Monday, January 17, 2011

Feds charge icon with "jury tampering"

If the PEPOLE ever understand their OWN POWER, the Politicians and government employees will no longer have any POWER over them to extort their Liberties.

Texans Get "IT".

Tyranny by Consent

The third sentence of our “Declaration of Independence” declares, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The first half of that sentence (underlined) declares fundamental purpose of our government as envisioned by our Founders: to “secure” to every man, woman and even unborn child, those God-given, unalienable Rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The second half of the third sentence (“deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”) is less remarkable.

In fact, every governmental power, just or otherwise, is ultimately based on the “consent of the governed”. Yes, there'll always be some minority who do not consent to the powers of government, but so long as the majority consent, the minority's complaints will be ignored and the minority may even suffer oppression.

For example, when Nazi's exterminated Jews, that genocide took place with the consent of the majority of the German people. Yes, the German people might argue that they didn't know about the genocide. But, they didn't know because they didn't care to know. Their apathy manifested their tacit consent to the genocide perpetrated by their own government.
In the past, American Negroes suffered oppression by government with the “consent” of both the American majority and the oppressed Negroes, themselves. When the Negroes withdrew their consent during the Civil Rights movement, the oppression was dramatically reduced.

When Stalin executed millions of people in the former Soviet Union, he did so with the tacit consent of most of the Soviet people. As that consent was withdrawn, the Soviet Union evolved from a overt tyranny to a “kinder, gentler” government.

Ultimately, all governmental powers exist only by virtue of the “consent” of the majority of the “governed”. This is true because government understands that it's outnumbered and if the people really get angry, the government can be destroyed.

● Although a tyrannical government may hold all the guns and seemingly hold all the power, there are ways for people to withdraw their consent and thereby destroy tyrannies without violence.

For example, Mohandas Gandhi pioneered resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience a strategy based on noncooperation and nonviolence. Gandhi recognized that English oppression of India was ultimately based on the consent of the Indian people. Gandhi simply encouraged the Indian people to withdraw their consent, sit down, and stop working for the oppressive English. Result? England left India.

● Some oppression is driven by religion. For example, the Muslims will kill minorities that embrace alternative faiths. That kind of oppression can't be stopped by mere civil disobedience of a minority.

However, most government oppression is political and, in fact, economic. Ultimately, oppression is not about right and wrong it's about profit and loss. Oppression is ultimately about the oppressor's extortion of the wealth from the oppressed under the color of law.
Normally, oppression, tyranny, and even the seemingly less offensive “big government,” are all about the money and that's the oppressor's Achilles heel. Oppression will persist only so long as it's profitable. Remove the profit and the oppression dies. The profit for oppressors can't be generated without the consent of the oppressed. When the Indian people stopped working, India became unprofitable, so the English left.

Why? Because once a significant number of people refuse to consent to work for the oppressor, the oppressor can't afford to hire enough goons to compel the people to work. Likewise, killing the workers who won't consent is tantamount to destroying the means of production. How can an oppressive government generate more profits by killing the workers? It can't. Once the oppressed withdraw their consent to be oppressed, governmental oppression becomes unprofitable and therefore fails.

Withdrawing consent isn't easy or painless, but any people can slow down or stop working efficiently for the oppressor. As the nation becomes less efficient, less profitable, the tyranny tends to disintegrate.

● Something like that is happening here in the USA. The American people are beginning to withdraw their consent to big, oppressive government.

The most recent and dramatic evidence of this withdrawal of consent was the Tea Party movement that drove a number of incumbents out of office in last year's election.
But there are other, less dramatic, less publicized signs that the American people are withdrawing their consent to “big government” and these withdrawals may ultimately be more effective than even the Tea Party.

Small change?

A friend of mine applied for an “exemption” from paying Texas state sales tax (8.25%). Any Texan can do the same. My friend must now provide a “sales tax exempt” form to every company where he does business. He carries paperwork with him into every restaurant, grocery store and business.

I've been with him when he spent 15 minutes educating a grocery clerk and store manager to get his exemption recognized and approved. Result? He saved 50 cents in sales tax while I watched in frustration.

My friend refuses to “feed the beast” with sales tax. I, on the other hand, am too busy to fight that battle so I “feed the beast” its 8.25% and get on my way.

I don't know how many others have also begun to refuse to pay sales tax. But such people are withdrawing their consent to the oppression of big government. I, like most Texans, still consent to that oppression. So sales taxes and big government persist. For now.
But saving 8.25% on the cost of all goods and services purchased each year is equivalent to gaining one month's extra take home pay. I therefore predict that the number of Texans who withdraw their consent to sales taxes (and government oppression) will increase.

