day, it never changes. This is the lesson Mr. Root has apparently yet to learn.

“The unfortunate natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground.”

- Thomas Jefferson

R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in Texas. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.

MISSOULA - The United States has made its first response to a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Missoula to test the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Legislature and signed into law by Governor Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce “among the several states.” The MFFA is a states’ rights challenge on Tenth Amendment grounds, with firearms serving as the vehicle for the challenge.

This lawsuit to validate the MFFA was brought by the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The suit names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as defendant, and is referred to as MSSA v. Holder.

The first response to the lawsuit by the United States is a Motion to Dismiss, submitted January 19th and considered to be a standard procedural maneuver in lawsuits against the U.S government. This motion seeks to avoid the legal merits by asserting that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that a justiciable controversy does not exist, and that prevailing case law is against Plaintiffs.

MSSA President Gary Marbut, also a Plaintiff in the lawsuit explained, “The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on. There was some concern that the defendants would forfeit the game with no response in an effort to prevent this important issue from being adjudicated properly. We are now beyond that hurdle.” However, the Motion to Dismiss by Washington also seeks to sidestep proper adjudication.

SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said, “We are disappointed but not surprised that the government would try to kill this suit on standing, rather than arguing about the merits of the case.”

The MFFA concept has gained traction across the Nation since its passage in Montana. Tennessee has enacted a clone of the MFFA, and other clones have been introduced in the state legislatures of 19 other states, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. . Ten or more additional states are expected to introduce yet more MFFA clones in the next few weeks. (See: http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com)

The U.S.’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support are viewable at: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

MSSA and SAF have assembled a litigation team for this effort consisting of three attorneys from Montana, one from New York, one from Florida and one from Arizona. Lead attorney for the Plaintiffs is Quentin Rhoades, partner the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci and Rhoades. Other interested parties from both in and out of Montana are preparing to weigh in on this issue of national interest and national importance as amicus curiae (friends of the court).

Marbut commented, “The FFA concept has created a firestorm of interest nationwide. Lots of people and other states are watching carefully to see how Montana fares in this challenge to overbearing federal authority and to Washington’s attempt to control every detail of commerce in the Nation, especially including activity wholly confined within an individual state. That level of micro management certainly was not the intent of our founders when they gave Congress limited power in the Constitution to regulate commerce ‘among the states’.” (See: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/what-is-the-commerce-clause/)

MSSA is the primary political advocate for gun owners and hunters in Montana, having gotten 54 pro-gun and pro-hunting bills through the Montana Legislature in the past 25 years. SAF is a pro-gun foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights of gun owners primarily in judicial fora. SAF has been a party to numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Copyright © 2010 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
Email: InformationRequest@saf.org

What if Christians were to wake tomorrow and realize that their political strategy over the course of the past century had been utterly misguided? Consider the timing. Few would argue that the Obama administration’s new culture of corruption has left the door wide open for Republican victory in November. But as it stands, today’s conservatives have become so embroiled in a philosophical deadlock that many are wondering whether unity will be possible.

I am a Christian, a so-called social conservative. Many of my colleagues are of the libertarian breed: Ayn Rand Republicans. Our party has long been divided between these two very distinct schools of thought. For a long time, I had lent my support to the legislating of virtue issues such as gay marriage and prayer in schools. Recently however, I attended an early morning lecture where business strategist and evangelical Christian Kevin Miller called into question many of my preconceived notions about the roles of virtue, politics and morality.

“Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally” was Miller’s mantra. He pointed out that our government had only initially been established to provide this nation with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In Joseph Ellis’ The Founding Brothers, the author astutely unraveled a major conflict faced by the first Congress in 1790. “Perhaps it was inevitable, even preferable, that slavery as a national problem be moved from the Congress to the churches, where it could come under scrutiny as a sin requiring a national purging, rather than a social dilemma requiring a political solution.” In other words it was man’s heart, not his politics that weakened and eventually destroyed the institution of slavery.

Historical lessons notwithstanding, many Christians have been on a more than 100-year quest for a virtuous society by way of Congress. Enacting Prohibition through a Constitutional amendment was one such example. But according to scripture, Christians were never called to the mission of legally enforced virtue. Jesus came to change the hearts of man, and he instructed his followers to do the same.

As Christians, we instinctively argue in defense of virtue politics by reminding others that our nation was founded upon Biblical principles. But Miller points to the importance of historical contexts. During the drafting of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were products of a more religious–and explicitly Christian–society. The timing of our nation’s founding allowed the Framers to craft a government around the principles of freedom, liberty and respect for the individual, matters of human dignity made possible only by God’s natural law.

As a Christian community, we are no longer surrounded by a society familiar with or interested in our Biblical principles. And as a Christian community, we are not called to try to have an impact. We’re called to have it. Our strategy must change so that our mission can remain the same.

In his book, The Case for Democracy, Former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky described his unlikely kinship with a fellow state prisoner. Though Sharansky had been imprisoned on matters of religion and his friend on matters of sexual orientation, both had been uniformly deprived of their freedoms. Sharansky’s experience highlighted the necessity of freedom above all else.

As Christians, we claim to understand the importance of freedom. But politically we often send a very different message. Starting in the late 1800s, Christians attempted to outlaw activities like pornography, alcohol consumption, and contraception. From that point forward the legislation of morality became fair play, allowing for all variety of virtue politics to seep into the halls of Congress. And before we knew it, subjects of right and wrong and good and evil had become matters of opinion.

Now we have entered into a chapter in American history in which our elected officials have grown determined to alter our founding principles. For that we can only blame ourselves. Our leaders are nothing more than a reflection of our votes and their objectives, a reflection of our hearts.

Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally. Perhaps Miller is onto something. Perhaps it is time for the Christian community to reflect upon how we have approached virtue and politics. Maybe, just maybe, were each of us to take a vested interest in those we pass in the supermarket or at the library or in the mall, we might need little more from our federal government than the freedom to exercise that effort. Perhaps all that our party has ever needed to unite behind were the faithful and basic principles of our Founders: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; nothing more and nothing less.

National Freedom Initiative website: http://www.nationalfreedominitiative.org/.

Laura Duke Stansbury is a political analyst, freelance writer and guest author for the Independence Institute [http://www.i2i.org/main/page.php?page_id=1]. She blogs at http://laurastansbury.blogspot.com.

I recently spoke with a woman who lives in New Jersey. She had some great questions about gun ownership. Her questions were so good that I decided that the answers should be shared with others who might be in a similar situation. Please let me know if this helps you and if you have comments on anything else that I should have mentioned.

Before I answer her specific questions, I want to make a general argument about how gun ownership can help people.

Gun ownership is like wrestling in water - it levels the playing field. A 110 lb woman who pulls a gun out of her purse can instantly stop two 250 lb drug crazed rapists. Gun ownership allows citizens the ability to protect their life and property from criminals. Police will rarely be in a position to stop a rape, a mugging, or a car-jacking. In these situations, only an armed female stands a good chance of surviving unharmed. Even a grown man is no match for a group of hardened hoodlums intent on hurting him or taking his property. However, a single gun in the hands of someone who is not afraid to use it can quickly quiet the most obnoxious hoodlums.

Today’s criminal is a parasite. They prey on the weak. They will attack in garages, on quiet streets, in school parking lots, in empty homes, while you are carrying groceries, and while you are pushing a stroller. They are looking for the quickest “score” where they will meet with the least amount of resistance. Simply having a gun on you may raise your awareness and confidence to a degree that a criminal will sense that you may offer too much resistance. Whose walk do you think would be faster and appear more nervous; The girl walking down a deserted street alone, or the girl with her hand in her backpack holding her gun and looking around for danger?

On a national level, gun ownership helps by presenting an unspoken warning to government. The second amendment was written so that citizens would have the means to confront a tyrannical government and so that the non-military people (the militia) could quickly assemble as a standing army in the event of a foreign attack. It has been shown that states that grant their citizens a permit to carry concealed weapons see a sudden drop in violent crime. This is because the criminals are unsure who is armed and who will offer resistance. I contend that governments harbor that same fear. If every person in America was armed, we would have a more polite society and we would have a government that was not so quick to take away our rights.

I believe in personal responsibility. Making a decision to carry a gun is the first and most important step in taking personal responsibility for your self-defense. If you are not willing to make an effort to protect yourself, why should anyone else be willing to protect you?

Now here are the questions -

Q - When my friend and I started inquiring about gun ownership, it seems as if there are so many restrictions that I can’t see the practical value. Maybe that’s only because of the laws in NJ.

A - It is not just NJ. There are many states that absolutely do not want their citizens armed and put up as many restrictions as possible. Reasonable people understand that this will not prevent criminals from getting and using guns. In fact, over regulation of gun laws almost guarantees safety for criminals. Remember this; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law that contradicts the constitution is invalid. It was not written to prohibit the freedom of the people but to keep the government from abusing the power granted them by the people. The bill of rights is not a list of privileges; it is a list of natural rights that the government is forbidden from infringing upon. No government has the right to prevent you from the means of self-defense.
Q - For example, if I got a permit to buy a gun, what would I have to do to be able to carry it?

A - First of all, I urge you NOT to get a permit - EVER. Not because I suggest operating outside of the law, but because the law has no authority to grant that permission. It is your right to keep and bear arms. The permit is a way of allowing local NJ law enforcement officers to play God and decide who should and shouldn’t be able to have a gun. It is also the main way of creating a local database of gun owners. Simply applying for a permit will add your name to that list. If you do not believe me, I can send you proof. They are now using these databases to confiscate legally purchased guns in Chicago, and CA. But, to answer your question, once you have obtained a NJ permit to buy a gun, you must buy a gun within 72 hours (maybe it is a week?) or you have to go through the whole process again. This is not about safety, it is about control. When you go to buy the gun - only from a licensed dealer (FFL) in NJ, they will then make you fill out another set of forms for a background check. This now puts your name into a national database. Then, after you “own” the gun, you must keep it in your home or in a locked box. If you then want to carry it (good luck in NJ) you will need to get permission to take a concealed carry class. Upon passing that class, your name will be put into another database, and the state will make you get a new drivers license which indicates that you are a concealed weapons carrier. In addition, you will have to get a CCW permit that is required to be on your person any time you have the gun with you. Of course, this is all moot, because unless you are personal friends with a politician in NJ, there is almost NO CHANCE that you will get a NJ CCW. I will make my recommendation at the end of this message.
Q - If I couldn’t carry it, what use is it to me?

A - Absolutely none when you are most likely to need it. However, you could still have it on your property and when traveling. More on this later.
Q - Even in my house, if I can’t keep it easily accessible and loaded, how will it help me protect myself?

A - It won’t. As anyone can see, these laws aren’t made for your protection, they were made to control you, increase revenue, and protect government employees. It also becomes a shopping list to break into your home and steal your weapons. Knowing NJ, if your stolen gun were then used in a crime, it would be your fault and you would be charged with failure to carefully secure a dangerous weapon, or some such nonsense. I don’t know if this would happen, but I wouldn’t put it past them.
Q - I guess an unloaded but real gun pointed at certain potential criminals would scare them off, but can I carry it even unloaded?

A - No. In NJ, it doesn’t matter if it is loaded or not - you cannot carry it or brandish it without permission. Besides, are you willing to gamble and point an unloaded gun at a criminal? What if he calls your bluff?
Now, here is another option. If you are like most people, with the exception of a courthouse and an airport, your bag has never been searched and you have never been “frisked”. With that in mind, how great a risk are you really taking if you start carrying a weapon? The only reason you would ever use it would be for self-defense in a life-threatening situation. Chances are that in that situation, there would be no one there to see you use it anyway. Even if there were, a ticket for carrying a gun without a permit is much better than being dead. Besides, most juries will find you not guilty if the gun were used for self-defense.

There are a few things that I recommend if you intend to carry a gun. Get shooting lessons. Try shooting several different guns and pick the one that you like the best, are most comfortable with, is easy to conceal and use, and offers the greatest protection. The cost is the least important factor. A gun carried properly, is a good form of life insurance and will outlast anyone you know. This insurance can be passed down for generations or sold later at a profit.

The following suggestions are answers to hypothetical questions that I offer as suggestions:

1. How to get a gun if not from a local dealer? - From another state. Many states still allow for the private sale of firearms to residents of that same state. The legal definition of a resident is someone who lives in that state or intends to live there and is in the process of moving to that state. You also may be given a gun from a friend or family member. Do not register it, do not tell anyone about it. Through a private sale is the only way I would ever suggest getting a gun. It is the only way that you can be sure you and your gun will not be on any government databases. - By the way, when congress approved background checks, they did it with one condition. The condition was that there would be NO NATIONAL DATABASE of gun owners. The FBI, SBI, and BATF have violated that condition from day one. They have refused to destroy these records that congress insisted be destroyed “immediately.”

2. What about Gun Safety?- Again, I suggest taking lessons outside of the nanny state or from a competent person in the privacy of your own home. As a certified NRA instructor, I am certified to give firearms instruction and would gladly do so in someone’s home. If that person did not want a certificate or any record of that training, I would have NO problem at all with that and would even reduce my training fee. For close friends or family, I might even waive my fee.

3. How do I Carry the Gun?- You can carry either on your body, in your bag, or in your vehicle. If on your body, find at least one comfortable holster that can be worn everyday. If this is your plan, it is important to get a gun that is easy to conceal. If in your bag, weight and size are also an issue. You might consider sewing an extra pocket in your bag to allow easier access in the event of an emergency. In your car - This is important. If you carry on your body or in your car, I suggest a combo-locking briefcase. If you are in the car alone, lay the gun in the briefcase on the seat next to you - but leave it unlocked. It will be within reach if needed. If for any reason you get stopped by police, close the briefcase and lock it before the police come up to your car. Next, get out of the car and lock the car behind you. Current law allows Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) to search your reachable area. If your car is locked behind you, it no longer poses a threat to the LEO. Even if you cannot get out of your car and the police DO search your vehicle, they cannot search the briefcase without a warrant. REFUSE to open the case regardless of any threats that the LEO makes. Tell him you don’t have the combination. In order to “legally” get into your briefcase, the LEO will need probable cause. See that your car in neat order and that there is nothing in view that will give them probable cause to get a warrant. The book “You and the Police” by Boston T. Party offers great suggestions and more information on this.

4. What about Practice? - I suggest lots of practice. Practice indoors with NO AMMO. Practice handling, loading, putting the safety on and off, pointing, getting it in and out of the bag or holster. Practice dry-firing to improve your skill, practice sighting and “point shooting”, and develop confidence with your guns. Practice as often as you can. When you are ready to practice shooting at targets, find a quiet private range away from your local area. The idea is so that you want no one you know to see you there. Remember, you don’t want anyone to know that you have a gun. There are lots of places in PA or upstate NY where you can practice and not be bothered. I may even be able to help you find some places.

5. What if I Need to Use My Gun?- Chances are very small that you will ever need to use it, but the idea is to always be prepared for that chance. If you feel that your life is threatened or that you may be in for severe bodily harm, you can legally use the gun to stop that threat. If raising the gun and shouting “STOP NOW!” ends that threat - and it usually does, then you can be on your way. If it does not, then shoot to kill. This is important. The law says that you can use it to stop an imminent threat to life or limb. Therefore, if you only shoot to wound, it can be argued (and is argued) that the threat was not that great. However, if you shoot to kill (even if you only wound them) you are within the law and will be acquitted. Because of the legal ramifications, I would strongly suggest that you never use your gun to protect those that you do not know. In the event that you do use it in self-defense, what you do next will be a big decision. What happened? Did someone rescue you? Did you shoot? Do you stay or go? Do you call the police? These are tough questions that only you can answer. I believe the answer depends on the situation. Either way, it will be stressful. Although statistics are tough to find on this, I believe that the ratio of shooting the perp to ending the conflict by just pointing a gun is around 20:1 - In other words, in only 5 out of 100 cases do people actually have to shoot to stop the treat. These are great odds. Plus, if the odds of survival are 0% without shooting, the decision to pull the trigger should be an easy one. I would rather be alive to argue about it than dead. Consider the following:

? Chance of being searched by LEO and them finding a gun - almost none. ? Chance of you ever having to kill with your gun - almost none. ? Chance of survival with gun if attacked - significantly greater. (especially for women)? Penalty for having un-permitted gun in your possession - insignificant, maybe confiscation of gun and up to $150 fine. ? Cost of following the letter of the law - Permit $250, additional cost of buying a new gun from dealer $200, Background check $75, CCW permit $75 (if even possible), cost of being on databases - almost certain confiscation of gun, probable insurance increases, future license renewals and fees, and potential increase of break-ins.

In my mind, there is ample reason to purchase and carry a gun without jumping through legal hoops and making a target of yourself. If this is your decision, I will help you in any way that I can.

Originally published at Liberty For All August 20, 2007.

We strongly oppose the imposition of a floor fee by the LNC for credentialing of national delegates. The By-laws and Convention Rules are quite clear in saying that delegates are chosen by the states and do not allow additional requirements to be added by the national party.

A floor fee will restrict the delegates’ participation in party business, hindering their ability to carry out their responsibilities to the state parties.

Given that the anticipated revenue from the floor fee amounts to only one percent of the LNC’s 2-year budget, it seems unreasonable that the LNC should be unable to earmark 1% of its annual budget to cover expenses for a required event.

If we allow the LNC to circumvent the By-laws and Convention Rules in this seemingly small regard, we may find it difficult to keep it from running roughshod over the By-laws in more controversial matters in the future.

The statement above has been endorsed by the following individuals:

George Phillies — candidate, LNC Chair
Carolyn Marbry — candidate, LNC Vice Chair
Rob Power — candidate, LNC Secretary
James Oaksun — candidate, LNC Treasurer

Mary Ruwart — candidate, At-Large
R. Lee Wrights — candidate, At-Large

Rachel Hawkridge — candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Michael Seebeck — candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Jake Porter — candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Scott Williamson — candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Charles Wilhoit — candidate, LNC Regional Alternate

Eva Kosinski — 2008 National Convention Team

By “it”, I mean direct taxation on our private personal property, including our homes, our motorized conveyances, our right to travel, our right to earn a living as we see fit, our marriages, and so on down the list of rights that are taxed, regulated, and then taxed and regulated some more.

“Honest” Abe Lincoln, even though he is one of the worst traitor/tyrants of this land of ours, said,

“I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men’s rights.”

Hey, if it is our property and it is private and its is obtained by right, then government has no say-so whatsoever in when, how, where, or if we can use it, as private means “not under government control.”  If government has no control over private property or the man/woman, then it has no authority to tax or regulate.

Of course, this does not mean that we can just do as we wish anytime we want.  That would be chaos of the highest order, especially by those that have no sense of right and wrong.  But, those exist no matter what and are beyond control by regulatory rules since they simply do not care.

What it actually means is that we can do as we wish so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others. Such interference might be unintentional or it might be intentional.  If unintentional, it is by accident, but the damaged man or woman or child can seek redress through a suit.

If intentional, and so described as a crime, then the solution is through proper channels directed first by the 5th Amendment and due process mandated by it.  But, even that does not mean the accused should be shackled and dragged off and caged like a wild, crazed animal.  If the accused is not a danger to others or himself, then he should not suffer incarceration in order to satisfy some bureaucrat and his greed, or some enforcer’s psychopathic lust for power.  Of course, the latter, psychopathic lust for power, assures the enforcers will shackle you, and, generally speaking, treat people like the lowest of lowlifes.

Since many of us own our homes, or are buying our homes and the land they sit on, a good example to use is local governments taxing us on them, or losing them through “back taxes due”, as false a premise as there is.

Now, here is a shocker most people do not know or believe.  Private property may only be seized as evidence of a crime or when obtained through criminal activities.  There are no other means of attaching and executing against private property owned by we by birthright Citizens of these States united.  All else is based on fraud and violations of different provisions covered under racketeering statutes (Title 18, Section 1961 et seq), those dealing with justice, and various other federal and state statutes.   The statutes control - are you sitting down - the government, its creations, or, in other words, only those areas and persons it has jurisdiction over.

We must understand that when these united States was founded, the sovereignty of the King was divided up equally between all the people.  Thus, the people forming these united States are sovereign.  We are the King.

Now, think.  What King would let his people order him about, demanding tribute from him?  And, then take his property because he did not pay up?

The answer is “none.”  The King is the sovereign and he is the supreme authority.  So are we people.  We, whether the whole or part or just one, are sovereign to entities we make up, including the artificial bodies we call “government.”

Furthermore, it is the feudal system our forefathers fought and died to get people away from.  You see, the King owned all the property in merry old England.  He was the sovereign.  The serfs or fiefs paid the King to use “his” property.

Just as you have no authority to order about your neighbors, neither does the whole of the people have the authority to order about just one.  Government does not have the authority because we did not have the authority to give to another or a group.  Therefore, government is, and must be, subservient to the people or we are not free.

Thus, we people must understand that the government has no authority to tax your private property, just as you do not have the authority to tax your neighbor or demand any sort of tribute from him.  His property is his Kingdom, and the whole of the land (these united states) is also his Kingdom - and yours - and mine.

So, how is it that government forces private property owners to pay taxes on homes and conveyances every year so that they can keep using their property, but not always as they see fit?  That is rent, no matter how one looks at it.  To be quite blunt, it is also theft by government.

It is usurping our Law - that is, Nature’s Law and our Creator’s Law - and the limitations placed on government.  Any usurpation of the Constitution is treason.  It aids and abets our enemies, both foreign and domestically based.

Giving a few perhaps credit they do not deserve, it seems that most do not realize what they are doing as they increase the governing body politico’s coffers.  They are quite often - I would like to say “ignorant” - but the fact is most have the reasoning power and the reading ability of a rock and that might be insulting the rock.  Thus, let me phrase it, “dumber than a box of rocks.”

However, there are those that know exactly what they are doing.  They act willfully; they are the controlling faction, and know they are acting wrongfully, especially when informed of the exact Law and statutes that prohibit their actions.  That puts them in the category of willfully committing high crimes, including treason, rebellion, terrorism, conspiracy, fraud, and multiple other violations against the people and America.  And, it puts our people in a foreign jurisdiction.

There are four jurisdictions, or three if one considers the Admiralty and Maritime as the same jurisdiction. How do you know if you are in the Admiralty or Maritime?  Easy.  You must be on the high seas or you must have an International contract.  The definitions are rather hard to pin down so just take it that if you are NOT on the high seas and do NOT have an International contract, then you are not in one or the other.

Another jurisdiction that might demand compelled performance for compelled benefits is the equity jurisdiction.  How do you know if you are in it?  If you do not have a bona fide contract, that is, a contract you signed knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily AFTER full disclosure, then you are not in the equity jurisdiction.

Hmm, one might think about contracts you might have with a loan institution.  Did you sign it after full knowledge, including the knowledge that the bank or other credit organization does not put up a consideration?  (Look up the requirements for a valid contract and you will find that parties to the contract must put up a consideration.)

The last jurisdiction stated in the Constitution is Law.  This is Common Law but NOT the so-called “Common Law” determined by previous court opinions.  This does not mean Common Law did not use trials between adversaries to help determine the Common Law.  When I state, “determined by previous court opinions”, I mean that the current attorney cult, legislators, and so on try to use opinions for the last several decades as binding law.  They are not.  Opinions are just opinions, not law.  Do not let others convince you other wise.

Of course, the corrupt designed a system of non-justice revenue creation that accuses and convicts we people for committing “crimes” when there is no victim.  Impossible, of course, except in a land ruled by tyrants that use force to coerce compliance.

