AN EDUCATION ON THE CONSTITUTION AND TAXATION. Part 2

Here is part 2 of the report on the Income Tax Issue.

Don't forget to join us on Tuesday January 7th online for the We The People Broadcast: The Right To Petition.
You can now educate yourself on the Constitution and you will discover things that were never taught in school. Hope to see you there.
Elaine Moreland

We The People TV Online

IS THE INCOME TAX CONSTITUTIONAL? CONTIUED FROM 1-5-03

Do you feel like we're narrowing in on the meat of the issue? Good, because we are!

Now that we know the points indicated above, what we really need to know is what is "16th Amendment income". Once we know that, we should be getting a pretty good handle on what is Constitutionally taxable and under what rules! Interestingly, in order to find the meaning of the word "income", as used within 16th Amendment, we must first explore the meaning of the word "income" as it is used within the 1909 Corporate Tax Act.


"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax [direct], but an excise tax [indirect] upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation".
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 414 (1913)
As an indirect (excise) tax, the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 was not a tax upon property, but was a tax upon the privilege [enjoyed by the shareholders] of doing business in the corporate form, and the tax to be paid for exercising that privilege was determined by how much profit each shareholder took from the corporation.

So why is the 1909 Corporate Tax Act so important?


"[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court".
Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)
By this decision, the Court stated that it would accept only one definition of "income" [under the 16th Amendment] and that any tax law that Congress wanted to pass under the authority of the 16th Amendment would have to use just that one definition of "income" - and that definition was the one Congress used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act! In short, the Court was telling Congress that since the 16th Amendment was a part of the Constitution [the non-ratification issue had not yet been raised] its meaning must be fixed and permanent, and since Congress could not be trusted to stick to one single definition, the Court was giving Congress one single definition with which to work if it wished its income tax acts to pass Constitutional scrutiny by the Court.

So now that we know the "form" of the tax being laid in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, and we know that its definition must be used in every income tax act Congress might create, what has the Court said about the definition of "income" in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act?


"[Income is] derived--from--capital--the--gain--derived--from--capitol, etc. Here we have the essential matter--not gain accruing to capitol, not growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value...severed from capitol however invested or employed and coming in, being "derived", that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal--that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description...". [emphasis in original]
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)
O.K...so now we know the "form" of the 16th Amendment income tax, the fact that all 16th Amendment income taxes must use the same definition of "income", and we have the formula for determining what "16th Amendment income" is. The only thing we're really missing at this point is specifically what activity is taxable under the 16th Amendment!


"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income', it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principle or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities."
Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)
In June of 1909 President Taft made a speech before Congress. After commenting on the Pollock decision, he stated:


"...I therefore recommend an amendmentimposing on all corporationsan excise tax measured by 2% in the net income of such corporations. This is an excise on the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity"
Congressional Record, June 16, 1909, Pg. 3344
Two months later Congress drafted the Corporate Tax Act of 1909.

So, if Congress could pass a tax bill laying a tax on the profits of corporations prior to the 16th Amendment, why was the 16th Amendment needed? We may never know what the true intention of the framers of the 16th Amendment were, but there are three prevailing opinions:


They honestly felt that the Pollock decision could be a threat to taxing corporate investment profits and so they moved to overturn the Pollock decision's holding that a tax upon the gains from existing property was a direct tax.
They did not think Pollock was a threat, but it made a convenient excuse to attempt to undermine the constitutional rule of apportionment on direct taxes, which many greedy politicians found terribly restrictive to their goal of robbing the American people through taxation.
They felt that shareholder's profits from state-charted corporations could not be reached by the federal government for tax purposes without the Amendment.
Because item #3 is the least well recognized, we'll take moment to explain that theory (items #1 & 2 needing no explanation).

The vast majority of corporations that existed (then as now) were corporations chartered by the legislatures of the states of the Union. While the federal government had the power to lay excise taxes, such power was limited to certain subjects that were traditionally and historically within the purview of the federal government for excise purposes. There was no historical, traditional, or constitutional basis for the United States to assume it had the power to lay an excise tax on Citizens of the states of the Union who were enjoying a privilege which was sought solely from their state governments. The 1909 Corporate Tax Act had authority over corporations created by Congress, corporations created in a federal possession or territory, and corporations operating in interstate commerce, but not plain old state-charted corporations generally. Under this theory, the 16th Amendment was necessary only to bring the profits of state-charted corporations within the Constitutional reach of the federal government.


How Does The Corporate Tax Act and the 16th Tie Together?

"[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court. In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved in the definitions quoted, what it believes to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)
Immediately at the end of that passage from Merchant, the very first citation provided by the Court is, Doyle. And how did the Doyle court define "income"?


"...gain or increase arising from corporate activities."
We wonder how much more clear the Court has to be before people will understand that "16th Amendment income" is only related to the privilege of profiting from investing in corporations.

Let's take this a bit further and explore this statement from a US Supreme Court decision:


"The word 'income' as used in the Amendment does not include a stock dividend since such a dividend is capital and not income and can be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among the several states..."
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)
While a "cash dividend" represents profit to the shareholder, and is thus "income" under the 16th Amendment, a "stock dividend" is not profit that been "severed from capital" as is required to meet the definition of income under the 16th Amendment (ibid, Eisner). The Eisner quote featured above clearly illustrates that the apportionment clause of the Constitution is alive and well and has not been repealed or substantially altered by the 16th Amendment.

Let's take a moment to evaluate where we are:


The Constitutional question we really need to be asking is whether a particular tax is a direct tax or an indirect tax. What label that tax wears, such as "income tax", has basically become irrelevant due to misapplication of the phrase for the last 90 years.
In historical terms, an income tax (pre-16th Amendment) was always considered to be a tax that was direct.
In historical terms, and in the words of the US Supreme Court, the 1909 Corporate Tax Act was not an "income tax" [direct tax].
The 1909 Corporate Tax Act was an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. This is confirmed by both Congress and the US Supreme Court.
Profit from corporate business ("16th Amendment income") is not that which the tax is laid upon, but merely a "yardstick" by which is computed the amount of tax that is due in exchange for exercising the privilege. In other words, profit from corporate business ("16th Amendment income") determines the value of the privilege, and thus the amount of tax to be paid.
The US Supreme Court has said that the definition of "income", as used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, must be used by Congress for all its (16th Amendment) income tax acts.
The US Supreme Court has stated that the definition of income used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act is what the American people had in mind when they adopted the 16th Amendment.
The definition of "income" as used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act is the exact same definition that the US Supreme Court has said must be used when applying the 16th Amendment.

Is The 16th Indirect, or Direct without Apportionment?
There has been much debate about whether the 16th Amendment authorized shareholder profits to be taxed by the federal government as a direct tax without apportionment, or merely confirmed that shareholder profits are taxable as an indirect (excise) tax, and therefore apportionment is of no constitutional concern.

At this point in history there is a judicial split. Six federal circuits see it one way, while the remaining five federal circuits see it the other way. While we feel confident that "16th Amendment income" is taxable only as an excise (for reasons too numerous to delve into here), in a broader sense we say, "Who cares?" If we know that "16th Amendment income" only applies to dividends, patronage dividends, and interest paid as profit or gain from a corporate investment, do we really care which type of tax it is? The US Supreme Court has stated that the 16th Amendment must have been intended to "harmonize" the taxing clauses of the Constitution, so whichever way one views it, a tax on "16th Amendment income" has still been deemed proper and Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. The bottom line is this: If you invest your money in corporate activities and you receive dividends, patronage dividends, or interest from your investment, you owe the tax under the authority of the 16th Amendment!

Before we leave this topic, we will tell you that in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, Co., 240 US 1 (1916), the US Supreme Court made it clear that the purpose of the Amendment was to reverse the Pollock decision (at least in part) by taking [corporate] investment income out of the class of a direct tax, and placing it back in the class of an indirect [excise] tax, where it "inherently belongs". [If you'd like to tie your brain in knots, we encourage you to read the Brushaber decision.] Interestingly, federal circuit courts on both sides of the direct/indirect issue cite Brushaber as their primary authority.

"Business" v. Private Affairs
The law can be a tricky thing because words used in the law often times do not have the same meaning as when we use them in common speech. A prime example of that would be the word "business". When we use the word the word "business", we usually mean only that a person, or persons, is engaged in some effort to make money. We don't mean to imply any special meaning beyond that. However, when the government uses the word "business" in its laws, about 95% of the time, they mean only the activities of corporations (and other state-created fictional entities).

When an American Citizen engages in a non-regulated activity from which he earns his living, such activity is not "business", as such term is used in most statutes. When an American Citizen engages in a non-regulated activity from which he earns his living, he is actually engaged in the pursuit of his "private affairs". However, he must keep his affairs private, lest he stumble into "business"! What are some of the actions that can change your private affairs into "business"? Getting a business license; getting a resale permit; filing state or federal tax returns that reflect the earnings from your livelihood; getting involved with your state's department of Consumer Affairs, performing employee withholding under subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, acquiring a Taxpayer Identification Number, giving out a Taxpayer Identification Number, etc.

A "business" usually owes taxes and is generally subject to government regulation, but for most Americans the pursuit of their own "private affairs", which includes the earning of one's own livelihood, is not a taxable activity - unless you make it so.

Original Intent consultants can help you steer clear of engaging in "business". Click here for information on our consulting services, including our phone number. You can also reach us by clicking on the "contact us" icon in the left border of every page of this site.

Also, to better understand this issue we encourage you to read the Original Intent piece on Federal Income Tax.


But What If I Don't Have "16th Amendment Income"?
If one does not have "16th Amendment income", then one cannot have any tax liability under the authority of the 16th Amendment. However, it is important to note that there are others activities that can give rise to liability for other forms of taxes.

A partial list of such activities might include; being an employee of the federal government or any of the governments indicated at 26 USC 3401(c); dealing in distilled spirits under any applicable parts of Title 27 of the United States Code and Chapter 51 of the Internal Revenue Code; doing business in tobacco products covered under Chapter 52 of the Internal Revenue Code; engaging in any of the various activities covered under Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, etc.

All of the above referenced activities are excise taxes. In other words, if one wishes to avoid the tax, stay away from the excise taxable activity.

If you don't have any 16th Amendment income, and you aren't involved in any excise taxable activity, the only way for the government to Constitutionally tax the money you earn in the course of pursuing your private affairs (which you now know includes earning your livelihood) is to do so by enacting a direct tax upon private earnings. No such tax exists today in America.

And remember, Subtitle 'C' "employment taxes" are not upon private Citizens involved in exchanging their labor for compensation in the private sector. For more on this subject, go to our page on Federal Employment Taxes.


Ratification of the 16th Amendment
There are serious and valid concerns about whether the 16th Amendment was lawfully ratified in accordance with the requirements of the US Constitution and the constitutions of the states of the Union. We will not delve into that discussion here because we are attempting to deal with the legal realities that currently exist concerning federal taxation. We hope that those who are pursuing the non-ratification cause will eventually be successful in having the faulty ratification process acknowledged by the federal government, and thus have the 16th Amendment invalidated.

If you wish to learn more about the issue of the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment, you may go to http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/index.asp


Is the Income Tax Voluntary?
The answer to that question is a resounding "yes"...and "no".

Over the years some people have used the sentence, "Income tax is voluntary" as a mantra; chanting it over and over again as if it has magical qualities, or as if by repeating it enough times, their own tax liability (if any) might evaporate. Unfortunately, wishing income tax liability away will not alter reality.

First we must understand that in tax matters there are two forms of "voluntary". One is the voluntary act that creates liability; the other is "voluntary compliance". The two are not the same issue.

Voluntary compliance means that when a person properly and lawfully owes any tax, that person acts independently and responsibly to file his return and pay his tax timely. Without a reasonable amount of voluntary compliance the tax system would collapse. Of course taxation in general terms is a necessary feature of government and a collapse of the nation's legitimate tax system is not in anyone's interest. What Original Intent objects to, as we believe you do, is the unlawful and coercive collection of income taxes from American Citizens concerning whom no Constitutional income tax liability exists.

Because no direct tax on private earnings exists in this country, our tax system is voluntary. But the part that is voluntary is whether or not you want to engage in excise taxable activities, and thus create liability that would not otherwise exist. However, if you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, the tax is not voluntary for you any longer - you volunteered and you must pay the tax.

There is another way Americans continually volunteer to pay federal and state income tax when they would not otherwise owe anything - you give people who pay you money your Social Security Number when they request a "tax number". By doing this, you declare that the money you are being paid is subject to state and federal taxation, even if it was not so subject until you gave out the number! For more on this, see our Federal Income Tax article.


What About the "Gross Income" (861) Argument?
We believe that the Gross Income argument is legally proper and sound. Its greatest proponent is undoubtedly Larken Rose. His clear and concise article on the Gross Income position can be found at http://www.taxgate.com/articles/taxable_income_larken.htm. Larken's VHS tape, Theft By Deception, which details the Gross Income argument in great detail, including its long statutory and regulatory history, can be acquired from Larken through his website, http://www.theft-by-deception.com

However, we want to make some important facts understood about the Gross Income argument. First, it is not an argument grounded upon the limits of the federal government's taxing authority under the US Constitution. It is only a regulatory argument and should never be misconstrued as a Constitutional argument.

Here is a critical point to understand: While Congress can never act lawfully beyond its constitutionally enumerated powers, there is no requirement forcing Congress to use a power that it has been granted. As an example, the US Constitution grants Congress the power to lay a direct tax upon the states. Congress has chosen not to enact such a tax. This same concept also extends to the regulatory side of law. Congress may well have the power to enact an excise tax that applies to more than the what is currently defined in the tax regulations as taxable income, but the Secretary of the Treasury has only promulgated regulations for what is taxable from domestic sources as indicated at 26 CFR § 1.861-8 (and its related sections). In other words, Congress may have authority to tax more sources of domestic income, but the Secretary has chosen to tax only the domestic source income that appears in the regulations.

And it should be well understood that in the absence of Congressional action, or the absence of regulatory enactments, no duty falls upon you and I as private Citizens.


How Can An Excise Tax Be Converted To A Direct Tax?
As you may recall, one of the foundations of an excise tax is "the element of absolute unavoidable demand is lacking". Once this element is gone, the tax becomes a de facto direct tax, solely due to the mode of enforcement. Here is what the US Supreme Court has said on the subject:


"[The Pollock court] recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct tax was adapted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard the form and consider the substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation of apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply." Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916)
What the Brushaber court is saying is that any income tax, which has been structured as an excise tax, but is enforced in such a way as to effectively covert the tax to a direct tax, would cause the court to declare it unconstitutional due to lack of apportionment. What type of enforcement might effectively convert an excise tax to a direct tax? Once the demand for the tax money is unavoidable, and you can no longer avoid the demand and/or the collection of the tax, even when you have not engaged in any excise taxable activity, that is when the Executive Branch's enforcement of the tax has converted the tax, in substance, from an excise into a direct tax.

I suspect that there are probably a couple of hundred million Americans who would agree that the way the IRS enforces today's income tax has effectively converted the excise [income] tax to a direct tax, and thus the tax should be constitutionally apportioned among the state of the Union.


Summary
This article could certainly have been at least twice as long as there is no shortage of material to examine concerning the Constitutional powers and limits of federal taxing authority. We hope that what we've given you has been effective in communicating the fundamental elements of the subject. We hope you have a better understanding of federal taxing authority than you did when you began reading the article.

Let's review what we've covered:

1.The US Constitution grants the federal government the authority to lay only two classes of taxation - direct and indirect.

2.Direct and indirect taxes are subject to Constitutional regulations concerning their mode of operation.

3.Direct taxes are subject to apportionment - even after the 16th Amendment.

4.Indirect taxes are subject to the rule of uniformity.

5.No direct tax on private earnings exists in this country - the disagreement of the federal courts notwithstanding.

6.The federal judicial circuits are split as to whether the 16th Amendment merely confirmed the government's excise taxing power concerning shareholder profits from corporate investment, or whether the Amendment created a new "special" form of direct tax that does not require apportionment.

7.In the Brushaber case, the US Supreme Court stated that any tax act under the authority of the 16th Amendment must properly be considered an excise, and is thus not subject to apportionment.

8.The definition of income used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 must be used in the income tax acts of Congress (passed under the authority of the 16th Amendment).

9.The definition of income used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition that must be used when interpreting the 16th Amendment.

10.The 16th Amendment only pertains to "income" in the form of dividends, patronage dividends, and interest from corporate investment.

11.The 16th Amendment tax is upon the privilege (to shareholders) of operating a business as an artificial entity.

12.The 16th Amendment tax is not upon "income"; the income is only the yardstick used to determine the value of the privilege, and hence the amount of tax to be paid.

13.If you have no 16th Amendment income, you have no liability for a tax imposed under the authority of the 16th Amendment.

14.Other legitimate types of federal and state taxation do exist beyond the tax imposed under the authority of the 16th Amendment. They are all excise taxes.

15.Capital investment funds, even when invested in a corporation, are not subject to taxation except by a direct tax subject to apportionment.

16.A tax on your private earnings still needs to be apportioned to be constitutional.

17.If you wish to conduct only your private affairs, do not trespass into areas that give rise to the presumption of federal or state authority for taxation and/or regulatory authority.

18.In most statutes, "business" means the activities of a legislatively created entity such as a corporation, partnership, statutory trust, etc., and does not embrace the your private affairs, which includes your livelihood.

19.Giving out a SSN or TIN (when lawfully required) creates a powerful presumption of federal and state taxing authority over your earnings.

20.Signing any federal or state tax forms (including a Form W-4, creates a powerful presumption of federal and state taxing authority over your earnings.

21.The Gross Income argument is legally accurate, but is not intended to take the place, and does not take the place, of a constitutional argument.

22.If you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, you must pay the tax.