Traffic tickets

● Last March, KVUE-11 TV Austin, Texas, reported that the “Texas Driver Responsibility Act” allowed drivers convicted of certain traffic violations (especially drunk driving) to be subjected to additional fines (surcharges) imposed by the State. These additional fines could cost drivers between of $100 to $2,000 per year for as many as three years. The alleged purpose for these surcharges was to fund highways and trauma centers. Thus, the object of this oppressive legislation was money.

Today, State Rep. Sylvester Turner (who helped write the bill in A.D. 2003) admits that this law “does not work. We made a mistake.”
Why? Because at least 60% of the surcharges were never paid. 60% of those ticketed refused to consent to the additional fines.

Result? At least 1.2 million Texas driver’s licenses have been suspended for not paying/consenting to the surcharges. Most of those drivers are still driving but without a drivers license, and therefore without auto insurance. That's costing the insurance industry at least $400 million per year and dramatically complicating some automobile accident lawsuits.

● The Dallas Morning News (“DMN”) reported in “Texas' steep surcharges for driving violations clog courts, increase DWI dismissals” that this failed legislation had additional adverse consequences: clogged courts.

“A steep surcharge program for drunken driving and other driving violations is clogging state courts and causing the dismissal rate for DWI cases to skyrocket the Texas Driver Responsibility Program has had a "devastating" effect on the Texas court system, and judges across the state are reporting at least two years of pending driving-while-intoxicated cases as more defendants seek trials.”

The entire traffic ticket system relies on the public's consent to pay theirs fines by mail rather than litigate. But Texans are withdrawing their consent to pay by mail and choosing to litigate.

A good traffic cop can probably write at least $1,000 worth of tickets per hour. That's a gross of $40,000 per week per traffic cop for the local municipality. And it's almost all profit.

But if drivers withdraw their consent to pay their fines, they go to court. If they demand a real trial, the municipality can spend $10,000 or more fighting to collect a few hundred dollars in fines.

That's very bad for business. Municipalities can't run an efficient extortion racket if it costs them $10,000 to collect $200. Every court case eats up the profits from 50 tickets. If just 2% of those ticketed withdrew their consent and litigated their tickets, the profits from whole racket can disappear. If 3% contested in court, traffic tickets could cost the municipality more money than they take in.

Given that the oppressor's purpose is profit, once the traffic ticket business starts costing the municipalities money, they won't issue any more tickets. The traffic cops will leave the highways much like England left India.

Nobody has to threaten, shoot or bomb to stop traffic tickets. All that's required is for roughly 3% of those who receive traffic tickets to withdraw their consent to be fined. Without our consent, oppression becomes unprofitable and tends to perish.
Income Taxes

● Ten years ago, I saw a letter from an Assistant Commissioner of the IRS who guesstimated that there were roughly 60 million non-filers in the US. If so, about one-third of American workers, don't bother to file income tax returns.

What can the IRS do about this non-compliance? Not much. The IRS files about 1,000 criminal charges per year and generally two or three charges per defendant. That means the IRS only charges about 300-400 Americans criminally each year. If the IRS rate of criminal prosecution increased to 1000 defendants per year, it would still take 60,000 years to prosecute all current non-filers.

The income tax system can't be enforced. It can't work without the public's consent.

● On January 6th, A.D. 2011, USA Today published “IRS Tax Liens Jump by 60%, But How Effective Are They? IRS liens filed against taxpayers jumped 60% since the start of the national recession.”

Does this 60% increase mean the IRS has become 60% more aggressive or that 60% more Americans are withdrawing their consent to be taxed?

“The IRS filed more than 1 million liens in federal fiscal year 2010, the highest in nearly two decades. Lien filings can badly damage or destroy a taxpayer's creditworthiness. These liens can mean it's harder to get a job, find affordable housing or buy insurance. . . . Since the IRS pays to process the liens and file them with local county clerks, the report said it is "questionable whether liens generate much, if any, direct revenue."

Without the public's consent, the income tax laws simply don't work. If enough people simply stopped paying income taxes, the IRS would cease to exist.

For the moment, large numbers of taxpayers are withdrawing their consent to be taxed, but thanks to withholding the consent of the taxpayer is not as important as the consent of employers. So long as employers deduct taxes from their employees' checks before the employees are paid, the IRS will persist. But if employers ever withdraw their consent to withhold on behalf of the IRS, the entire income tax system will collapse.

No comments: