Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

-James Madison



The Lost Horizons News

Mid-Edition Update for August 27, 2018


Please Start Here


Featured In This Update:

A Handy Little Cognitive Cue Concerning The Meaning Of "Income"


A Nice Example Of 1954 IRC Misrepresentations Of The Law, With A Frivolous Dimension


A Few Observations Prompted By The Passing Of John "Bomb Bomb" McCain


American Islamophobia's Fake Facts


Featured In Recent Editions:

An Open Letter To Lew Rockwell, William Anderson, Paul Craig Roberts, Tom DiLorenzo...


CtC: Western Civilization's Best Weapon In The Culture War


A Nice $97,271.45 Federal Refund


Four Questions For Brett Kavanaugh


A Question For All Federal Candidates This Year


Newsletters Are Now Being Archived


Donald Trump Hands The CtC Community A Unique And Urgent Opportunity


A Pair Of Old And Useful Windows On Current Events In The Middle East


The Entire Legal And Practical Truth About The Tax In Three Short Sentences


"Tax Honesty" BS Is What Had Doreen In Prison


Notes For An Educated Filer- Whether A First-Timer Or A Veteran


Regarding Daft And Despicable Deniers


Trolls Against The Truth: A Dis-Information Campaign


WANTED! Your Articles!!


BTW, Don't Miss These Items Of Interest:

Regarding State Group Membership


The Educated American's Tax Filing Flow Chart


Why Are You Not Doing This?


Project Paradigm-Shift


Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


A "Pragmatic" Perspective On The Tax And The Rule Of Law


Illuminating Anniversaries For This Week


And Hey! Don't miss the great stuff in the main page of this edition!


The upgraded Fifteenth Edition of CtC Is Now Available!

Btw, a copy of CtC from anywhere except the link above may not be a current edition. CHECK. It matters. Also, there ARE no e-book, Kindle or .pdf versions of CtC. Don't get taken in by efforts to sell you-- or even give you for free-- any such thing.


"The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are TYRANTS. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves….."

-James Madison


No one can guarantee success in all they do in life. But anyone can guarantee that they DESERVE success in anything they do.

Friends! San Antonio! September 22!

Be there for a CtC Seminar in the home of the Alamo!!

Click here for more information


A Handy Little Cognitive Cue

The "capitations" side of the "income" issue is the more powerful, and yet is often neglected.

EVER FIND YOURSELF HAVING DIFFICULTY articulating a simple, working formula for defining the limitations of the "income tax"? Here's that simple, working formula:

"The income tax can't be anything that Adam Smith described or defined as a capitation."

I offer this because there is an unfortunate tendency in the community to rely too heavily on the definition of "excise" as the solution. The "excise" meaning is useful, surely, and important. In some circumstances it is critically-important.

But it is the open-ended side of the "what is income" equation, and thus the more indistinct. That is, to say what something must be, as in, must be the exercise of privilege then requires a definition of "privilege". So, we have a definition that can only be understood in light of another definition (and more of the same, in turn).

NOW, WE CAN PROVIDE those definitions, and, of course, some things in the chain need no definition given. They are self-evident, or immune to rational and good-faith dispute.

But we have the benefit of a list of specific tax objects and circumstances which the law says the income tax cannot be (since capitations require apportionment; the income tax is not apportioned; and thus it cannot be a tax on anything for which apportionment is required). It is silly to forego resort to the simpler and much more explicit expression of the limitations on the tax.

After all, Smith expressly declares a tax on every different species of revenue-- that is, on "all that comes in" to be a capitation (or, if you prefer, declares that the class, "capitations" includes, among other things, a tax on every different species of revenue, or "all that comes in"). And the US Supreme Court itself has declared that the Constitution's "capitations" are whatever Smith associated with that term.

Thus, Smith's specifications and the Constitutional apportionment rule show more definitively and plainly than any other expression that the "income" tax cannot be on every different species of revenue, or "all that come in". Instead, by the same factors, the tax can only be on a distinguished subclass of every different species of revenue-- which is to say, only on certain species of revenues.

Or, to use the other expression, "income" (as meant in the tax law, and which is subject to the tax, or a measure of what is subject to the tax, to be more accurate) cannot be "all that comes in". Instead, it can only be a certain subclass of "all that comes in".

AT THIS POINT IN OUR ANALYSIS we have not yet established what "income" is. But we have definitely established that in order for the tax to lawfully fall, the object on which it is attempted to be laid must first be distinguished as not merely one of every different species of revenue, or a part of "all that comes in". That proposed object of the tax must have been shown or been determined by lawful and sound procedures to be the certain species of revenue, or of the certain subclass of "all that come in", to which the tax can properly apply.

Thus, at this point, the specifics of what IS the certain species of revenue, or the certain subclass of "all that come in" is irrelevant. It remains beside the point unless or until whoever means to impose the tax can establish that the object of his attentions has been undisputedly distinguished, in a legally-meaningful way, out of the broad, all-inclusive class of revenue.

Only if an effort IS made to distinguish the object of the tax-man's attention (such as by pretending that payments one received for work were not normal, everyday wages but were specially-defined "wages") does the "what qualifies for an excise" issue arise. And even then, at first instance a simple rebuttal, as in, "No, they are no such thing", may well put the matter to rest.

If that simple rebuttal doesn't suffice to put the matter to rest then the characteristics of an "excise", and what qualifies as appropriately distinguished for the application of such a tax, become relevant. But unless and until such a post-rebuttal contest arises, the "excise" side of the limitations of the tax needn't be raised at all; and even then, the argument is still best if fortified with a healthy dose of the "capitation" side.

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents


A Nice Example Of 1954 IRC Misrepresentations Of The Law, With A Frivolous Dimension

As always, a close look at an "ignorance tax" artifact yields big rewards.

WHILE WORKING ON AN HISTORICAL STUDY of 26 § 6201(a) and (a)(1) earlier this week, as part of a larger look at aspects of IRS "frivolous return penalty" abuse, I had the pleasure of addressing overt misrepresentations of the law in the current "code" language 6201(a)(1). These occasions are always happy things.