23.If you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, you are expected (by the government as well as your fellow citizens) to practice voluntary compliance.

24.An indirect tax can be effectively converted into a direct tax by improper enforcement by the Executive Branch. In that event, the US Supreme Court has said that it is its duty to declare the former excise tax to be a direct tax absent apportionment, and thus unconstitutional.

ORIGINAL INTENT







GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR

AN EDUCATION ON THE CONSTITUTION AND TAXATION.

Good morning everyone. Today I am posting a two-part short education on the Constitutionality of our income tax system. These are the basics that will show you what has happened to us. This issue is going to be a big one in 2003 I think as the people begin to wake up and ask questions of our government. The problem is that the government will not answer the questions because they know that they would have to admit fraud to the American People. Take a few minutes and absorb what this article is saying.

When people write their Congressmen about this issue, usually they get a letter back that has been prepared for them by either the IRS or the Department of Treasury. These men and women will not step out and demand answers for their constituents. Taxation means power and those who have grown comfortable in Washington refuse to look at an issue which will dilute their power to stay there.

****Don't Forget January 7th at the We The People TV site. Here is the link: We The People TV

Constitutional Issues of Taxation
For more information visit Original Intent

Most Americans understand that all government functions must be authorized by their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States. While this understanding may not be as firm as it was in our grandparents' day, it is still fairly well acknowledged. However, some feel that when it comes to matters of taxation, the government throws the Constitution out the window and all must follow the dictates of the government or pay the piper. While this is not legally true, there is ample reason for people to feel this way. The purpose of this article is to clarify what the Constitutional boundaries of taxation are and what we can do to stay clear of the boundary markers.

First and foremost we want to assure you that even government's taxing authority must be exercised in compliance with your state constitution, or if a federal tax, with the US Constitution.

Some of you who have investigated the Constitutional limits of taxation know that the subject can be difficult and frustrating. The Constitutional issues of taxation must be understood not only through a proper view of law, but also through a proper view of history. Taxation is as much a part of our nation's history as is King George III or George Washington.

We will attempt to break down the Constitutional realities of federal taxation for you without inundating you with court cases and other citations. We will try to present a plain-English explanation that weaves together all the essential legal realities that are elsewhere [in other web sites and books] explored in such excruciating minutia (sometime correctly, sometimes not). We hope to give you a strong and logical framework into which you can place all that you have read or seen, as well as all that you may find in the future.


Prior to the creation of the federal Constitution, the United States had been operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation had a few glaring deficiencies, but the most problematic was the inability of the US to compel payments from the states to cover the operating costs of the federal government. In other words, Congress (which is nothing more than the states of the Union voting on what the national government will do) was authorizing the Executive Branch to take various actions, but then some of the states were not paying the bills responsibly for the actions Congress had authorized.

When the US Constitution was created, the Founding Fathers sought to correct this problem by giving the federal government clearly defined taxing powers. Direct taxes were to operate solely upon the state governments, while indirect taxes were to operate upon whomsoever would avail himself of a privileged activity (i.e. indirect taxation). However, because the states (as colonies) had been subject to taxes that were used for political punishment, as well as at times enduring taxes rates that were considered intolerably high, the Founding Fathers clearly specified the forms of the taxation that could be laid, along with the rules that the government must follow in order to Constitutionally lay such taxes.


What Does The US Constitution Permit?
The Federal Constitution only permits the government to lay two forms of taxation. One is a "direct tax" and the other an "indirect tax". Together these two forms of taxation comprise the whole; much like the northern and southern hemisphere - there's no third choice.

The term "indirect tax" never appears in the Constitution. The Constitution permits the US Government to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises..." [See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.]

Although there has been some debate about the meaning of the word "taxes", as it appears in the above quote, it is generally held that its use refers to the direct taxes authorized in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, while "duties, imposts and excises" are the three species of taxes which comprise the class of indirect taxes.

So how can we tell the difference between these two forms of taxation that the US Supreme Court has called "the two great tax classes"?

Here's a solid definition of "direct tax" straight from the US Supreme Court:


"Direct taxes bear upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment of rights". Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41
[See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, which grants the U.S. the power to lay a direct tax.]

In other words, direct taxes cannot be avoided because they are upon things that are fixed - such as your physical being, your real property, and certain fundamental rights.

