Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Federal Mandates or Federal Intimidation

Some liberals have argued that the mandates of the new health care bill are nothing new. They suggest that previous entitlement programs such as Social Security are mandatory as well. However, a thorough study reveals something completely different.

All government forms used with the public must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). An agency wanting the OMB's approval of a form they wish to use with the public must submit a copy of that form along with an OMB Form 83-1. Form 83-1 informs the OMB as to the nature and purpose of the form the applying agency wishes to use with the public.

Question 12 on that form asks the mandatory nature of the information being gathered. There are three options: Voluntary, To Obtain/Retain A Benefit, or Mandatory.

If it were MANDATORY for you are me to obtain a Social Security number, the Social Security Administration would have most assuredly checked the boxed labeled Mandatory when they submitted the SS4 form to the OMB, along with the accompanying OMB Form 83-1.

A simple FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request of the Social Security Administration and the OMB reveals that when the SSA obtained approval from the OMB for Form SS4, used by the SSA when the public wishes to apply for a Social Security number, the SSA answered question 12 on OMB Form 83-1 as.........TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN A BENEFIT.

What does that mean? It means that if you WANT the benefits associated with the Social Security Act, then it is mandatory that you obtain a SSN. But if you DON'T want the benefits, you don't need the number.

That being said, allow me to reprint here an article written awhile back regarding the true nature of the Social Security tax. Please put on your thinking caps and read carefully. There are a lot of code numbers thrown around and legal definitions and court cases. But if you follow carefully, you will find yourself shocked by the truth.




The Social Security Act, which is part of Title 42 of the United States Code, was enacted in 1935 as a U.S. government‑sponsored, voluntary pension program for the benefit of individuals who wished to VOLUNTARILY participate in the program. The Act is administered by the Social Security Administration which handles the administration and payment of benefits under the provisions of the law.

The tax upon which the old age benefits is based is collected by the Internal Revenue Service under the provisions of Title 26 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”).

Monies collected by the IRS are not sent to the Social Security Administration to fund their administrative and disbursement activities, but rather end up in the general fund along with other taxes collected. An accounting "gimmick" is created to lead the public to believe that the monies paid in are held in a "trust fund".

There is no provision in the United States Constitution for the federal government to be in the insurance business. Although it may be technically correct that a so-called "trust fund" exists, the truth is that it contains no monies or other assets, only governmental IOU's promising to pay money to itself.

Social Security is NOT a contract as some allege, but a political promise upon which Congress could renege at any time. Monies disbursed by SSA must be appropriated by Congress each year as needed. Since no contractual obligation exists for the payment of any benefits, technically the benefits could be terminated at any time, if Congress did not appropriate the funds.

This ALERT deals primarily with those statutes relative to the imposition and collection of the tax. References to Code sections are those found within Title 26 of the United States Code, which is a codification of the Statutes at Large as enacted by the Congress of the United States. All Code sections shown herein are copied directly from Title 26, United States Code, precisely as printed therein.

All Internal Revenue taxes, including the personal and corporate income taxes, self-employment taxes, as well as the so‑called Social Security tax, are imposed and collected under Title 26, United States Code, also known as the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”).

The Social Security tax is imposed by the Code sections in chapter 21, subtitle C of the IRC titled: "FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT" or “FICA”.

Before examining the actual wording contained in these sections, it is important to understand that courts have repeatedly held that a statute means only that which is stated in the statute and nothing more.

Southerland's Rules of Statutory Construction, an authoritative legal guidebook, under section 66.01 titled "Strict Construction of Statutes Creating Tax Liabilities" explains the limited application of tax laws. The guidebook refers to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, which states:

"In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen."

So the Supreme Court tells us that IRC sections mean only that which is stated; nothing else can be added to that which is stated in the Code section.

With this Supreme Court ruling in mind, let’s look at the wording of sections 3101(a) and 3111(a) which are imposition statutes for the (so-called Social Security) FICA tax -- section 3101(a) applying to employEES and 3111(a) to employers, respectively.

(CAPITALIZATION for emphasis is added to certain phrases, Code sections and court decisions in this article.)

Sec. 3101. Rate of Tax.

(a) Old-Age, survivors, and disability Insurance. In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax EQUAL TO THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE WAGES (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) --

Sec. 3111. Rate of Tax.

(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance. In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, EQUAL TO THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE WAGES (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined In section 3121(b)) --

The popular mistaken belief is that the FICA tax, which is imposed on the income of "employees" under section 3101(a), is a "wage" tax. However, a reading of section 3101(a) shows clearly that the tax is not, in fact, a WAGE tax but rather is imposed on "income" which is MEASURED by "wages". Hence, the FICA tax is simply another INCOME tax.

However what is of vital importance in both these sections is the limited application of the terms "wages" (as defined in section 3121(a)) and "employment" (as defined in section 3121(b)). The definitions of these terms create a TERRITORIAL limitation on the application of the tax as we will see.

Section 3121 states:

Sec. 3121. Definitions.

(a) Wages. For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration for EMPLOYMENT, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include -–

Note that the term "wages" identifies monies paid for the activity identified by the term "employment" which is defined in section 3121(b), the essential part of which is reproduced as follows:

Sec. 3121 (b). Employment.

For purposes of this chapter, the term "employment" means any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an EMPLOYEE for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either,


(II) on or in connection with an American vessel or American aircraft under a contract of service which is entered into WITHIN THE UNITED STATES or during the performance of which and while the employee Is employed on the vessel or aircraft It touches at a port in THE UNITED STATES ....