The joy is in the fact that these easily-demonstrated misrepresentations make great illustrations of the venal nature of the "ignorance tax" scheme which deploys and relies upon them. More joy lies in the fact that every explicit falsification of statutory text makes so much more simple the articulation and proof of the truth meant to be concealed or evaded by the overt lie. This misrepresentation of the assessment authority delivers abundantly on both counts.

SO, HERE IS THE STORY: 6201(a) goes by the label, "Assessment Authority". It [relevantly] reads as follows:

26 U.S. Code § 6201 - Assessment authority

(a) Authority of Secretary

The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:

(1) Taxes shown on return The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title

[Additional specs follow, concerning taxes payable by stamp, erroneous prepayment credits and ordered criminal restitutions, none of which are relevant here.]

The first part of this text reflects the general authority of the Secretary to assess taxes. No big deal there, and remarkably, almost no deceit there, either.

But there IS a little bit, right at the end. The text of the law reflected at 26 U.S.C.  § 6201 doesn't include the sentence, "Such authority shall extend to and include the following:"

This is significant because what follows that addition in the "code" representation, which makes it appear that 6201(a) and 6201(a)(1) are a part of one single element of the tax law, is itself misleading in the extreme, suggesting that the Secretary is authorized to "determine" the taxes on returns made by any "taxpayer" (which will be taken as "made by anyone other than the Secretary").

In fact, 6201(a) and 6201(a)(1) are derived from two completely different statutes, and to the extent that they are related, it is only insofar as the assessment authority of 6201 is limited by the actual statutory language of which 6201(a)(1) is a gross misrepresentation. In the 1954 "code", they are juxtaposed as they are in order to conceal that fact and make "the Secretary" appear to have authority he does not.

6201 is derived from sections 3640 and 3647 of the IRC of 1939 Here is 3640 (we'll look at 3647 in a moment). Note that this section of the 1939 IRC is in turn derived from section 3182 of the Revised Statutes of 1873:

Now let's look at 26 U.S.C. § 6201(a)(1). The language in the 1954 "code" rendering reads:

"The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title."

Taken as offered, and especially after the statement of the general assessment authority of 6201(a), and the completely fictional, "Such authority shall extend to and include the following:", this 6201(a)(1) language suggests that "The Secretary" (or his delegate, under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(11)(B) and (12)(A)) is here being given broad authority over returns made not only by "the Secretary" but also on those made by "the taxpayer".

In fact, as ungrammatical as is the language of 6201(a)(1), this apparent authority can easily be taken as the real purpose of the sub-section. In other words, it is easy to mistake "the Secretary's" authority represented at 6201(a) and (a)(1) as being to declare any and amounts of tax due, on any return, period.

But...no. Let's look at the truth of the matter, which is very much otherwise than what is suggested by the misleading language of the 1954 "code".

26 U.S.C. § 6201(a)(1) IS DERIVED FROM section 3612(f) of the IRC of 1939. Unlike section 3640, from which 6201(a) is derived, 3612(f) of the 1939 IRC is derived not from section 3182 of the Revised Statues of 1873, but from R.S. section 3176, as amended by section 1103 of the Revenue Act of 1926.

(There were earlier amendments of R.S. 3176 and one later one in 1935 which changed only some penalty percentages. And of course, R.S. 3176 was itself derived from earlier revenue acts beginning in 1864. But those prior amendments and derivations are immaterial here, as we only need concern ourselves with the current state of the law, which is as amended in 1926 and 1935.)

As is typical of the content of the IRC of 1939 (and as very different from the systematic disrespect for accuracy seen in the IRC of 1954), it's reflections of R.S. 3176 are very nearly verbatim:

Plainly, this actual statutory language is quite different from 6201(a)(1) of the 1954 IRC. (Disregard the substitution of "The Commissioner" for "The Secretary", which came to have the same effective meaning under 1939 IRC section 3647:

...and the aforementioned 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(11)(B) and (12)(A); and also disregard the "stamp tax" reference, which is covered later in 6201(a)).

Let's study the differences.

Here is the current "code":

"The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title"

...and here is the actual law (in which I shall substitute the "Secretary" for the "Commissioner" and omit the "stamp tax" reference for purposes of clarity):

"The Secretary shall determine and assess all taxes as to which returns or lists are so made under the provisions of this section."

Here the actual law is again, with the key phrase highlighted for emphasis and attention:

"The Secretary shall determine and assess all taxes as to which returns or lists are so made under the provisions of this section."

Plainly, the authority reflected at 6201(a)(1) does NOT extend to any and all "returns made" under this title, as misleadingly suggested by the inaccurate presentation of the 1954 IRC. Instead, that authority extends only to returns made under the provisions of "this section".

So what is "this section"? Is it actually a general section, embracing all returns, as suggested by the 1954 IRC formulation of 6201? Not at all.

When we look deeper, as the 1954 IRC-schemers hope we will not know to do, we discover that "this section" is the one providing only for the Secretary-made returns under what appears in the current code as § 6020(b)!

(You can see the historical evolution of 6020(b) here-- if you have qualified for this level of information by submission of a video as indicated here.)

Here is "this section" in its entirety, as rendered in the 1939 IRC:

Here it is as enacted. (Be careful in your reading of either source material-- notice that while the statutory language does include a reference to a "taxpayer" making returns, it is only in the context of applying a penalty to such returns. Such returns are not returns "made under the provisions of this section". Only those directed to be made by the section qualify, and that is only those made by "the Secretary".)

SO, THIS BRINGS US TO THE "FRIVOLOUS" thing I mentioned in the title of this article. Here's how:

In the event that an amount has been collected against an alleged "frivolous return penalty" (FRP), it has to involve the production of a return. Not only are such returns mandated by regulation:

26 C.F.R. § 301.6020-1(b) Execution of returns-

(1) In general.

If any person required by the Internal Revenue Code or by the regulations to make a return ... fails to make such return at the time prescribed therefore, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false, fraudulent or frivolous return, the Commissioner or other authorized Internal Revenue Officer employee shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise. ...

(Emphasis added.)

...but as noted in the assessment authority exhaustively parsed out above, such returns are required in order for the Secretary to assess the penalty.