By contrast, an indirect tax is a tax that you can avoid by choosing not become involved in the activity upon which the tax is laid. An example of this might be importing products from another country into the United States. In such a circumstance one is required to pay an import duty. However, one can avoid paying an import duty simply by not importing foreign products into this country. Another example might be distilling rum in the Virgin Islands and importing it into the states of the Union. If one wishes to avoid the taxes involved in such a process, one need only to refrain form the activity.
In short, an indirect tax is a tax that you can choose to avoid without giving up the normal affairs of life. However, if one cannot avoid a taxable activity without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life, the tax is not indirect, but direct.

Since within the class of indirect taxes, the excise tax is the one most familiar to the American public; what exactly is an excise tax?


"The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably."
American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880
Here is a more detailed definition:


"The obligation to pay an excise is based upon the voluntary action of the person taxed in performing the act, enjoying the privilege or engaging in the privilege which is the subject of the excise, and the element of absolute unavoidable demand is lacking" People ex rel, Atty Gen v. Naglee, 1 Cal 232; Bank of Commerce & T. Co. v. Senter, 149 Tenn. 441SW 144
You will note that two elements are mandatory upon the government if a tax is to be classified as an excise, and thus avoid the requirement of apportionment. The first is that your actions must be "voluntary". In other words, as stated earlier, you must be free to steer clear of the "taxable activity" without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life. Secondly, if you steer clear of the "taxable activity" the government cannot make a demand upon you for the tax that you cannot avoid by stating (or showing) that you were not involved in any excise taxable activity. We will revisit this issue later in the article.


How Does "Income Tax" Fit Into The Constitutional Scheme?
Although the tax that concerns most people is "income tax", the Constitutional question really rests on whether a tax (any tax) is a "direct tax" or an "indirect tax". As an example, Congress may pass a tax law that clearly structures a tax as a direct tax, and call that tax an "income tax". The following month they may pass another tax measure that is clearly structured as an indirect tax, and also call that an "income tax". If properly constructed, one bill would lay a direct tax, while the other bill would lay an indirect tax, and both would be referred to (by ignorant politicians) as "income tax" bills. You can see that the term "income tax" does not really answer a Constitutional question concerning taxation. For almost a century now people have been making the mistake of trying to define "income tax" as being exclusively within one tax class or the other, not understanding that it can be can be either depending on how Congress structures any particular tax.

As a nation, we have been fixated by the phrase "income tax", but it is important to know that term is one that can shift like the wind. We must focus on the issue of direct v. indirect. While the phrase "income tax" has a historic meaning in law, that formerly fixed meaning has been eroded to the point of near uselessness by misapplication of the phrase by Congress, the courts, and the public over the last 90 years.


[Editor's Note: Historically speaking, until the adoption of the 16th Amendment blurred the lines, the US Supreme Court had always viewed an "income tax" as a tax solely in the form of a direct tax. The Court did not view "excise taxes" as "income taxes". In many of the Court's decisions between 1913 and 1921, the Court clearly stated that the various tax acts passed by Congress, which laid excise taxes under the guise of "income taxes", were not really "income tax acts".]

Constitutional Regulations

In addition to allowing the national government to lay direct and indirect taxes, the US Constitution also mandates two "rules" concerning how the government can lay such taxes.


Direct taxes must be "apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union". [See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4.]

"All duties, imposts and excises [indirect taxes], shall be uniform throughout the United States". [See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.]
Although there has been some debate on what apportionment actually means in a political sense, it is safe to say that it requires the population data from the most recent census be used to distribute the tax burden evenly throughout the states of the Union.

Uniform means that each person taxed in a given circumstance will be taxed at the same rate as any other person would be taxed in the very same circumstance. As an example, if a person produces 80 proof dark rum in the Virgin Islands and brings it into the United States at the port of New Orleans, he will be taxed exactly the same as any other man who would do exactly the same thing. However, if a man produces 100 proof dark rum in the Virgin Islands and brings it into port at New Orleans, it is Constitutional for him to be taxed at a different rate because his circumstance (bringing in 100 proof rum) is different from that of the first man (who was bringing in 80 proof rum).


The Dastardly 16th Amendment!
Because this site is about facts, and not about rhetoric or hyperbole, we will not delve into the ugly waters of what the 16th Amendment might have been intended (secretly or otherwise) to accomplish, or how the politics of the 16th Amendment were devious, or whether or not the 16th was properly ratified. We will stick to "what is" in this day and age.

We describe the 16th Amendment as "dastardly" not because of the politics attendant to its drafting or its alleged ratification, but because of the great misunderstandings that have followed its alleged ratification and the massive governmental theft of property from the American people that has occurred due to that misunderstanding. It is a completely factual statement to say that the 16th Amendment has resulted in the largest fraud ever perpetrated by a government against its Citizens.

We say "fraud" because one of the elements of the crime of fraud is to remain silent when there is a clear duty to speak, and certainly our government has a clear duty to come out and tell the public that most Americans do not owe a penny of Subtitle 'A' or 'C' taxes, either under the original provisions of the Constitution, or under the alleged authority of the 16th Amendment (as you will see later).

Although the government has always had a duty to speak out, recently representatives of the United States Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service had agreed to attend a hearing arranged by We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and Congressman Bartlett. [The hearing was originally scheduled for Sept. of 2001, but was rescheduled for Feb. of 2002.] The purpose of the hearing was for the American people to get straight answers to some disturbing questions about US tax law and the administration of tax policy. Two weeks after receiving the first 199 questions, the DOJ and the IRS broke their word and pulled out of the hearing.

The questions that were submitted to DOJ and IRS can be viewed at, http://www.givemeliberty.org/bartlettresponse/draftquestions01-22-02.html

Furthermore, the federal government (with the state governments acting in complicity) continually seizes property not lawfully subject to seizure, routinely forces nontaxpayers into regulatory administrative tribunals, and repeatedly puts people in jail for not paying a tax they never legally owed. [See The Willful Failure to File Scam.] And all of this government deceit and manipulation became possible only because the 16th Amendment exists.

What Did The 16th Amendment Do?
The 16th Amendment was an attempt to overturn, by Constitutional Amendment, the supposed tax limitations placed on the national government by the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895). [While we see the 16th Amendment as being wholly unnecessary as a response to the Pollock decision, that discussion would require an entire separate article.]

Here is what the 16th Amendment says:


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
That's it! That's the entire text of the Amendment that has caused so much confusion and trouble.

Historically, Americans of yesteryear were aware that a direct tax was upon their person, or their real property (including slaves), or their exercise of other fundamental rights. They were also aware that a tax on the fruits of one's property (such as receiving payment from renting a piece of real property) was also a direct tax unless those earnings where in the course of a privileged activity, and then they were subject to an excise tax.

In Pollock, the US Supreme Court stated that a tax upon earnings derived from one's existing property (real or personal) must be considered a direct tax subject to the rule of apportionment. This gave rise to concern in banking and government circles because they felt (and we agree) that corporations are something that is legislated into existence by the government and therefore the fruits therefrom is properly subject to an excise tax.

In other words, the Pollock decision made no distinction between a man earning rent from his private property, and a man earning a return on his investment in a corporation. The former must properly be considered a direct tax, while the latter should rightly be considered an excise. The rent from a man's private property is his "private affairs", and thus outside government's authority to lay any tax except a direct tax subject to apportionment.

However, profit or gain (to a shareholder) from a corporate enterprise should properly be income subject to taxation as an excise taxable activity - after all, there would be no opportunity for said profit if the state hadn't granted the corporation into existence.

We may never know whether the framers of the 16th Amendment had a legitimate concern about Pollock being used to challenge the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, or whether it simply provided a convenient excuse to try and alter the Constitution's tax regulation (i.e. apportionment for direct taxes). Fortunately, it matters not what their intentions may have been; it only matters what was actually accomplished.

The US Supreme Court has ruled on the meaning of the 16th Amendment many times. However, because each case has had different particulars, it is sometimes difficult to understand the decisions in a cohesive fashion or to give all the cases one settled meaning. Fortunately, we don't need to spend a lot of time reconciling all the various particulars of each case because the Court has been very clear as to the definition of "income" as used in the 16th Amendment. Since the Amendment only grants Congress the power to "to lay and collect taxes on incomes", that definition is rather critical.

Let's look at what the various courts have said about "income" and the 16th Amendment:


"The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income out of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2D 575
The last part of that quote is crucial to a proper understanding of the impact 16th Amendment, and indeed the entire tax structure of the federal government. It is essential that you understand that only "16th Amendment income" can be taxed without apportionment.


"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936)
From these two decisions alone, we can pinpoint some very crucial information.


All property (which includes income) other than "16th Amendment income" can only be taxed if the tax is constitutionally apportioned.

"16th Amendment income" can be taxed without apportionment.

Obviously the courts are making it clear that there is a real and significant distinction between "income" in the ordinary sense, and "16th Amendment income".

A Citizen's property (which includes ordinary income) cannot be taxed as an excise.

This Article Can Be Found At: Original Intent


****To Be Continued Tomorrow.







GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR

THE TRUTH IS GOING TO SET US FREE!