At any rate, judges make up law from the bench; prosecuting attorneys make up law to suit their purpose; and legislators make up rules that contravene the Constitution.  We even suffer legislators that claim they have authority to make law that rules over we people or they misinterpret their own rules.  Those that enforce “traffic” regulations on us as law are good examples of this.

Then, there are those that put out false and misleading information on newscasts and other forms of mainstream media that result in our people treated as “wards of the state”.

The Law of Nature and the Laws of our Creator are the basis for our Common Law, simply expressed by the Ten Commandments.  As stated before, that is why the Commandments are on, or used to be on, or placed in prominent positions in courthouses.

But, even this is not enough.  During the last several millennia, especially the last eight centuries, our Creator’s Laws on morality and righteousness more or less merged with trials determining true justice.  In that sense, opinions (of court) either assimilated into what is moral and righteous, or accommodated into our perceptions of justice.  The result is justice, or rendering a man what he is due based on right and wrong.   This, in essence means giving nothing to one man by taking from another unless it is his due compensation for damages done to the one.

For example, if a man steals from another, then his due is to compensate his victim for the loss.  Of course, this seldom occurs, as it is the State that profits by incarcerating the perpetrator, with the result that the victim often never gets back his property or due compensation.  However, for now that is another story, a story of how the victim stays the victim in the false system of justice we now suffer.

(By the way, courthouses that house “court” belong to the people and so do the court officials, as we pay them.  So how can they legally charge you court costs?  Answer - they can’t - - except by force and other coercive measures treating you thereby as in the Maritime [Merchant Law] jurisdiction.)

Here is the Law we must abide by.  Do not interfere with the rights, lives, and pursuit of happiness by others.

What are the rules officials must abide by?  They must abide by the above simplified law and every one of the many statutes and ordinances and every other form of regulation they write or treat as the damnable “public policy.”  The latter is seldom the policy of the public but the exercise of unauthorized power exercised by enforcers of “their” laws.  It is also their excuse for violating every premise this land of ours once held dear.  In line with this, remember that police forces, agencies, and so on cannot make law and, even if they could, their “how they would like it to be” rules cannot lawfully or legally interfere with our rights.

What about corporations and other government-created artificial persons (one cannot be a natural person any more than day can be night)?  What laws must they abide by?  The same as the above for officials, since the job of the officials is to govern themselves and their creations.  You see, all corporations, including political subdivisions, are false persons, fictions, if you will, that are under the regulatory power of the State.

Their other duty, besides assuring neither they nor any of their creations violate our rights, is that they must protect and manage our public property for us.  That is their job, not all the stuff we hear today about how a cop is “just doing his job” after he tasers, kidnaps, jails, beats the holy heck out of a man or woman (and now child with all the attacks by cops on kids), or kills someone that has, in fact, committed no crime to or against his fellow Man.

So, what about property tax?

Truth - the Bane of Government and Its Controllers

The foregoing helped establish a base to work from and to make sure we are on the same page.  Add the following to the base.  We, no matter what the controlling evil tribe of evildoers thinks, are human beings.  Our bodies house and maintain each of us, a living soul.  We are free and independent but as tyranny advanced, so did our need to defend our freedom or lose it through the forces used by government to coerce us into compliance.  We cannot depend on others, especially government because authority soon corrupts.

If there is one thing that government hates more than anything else, it is truth.  As Harry Truman once said, “I don’t give them hell; I just tell them the truth and they think it’s hell.”  Of course, Harry, good little controlled politician that he was, still acted against America and the values it once had, but he, as with so many others, knew the right things to say.

Truth always outs but the problem with government is that no matter when it outs, they continue on as if the truth does not exist.  Their behavior reminds me of an anonymous writer that stated, “When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.”

However, what of those that know the truth but act against it willingly?  What of the lies and those that maintain the lies, and then use force to make people comply with the lies?

“In short, this war [on terror] has provided an essential civics lesson that the state is not a friend of truth and liberty but rather its enemy.”  Lew Rockwell, Jr., Ludwig von Mises Institute, May 27, 2004 (my emphasis)

Of course, Marxists, Communists, socialists, corporists, whatever you want to call those that gain control through false flag operations (the old Hegelian Dialectic of create the problem, get the reaction, and then supply the solution that always expands government) have known and told us the truth about government lies through historical facts.  Most of us, though, never paid any attention or believed the re-written history by those that publish books and the like.

“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.  It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

None can refute that government uses lies and coercion to force compliance and prevent truth from emerging.  The result is that most of us do not care about governments’ actions until such actins affect our families directly.  Even then, though, many are too afraid of government to even try to do anything about it because of the State’s power to force compliance.

Additionally, we are, as so many have stated in the last few years, like the frog that is put in water that is gradually heated until the frog is boiled to death.  Maybe it cannot believe what is happening either, but surely we are smarter than frogs.  Or are we???

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”  — Dresden James

Well, Folks, the time to open up the package has arrived.  Actually, it is long overdue.

As many people know, but maybe never think about, the Constitution for the united States of America prohibits “direct taxation” on the people.  Many, though, also think that the Constitution applies only to the federal government.  But, Article VI shows this is a falsehood, whether told by the government or the people.  It demands that every state and political subdivision’s officials MUST abide by and defend/uphold the provisions of the Constitution.  Each official must subscribe or affirm to an Oath of Office and, if not done, must either not enter the office or vacate it immediately.

There are only two forms of taxation permitted.  One is direct by apportionment.  The state share equally based on their apportioned population counts.  In other words, Missouri has nine representatives (far too few but that, too, is another story).  Thus, the percentage of a debt Missouri must share in is 9/435ths or 2 percent of the whole.

The other form of tax is indirect, such as excise tax.  According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.”  Any government laying this tax must equalize it over all the people.

Is property tax a form of direct taxation that prohibited by the Constitution?  Of course it is.  This never overturned case states it clearly and is as valid today as it was in 1895, as the Constitution is the same irregardless of those that try to change it with their lies, or try to place us through their frauds all in a jurisdiction foreign to us (equity, Admiralty, Maritime).

“First.  We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

Second.  We are of the opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.”  [Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.][158 U.S. 601 (1895), emphasis added

Our forefathers founded our land on the principles that the people are the sovereignty, or the supreme entities over the government, and religious freedom.  Our forefathers intended that the people could never vote away our rights, and that legislators had no power to legislate them away.

Knowing that this is the case, I state without reservation that when a local government demands payment for you living in your house, or making rules and applying them to you and your property, that the government has violated every premise this land was founded on.   Does it matter what a judge or justices have said about it if contrary to the principles?  No, because anything contrary to the free exercise of our rights is bogus.  Such not only usurps our sovereignty, but also the Constitution for these States united and your state's constitution.

Additionally, I believe that your state's statutes support the above and that they apply only to government created entities known as "persons".  Legislators (after the people create them) create persons, which are fictions at laws, a well-documented fact.  Most of us, however, are NOT fictions at law.  But, the crooks taking your property are fictions in their official capacities.  The imaginations of men made up their titles.

Get out your contract or warranty deed showing that you are buying or have bought your home and the land it sits on, along with appurtenances.  Is the State or county or city listed showing an interest in the property, or is the mortgage (loan) and deed only in you and your spouse's names?  Unless the contract or deed lists the government, it holds no proprietary interest in your property.

Did you have to get a license to buy the property?

Did you have to get a franchise to buy?

Were you given some special privilege by the State to buy?

In other words, did you purchase your home, etc., as a right rather than as a privilege granted by government?  Or, did you have become a partner by bona fide contract with the State/County/City giving each an equal say-so with you and your spouse (if applicable) in the use and management of your property?

Understand this.  Without a contract, no one can compel anyone else to perform for compelled benefits.  Therefore, no government lacking a contract showing a proprietary interest in property, whether one's home or other private property, can compel performance for compelled benefits.  Remember that we cannot give to government anything we do not have, including proprietary interests in all property.

Thus, one should ask if you have any "compelled benefits" from government that you must accept by contract?  Keep in mind that such things as water and sewer does not obligate you any further than the government supplies and you pay at specified intervals based on the amount used.

Did the government put up anything as a consideration when you completed the deal?  Was "the government" or some agent of it even present when you "closed"?

If the government is NOT an equal - or some designated percentage of - proprietor of your property, then how is it that it has any say-so in your property, including charging you for the use of it?

Before I use Missouri Law, commonly called the Missouri Constitution, and its Revised Statutes of Missouri as an example (since I know them best), there are terms everyone must become aware of.  They are "terms of technical import" or "words of art".  Government has used these terms for many years to mislead our people, establishing the myth that we gave government the authority to control our behaviors.

The first of these is "person(s)".  Are you a person in statutes and the like, or are you a human being?  You see, human beings cannot be regulated by government, while persons can.  Thus, person has to be defined someplace in your state's statutes.  In Chapter 1 (RSMo), definitions, it begins with this statement:

"1.020. As used in the statutory laws of this state, unless otherwise specially provided or unless plainly repugnant to the intent of the legislature or to the context thereof:"

Then, as for the definition of persons, Chapter 1, 1.020(11) states:

"The word 'person' may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate, and to partnerships and other unincorporated associations".

Did this in any manner refer to people, men, women, human beings, all people, or any other term that indicates in common everyday language or even legalese that it applies to the people and their privately owned property?

No, it does not.  Therefore, no statute in the Revised States of Missouri (RSMo) actually apply to any other than the artificial entities listed following the words, "extend and be applied to", unless it is clearly defined differently in a particular section.

Here are other phrases we all should be aware of when reading constitutions and statutes/ordinances.

1.  "All taxable property" - does it say all property is taxable or does it say "all taxable property"?  As one can easily see, it makes a world of difference.  "All taxable property" means it refers only to property that is taxable, while the other means that ALL property is taxable.  With the latter, there is no need to classify property since it means 100 percent.

2.  "As authorized by law" - If law - that is our Law and the supreme Law does not authorize it - the authorization does not exist.  Does Missouri Law support this?  We shall see in a minute.  Also, remember, statutes that are NOT within the confines of the Constitution for these states united and each state's constitution cannot apply to the people.

3. "Those made liable for taxation" - Hmm, it seems not everyone is made liable for taxation but instead it is only those specified.  Otherwise, it might say something along the lines of, "Everyone (or all people are) is made liable …"

4. "On all property subject to their taxing power" - so, all property is not subject to their taxing power but only that property made liable by law and statutes.

Well, that is enough to give one an example of why one must read taxing measures carefully and some of the terms and phrases used to mislead people and steal their property, whether earnings, homes, land, cars, trucks, whatever.

Oh, by the way, "taxpayer" is a "person" made liable for taxation.  Think about this.  There would not be a need for this word of art if everyone was liable, would there?

Now, to Missouri Law provisions.  Note that Missouri Law is the original title of the law that is commonly thought of as the Missouri Constitution.  At least, that is the name on the organic copy I obtained from the Missouri Archives.  Strange thing is, it has the original 13th Amendment in it and did until the 1875 copy that may or may not have been lawfully changed.  (I think illegally since the Archives cannot produce any document authorizing the change.)  It is food for thought, though, is it not, that the 13th is NOT the same now as the 13th then.

Anyway, we need to discuss very few Sections of Article X.  To begin with, the first three sections, shown here, deserve comments.

Taxing power--exercise by state and local governments.

Section 1. The taxing power may be exercised by the general assembly for state purposes, and by counties and other political subdivisions under power granted to them by the general assembly for county, municipal and other corporate purposes.

Inalienability of power to tax.

Section 2. The power to tax shall not be surrendered, suspended or contracted away, except as authorized by this constitution.

Limitation of taxation to public purposes

Section 3. Taxes may be levied and collected for public purposes only, and shall be uniform upon the same class or subclass of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.

Let me ask this in reference to Section 3.  Let us say you are a Missourian, a human being born as a by birthright American in Missouri, a free republic.  Are you a "subject" that may be classed or are you a human being on equal footing with all other human beings?

Also, please note that taxes must be uniform upon the same class or subclass of subjects.  Uniformity refers to excise tax, as all excise taxes must be uniform.  According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary - This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.  According to Webster's Online, 1. A tax that is measured by the amount of business done (not on property or income from real estate) (Note - there is no number 2).  In other words, sales tax is an excise tax that is placed uniformly on goods or other commodity.

Section 2 means very little since the last phrase allows the constitution to do what the first phrase does not.  In other words, it leaves the power to tax as specified no matter what.

I saved the discussion for Section 1 for last, as it contains extremely important information is dispelling the myth of lawful tax placed on private property not gained by privilege (allowed by government).  Read it carefully.  Does it allow for any taxation except for corporate purposes?  Understand that political subdivisions, which includes both counties and cities, are chartered corporations created by the state.

Let me isolate the power given to counties and cities.  "The taxing power may be exercised…for county, municipal and other corporate purposes."  Remember that the governing bodies politic for your city and country are chartered, or an incorporated entity, and that, in Missouri, both governing bodies are actually "municipalities".

Also, remember that corporations are artificial creations, that they may not regulate any but their own creations, or others by contract (such as an employee agreeing to specific work terms for specific benefits such as pay).  They are fictions subservient to the people, a fact that fascism blurs considerably.

As I previously asked, can McDonald's tell you that you have to pay it a certain amount or it will take your home?  Well, neither can any other corporation, including the chartered governing body that exists solely to take care of certain duties for the people of the community, whether the county, city, or State.

So, the question is whether the STATE OF, COUNTY OF, OR CITY OF has authority by the constitution of the people to tax the people's private property not obtained by any privilege granted by the STATE.  As food for thought, has any one of these chartered entities any authority whatsoever to put certain people in classes above or below the rest or portions of the population?  Can the STATE or whatever "class" us?  Or does the rule of Law demand that all are treated equally, such as property owners' equality to non-property owners?

Now we are getting to the nitty gritty of property tax and who or what it can be laid on.  Since the state you live in is a state of these united states of America, with officials bound by every provision of the Constitution, I believe it is certain that if you study, you will find provisions similar to the Laws of Missouri.

Why do I believe that no matter the state, private property is protected?  Because your state was admitted to our union of states and this means (hopefully) that the people that accepted your constitution made sure it agreed with the limitations of the Constitution for the united states of America.  (Note:  From now on, the latter is just the Constitution, while Missouri's is Missouri Law.)

Equality demands that whatever is good for the public must be paid by the whole of the people.  That means every man, woman, and child must pay.  This does not include corporations because they are NOT people; they are fictions.  They often use our public properties for their own gain, especially in regards to transportation (commercial movement of goods).

Also, keep in mind that large numbers of people in such organizations as law enforcement agencies are not necessary when statutes are properly applied.  They could be cut by at least two-thirds were it not for unconstitutionally applying statutes defining crimes to the people.  The more people government arrests for victimless crimes, the more money the government makes.  The more mala prohibita crimes created, the more private property government seizes by relating some mala prohibita crime to the property.

Section 4 of Missouri Law states the only classes that a property tax may be laid on and defines the classes.  Let us look at the title of this section.

Classification of taxable property--taxes on franchises, incomes, excises and licenses.

That is as far as we have to go.  Read the below to see why.

"The title of an act is essentially a part of the act and is itself a legislative expression of the general scope of a bill and it may be looked to as an aid in arriving at the intent of the legislation."  Tompkins' Estate (Mo.) 341 S.W. 2d 866,

"[t]o the extent the bill’s original purpose is properly expressed in the title to the bill, we need not look beyond the title to determine the bill’s subject.”  Hammerschmidt v. Boone County, Missouri877 S.W.2d 98 (Mo. 1994).

“If the title of a bill contains a particular limitation or restriction, a provision that goes beyond the limitation in the title is invalid because such title affirmatively misleads the reader.” Fust v. Attorney General of Missouri, 947 S.W.2d 424 (Mo. 1997).

It does not matter what the rest says because if it is in agreement, fine and dandy.  But, if it is not in agreement, any provision outside the limitations in the title is null and void from its inception.  Neither legislators nor any other officials are free to interpret it.  It says what it means and it means what it says.

Simply put, Missouri governing bodies politic, the STATE, COUNTY, and CITY, may only lay a tax on franchises, incomes (commercial gain) from property, licensed property, and excises (which seems rather stupid to me, since excises are placed as in the above definitions.

That should be enough to invalid property tax on Missouri homes, cars, trucks, other appurtenances, and all other forms of private property, whether tangible or intangible.

As for tangible or intangible, they are words of art legislatively speaking.  In common usage, we can touch the property or we cannot, or we own intellectual endeavors or we do not.

Everyone should see that there is nothing complicated about it about this matter.  Section 4(a) in Missouri Law does not apply a tax liability to we people and our property, unless the property is gained by license or franchise.

Do you remember this phrase in Section I of Article X, “…for county, municipal and other corporate purposes”?

Well, check out this section.

Immunity of private property from sale for municipal debts.

Section 9. Private property shall not be taken or sold for the payment of the corporate debt of a municipal corporation. If this does not prohibit the taking and sale of private property by a COUNTY OF or CITY OF, since all debts of chartered governments are “corporate debts”, then what does it do? And, this section.

“Taxing jurisdiction of local governments–limitation on assessed valuation.

Section 11(a). Taxes may be levied by counties and other political subdivisions on all property subject to their taxing power,” (my emphasis)

I highlighted this phrase because it shows that not all property is subject to the taxing power of the State or of chartered city and county governing bodies politic.  Only that property the law makes liable is taxable, and therefore, Section 4(a) must show it.  Officials, in other words, cannot at their whim make any other property liable.

Let us presume that a man acts in a foolish manner and causes the conversion of his private property into property known in statutes (and now in the minds of the public) as “real property” (a term of technical import), and himself into a “person” in the statutes.  The people I know that did this did so for alleged “tax” advantages, a myth, because if they had not incorporated themselves, their private property, their land, and so on was not made liable for any tax, including federal income tax.  In other words, they made a compact with the devil, so to speak.

However, in our imagined case, the man did it.  Can a city, county, or state governing body politic take his home for alleged taxes owed?  First, we look at Missouri Law, which states in Article X, Section 6(a):

“Homestead exemption authorized.

Section 6(a). The general assembly may provide that a portion of the assessed valuation of real property actually occupied by the owner or owners thereof as a homestead, be exempted from the payment of taxes thereon,” (my emphasis)

Understand that for taxing laws to exempt one from a tax, the laws must first make one liable for the tax.  Furthermore, real property is a term of technical import, or a word of art used to confuse.  Land is land, and a house is a house.  All other words used to describe such in laws made by men apply only to manmade fictions manmade laws apply to.  In the case of this provision, it protects “persons” from their homes being taxed or taken for an alleged tax.

So, what is a “homestead”?  Since the general assembly may provide that a portion of the real property is a homestead, we turn to the statutes to find out what the general assembly deemed a homestead.  This is found in 513.475 RSMo, which states:

Executions and Exemptions - Section 513.475 August 28, 2009

Homestead defined–exempt from execution–spouses debarred from selling, when.

513.475. 1. The homestead of every person, consisting of a dwelling house and appurtenances, and the land used in connection therewith, not exceeding the value of fifteen thousand dollars, which is or shall be used by such person as a homestead, shall, together with the rents, issues and products thereof, be exempt from attachment and execution.  (Note:  I did not include the spouse part, as it is not germane to the issue at hand.)

An “attachment” is a writ to seize property in advance of a potentially satisfying demand a plaintiff has against a defendant.

An “execution” is carrying into effect the final judgment of a court.

Come on, Folks, do you honestly believe that this land and its laws meant that a State or lowly political subdivision of a State could take a by birthright American’s home for an alleged tax, or that a tax on property could be lawfully placed on ones’ home?  Or, a person as defined by law could have his home taxed and taken, including the equity that can and often does exceed the alleged tax liability?  How could one even conceive that this is the case in the land of the free?

Clearly, the intent was NEVER for any body politic to take a man or woman’s home due to an alleged tax deficiency.  Note that “person” is an entity - a fiction at law - with his home or homestead protected from incorporated “governments”, or any other alleged debt holder.  Missouri Law (and statutes, I might add) fully support this, as does the Constitution, along with the support of literally thousands of high court opinions that private property may only be seized as evidence of a crime or obtained through criminal activities, and that we people owe the State nothing.

To summarize this, Section 4(a) does NOT make private property owned by people, rather than persons, liable for any tax.  Then, Section 6(a) in conjunction with 513.475 RSMo exempts the home (homestead) used as a dwelling, the land it sits on (used in conjunction with) up to 15,000 dollars in value) and all appurtenances from attachment and execution.

Missouri Law prohibits both in regards to one’s home, and, of course, neither can be lawfully or legally used when there is no lawful or legal basis for the same.  In other words, the STATE, COUNTY OF, and CITY OF cannot use alleged seizure statutes against someone that is not made liable for property tax.  Furthermore, even if a person (in law) does have a tax liability, the law exempts his home from a tax liability and against attachment or execution.  Is this too complicated for officials and we ordinary people to understand?  I think not.

Conclusion

My question for many years was just how the government thought it could tax me on property I own.  It did not happen to me until county so-called governments tied tax on homes and the like to the equally illegal tax on our motorized conveyances.  I considered that forcing people to pay tax on their own property just does not jive with freedom and equality.  Thus, I spent many, many hours researching, especially after getting on the Internet.  Now I know - direct tax on property is nothing more than theft by government.

I would bet that every state has similar provisions in its constitution.  I would also bet that the legislative rules (administrative statutes) meant to control the government and its artificial creations have similar provisions to Missouri Law and statutes.  However, one will never know unless one goes directly to the written words in Law and statutes/ordinances concerning tax and collections.

Contractually speaking, no governing body politic has proprietary interest in your private property, unless you have contracted it as a consideration for not performing acts compelled by the contract.  Furthermore, any presumed contract in which one party does not put up a consideration is void from the beginning, and cannot compel performance for some alleged benefit that does not exist.  One needs only to study briefly the requirements of a valid contract to understand this.

“The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return:” Gore Vidal

Thus, although officialdom will NOT accept the above as it is destruction of the revenue and control system they set up for themselves, they will lie, coerce, commit additional acts of treason, and so on.  They will continue lying not because of any genius but because they can and must in order to defend their other lies and keep the revenues (corporate income) coming in.  Additionally, they will continue protecting themselves with their guard dogs, other foxes, and acts of terrorism against people by their corporative enforcers of false law.

Thus, this section ends with this statement by Mr. Vidal, as this is not conspiracy theory, a much abused trigger term.  It is conspiracy fact that affects every private property owner.  I think as Gore Vidal expressed.

“Apparently, ‘conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.”

This could be the start to the end, the people willing.

Thomas Jefferson had many thoughts that are appropriate to the destruction of America occurring right before our eyes.  Here are two for those of us that do not have our eyes glued to the boob’s tube or other matters of no importance in comparison to the loss of the once greatest harbinger of human freedom every known.

“There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves.  They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government.”

“They [the people in mass] are inherently independent of all but moral law.” - Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819.  “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb, vol. 15, p. 213 (1904).

It is of extreme importance that in my studies I did not find one statute, whether federal or state, that legislators did not write within the confines of the Constitution.  It is the application that is unconstitutional and, in most cases, illegal and treasonous.  That is the sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves.

Also, I would be negligent not to note that this changed under the current conditions with alleged law after law violating not only our inherent, inalienable rights but also even the privileges of persons.  Officials in government exhibit no regard for the rights or humanity of men - all men, not just Americans.

We allowed governing bodies to get away with their criminal activities for too long, I fear.  Most of our people now depend on government to right wrongs even though most people do not trust officials and the government they form.  Rather a strange paradox, don’t you think?

Anyway, the question is, what to do when government commits the wrongs?  That is the question that every last one of us will face sooner or later, whether each knows it or not.

Winston Churchill once said,

“Men occasionally stumble over truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.”

Thus, my questions are will the people rise to the occasion after recognizing the truth, and then act on it?  Or will they instead simply bow under to the forces used by government to remove all vestiges of human freedom?

That, Folks, is up to you.

Addendum:  By the way, if you believe that a lack of property tax on privately owned property would damage such things as education, demand an explanation and analysis by independent auditors of the States’ Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), along with the COUNTY’S, CITY’S, SCHOOLS’, and all other political subdivisions of the STATE.  Get the gross income and total expenditures allegedly for the public’s good.  You will come to the same decision, that the direct tax taken (as in stolen) is NOT for meeting the duties of the various governments and their subdivisions but for other purposes not revealed to the people.  You will come to the same conclusion.

Note:  The budget is not the annually required audit, whether called the CAFR or not.  The budget merely lists expected outgoes and the commonly known sources of income to meet the costs.  It does NOT show complete surpluses, earnings, investments, and all assets of the corporate government or subdivision looked at.

Also, in case I did not make it clear, every subdivision has its own CAFR or annual audit.

Ed Lewis is a columnist at Liberty For All.  Contact Mr. Lewis at ofthepeople@cvalley.net.

“Onan… spilled his seed on the earth, lest that he should give seed to his brother.”

Ballot access is a major goal of the Libertarian Party, so much so that we seem to be more concerned with keeping or gaining ballot access for whatever election is next rather than with getting any Libertarian actually elected in whatever election is before us today. Ballot access seems to have become that tail that wags the dog in third-party politics. Yes, it is important to have our candidates on ballots, but doing that should not come at the cost of using our resources, time and efforts to actually get Libertarians elected to higher offices than city councils, county commissioners and Justices of the Peace.

Without actually quoting any specific messages or e-mails to me, I will say that when I have asked my state Party Leadership for Party help with my own election, I have been told that, rather than focusing resources on any specific race, they don’t want to show “preference” for any candidates or any particular races because “it wouldn’t be fair”. I was told that “with 193 candidates, we can’t play favorites”. I say that it is because of attitudes like that which have resulted in NO major or significant election wins in almost 40 years. When election results are tallied, we crow about how significant we are because Libertarian candidates got 5% of the vote here and 7% of the vote there. Getting 5% of the votes in an election is still losing that election.

The reason I used the infamous line about Onan is that what we are doing as a Party is “spilling our seed on the earth” instead of creating any actual elected officials. I have a feeling, in fact, that Libertarians have been telling each other for so long that is it so important to view the percentages of our loses as victories that I think that there will be a lot of anger, resentment and even hatred showered on the first Libertarian who actually wins a notable office. In Irving Janis’ ground breaking book ‘Groupthink’, he tells us this story:

“Twelve middle-class American men and women wanted to stop smoking, and attended weekly meetings at a clinic to discuss the problem.  Early in the sessions, two people stood up and declared that cigarette smoking was an almost incurable addiction.  The group agreed.  The, one man stood up and said “I have stopped smoking and, with a little willpower, so can the rest of you.”  Immediately, the other group members began to abuse him verbally, and the meeting ended in chaos.  The following week, the dissident stood up again and said that he could not both attend all of the required meetings and stop smoking; so he had returned to smoking two packs of cigarettes as day.  The other members welcomed him back into the fold with enthusiasm but no one mentioned that the original purpose of the group was to help each other stop [emphasis in original] smoking.  Their new aim was maintaining the status quo at any cost.”

I think that, deep down in their subconscious minds, the leadership and long term activists in the Party have become so inured to losing elections that they have accepted a cognitive dissonance in which they delude themselves that they are accomplishing great things by simply showing up to the ball, as it were. Ballot access in NOT what we need to be working for; getting Libertarians elected to significant offices IS what we need to be working on. We HAVE to “fertilize some eggs” and then nurture them to maturity, so to speak. If we do not and cannot accomplish that, then what the Hell good are we to America, our states and our communities?

Maybe the Libertarian Party’s candidates NEED to be spending time standing in front of the local Wal-Mart and grocery stores collecting signature to get ourselves on ballots. Maybe we need to be holding open meetings to let people who aren’t Libertarians talk to us instead of holding rallies that are only open those who already think like the rally organizers do. Maybe we need to create “Election Coordinators” to be officers on, if not paid staff of, both our state and our national executive committees? Maybe we need to start from the ground up, do the necessary work, and use the necessary resources to get electable candidates INTO office. Maybe we need some humility instead of fancy offices in Washington. We do not need to attract the rich and powerful even though doing so makes us proud of ourselves; we need to make it where everyday people can walk in off of the street and ask us who we are and what we stand for.

Onan spilled his seed on the earth because he did not WANT to make his brother’s widow pregnant with his child, because it would then be considered his brother’s child instead of his own. The Libertarian Party is spilling its seed on the earth and, whether or not we admit that we obviously don’t really want “progeny”, that is the reality that comes with distributing our resources far and wide without there being any chances of those resources paying off for us in the end. We throw our seeds on “rocky barren places where they can find no purchase”.

The current Libertarian Party Bylaws state that: “The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles by:
(F)unctioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements;

(M)oving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office;

(C)hartering affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth and activities;

(N)ominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for political office; and,

(E)ntering into public information activities.”

Notice that the bylaws say that the method authorized by the Party to move public policy is BY getting Libertarians elected to public office. Without getting Libertarians elected we, by our own words, cannot try to move public policy simply by existing as a Party. In addition, the burden of “chartering affiliate parties” falls on the organization itself, NOT upon the people. It is a requirement of our bylaws that the Party itself create (a pre-requisite for chartering, I assume) the affiliate parties. Simply hoping that people will come to US and want to form local Party affiliates for us is neither effective nor in line with what our bylaws say. As with a candidate up for election, the burden is on us, as a Party, to earn the votes / support of the people. It is not THEIR responsibility make things easy for us. By the way, note that maintaining ballot access is NOT one of our stated purposes.

In Texas, the charter for our state Party says that the State Executive Committee will be composed of the elected state Party officers and two representatives from each of our state’s 31 Senatorial districts. That means that there should be 62 district representative members sitting on our state Executive Committee. Instead of 62, there are (according to information on the LP of Texas website, only 19, with only 6 of the 32 districts being fully represented by two members. This means that only 13 out of 31 districts have ANY representation on the Executive committee at this time. In addition to that, ALL of the current representatives on the LPTEC are from high population areas of the state. Not a single representative member of the LPTEC speaks for rural areas or even moderate population centers.

Like the government of the State of Texas, it seems as if both the National and, at least, the Texas Parties exist simply because they have existed and they function on nothing more than their own small inertia. As one of my political heroes, Pat Paulsen, said;

“Vote or get off of the pot.”

I have said before that, until we get serious about ACTUALLY being a contributing part of the American political scene, until we actually manage to win some real elections we have become and will remain nothing more than a lunatic fringe wandering in the wilderness telling ourselves that we matter. So, I ask every Libertarian and libertarian who reads this to ask themselves one simple question… “Will I be content to just “spill my seed on the earth” again this year?”

© Copyright 2010 Rhys M. Blavier

Rhys Blavier’s passion is studying government, politics and The Constitution from an historical analysis perspective and then imagining how government can be changed to better serve its people.  He also believes that government should serve all of its people rather than just corporations and the wealthy. His personal motto is “Truth, Justice, and Honor… But Above All Honor” because, he says, you can have truth without justice or honor, you can have justice without truth or honor, but you cannot have honor without truth and justice. He also believes that there is nothing so sacred or controversial that it cannot be questioned and/or laughed at.

Despite all the lovey-dovey rhetoric about the supposed greatness of “democracy,” there’s only one thing its proponents want it for: to get moral permission to force their preferences, opinions and ideas on other people. People vote, hoping “their guy” will win. Why? So their own interests and agenda, and not the interests and agenda of the people who voted for “the other guy,” will be served by the machine of “government.” And everything “government” does, it does by threat of force. (It doesn’t just ask nicely; it commands, and inflicts harm on any who don’t obey.)

I realize that’s not the flowery explanation that democracy- worshipers prefer, but it happens to be the truth. The left-wing statists want to win elections so the right-wing statists (and everyone else) will be forced to fund welfare programs, wealth redistribution, more government control (a.k.a. “regulation”) of commerce, etc. Meanwhile, right-wing statists want to win so the left-wing statists (and everyone else) will be forced to fund a huge military, a bigger police force, more border patrols, a “war on drugs,” etc.

In short, democracy is gang warfare for cowards. The voters, being too chicken-poop to do it themselves, desperately try to get “government” to rob and control all of their neighbors (while accepting no responsibility for having advocated that). If your gang of voters outnumbers the other gang, you can get the mercenaries of the state to boss them around. Yippee! Ain’t democracy great?

Well, to all you voters, the joke’s on you. While you’ve been whining for other people to be taxed and regulated (robbed and controlled), the tyrants have always been one step ahead of you, using your own envy, cowardice, and irresponsibility against you. In case you haven’t noticed, win or lose, both gangs of voters always get robbed and controlled.

Did you really think the politicians and their mercenaries would be on your side, if you were in the majority? (If so, you pretty much deserve the mess you’re in right now.) The tyrants have several nifty tricks for getting the shackles on ALL of the peasants, regardless of how anyone votes. One of those tricks relies on this dirty little secret:

EVERYONE IS A MINORITY.

Sound strange? Well, it all depends upon how people are categorized. Maybe you’re in the majority when it comes to race. Maybe you’re in the majority when it comes to religion. But there will always be SOME criteria that the tyrants can use to divide the people which will have YOU landing on the minority side. And then it’s YOU the majority will be stomping on, via the thugs in “government.” Then your boneheaded faith in democracy (mob rule) will bite you right in the rear end.

Are you in the top 49% of income earners? If so, you’re a minority, and the tyrants know they can rely on the bottom 51% to cheer for you to be robbed blind. Are you younger than 30? I’m sure everyone above 40 would love to raise your taxes, to pay for goodies for them. Or maybe you’re above 40, in which case you’re STILL in the minority, and the YOUNGER people might vote to tax the heck out of whatever wealth you’ve accumulated so far. It all depends where the politicians decide to draw the dividing line. The possibilities are nearly endless.

Is marijuana your drug of choice? If so, the beer-drinking majority will be happy to advocate that draconian government violence be used against you if you’re caught with an “unapproved” plant. Are you male? Well, you’re a minority. And if the women ever figure out that they can VOTE away your suffrage “rights,” you’re poop out of luck. Do you own a gun? If so, you’re a minority, and one of these days the politicians might just scare the majority into voting for you to be disarmed.

Depending upon how you slice up the “pie” of human society, there is SOME way in which YOU are in the minority. Ergo, there is some way that “democracy” can be used to oppress YOU, no matter how “normal” or “average” you think you might be. There is always some way to divide up society so you are on the losing end, in terms of numbers. And the tyrants are constantly looking for such divisions, to keep one group of people advocating the oppression of another.

Maybe most people in a particular town own dryers, so they vote to outlaw the use of clotheslines (which they think look too “low class”). Or maybe people over 21 vote to prohibit younger people from drinking or smoking. Or maybe a conservative majority votes to ban music or videos the majority finds offensive. Or maybe the people decide to ban the “environmentally unfriendly” gas-guzzlers driven by a quarter of the population. Maybe most of your neighbors, at the coaxing of the politicians, will decide they don’t like your barbeque grill, or your dog, or the canoe you keep in your back yard, or your political yard sign, or your bumper- sticker. Maybe they don’t like what you’re teaching your kids. One way or another, the tyrants will find a way to control you, and, by using clever divide-and-conquer tactics, they will be able to do it in the name of “the people.”

Then, of course, there is the supposed right that politicians have to steal (”taxation”). Whatever a majority wants, it will vote to force everyone–including the people who DON’T want it–to pay for it. Pacifists are forced to pay for war. Pot smokers are forced to pay for the “war on drugs.” People who think government “welfare” rewards laziness are forced to pay for it anyway. Young people are forced to pay for old people to get “benefits” from the state. People who homeschool are forced to pay for schools they don’t like and don’t use.

The tyrants are well aware that if they chop up the “pie” of society in enough ways, EVERY piece of it is a minority, in one way or another. And whatever criteria is needed to put YOU into a category which includes 49% or less of the people, you can bet that, sooner or later, the tyrants will be urging the people on the OTHER side of that line to demand “laws” to control and rob YOU. Need proof? Consider this:

Is there anyone who approves of everything “government” does with his money? No. (Never mind that no one even KNOWS what all “government” does with his money.) Therefore, EVERYONE is being forced, via the “democracy” scam, to fund things he doesn’t want to fund. The myth of “majority rule” (which is a lousy ideal anyway) is constantly used to force 100% of the population to fund things they oppose!

The bottom line is, through the cult of “democracy,” tyrants can oppress and enslave EVERYONE, while in every case claiming it was the “will of the people,” condoned by a majority. So the control freaks stomp on you, all your friends, all your neighbors, and everyone in your family, while at the same time tricking YOU into thinking it was YOUR idea, and pretending that “the people” CONSENTED to all of it. Ain’t “democracy” wonderful?

There is only one way to avoid this. Dismiss the evil that calls itself “democracy.” Stop partaking in the self-enslaving and neighbor-enslaving ritual of voting. Stop trying to get the Uber Nanny that is “government” to try to make other people into what you wish they were. Mind your own damn business. Spend your own damn money. Start THINKING, for a change, until you grasp the bleeding obvious principle of “self-ownership,” where every individual belongs to HIMSELF, and no one else.

If the people did that, the best the tyrants could hope for is that a few dolts might, on an individual basis, advocate their OWN enslavement. And the rest of us–of all races, religions, ages, income levels, etc.–could start living like free human beings.

Find out more about Larken Rose at http://www.larkenrose.com

Change is time-consuming.  Change is demanding.  Change is frightening.

Sometimes, change is necessary.

In a previous article I described LNC fund raising over the last decade and a half.  From 2000 to date, LNC yearly fundraising has fallen by three quarters in real terms.  This article turns to another challenge facing our national party:  Membership.

The graph shows National Party membership for 1998-2009. (Click on image to enlarge.)  The little gray diamonds are the actual number of members for dates on which I have numbers.  Those numbers are counted monthly, so in some periods the diamonds overlaps.

Over the last decade, our National Party has lost more than half of its membership.  We’re back to a membership count we last had in 1995.

We can extrapolate from those numbers to predict what our membership will be at some date in the future.  That extrapolation won’t be perfectly accurate, because membership numbers jig and jag when viewed year after year.  However, that extrapolation will show us where we will end up if we do not change course.

Where are we going? That’s the red line. I’ve extended the red line out into the future, so you can see where we will go if we keep on the way we’ve been going.  Sometime around 2015 or 2016, National Party membership will nearly vanish.

We face an existential crisis!

If we do not change our course, by the middle of the decade the National Party will become inoperative.  There will be life members left on the books, but that’s it.

If we don’t want to end up where we are going, we have to stop going there.

We need new policies, new leadership and new approaches, or there will be no libertarian future.

We need to choose the directions in which we want to move.

We need to choose the right people to help us move in those directions.

Real change is what our party needs.  Real change is why fine Libertarians from around the country, people not now on the National Committee, are running for our National Committee this year. Real change is why a few brave current LNC members, people not part of its governing majority, are running for re-election.

George Phillies is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. You can contact Dr. Phillies at phillies@wpi.edu.