Put another way, if no 6020(b) return has been created in regard to a FRP, any collection of such penalty would appear to be illegal. This is both for lack of the creation of the mandated return and therefore the lack of any articulated and verified claim to the money on behalf of the government, and, by the other side of the same coin, because under the provisions of law reflected at 26 U.S.C. 6501, no collection is legal without assessment, and under the provisions we have looked at above, the only way the Secretary can assess such a penalty and therefore legally collect it is by the creation of such a return.

In short, any amounts ever taken from anyone against an alleged FRP in regard to which no 6020(b) return has been made-- even those involving just a diversion of an overpayment for one year to an alleged "frivolous return penalty" concerning another year-- constitute illegal collections.

Good so far, yes?

But wait, there's more!

THIS ANALYSIS NOW LEADS US to what may be the solution to the illegal FRP harassment from which some have suffered that gives the IRS the plausible deniability it typically seeks for its bad behaviors-- that is, the avenue of redress available to the victim on which the IRS relies to excuse its behavior while hoping no one ever notices that solution. And here it is (from the IRC of 1939):

Remember, FRPs are to be collected and assessed as taxes, and so are subject to this provision as such:

26 U.S.C. § 6671. Rules for application of assessable penalties

(a) Penalty assessed as tax

The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter [which includes section 6702 -PH] shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. Except as otherwise provided, any reference in this title to “tax” imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.

In case that language or its implications seem unclear to anyone, and suspicion remains that somehow the 6702 penalties are not covered by the language regarding the illegal collection of taxes shown above, there is also this:

Put this all together, and it appears that the plausible deniability relied upon by the IRS to keep its FRP behavior from utter indefensibility might be this:

Victims of illegal diversions (which do happen occasionally in one of those remarkably telling exercises of dissonance-- an alleged FRP being held back from a complete refund, with the FRP sometimes even being alleged for the same filing by which the dinged refund is secured) have a remedy provided in the law. That remedy would be the filing a claim for the return of the illegally-collected amounts within three years of the offense.

It would appear, for lack of an identifiable alternative, and because they are the specified forms for filing claims for refund of "overpayments", that a 1040 or 1040X would be the proper form. At the same time, since a "frivolous" penalty is to be treated as a tax under the law, but not expressly as an "income" tax, this may be a more nuanced question, indicating that an inquiry of the IRS as to the proper form for a claim is probably in order.

Such a claim return would be dated for, or would concern, the year in which the diversion happens (not the year of the filing in regard to which the FRP is alleged). And, if a 1040 is appropriate it could, I suppose, be the same return one is filing for that year for more normal purposes, but simply with the illegal penalty claim somehow added in to the "Payments" area on the form (again, consultation with the tax agency is probably necessary to discover just how to do this).


Of course, litigation might still be necessary. The IRS is no more likely to do the right thing in regard to such a claim as it proved to be by the initial improper assertion of the penalty. But the filing of the claim is a required precursor to a lawsuit anyway, and might yield the desired results all by itself.

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them, and these will continue till they have been resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress."

-Frederick Douglass

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents


A Few Observations Prompted By The Passing Of John McCain

Starting with, "Who's going to slow-dance with poor Lindsey Graham now?"

IT IS CUSTOMARY to speak no ill of the dead. It is also stupid, when the particular dead has more to be spoken of than just run-of-the-mill peccadilloes and toe-stepping. Speaking no ill of monsters means that nothing is learned in the wake of their rampage across the stage.

My view of the passing of John "Bomb Bomb" McCain is that the hand of God has finally removed Arizona's long-running disgrace. This is good for the rest of us, but bad for Arizonans, who have thus had taken from them the last chance to do the right thing and boot the despicable warmonger from office themselves, however belatedly. Let me count the reasons why...

THOUGHOUT HIS SENATE CAREER, John McCain was either simply delusional or a willing tool in the hands of the military-industrial complex, meaning, the "congressional" part of Eisenhower's original formulation of that label. Due in large part to McCain's influence or direct actions and rhetoric, trillions of dollars have been stripped from you, me, our parents and our kids and delivered to armament manufacturers and "security" service-providers over the last several decades.

The sole consequence of that process-- aside from our impoverishment and the corruption of our political structures-- has been to ruin what was once America's good name throughout the world. Oh, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of foreigners (perhaps millions), and no small number of Americans, too.

LET'S GET A COUPLE OF THINGS VERY, VERY STRAIGHT: America has faced no military threat during the entire time McCain was in office. It is true that between '87 (when McCain first took office) and '89 (or arguably, '91) the USSR-- previously a credible military threat-- continued to technically exist. But it did so only in a slow-motion state of collapse.

In any event, existing US military resources were fully sufficient unto the day, and McCain had no relevant impact on them at that time.

Since the dissolution of the USSR, there has been no realistic threat whatever. No nation has had the capacity to conquer the USA or bend her to its will by military means, and none has plausibly had any interest in doing so.

NOR EVEN HAS ANY inchoate but purposeful threat existed, such as "terrorism". What small-scale animosity there is against America, such as to lead to occasional lashings-out, has been purely reactionary-- responses to willful US aggressions in other people's houses, or aiding and abetting the messing about in other people's houses by client states.

These little spasms are entirely in the control of the US-- stop messing about in other people's houses, and every bit of reaction to same will cease. At best, then, these attacks must be seen as the consequence of reckless endangerment of individual Americans by the United States.

A darker view might see them as deliberately provoked in order to produce pretexts by which to justify the maintenance of the enormous budget of the security apparatus and all its beneficiaries, and to justify the related corruption of our political institutions.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

– H.L. Mencken

ANTICIPATING THE PROTEST, I will direct the attention of those who argue that "9/11" was not "small-scale" to the fact that there have been no repeats of that events, even though US messing about in other people's houses became dramatically-more widespread and severe after it. These things together prove that "9/11" was not a "terrorist" event in the normal sense of the expression.

Nothing done to purportedly enhance domestic security has rendered such incidents impossible, or even more difficult. In fact, such incidents have been made much easier by that very security theater. As I pointed out 17 years ago when this nonsense began in ostensible reaction to "9/11", every good-sized airport now offers "terrorists" much softer targets than were available on September 11, 2001.

Consider: At predictable points on predictable days of every week, 100 people or more are crowded into small, walled chokepoints in "security theater" queues. 19 people willing to risk capture (not even certain death, now) could easily slaughter 1,900 Americans in simultaneous satchel-charge attacks on these pre-assembled soft and helpless targets.

There's nothing hard about making the explosives, it would appear-- third-world countries embroiled in the chaos of war yield up the necessities for IEDs seemingly whenever they are desired. And as noted, in these new circumstances the attackers would actually have good chances at escape afterwards, rather than having the only thing left of them be a miraculously unscathed passport to be found among the dust to which a 110-story skyscraper had been reduced virtually in its entirety-- with that one remarkable exception-- as in the 9/11 events.

THE POINT, OF COURSE, is that the 9/11 events were NOT "terrorist" events in the way they have been portrayed and exploited by John McCain and his jerk-circle of fellow hobgoblin floggers. If they were, the events would have been repeated, one way or another (and see this for what might well be the very best available collection of additional evidence and analysis proving the false-flag nature of these events).

The equation is simple, and dispositive: The provocations have worsened, and the "security-theater" efforts at preventing actual "terrorism" are incapable of doing so. Therefore those efforts have never prevented anything, and no "terrorist" threat-- vis-a-vis 9/11-- has ever existed, just as no conventional military threats have existed to a country bristling with nukes and the best-equipped conventional armed forces in history and bracketed by wide oceans and friendly neighbors-- all of which was true long before McCain took office.

All the military aggression and expenditures of the last 17 years, just like those of the preceding 14, back to McCain's first days in office, have been in service to fictions. Wealth that could have done unimaginable good left in the pockets of those who earned it-- or even just in the hands of honest stewards in the public sector-- has been instead pissed-away into the bank accounts of private parties who have learned how to game the system with the assistance of people like John McCain.

ON ANOTHER FRONT often used as a parallel pretext for the stuffing of the security-state's voracious maw, all the same is also true. America has no security interests in the Middle East.

The best anyone has ever been able to do at attempting to articulate any such interest is in arguing that without control of Middle East oil our mechanized armor might grind to a halt in a war someday, starved of gasoline by a hostile power which has interdicted the output from that area (and, I guess, everywhere else that produces oil, although this fly in that ointment is usually most noticeable by its absence). But this is arrant nonsense.

For one thing, America has always been a major oil-producing country itself. Proven reserves here (with or without the inclusion of deposits which our environmental sensibilities have sequestered from exploitation, and which are, nonetheless, available in any future time of dire necessity) are well-more than enough to power our military machine through any conceivable conflict.

Further, oil and its products are not the only means by which our military can be fueled. Plus, of course, we actually maintain a nearly billion-barrel "Strategic Oil Reserve" against precisely the interdiction threat on which the pretense of vital American interests in the Middle East is spuriously based.

ALL TOLD, THEN, the pretext of American interests in the Middle East-- especially interests such as to justify our military engagement in the region whether outright aggressive or allegedly otherwise-- is just that: a pretext, which is to say, a pretense.

Shamefully, it is a pretext which John McCain and his ilk have exploited for decades in order to transfer vast sums taken from the rest of us to their cronies and other beneficiaries, with a fair bit coming back in at least campaign contributions (not to mention through ridiculous speaking fees and by other paths). The outcome, again, has been the impoverishment of you, me and our kids; and the orphaning, widowing and virtually-demonic destitution and ruination of other peoples in other places, which the same wealth-extraction machine has become adept at keeping out of American view.

John McCain was a monster, pure and simple. We are to be grateful that in the latter years of his fire-breathing career through the world's china-shop he became so bold as to leave us with a near-perfect summary of his character: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!"

Sure, John.

Like we did (and continue to do) in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran (previously, by proxy), the Balkans, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen (by proxy, mostly, save for a few Hellfire strikes on, hey, American citizens... remember?), and encouraged or supported in Georgia and Ukraine, just to mention a bunch of things done on "your watch", and at your enthusiastic urging.

And on whom do we rain death from the skies after that? C'mon, John!

Or should we move away from throwing small, crappy countries against the wall, just to prove that we can (which fellow neo-con Michael Ledeen is said to have articulated as a policy of you lunatics)? Should we instead just focus on provoking Russia, the other major enthusiasm of you and your neo-con cabal (which enjoyed widespread influence during the Bush II years and is once again infesting Washington in a big way under the Trump administration)?

Should we go from play-time burning down Fallujahs and get serious about burning down the world?

John McCain, 1936-2018. Good riddance.

NOTE: See this strongly-related article explaining the remedy to sociopaths like John McCain.

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents


American Islamophobia's Fake Facts

Their "proof" is not what they say

by Arnold Isaacs

Anti-Muslim activists in the United States were operating in a “post-truth era” and putting out “alternative facts” long before those phrases entered the language. For the last decade they have been spreading provable falsehoods through their well-organized network of publications and websites.

A major theme of those falsehoods is telling the U.S. public that Islam is inherently dangerous and that American Muslims, even if they do not embrace extremist religious beliefs or violent actions, are still a threat to national security. To back up that conclusion, the well-funded Islamophobia publicity machine incessantly repeats two specific assertions.


Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents


The Entire Legal And Practical Truth About The Income Tax In Three Short Sentences

Focus on these simple points and you can teach anyone the truth about the tax.

1. The income tax is an excise.

2. Excise taxes are taxes on the gainful exercise of privileges.

3. You probably didn't earn your money by exercising any taxable privilege (or earned very little that way).

Inarguable (and nowhere disputed) proof of the first two statements above can be found concisely spelled-out in this little 7-page document. Whether the third is true for any particular person can be determined by consulting this guide to understanding "income-taxable privilege".



A Wise Warrior On What's Really At Stake


DON DON LA VIGNE, a long-time warrior and real American grown-up, shares a nice and inspiring testimonial on what CtC has done for him for over nine years now:


"Like a muddied stream or a polluted fountain is the righteous man who gives way before the wicked."

-Proverbs 25:26


"A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves."

-Edward R. Murrow


(Click on Saruman to see what he means...)


See Who's Really Been Lying About The Tax


Daft And Despicable Deniers

What the hell is wrong with these people?!


CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE how abysmally stupid someone would have to be to continue to doubt or deny that CtC has revealed the actual, complete and insurmountable truth about the income tax in light of the overwhelming mountain of historical, legal, practical and logical evidence to the contrary? (Not to mention the outright lies and even ludicrous hoaxes the executive and some corrupt members of the judiciary have been caught at in desperate efforts to conceal the truth...)

Plainly any such denier must either be abysmally stupid or be an abysmally corrupt government official or other person who sees him or herself as benefitting from the lies about the tax by which America has suffered for 75 years now. Isn't this true?



A Few Good Folks With Good and Important Things To Say:

Find this film on YouTube at youtu.be/K0CYo57I3ks


How Do You Know When The State Is Lying?

An old joke, but in regard to this deceiver, not a laughing matter at all.

““When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.

-Abraham Kuyper


Assessing The Damage From The Misapplication Of The Income Tax

Man, are Americans getting ripped off...!


Looking For A Litigator Who Wants To Do Well While Doing Good

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT presents details of a long-running (and still-ongoing) violation of the speech, conscience and due-process rights of two Americans. The offenses, in a nutshell, involve a federal district court attempting to dictate to these two folks-- word for word-- sworn "testimony" they are ordered to make in a legal contest with the government.

Click the link below to read the brief. You'll find it thoroughly supported with relevant testimony by the chief perpetrator and other similarly unambiguous exhibits.

The Civil Rights Lawsuit Documentation

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them, and these will continue till they have been resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress."

-Frederick Douglass

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

-Samuel Adams


"A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him."

-Ezra Pound


A Michigan Version Of The "Watching The Watchmen" Amendment Has Been Proposed


Did you know…

 …The US may be the only country in the world where people working in the non-federal private sector must commit perjury in order to owe and pay ‘God’s things to Caesar’?

If you work in the private sector, stop falsely swearing that your private-sector earnings are federal “income”1.  Perjury is a crime.  Exercise the law’s provision for protecting your private-sector earnings from the 154-year-old2 indirect excise known as the federal income tax.  Rebut fraudulent allegations made by your payers regarding the legal nature of your work and the earnings derived therefrom, so that you pay only your fair share.  Join the hundreds of thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans who have been doing so for more than a decade.  Learn how for free at losthorizons.com.

1--“We must reject… …the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts—everything that comes in—are income…”.

United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)

2—The income tax in the United States was first instituted into law on July 1, 1862, during Lincoln’s presidency under the excise laws of the United States.   The preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code traces its roots to this original income tax law.


Get this flyer as a printable .pdf here

Get this flyer as a multi-piece printable .pdf here


Poisonous Pieties

Now click here to learn the truth about the myths that have kept you from knowing the truth about the income tax


Trolls Against The Truth: A Dis-Information Campaign

UNLESS YOU'VE LOOKED, you can have no idea of the volume, intensity and mendacity deployed in the government's efforts to discourage Americans from learning what is revealed in CtC. It's truly astonishing.

A lot of folks are aware of the show-trial events in which my wife and I have received state-engineered public beatings meant to scare people away from the truth about the "ignorance tax" scam. But many are unaware of the overall campaign. This is a shame, really, because a focused propaganda effort like this one is a very powerful acknowledgement of the significance of CtC's revelations.

While the majority of Americans do not yet know how CtC protects them from the vampire state, the vampire itself certainly does. Dis-information campaigns like this one make that very clear.


FORMER CBS REPORTER SHERYL ATKISSON describes some aspects of this sort of dis-information campaign in the following video. Despite the annoying preliminary 15 seconds or so of advertising, her presentation is very much worth watching:

(H/T to Greg Belcher for finding and forwarding this great presentation.)

Losthorizons.com is one of those websites specifically-targeted by the corrupt interests at Wikipedia described by Atkisson. The behind-the-scenes folks at that site won't allow links on their pages to anything posted at losthorizons.com, nor even just text corrections of misinformation in their pages about the income tax.

That's the least of it. Click here for some specific discussion of the enormous scare campaign that's been actively spreading false information in hope of discouraging legitimate media attention, as well as men and women simply seeking the truth about the tax and liberty from the scourge of the "ignorance tax".

PLEASE GIVE SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT to the fact that YOU being secure in your own freedom rests on others learning the truth as well, and recognize that it falls to you to help overcome the dis-information campaign. Post and share your videos; share your victories; help silence the agents-provocateur and distraction-injectors whose nonsense is discussed and debunked here; and widely (and frankly, impatiently) share this page, this page and this page, challenging everyone in your address book to disconnect the phone and the TV for an afternoon and get educated.

Doing these things will be what makes it happen, Cap'n.

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents


An Excellent New Video About The Government Effort To Suppress CtC Has Hit YouTube!

DEREK CUSHMAN HAS POSTED a powerful presentation on government lies, propaganda and misinformation about CtC designed to discourage more Americans from reading the book and getting free of the misadministration of the tax:

You can also find this film on YouTube at https://youtu.be/V3_MViZDvo0 and on Vimeo at https://vimeo.com/175424277.

Watch it and share it, folks. This film will help a lot of people who have been taken in by the lies understand how they've been manipulated, and prompt a proper desire to learn the truth about the tax.

Well done, Derek!

P.S. If there were a thousand videos out there debunking government lies and encouraging Americans to learn the truth like this one does, the "ignorance tax" scheme would collapse in a month. So, where's yours?


Please Help losthorizons.com Be As Effective As Possible!

OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS I've heard from a number of folks that a firewall known as "Comodo" blocks access to this website. This is apparently a glitch in that program. This site is safe, as can be seen by going here.

Please share this info with others in your own address book so it gets around-- obviously those suffering the ill effects of this defect in Comodo won't be able to see it here themselves until they go into their firewall settings and manually whitelist losthorizons.com.