As shown, the term "employment" means a service performed by one identified by the term "employee" within the "United States ...". United States is also a term used in this chapter as defined in section 3121(e)(2):

Sec. 3121(e)(2).

For purposes of this chapter --

(2) United States. The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.

The definition of the term "United States" lists those areas in which the activity described by the term "employment" takes place. The definition lists ONLY the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa as the areas in which the tax imposed by this chapter applies. Before examining the provisions of this law, it is essential to understand the use of words as “terms” when used in laws.

When words are used as legal terms in order to establish their clear and unambiguous meanings, precise definitions of those terms are always included in the law. These definitions explain the exact meanings of terms used in the IRC. As quoted earlier in this article, the Supreme Court in the decision of Gould v. Gould established that, in taxing statutes, definitions of terms used in the statutes cannot be expanded by implication. Nothing can be added to the definition of a term; it means only that which is stated, regardless of any belief to the contrary.

At first, it may be hard to believe that the definition of the term "United States" could be limited to mean ONLY the four island possessions of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa. But, that is exactly what this definition means because statutes mean ONLY that which is stated, nothing more, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Gould v. Gould, already discussed. Also, there are other decisions where the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the principle of the limited meaning of statues.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained two such decisions as follows:

"We begin our interpretation by reading the statutes and regulations for their plain meaning. The plain meaning rule has its origin in U.S. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 278 U.S. 269 (1929). There the Supreme Court stated that "where the language of an enactment is clear and construction according to its terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the WORDS EMPLOYED ARE TO BE TAKEN AS THE FINAL EXPRESSION OF THE MEANING INTENDED." ... The principle was more recently affirmed in Dickinson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103,103 S.C. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983), rehearing denied, 461 U.S. 911,103 S.C. 1887,76 L.Ed.2d 815 (1983), where the Court stated, "In determining the scope of a statute, one is to look first at its language. If the language is unambiguous ... IT IS TO BE REGARDED AS CONCLUSIVE UNLESS THERE IS A CLEARLY EXPRESSED LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO THE CONTRARY." United States v. Varlet, 780 F.2d 758 on P.761 (9th Cir. 1986)

Also, Code section 3121(e)(2) uses the term "includes" which, in law, is a word of CONFINEMENT and not EXPANSION. This is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said in the decision of Montello Salt v. Utah, 221 U.S. at page 455, wherein they stated:

"'Include' or the participial form thereof, is defined 'to comprise within'; 'to hold'; 'to contain'; 'to shut up'; and synonyms are 'contain'; 'enclose'; 'comprise'; comprehend'; 'embrace'; 'involve"'.

This U.S. Supreme Court decision, and others in support of its ruling that "includes" is a word of limitation, also support the Court's decision in Gould v. Gould that there can be no broadening of the statute by implication. Legislative drafters in the Internal Revenue Service who write the tax bills know very well this "plain meaning rule" of statutory interpretation.

If the term "United States" could constitutionally include the 50 STATES OF THE UNION, they would have specifically included them. As an example of this, Code section 4612, which relates to a tax on crude oil, defines the term "United States" as: "the FIFTY STATES, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the trust territory of the Pacific Islands."

This shows that when the term "United States" means the fifty States of the Union, it says so. Consequently, it is very clear that the term "United States", when used to describe the areas where the "Social Security" tax applies, means, and IS LIMITED TO, the four island possessions which are the only areas listed in the term's definition. Therefore, according to the wording of the law itself, the FICA tax does not apply within the fifty States of the Union.

This makes sense when one understands the limitations of the direct taxing authority of the Federal government as contained in the Constitution under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, both of which prohibit any Federal direct tax within the States of the Union other than those laid on the 50 State governments in proportion to their respective populations.

The FICA tax is administered by the IRS as if it were a direct tax on individuals. To be constitutional, any direct tax on individuals must be imposed by law ONLY OUTSIDE the 50 States of the Union: i.e. only in the four listed island possessions despite the IRS' deception of the public into falsely believing the tax applies WITHIN the 50 States of the Union.

IRC section 7655 also supports the limited meaning of the term "United States" as respects both the self‑employment tax imposed in chapter 2 of the IRC, as well as the FICA tax imposed in chapter 21. Section 7655 states:

Sec. 7655. Cross references.

(a) Imposition of tax in possessions. For provisions imposing tax in POSSESSIONS, see --

(1) Chapter 2, relating to self‑employment tax;

(2) Chapter 21, relating to the tax under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

Clearly this section also shows the application of both the self‑employment tax and the FICA tax imposed under chapters 2 and 21 to be limited to "possessions" (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and America Samoa, as listed in IRC section 3121(e)(2) defining the TERM "United States").




In the Code, there are many definitions that are limited in their applications by words such as "for purposes of this chapter", "for purposes of this sub-chapter" and "for purposes of this sub-part". In contrast, IRC section 1402 contains definitions of terms upon which there are NO SUCH LIMITATIONS upon their application, so the definitions therein apply THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE IRC. Section 1402(d) states as follows:

Sec. 1402(d). Employee and wages.

The term "employee" and the term "wages" shall have the same meaning as when USED in chapter 21 (sec. 3101 and following, relating to Federal Insurance Contributions Act).

Note the absence in this Code definition of any words of limitation such as "for purposes of this chapter" or "for purposes of this subchapter". This definition means, therefore, that WHENEVER AND WHEREVER the terms "employee" and "wages" are used ANYWHERE throughout the IRC, their applications are limited to those people involved in activities within the four island possessions ONLY, the same as in chapter 21, the FICA tax chapter.

The Internal Revenue Code chapter which relates to withholding is chapter 24, titled "COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE". It is extremely important to note that this chapter contains NO section imposing any tax. Rather, the entire chapter is written to establish and authorize provisions for withholding of tax merely as a method for the payment of taxes which may be imposed in OTHER sections of the IRC.

Whenever a tax is imposed, there is always a section containing words such as "there is hereby imposed a tax ...." But, in chapter 24, no such wording exists in any section; so clearly the entire chapter merely sets forth the PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING TAXES IMPOSED ELSEWHERE in the IRC by the withholding methods described in the Code sections of the chapter. Provisions of this withholding chapter are applicable only to "employees" as defined in Code sections 1402(d) shown above, and 3401(c) reproduced here:

Sec. 3401(c). Employee.

For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.

It is revealing that this definition INCLUDES the term "State" which is defined in Code section 7701(a)(10) as the District of Columbia (ONLY). Remember that "includes," as a word used in laws, is a word of CONFINEMENT, not of ENLARGEMENT according to the Supreme Court in Montello Salt v. Utah, as discussed earlier. Hence this definition limits the application of the term "employee" to those working for the Federal government, for the District of Columbia, for U.S. possessions, and officers of a government owned corporation.

Section 3401(d) identifies the "employer" as one for whom the "employee" works. This means that the meaning of the term "employer" is limited to those entities listed in section 3401(c) -- the U.S. government, District of Columbia, etc. The term does NOT apply to any non‑government employer or business. On the basis of these definitions alone, most of the nation's population is not subject to the withholding provisions in this chapter.

In addition to those limitations on the application of the term "employee" shown above, section 1402(d) LIMITS the application of the term "employee" and the term "wages" to activities within the four island possessions ONLY. Therefore, the withholding provisions of chapter 24 can apply only to those working for the Federal government or the District of Columbia, etc., within these four island possessions -- not within the fifty States of the Union.

IRC section 3402(a)(1) contains tricky wording which could readily lead businesses and individuals into erroneously believing that they are required to deduct and withhold taxes from the pay of those they hire. It is worded as follows:

Section 3402. Income tax collected at source.

(a) Requirement of withholding.

(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall -- ....

Note that this section 3402(a)(1) says that the "employer" (Federal government, District of Columbia, etc.) shall deduct and withhold from "wages" a tax determined in accordance with the Secretary's tables and computational procedures. We previously showed that the meaning of the term "wages" is limited by section 1402(d) to payments for activities occurring within the four island possessions ONLY, the same as provided in chapter 21 imposing the so-called Social Security (FICA) tax. These "tables and procedures" are authorized to be provided by the Secretary under section 3402(p)(3):

Sec. 3402(p)(3). Authority for other voluntary withholding.

The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding --

(A) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee's employer which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, and

(B) from any other type of payment with respect to which the Secretary finds that withholding would be appropriate under the provisions of this chapter, IF THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, OR THE PERSON MAKING AND THE PERSON RECEIVING SUCH OTHER TYPE OF PAYMENT AGREE TO SUCH WITHHOLDING. Such agreement shall be in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. For purposes of this chapter (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter), remuneration or other payments with respect to which such agreement is made shall be treated AS IF THEY WERE WAGES PAID BY AN EMPLOYER TO AN EMPLOYEE to the extent that such remuneration is paid or other payments are made during the period for which the agreement is In effect.

Note that the Secretary is authorized to provide for withholding by issuing tables, computational procedures and other instructional material on withholding that apply ONLY to those who have VOLUNTARILY AGREED to withholding. An agreement exists only when an individual who is hired voluntarily REQUESTS that money be deducted and withheld from his pay for payment of taxes and the one for whom he works completes the agreement by his VOLUNTARY act of collecting money as an unpaid tax collector for the government.

Despite the general mistaken belief that the deduction and withholding of money for taxes is required by law, a simple reading of this Code section shows that such is not the case. Mandatory withholding would conflict with two key provisions in the U.S. Constitution: the Fifth Amendment right to due process states that no person shall be deprived of property (having his pay withheld) without due process of law (a ruling by a court) and the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude, such as being forced to be an unpaid worker (slavery) or an unpaid Federal tax collector.

The use of the words "the person making" and "the person receiving such other type of payment" relates to non‑federal employers and employees who voluntarily "agree to such withholding". Federal regulation number 31.3402(p)(1) states:

Sub-Section 31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements. (T.D. 7096, filed 3-17-71; amended by TD 7577, filed 12‑19‑78).

(a) In general. An employee and his employer MAY enter into an AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) to provide for the withholding OF INCOME TAX upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of Sub-Section 31.3401(a)-3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement MAY be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder.

(b) Form and duration of agreement.


(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, AN EMPLOYEE WHO DESIRES TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) SHALL FURNISH to his employer Form W-4 (Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a REQUEST FOR WITHHOLDING.

(ii) in the case of AN EMPLOYEE WHO DESIRES TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) with his employer, if the employee performs services (in addition to those to be the subject of the AGREEMENT the remuneration for which is subject to mandatory income tax withholding by such employer, or IF the employee wishes to specify that the AGREEMENT terminate on a specific date, the employee shall furnish the employer with a REQUEST for withholding which shall be signed by the employee, and shall contain --

(a) The name, address, and social security number of the employee making the REQUEST,

(b) The name and address of the employer,

(c) A statement that the employee DESIRES WITHHOLDING of Federal income tax, and, if applicable, of qualified State individual income tax (see paragraph (d)(3)(i) of Sub-Section 301.6361-! of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration)), and

(d) If the employee desires that the AGREEMENT terminate on a specific date, the date of termination of the AGREEMENT. If accepted by the employer as provided in subdivision (iii) of this subparagraph, the REQUEST shall be attached to, and constitute part of, the employee's Form W-4. An employee who furnishes his employer A REQUEST FOR WITHHOLDING under this subdivision shall also furnish such employer with Form W-4 if such employee does not already have a Form W-4 in effect with such employer.

(iii) No REQUEST for withholding under section 3402(p) shall be effective as an AGREEMENT between an employer and employee UNTIL THE EMPLOYER ACCEPTS THE REQUEST BY COMMENCING TO WITHHOLD from the amounts with respect to which the request was made.

Note the wording in sub-sections (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this regulation: "... an employee who desires to enter into an agreement" and "REQUEST for withholding", "DESIRES withholding" and "mutually agree upon", all of which clearly and unambiguously show the VOLUNTARY nature of the entire withholding system. The significance of a Form W-4 "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate" is clearly explained in this regulation which states:

"The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a REQUEST FOR WITHHOLDING ...."

The printed heading on the Form W-4 confirms the voluntary nature of withholding; it states "Employee's Withholding ALLOWANCE Certificate". If withholding were mandatory, why would the form be called an "Allowance" Certificate? To "allow" means to “permit”; if the law REQUIRED the withholding of tax from your pay, no PERMISSION or request form would be needed! To have a non‑deceptive, clear‑meaning heading, the words could be rearranged to "Employee's Certificate ALLOWING Withholding".

Regulation Section 31.3402(p)(2). states:

Sec. 3402(p)(2). An AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee MUTUALLY AGREE upon. However, EITHER THE EMPLOYER OR THE EMPLOYEE MAY TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT PRIOR TO THE END OF SUCH PERIOD BY FURNISHING A SIGNED WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OTHER. Unless the employer and employee AGREE to an earlier termination date, the notice shall be effective with respect to the first payment of an amount in respect of which the AGREEMENT is in effect which is made on or after the first "status determination date" (January 1, May 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year) that occurs at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is furnished. If the employee executes a new Form W-4, the request upon which an AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) is based shall be attached to, and constitute a part of, such new Form W-4.

This regulation states that the AGREEMENT "shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee MUTUALLY AGREE UPON", and that either the employer or the employee "MAY TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other." Therefore, it is obvious that the withholding must be REQUESTED by the employee, must be AGREED TO by the employer, and MAY BE TERMINATED BY EITHER BY GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OTHER. The regulations merely state that the notice terminating withholding must be a signed, written notice -- no particular form is ever required!


Because employers have possession and control over their employees' earnings before the money is paid over to the employees, the key to the operation of the withholding scam is the deception and intimidation of the employers to withhold money from their employees' pay even if their employees object to the withholding.

Most employers, as well as their accountants and attorneys, have never studied the IRC carefully enough to understand its complexity. They are not aware of the geographical and other limitations in the Social Security (FICA) tax, and upon the withholding provisions in chapter 24 of the IRC. They do not understand (as explained earlier in this article) that the FICA tax and the withholding provisions apply only within Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa; that under chapter 24, withholding is not mandatory for either the employer or the employee, and that the withholding provisions apply ONLY to cases where BOTH the employer and the employee voluntarily agree to the withholding.

If a non‑government employer considers NOT withholding when his employees demand their full pay and consults his accountant, tax lawyer or the IRS about the matter, his attention is usually called to IRC section 3403. This section is a psychological bombshell designed to intimidate the non-government employer into ignoring and defying any employee's refusal to agree to withholding. IRC section 3403 states:

Sec. 3403. Liability for tax.

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AND WITHHELD UNDER THIS CHAPTER, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

This section usually erroneously convinces non‑government employers that they are personally liable to pay to the IRS the amount the withholding tables specify EVEN IF THEY DO NOT WITHHOLD THE MONEY FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES PAY.

Non-government employers rarely understand that the term "employer" used in this section does not apply to them because the term "employer" as defined in the withholding provisions, means ONLY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELATED AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES (listed in section 3401(c) quoted earlier in this article).

Even then, withholding applies ONLY within the four island possessions and then only when there is a VOLUNTARY MUTUAL AGREEMENT for withholding requested by the "employee" and agreed to by the "employer". Because of these facts, there is no way a non‑government employer within the 50 states can be required to withhold tax under chapter 24. He cannot be "LIABLE" for payment of the tax unless he voluntarily acts as an unpaid tax collector for the government.


The provisions of the Constitution cited heretofore, under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, prohibit any Federal direct tax on the people or their property within the States of the Union. If it were constitutionally lawful for the Federal government to impose upon us a direct tax on our wages in the fifty States of the Union without being in conflict with these constitutional limitations, why would all the above cited sections clearly show the VOLUNTARY nature of all withholding?

Why, in fact, would the Federal government not have a clear and unambiguous single section in the IRC which would simply say that all of us who work for a living in this country are required to give Big Brother whatever portion of our earnings it decides to take? If such a law were constitutional, it would surely be included in the IRC. Why all the convoluted, complicated provisions showing geographical and other limitations and voluntary "requests" for withholding?

The answer is clear: No such simple taxing statute is possible, because it is constitutionally prohibited to lay a Federal direct tax on the fruits of our labor inside the fifty States of the Union. All the provisions of the IRC and the implementing regulations are strictly limited in order to be in conformity with these constitutional limitations.

As shown herein, the FICA tax imposed on workers under the provisions of section 3101 is a territorial income tax which applies ONLY in the four island possessions. The regulations implementing the withholding provisions in the IRC clearly show that all withholding is voluntary for all individuals ‑‑ both government employees, (under 3402(p)(l)(A)) and non‑government workers (under 3402(p)(3)). In order to institute withholding, a voluntary REQUEST must be made by the employee and ACCEPTANCE must be made by the employer.

After studying these Code sections carefully, and understanding that they say what they mean and mean what they say, the complexity of the Code becomes much easier to unravel. Terms such as "United States", as defined in section 3121(e)(2), show the restricted meaning of "United States" in chapter 21 to mean the four island possessions only.

A student of the Code will find that FIVE other definitions of the term "United States" therein: Sections 638(1), 927(d)(3), 3306(j)(2), 4612(a)(4) and 7701(a)(9), also define the term "United States" for RESTRICTED USE in various parts of the IRC.

Each definition is different, in one or more ways, from the others as to the geographical boundaries included in the meaning of the term. But, as discussed previously, when a particular Code section intends to include "the fifty States" in its definition, it says so -- as in section 4612(a)(4). But, the term "United States" as defined in section 3121(e)(2) limits this FICA tax to the four island possessions.

Because of the dispersed placement of Code sections defining COMMON, EVERYDAY WORDS THAT ARE USED AS LEGAL TERMS in the IRC, most people who read the Code without thorough study are unaware of the unique Code definitions of these terms. These definitions limit the applications of the tax laws so that they do not conflict with the Fifth or Thirteenth Amendments, or with the constitutional prohibition against unapportioned direct taxes inside the fifty States of the Union.

The highly paid and well-trained attorneys who write the tax bills which are given to Congress for enactment are not dummies; they know very well the necessity of drafting these statutes in conformity with these Constitutional limitations forbidding direct taxation of the people within the fifty States.

But, through careful framing of statutes and the use of confusing and misleading words, terms and definitions, they make the IRC almost impossible to understand without deep study. Such actions perpetuate the intentionally created and false popular belief that the Federal government has the constitutional authority to tax us directly in these 50 united States.

But once these Code sections are carefully analyzed, one is reminded of the old adage: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!"

Sunday, March 21, 2010

This Generation's Stamp Act

In March of 1765, the British Parliament passed the now infamous Stamp Act. They did this to help offset the costs of having their troops stationed in America. More accurately, King George DEMANDED that Parliament pass the act because HE was having to pay to keep the increasingly rebellious Americans in line.

This wasn't the first thing King George had done to anger the colonists. But it was the last straw for many Americans. For the first time in 150 years, colonists would now have to pay a direct tax to England. The power to lay a DIRECT tax on a good or service opened the floodgates to endless controls and subjugations.

Does this sound a little familiar?

The parallel continues. In May of 1765, Patrick Henry presented the Virginia Resolutions to the House of Burgesses suggesting that only Virginia can tax its people. He also proclaimed, "If this be treason, make the most of it."

Virginia is now the first state to pass the Health Care Freedom act, declaring it unconstitutional for the federal government to compel Virginia's citizens to purchase health insurance or participate in any health care system against their wills. Thirty seven other states are preparing to do the same.

In July 1765, the Sons of Liberty, an underground organization opposed to the Stamp Act, is formed in a number of colonial towns. Its members use violence and intimidation to eventually force all of the British stamp agents to resign and also stop many American merchants from ordering British trade goods.

I can only imagine that, by all the signs appearing on just Facebook, that such organizations are already in formation to stand in opposition to this president and his tyrannical policies. May God have mercy upon us.

In October, the Stamp Act Congress convenes in New York City, with representatives from nine of the colonies. The Congress prepares a resolution to be sent to King George III and the English Parliament. The petition requests the repeal of the Stamp Act and the Acts of 1764. The petition asserts that only colonial legislatures can tax colonial residents and that taxation without representation violates the colonists' basic civil rights.

I can easily see representatives from several of our states coming together to formulate legal and civil means of opposing this bill and any and all other laws that violate state sovereignty and Constitutional rights of individuals. Every legal remedy must be pursued.

History continues:

On November 1, 1765, most daily business and legal transactions in the colonies cease as the Stamp Act goes into effect with nearly all of the colonists refusing to use the stamps. In New York City, violence breaks out as a mob burns the royal governor in effigy, harasses British troops, then loots houses.

What would happen, my friends, if millions upon millions of Americans, led by their state legislatures, refused to obey this law?

A year after first signing the Stamp Act into law, King George repeals the law. And, although there is some celebration and a relaxation of rebellion against the king, at the same time as repealing the Stamp Act, Parliament also passes the Declaratory Act stating that the British government has total power to legislate any laws governing the American colonies in all cases whatsoever. And a year later passes a series of new taxes through the Townshend Act. And although the Townshend Act is repealed three years later, in 1770, the tide had turned. The Colonists were certain that a tyrannical king would never afford them freedom.

And now, for the first time in 234 years of United States history, our own Congress has imposed a mandate upon the people of this country to do something in order to exercise their fundamental rights. Or is it the first time?

How many of you believe that in order to exercise your fundamental right to work for compensation you have to have a Social Security number? How many of you can identify that the very fact that the federal government can, AND WILL, prosecute you or me if we do not pay a tax for the RIGHT to extend labor for a fee is no different that what Congress imposed upon us tonight?

How many of you understand that the legal definition of a "license" is simply an authority or permission to do what is otherwise wrongful or illegal?

In that light, ask yourself this: why do you or I need a "license" to get married? Or to use your own private property to travel the public roads for personal (NOT COMMERCIAL) purposes? Why do you need the government to tell you its okay to hunt or fish on your OWN LAND?

I could go on, but suffice it to say, that today is not the first time in Congressional history that Progressives have imposed a rule of law upon us whereby we must depend upon THEM for our both confer upon us and to defend them.

In the dark of night, during the Christmas season of 1913, a very progressive leaning Congress imposed upon US a direct tax for the first time...the very thing our forefathers thought to be the final straw. At the same time they also began the all out assault on America and our Constitution with the imposition of the Federal Reserve.

So, my fellow Americans, do NOT act like this is the beginning of the end of the American we were given by our forefathers. We have been asleep for the better part of a hundred years. We must now not only rise up and fight for our liberty and country, but we must return to the faith of our fathers and pray that it is not too late.

Why do I say we must return to faith? Because, my dear friends, if our rights were not conferred upon us by our Creator, as our Founders have so eloquently said, then we must defer to the Progressives who would have us believe that those rights are bestowed upon us by government itself...a government of flawed, corrupt men/women.

I am no more calling for a theocracy than our forefathers were. This was supposed to be a constitutional republic based upon certain self-evident truths, namely that all men are CREATED equal (not, as the Progressives would have us believe, destined to all BE equal at all times), that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights...

Please allow me to close this rather long blog by explaining what those words mean.

The term "endowed" compels the notion that we are born with these rights. That the very act of being born imbues us with these characteristics.

It is also important that we must also accept that such rights are endowed to us by a Creator. No one, not a single founding father, nor I, am compelling you to devote yourself to a life of faith in that Creator. In so freeing you from any compulsion to obey or follow God in any way, shape or form it is not undeserving to accept that even you, as a non-follower, were also endowed with these same rights. As soon as you reject the source of these rights, then you are forced to seek out an alternate source of them...a source greater and surely less corrupt than man.

The term "unalienable" is by far the most important term here. It means, incapable of being repudiated (rejected, DEEMED untrue or illegitimate) or transferred to another. No, Congress has no right to bypass our rights or take them for their own.

It is time to return to the roots of all that WE deem honorable, true and good. Congress and this president have no authority to confiscate with our rights and liberties and if we must, we shall devote ourselves wholly to making sure that they are removed from a position whereby they can repudiate our fundamental rights.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Have Them Indicted For Malfeasance

Malfeasance is simply defined as: wrongdoing or improper or dishonest conduct, especially by a person who holds public office or a position of trust.

This clearly describes the behavior of the leaders of the democratic party this past week and the week upcoming with their efforts to ram a bill through that would have no legitimate chance of passing under any other condition. The people do not want this bill and have made it quite clear. Yet contrary to Constitutional provision the leaders of the Democratic Party are willing to usurp their power and position for the sake of passing this bill.

This, my friends, is is improper and dishonest conduct. These men and women can and should be indicted for malfeasance.

You may wonder how this is going to happen when our President, who is clearly leading this dishonest behavior from the Oval Office, controls the Justice Department. Surely he would not authorize the indictment of Nancy Pelosi or anyone else for doing what he is directing them to do. Well, the Justice Department does not hold jurisdiction over this matter. Each and every state and/or district which these politicians represent hold jurisdiction.

The state of Nevada would have jurisdiction over the malfeasance of Harry Reid. The State of Nevada's Attorney General could indict him for his behavior in this matter. The states of each and every one of these people could and should consider indicting and arresting each and every one of them. They can't cast a vote on ANYTHING, attend a single conference committee meeting or tend to their duties as elected officials from a county or state detention center.

Even if such indictments don't come down fast enough to stop them from ramming this through, the malfeasance would make their actions wholly reversible.

In addition to this, lawyers should be instantly preparing suits against them for this bill, challenging the constitutionality of it.

And lastly, I wholly suggest that each and every state prepare the necessary documents and declarations to declare this law nullified based upon the Tenth Amendment.

Even if these idiots are thrown out of office, I demand that they be investigated and indicted for their unconstitutional usurpation of authority not granted to them through the Constitution.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Is American Living Out the Prophesies of Star Trek?

Yes, this is a tongue-in-cheek blog entry. I am no Trekkie...but being of the age where I grew up on the original series, I've certainly watched every episode more than once. But you'll never see me winning a Star Trek trivia contest, or wearing some Vulcan ears to a Star Trek Convention. Just not my thing.

That being said, I couldn't help but notice recently how some of the original series episodes so closely resemble the events of our country today. Even down to the way the original communicators and tri-quarters looked compared to our present day cell phones and smart phones. But this blog is not about that...its about the episodes that seem to so strongly parallel our present day world.

Here's a short list of the episodes that came to mind:

Season One, Episode 8 – Miri

After discovering what appears to be a duplicate of the planet Earth, Captain Kirk and his landing party find a population ravaged by a strange disease, which has two effects: children are granted extraordinarily long life, but anyone who reaches puberty (including the adult landing party) develop painful sores which eventually kill the infected. The oldest child, a girl named Miri, develops a jealous affection for Captain Kirk, and works with the other children to kidnap Janice Rand after Kirk attempts to comfort the frightened yeoman.
The irony that our country would now be run by a bunch of over-aged, petulant kids is not lost to the average person.