Return to contents




WANTED! Your Article!!

Sharpen those quills, people!

Return to contents


Why Aren't People Suing?



More Educated Americans Testify, Showing Why The Deep State Fears CtC

"If the taxpayers of this country ever discovered that we operate on 98% bluff, the entire system will collapse."

-Reported remark by an internal revenue service officer to Sen. Henry E. Bellmon (R. Okla.) on April 15, 1971.


"The Tax Code represents the genius of legal fiction...  The IRS has never really known why people pay the income tax... The IRS encourages voluntary compliance, through FEAR."

-Jack Warren Wade Jr., former IRS officer in charge of the IRS Nationwide Revenue Officer Training Program, in his book ‘When You Owe The IRS’

CtC-EDUCATED, AMERICAN HERITAGE-LOVING grown-up Don La Vigne shares his testimony here. Tom Romin shares his testimony here. Greg Sutton shares his here. Enjoy Robert Harvey's testimony here. Don's, Tom's and Greg's and Robert's words, like those of others that can be found here, are solid examples of why the Deep State fears CtC.

It's this simple: If you study CtC you will know the truth about the tax. Further, you will know that you know the truth, beyond any doubt.

ONLY CtC will give you that certainty, because CtC is exclusively and uniquely complete and correct, as can be seen by any of thousands of different acknowledgements of every possible kind, from this to this to this to this.

Most telling, in its own way, is the government robotically resorting for years now to the strawman of falsely ascribing to CtC the ridiculous arguments that "wages are not income" and that only federal, state and local government workers are subject to the tax. This false ascription is then used as the basis for claiming the book is "false and frivolous"-- a lame and transparent dodge begging the question of why the state won't acknowledge what the book REALLY says and then attempt to dispute THAT.

Once you know the truth revealed in CtC, acting in accordance with that truth WILL liberate you from being an ignorance tax serf. This, the deep state fears mightily.

LIKE HENRY BELLMON WAS TOLD, the "ignorance tax" scheme relies on bluff-- pretending that the truth is what the government suggests that it is (despite what the law and the courts and every other authority have actually been saying about it for 150 years). And like Jack Warren Wade, Jr. says, the scheme relies on fear-- doing everything possible to make people afraid to act on their scheme-shattering knowledge of the truth.

In short, the "ignorance tax" scheme can only survive if Americans can be bluffed into not seeking out the truth, and if those who learn that truth can be discouraged from acting on that truth.

But those who know the truth, and know they know the truth, cannot not act.

Acting on the truth is a moral imperative, as well as a legal imperative.

The undaunted actions of those who know the truth are "calls" against the bluff. Each "call" ratchets-up the spread of the truth exponentially and forces state acknowledgement of that truth, one way or another; and each such acknowledgment takes America one step closer to freedom from the 75-year state-unleashing, people-restraining "ignorance tax" scheme.

And THAT's why the deep state fears CtC.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

-Mohandas Gandhi

Return to contents


A New Policy

I HAVE DONE MY BEST to lead this country to liberty from the mis-applied income tax. I have labored hard. I've shed a lot of sweat, a fair bit of blood and more than a few tears. But I seem to be pretty poor at that kind of work.

When I have asked all of you for what I firmly believe is a necessary resource to move the ball downfield and give all of us the best chance at justice and an end to the assault on the rule of law-- simple testimonial videos requiring nothing from any of you but the phone in your pocket and three minutes of speaking from the heart-- I have had only a handful of people answer my call.

I CAN'T KEEP GOING THIS WAY. I have to be able to turn my attention away from writing new persuasive or skepticism-addressing articles week after week, and toward research, analysis and educational presentations that will benefit everyone already in this community. I need time to do some suing, and to bring together the resources and talent toward that end.

As said, it is my firm belief that your testimonial videos are the resource that I need to make big things happen, and they are unquestionably the thing I need to allow me to turn my attention away from trying to get horses to drink at the waterhole to which I have led them. Your words, in your great numbers and all in your own different ways, will do that better than anything I write possibly could.

And yet, you are not providing them. This, despite my having been asking you for them for many years now.

Therefore, with enormous reluctance, I am making portions of this website restricted access only. People have been urging me to do this for years now, telling me I should impose a charge to access my work-product, so as to enable me to keep producing.

I have never been inclined to charge fees for access. I ask for donations, and will continue to do that, and if they do not come, then I will conclude that my work is of no value to anyone, and I will close shop.

But I now WILL charge a special something for access to some key portions of that work-- testimonial videos, as discussed, described and demonstrated here.

SELECTED PAGES CONSTITUTING primarily "legal resources" pages now require passwords for access, and to get a password, I need your video. Similarly, if an email comes my way asking for guidance or assistance, it had best have a video attached, if I don't already have yours posted.

I hate to play it this way, but I want to win.

I'll tell you a story from when I was coaching my kids in soccer. Both of my kids at a certain age in their careers had run into a wall common to all but the very exceptional. They had gotten to be pretty good, and they wanted to enjoy the benefits of their hard work. But the arrival of this interest coincided with a new self-consciousness which made them reluctant to risk failing and looking foolish. So, they were hanging back from seizing the main chance when it appeared, and driving for the goal.

My solution was to post on the wall of our dining room a couple of simple points about self-discipline, the chief of which is this: You can't score a goal if you don't take a shot.

That's how it is here, too. If you don't stand up, you are laying down, and you'll never score that goal.

Here is what my kids live by now, in their own version of that lesson. I hear it from them all the time as they excel (accompanied by the sound of a father's breast swelling with pride): Go hard, or go home.

You, too. Go hard, or go home. Send those videos.

Do I ask for a lot? I want your victories to post, your financial support, your efforts at spreading the word, and your beautiful faces and inspiring words, too. It IS a lot.

But I'll let Thomas Paine explain:

"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly. Heaven knows how to put a proper price on its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”

Fear nothing but God.

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents


Give Yourself A 30% Raise: A New Flyer


What Makes YOU A Warrior For The Truth?

We each have our reasons, and our story. It's time, and it's needed, for you to share yours with the world.


"The day we see truth and do not speak is the day we begin to die."

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

What does it for you?

Is it simply because no moral and upstanding person has any choice when it comes to telling the truth over his or her signature, whether on tax forms or anywhere else?

Is it recognition of the critical importance of the rule of law, and the knowledge that if everybody leaves its caretaking to someone else, it will soon be lost to us completely?

Is it the money?

Maybe it's just simple respect for your own rights as a human being, who is not and cannot be not involuntarily subordinated to others?

Maybe it's just simple respect for your general civic responsibility to be the grown-up and enforce frugality and restraint on a big, powerful creature of our own devising which otherwise is like a badly-raised teenage boy given whiskey and car keys and let loose on the road to wreak havoc?

Or is it, perhaps, a more acute anxiety that if our bonfire of a state isn't damped, and quickly, it'll soon burn down the house around us all?

What IS it that firms up your jaw and stiffens your resolve?

It's time to take off the bushel and share your light!

I would like you to think about what it is that motivates you for a few moments (or all day, if you like), and then send me your thoughts. I want to put YOUR reasons to work inspiring folks who don't yet understand what this is all about.

In this day and age, the most effective way for you to share your thinking for the benefit of others is to video-record yourself talking about how you feel, and explaining what inspires and motivates YOU.

All you need is a webcam or cell-phone equipped with a camera. If you don't have, or know how to use, one of these, have a friend help.

If needed, write a little script for yourself. Better, though, to just speak extemporaneously, after spending a little time sorting out your thoughts and getting down into your heart. Perhaps make it a video of someone in your family, or a close friend, interviewing you.

Dress "business casual". Be well-groomed.

Keep yourself to no more than 2 or 3 minutes, and keep in mind that the purpose is not to educate, but to INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and ENERGIZE. Your video will be one of many to be shared.

You needn't feel any obligation to be profound, and you shouldn't try to explain anything about the law, other than to say that you have read it and you know it's on your side. You just need to be sincere, and uplifting. Your object is to make your audience want to have what you have, and to be where you are in your heart.

Keep in mind that you're speaking to an audience that doesn't yet know ANYTHING about the subject, and whose first reaction is, "This must be illegal; this must be dangerous; this is too good to be true." You want to pull that audience right past such things, and straight to a focus on truth, morality, and our American heritage of liberty and the rule of law.


Speak about rights. Speak about morality, and the obligation of a grown-up and responsible person to speak the truth and to enforce the Constitution. Speak about everyone's duty to give to God what is God's, always, and to Caesar only what is really Caesar's. Speak of your obligation to respect yourself, and to look out for the current and future well-being of your children and your fellow citizens. Speak of CtC, and what its information has done for your understanding and resolve. Show the book.

If you have had victories, describe them. Better still, show them, if possible.

Be clear about just what you accomplished: EVERYTHING back-- Social Security, Medicare and all; a "notice of deficiency" closing notice; an on-paper agreement or acknowledgment that your earnings weren't subject to the tax and everything withheld or paid-in was an "overpayment"; a transcript showing all $0s; or whatever happened.

When you speak of state victories, name the state. If you had to overcome balkiness from a tax agency before winning any victory, describe that, too!

If you're in a battle now, speak of your resolve to uphold the law, come what may. If you haven't yet begun to act, speak of your decision to do so, and your plans.

Remember, your purpose is to INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and ENERGIZE.

If you're dealing with ongoing balkiness, describe that, too, if you wish-- but be sure to explain why you're not discouraged, and why you are not standing down, not slinking back into the barn, and not choosing to endorse the lies.

Mention what you do for a living, whether you're a doctor, homemaker, lawyer, trucker, IT guy or gal, or a retiree or student. Help people understand that the company of grown-up activist Americans they are being invited to join cuts across all demographics and all interests-- with the common denominator being respect for the law and love of the principles on which this great country was founded.

This is your chance to get a LOT accomplished.

We've all had frustrating occasions of trying to explain all this to a friend, neighbor, family member or co-worker, only to pile up against the wall of a mind not yet ready to listen and learn. Here is your chance to address a self-selected audience of folks who have themselves decided that it's time for them to begin paying attention, and have clicked on your testimonial for exactly that reason.

Further, think about this: You want judges, bureaucrats, CPAs, lawyers, the HR people where you work, your pastors, your neighbors and everyone else to acknowledge the truth about the tax openly and straightforwardly. How and why would these folks do this if YOU won't?

You want these folks to learn the truth. Why would they even recognize that there is a truth to be learned if you won't attest to having learned it yourself? You've got to stand up, face forward and chin up and tell these folks that you have studied and checked and verified and seen the evidence and seen the government evasions and you know that the tax is not the capitation that the beneficiary government wants everyone to think it is but a benign, but strictly limited thing, and that they need to study and learn that, too.

Again, if you have victories to show, that's nice, and powerful, too. But you don't have to have victories to display in order to declare your knowledge of what the law says. I've never flown around the world, but I've seen the evidence and considered the arguments, and I'm not hesitant to declare it a sphere...

Even those of you who haven't yet studied CtC have surely read this short document, and have verified everything in it for yourself. You should therefore be declaring its veracity and its message, loud and proud. Again, if you won't say it, how can you hope that others will ever even bother to look at the facts?

Be the change you want to see in the world, or there won't be any change.

So, please make and send those videos right away! You can share them with me via a cloud-based drive space like OneDrive.Live.com or GoogleDrive, or mail DVDs to me at 232 Oriole St., Commerce Twp., Michigan 48382, or even email to me if each file is no more than 20 megs (and you can break a video up if need be-- I can reassemble them). Render as .mpg or mp4, if possible; if not, send them how you have them and I'll make them work.

Remember, the restoration of institutional respect for individual rights and the rule of law depends on enough individuals insisting upon it. Do your part to let those starting to rub the sleep from their eyes know that there is a community already waiting for their fellowship with open arms and open hearts and shining spirits.

See how some of your fellow warriors for the truth have done their parts in videos sent over the years, many of which are posted here.

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

-Samuel Adams

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents

The Crime of the Misapplied Income Tax


Was Grandpa Really A Moron?