Season One, Episode 9 – Dagger of the Mind

At Tantalus V, a rehabilitation colony for the criminally insane, the inmates have taken over the asylum using a neural neutralizer, which is used to remove (or implant) memories from a subject's mind. One colony administrator, Simon van Gelder, escapes to the Enterprise, leading Captain Kirk to investigate the colony. While on the surface, Kirk is brainwashed and taken prisoner, but is helped by Dr. Helen Noel, a colleague from the Enterprise who joined him on the planet. Spock performs a mind-meld with van Gelder to counteract the effects of the neutralizer, healing his mind and allowing van Gelder to take over the colony after Kirk and Noel's rescue.
Our White House is overrun by the politically insane. They want to ruin this country. They have slowly and methodically brainwashed the unwitting public through a takeover of the education system and mass media.

Season One, Episode 17 – The Squire of Gothos

The Enterprise discovers a rogue planet drifting through space, inhabited by an eccentric being named Trelane who uses his apparently unlimited power over matter and form to manipulate the crew.
One of the most obvious of all Star Trek prophesies. Trelane is the son of a god who toys with humans, manipulating them, playing games and eventually growing angry when they don’t go along with what he wants. Trelane is my new name for Barack Hussein Obama. ..our little god king.

Season Two, Episode 52 – The Omega Glory

This is my favorite episode. And although the ending isn’t quite to my liking, it doesn’t detract from the enormously profound message to us all.

The episode begins with the USS Enterprise finding the USS Exeter in orbit around the planet Omega IV. Captain Kirk forms a boarding party with Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, and Lt. Galloway, and beams over to find the other ship deserted, save for scattered crew uniforms with a crystalline substance scattered in and around them — the total chemicals in the human body when all water is removed. The team learns from the ship's logs that the Exeter's landing party contracted a strange disease on the planet and spread it back to the ship. The logs warn that they have now been exposed and will die unless they go down to the planet; returning to their own ship would only expose their own ship's crew to the disease.

Kirk's party beams to the last coordinates of the Exeter's landing party and find themselves in what resembles a Tibetan village where two fur-clad prisoners, a man and woman, are being prepared for a beheading by warriors of Asian appearance. Leading the warriors is the Exeter's Captain Ron Tracey who stands down the execution and greets Kirk. Tracey explains he was stranded when his crew succumbed to a disease, and only remaining on the planet confers immunity. He assures the landing party they will be safe, but only if they stay on the planet. Tracey then explains the prisoners are from a group of savage barbarians called the "Yangs" who wage war with the villagers called the "Kohms".

Soon, the Yangs attack the village and Galloway is injured. McCoy takes him into a hut for treatment while Spock investigates a pile of Yang bodies. He finds drained phaser power packs, clear evidence that Tracey helped in a previous battle in a blatant violation of the Prime Directive. Kirk tries to contact the Enterprise, but Tracey suddenly interrupts him and forcibly takes his communicator. When Galloway tries to defend Kirk, Tracey disintegrates him. He defends his actions, saying the planet offers valuable medical benefits — not only are the people immune to the disease, but they also have incredibly long life spans. He presents a villager who claims to be 462 years old with a father who is over a thousand.

Tracey orders McCoy to get to work on solving the secrets of their longevity and has Kirk and Spock taken away. The two are placed in a crude jail with Spock in one cell and Kirk thrown in one with the two Yang prisoners. The Yangs savagely attack him until Spock manages to nerve pinch the female into submission and the male stops in concern. When Kirk plots an escape, he mentions the word "freedom" to Spock, and the Yang male suddenly objects to an "enemy" uttering a "Yang worship word". Kirk convinces the Yang to help loosen the bars of the cell window. Once an opening is created, the Yang knocks Kirk out and takes the woman with him out the window. When Kirk recovers, he and Spock make their own escape.

Reuniting with McCoy, Spock works at modifying some medical equipment into a makeshift communicator. McCoy believes the natives' immunity to disease and longevity was simply the result of natural evolution; the inhabitants developed disease-resistant, hardy physiologies as a result of a cataclysmic war. As such, there is no isolated agent to find and any infected visitor naturally acquires an immunity in a short period of time on the planet.

Suddenly, a maddened Tracey bursts in and destroys the communicator with his phaser. He demands that Kirk order down a supply of phasers from the Enterprise to help fight off another wave of Yang forces. McCoy and Kirk try to explain that there is no Fountain of Youth, adding that the natives live such long lives because it's natural for them to. Kirk declares that Tracey's interference with the war between the natives has been for nothing. Tracey's mind snaps at this invalidation of all his efforts. He forces Kirk outside and demands that he order down the weapons. Kirk calls Lt. Sulu; however, Sulu insists on finding out the captain's situation before complying with the order, asking Kirk if he should have a security team beam down. Kirk refuses to explain why the arms are needed and tells Sulu the security team is not needed. Once again, Kirk tries to wrestle Tracey's phaser away, but fails. He escapes Tracey, momentarily, but is captured. Tracey is about to disintegrate Kirk, but he discovers his phaser is out of power.

The two fight over a nearby axe when Yang warriors suddenly arrive and take everyone back to their village, which appears as ruins of an ancient building. Their leader, Cloud William, turns out to be the prisoner who was in the cell with Kirk. Cloud curiously produces a very old American Flag and removes ancient manuscripts from a box where he begins to recite words — a poorly pronounced version of the Pledge of Allegiance. When Kirk completes the pledge, the Yangs are shocked. McCoy questions how they know the pledge, and Spock surmises that the cultures may have developed along very similar lines to Earth. Kirk speculates that the Kohms were originally "Communists" and Yangs originally "Yankees". Apparently, the Omegans had a Cold War much like the one between the United States and the Soviet Union, but unlike Earth, their war heated up and a conflict was fought many centuries ago. Even Spock found the parallel between the two worlds to be "almost too close."

The Yangs decide that Kirk and his companions will be executed, but Tracey tries to save himself by claiming that Kirk and the others are evil. Tracey tries to convince Cloud that Kirk and his party were cast out of Heaven, implying that Spock is "Satan." This is added to by the fact that their rendition of Satan does very much resemble a Vulcan (or perhaps a Romulan). In order to add credibility to his claim, Tracey informs Cloud that Spock "has no heart," knowing that the Yang chief is unaware of Vulcan physiology and doesn't realize the Vulcan's heart is not located in the chest cavity (as it is in humans and apparently also in Omegans). Despite McCoy's and Kirk's attempts to convince Cloud that the Vulcan is no devil, but just physiologically different, Cloud is not fully convinced and asks Kirk to complete the "sacred words" starting with 'E Plebneesta' from an ancient document he produced. Unfortunately, Kirk cannot quite decipher the words, despite their familiarity, and suggests instead that he and Tracey duel to the death — stating good always triumphs over evil. As Kirk and Tracey begin to fight, Spock notices a communicator near Cloud's female companion, and makes a mental suggestion which causes her to pick it up and activate it. (Neither she nor Spock speak into the communicator, but the implication is that she activated its emergency-alert signal.) Soon, just as Kirk subdues Tracey, Sulu and a security detail beam down to investigate the situation. Kirk spares Tracey's life and has him taken into custody to face Federation charges.

The Yangs now bow to Kirk as a deity, but he orders them to stand and face him. He looks over the ancient, crumbling document, which appears to be a distorted version of the American Constitution. Kirk finishes the sacred speech and rebukes the Yangs for allowing the document to degrade to mere shibboleth. He declares that the words were not just for the Yangs, but for Kohms, as well, declaring that they "must apply to everyone or they mean nothing." Cloud doesn't fully understand, but swears to Kirk that the "holy words" will be obeyed. Kirk smiles at Cloud, convinced that the Yangs, along with the Kohms, will now rebuild their ruined world. Before departing, Kirk stops to take one last proud look at Old Glory.

Season Three, Episode 75 – The Way to Eden

The Enterprise is hijacked by a criminal doctor and his loyal, hippie-like followers who are attempting to find paradise.
The description says it all….our fearless president and his band of radical hippies are trying to lead us all to paradise.

If you can think of any other episodes that you think can add to this blog, let me know.

Why Is Health Care A Commodity?

On my way to pick up my son from school today I was listening to Sean Hannity yet again short change a liberal caller's relatively legitimate question. Don't get me wrong here. I love Hannity. He is a stalwart for conservative values, and in certain areas he is incredibly well informed. Yet, on occasion, in his attempt to belittle and demean our political opponents, he will fail to see a huge opportunity to possibly convert a few listeners. This is one of those occasions.

The caller asked Hannity why health care is a commodity. Rather than explain how Sean came up far short in his response, let me delve into answering the man's question.

Health care is a commodity because people want and deserve to be compensated for their labor. Doctors, nurses, and technicians all perform directly vital services on patients. But the labor doesn't stop there. Hospital administrators, janitors, ambulance drivers and more are involved daily in the upkeep and facilitation of health care services. And let's not forget the drug manufacturers, truck drivers, office staff and thousands upon thousands of other people involved in the various other supplemental industries supportive of the health care practice.

All of these people have to be paid. All the people who many the equipment used by the doctors and nurses. All the people involved in safely disposing of dangerous items such as syringes and unused medicines must get paid. And, frankly, I am just scratching the surface.

Herein lays the first serious conflict. Unless you are prepared for no one in ANY industry to be paid for their labor, they you can not sufficiently justify compelling anyone in ANY industry to go without pay. Unless you are prepared for everything in society to be free, where no one pays anything and no one gets paid for anything they do, then you cannot isolate one industry over another for that very request. For as soon as you isolate such an industry, people, obviously still in need of money to pay for those things that are not yet free, will divert their career paths towards those industries where they can be sufficiently paid so as to afford the things that are not yet free.

Such utopian dreams are the makings of a very nice Star Trek episode, but carry little value or weight in a FREE society. There is no doubt in my mind that Socialist ideologues, like Obama and Pelosi and Reid, would love to bring about such a society. I mean, seriously, are these not the very same flower-power hippies who dreamed of this sort of world on Haight/Ashbury and in upstate New York in the sixties? Apparently those LSD-laced fantasies never really died. Now they are hoisting them upon the rest of us. To them, FREEdom is not about liberty but about everything BEING free. They don't want the responsibility of freedom. They only want the FREE. Did they care back then whether someone else had to pay for their FREE? No. Nor do they care now. They just want their FREE.

As a father of more than 20 years, I had only one thing to say to my kids as they were growing up when it came to issues like this. If I have to pay the price for YOUR actions, then you are not FREE to act that way. But when you are willing to pay the cost for your actions then you are FREE to do as you wish.

Of course, they would always push the envelope with me on these things. But it always came down to responsibility and accountability. They didn't like it that way, but they learned to temper their behavior to what they were willing to pay the price for and to show respect for my wife and me with regards to what WE had to pay relative to their behavior.

Isn't that what's happening right now in Washington. Our politicians have become irresponsible with regards to OUR money. They are writing checks for things THEY want, without regard for whose money it is they are spending. It is time, my friends, to close the bank account, cut up their credit cards and take away the keys to the mini-van. Their irresponsible behavior MUST be reigned in before WE have to pay the bills for their actions.