Critical Inquiries for a New American Century

Bob’s Bicycles


Getting Free Of The "Income" Tax Scheme Is As Easy As Falling Off A Bike



To get an idea of how today's "income" tax scheme works, try this little exercise:


Think of the federal government as a guy named Bob, who lives down the street from you in a town that is really big on bicycles. Bikes get used for commuting, deliveries, shopping, etc.. In fact, other than walking, bicycles are the exclusive form of transportation in your town.

Your neighbor Bob has a by-the-mile bicycle-renting business-- "Bob's Bicycles". Bob's Bicycles is far and away the biggest business in town.

Part of Bob’s success is because he does a lot of contract business. However, Bob doesn't just get paid by riders who have signed an agreement with him, or even just those using Bob's bikes. Bob gets something every time anybody in town does any riding at all, through an odd combination of circumstances that took many years to come together.


Here's how it happened...


Bob's Bicycles was launched long ago by the great grandfather of the present Bob (Bob IV). Great Grandpa Bob started out not only with a main location for his contract business-- he also had the bright idea of setting up spots around town where he parked some of his bikes for use by the more occasional rider, on an "honor system". Anyone could take and use one of these bikes, but they were expected to keep track of their mileage, and send Bob a "1040 Mileage Ridden/Rent Due Form" (and the appropriate rent), periodically. The initial design of the form was like this:


I, ______________, rode a Bob's Bicycle a total of _____ miles this year.

At Bob's rental rate of $.15 per mile, I owe Bob $______


I said that Great Grandpa Bob planned to deal with these occasional riders on the "honor system", and that's true. But he liked his money, too, and didn't want to miss anything that was due him. So, after setting up the "self-serve" locations, Great Grandpa Bob went around handing out "W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms" to every other business in town. The forms-- accompanied by notices that if Bob didn't get his rent from someone riding a bicycle in connection with any business, he would sue the company involved-- said:


Click here to enjoy the rest of this illuminating little parable

(...and if you want to see a liberating transformation take place THIS YEAR, forward this file to everyone in your address book.)

Twitter  Facebook Digg Reddit LinkedIn StumbleUpon

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents


You Can’t Fight Well When You Don’t Know What You’re Fighting About

If you are having an argument with the IRS or any other tax agency,

  • You are NOT being presumed to have made “corporate profit”.

  • You are NOT being alleged to have received “foreign income”.

  • You are NOT entangled in an invisible “adhesion contract”.

  • You are NOT being obligated by a law whose subject is never identified.

You are being targeted because REAL EVIDENCE exists that YOU PERSONALLY HAD “INCOME” to which the revenue laws apply-- even though that evidence is almost certainly incorrect, and CAN be corrected.

There IS "A Law" By Which You Can Be Made Liable, And This Is How It Works

Now Learn How To Be Master Of The Situation

See the Proof

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents



Photographed on 1-70 in Missouri. America is waking up.


Do You Know What Happens When YOU Decide To "Let Someone Else Do It"?



"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do."

-Everett Hale

(...and every other person who ever really deserved liberty)


"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."

-Daniel Webster


"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."

-Edward R. Murrow





Get this graphic as a printable/postable/mailable .pdf

Browse other transformational-truth-spreading tools

Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

CtC WARRIOR SanDiegoScott has put together a great little 20-question quiz to test your knowledge of the law regarding the United States "income" tax. Test yourself, test your friends and family! Test your accountant and tax attorney, and help them learn the liberating truth!!

Click here to take the test

Find more quizzes here

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents


CtC Videos And Audio Resources


"Never must thou take up a false cry, or join hands with the guilty by giving false witness in their favor. Never must thou follow with the crowd in doing wrong, or be swayed by many voices so as to give false judgment; even pity for the poor must not sway thee when judgment is to be given."

-Exodus 23:1-3


Doing A Little High-Payoff Math

IF EACH PERSON receiving this newsletter each week distributed as few as 100 of any of the great outreach tools featured here to co-workers, friends, neighbors and family members (or just strangers on the street, in the mall, etc...), we could have SEVERAL MILLION new Americans suddenly introduced to the liberating truth about the tax!

Just like that! In one week!

C'mon, people, let's roll on this!

“Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.”

‑Dale Carnegie

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents


Spread The Truth


A Few Tips For Making Best Use Of This WebSite



When directed to a page by topic or link, read everything.

I know that this can mean the investment of a lot of time, attention and effort, but although some may imagine otherwise, I don't write as much as I do because I can't think of any other way to spend my time...

Furthermore, when you encounter a hyperlink within, or associated with, the text you are reading, follow it!

It is pretty common these days for web-based material to be littered with hyperlinks. Sometimes the purpose is to provide definitions or examples, in order to ensure that folks reading the original material aren't presented with a word or reference which they don't understand. Sometimes the links lead to illustrations pertinent to the original text.

It is common-- and perfectly understandable-- for folks who are confident that they are familiar with language or references within the main text they are reading to get in the habit of skipping over included links. I do it all the time, myself!

However, I very rarely include links for definitional or explanatory purposes; and when I DO make a link out of text in one page it is generally to another self-contained page, rather than merely illustrative material. These other pages contain material the clear understanding of which I deem highly important for the proper and complete understanding of the original page. (Links to CtC, the Victories pages, CtC Warriors and so on are obvious exceptions to this general rule. On the other hand, a link to the victory Highlights or 'Every Which Way But Loose' pages, which might seem like such exceptions, are not. The special selection of victories on those pages, and the filed docs and tax-agency correspondences included therewith, themselves constitute highly instructive material which merits careful attention. Thus care needs to be taken in all cases.)

Please make a habit of clicking on all provided links and at least looking briefly to ensure that the linked page is one with which you are completely familiar from another study session.

Finally, please keep in mind that, annoying though it may seem at first blush (but not, I trust, upon reflection), I constantly tweak material already posted. Obviously this doesn't mean that every page is in flux at all times, but it does mean that if you are directed to a page that IS familiar, it's worthwhile to read it through again if it's been a while since your last having done so.


Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents

"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

-George Gordon (Lord) Byron