Good Morning Everyone,

One of the main topics on the Let Freedom Ring Blog Spot is taxes. Below is an article I received yesterday that ought to awaken every American to the truth regarding the unconstitutional income taxes we have had forced (I thought it was voluntary) upon us. This article reveals the absolute fear the government has to answering the questions that We The People have asked regarding graduated income taxes. When enough of the American people find out the truth about this great fraud, there will be an outcry that will resound around the world. Here is the truth for all to see.

****Note: Don't forget that on January 7th you can begin a free education online with the We The People Group. If you join us, I can assure you that you will never be the same because our Lord has said that, "The truth shall set you free". Bookmark and Log on at: We The People -TV
God Bless
Elaine

And So The Tax Shell Game Begins...
December 15, 2002
By Dave Champion
(Los Angeles) The dominant media recently revealed that President George W. Bush asked the Treasury Department to draft a detailed report on potential alternatives to the current income tax structure. That report should be on his desk sometime in 2003.

One might ask "Why now"? There have been complaints about an income tax since its very inception. Many of the issues that Americans complain about today were foreseen and raised as objections on the floor of Congress back in the early 1900's. What makes 2002 any more significant for this issue than 1992, or 1982, 1972, etc? Certainly tax rates have been higher in the past than they are today. If tax rates are relatively low right now, why is the President asking for alternatives at this particular point in history, and what does it mean for Americans in the future?

Let's be frank, the President is looking for alternatives because the Treasury Department has advised him that the income tax system will soon be coming apart at the seams. "What?" you say; how can that be so?

Most Americans, who are not asleep at the wheel, understand that the dominant media only reports on subjects that it feels are appropriate for you to know about. Certain subjects are blacklisted and may not be covered. The imminent destruction of the income tax is one of those blacklisted issues.

Only people who utilize alternative news sources would know the following facts:


Legal researchers have been exploring the Internal Revenue Code, and the constitutional limitations thereof, for nearly 50 years now.
The US Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service had agreed in writing to attend a public hearing on Capital Hill to answer questions constructed by 40 of the nation's top tax law researchers.
The organizers of the hearing, We The People Foundation, had contracted for a webcast of the hearing so that any American with $25.00 and a computer could watch the hearing.
We The People Foundation was to make DVD copies of the hearing available to the public for about $10.00.
The US Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service backed out of the meeting two weeks after receipt of the 250 questions that they had agreed to answer "on the record" and "under oath".
The truth about tax law is getting out (despite the media blackout) and the number of non-filers is growing every year.
Most Americans are not even aware of these facts because the dominant media has decided that you should not know about them. On the rare occasion that the dominant media does report on the subject, they paint the Tax Honesty Movement as a group of crazed lunatics. The government and the dominant media have decided that you shouldn't know what the tax laws really say, and so you don't. Why does the government feel it's important that you don't know the truth about US tax law? It is important that you are kept in the dark about these events because you might come to the following conclusion:


The federal government has been telling us for years that people who say the average American doesn't owe income tax are delusional. Despite these government statements, the Tax Honesty Movement is significantly larger today than it was 10 years ago and the number of Americans not filing returns has jumped considerably in that time. If indeed the Tax Honesty Movement is a bunch of crazy off-base lunatics, why would the government not go before the American people, "on the record" and "under oath", and answer the questions of these purported nutballs and show the American people, once and for all, how stupid and misguided these pathetic people are? Certainly that would destroy the Tax Honesty Movement once and for all!
If you were thinking along those lines, congratulations, you're mental faculties are in fine working order. Of course not only could the government have put the issue to rest, but the public would have been watching on-line coverage of the event as well as DVDs being offered when the hearing was over. In short, if we are to believe the government's position, which is that the Movement is a bunch of mindless idiots, the DOJ and IRS had their adversaries in an incredible position to demolish them in front of cameras and a coast-to-coast audience! Can anyone in his right mind explain why the government backed out and then repeatedly refused to reschedule?

One must look at the timing of the events to clearly see the government's reasons for withdrawing. The government was planning to attend right up until they got a chance to review the questions! Within 14 days of receiving the questions, they gave notice that they were reneging on their written commitment! For more than 5 months they were "in", but within 14 days of getting the questions, they're "out". Even the most die-hard supporter of the government's confiscatory tax policies would be hard pressed not to admit that the government bailed out of the hearing because they couldn't answer the questions without collapsing their own house of cards.

Some might wonder if I'm making the point that the income tax system is collapsing merely because the hearing was cancelled. Nope; there's more.

Several years ago a little item was found in the internal revenue regulations that spawned what is today known as the "gross income" argument (also known as the "861" argument because of its regulation number, 26 CFR 1-1861-1). Researchers found that buried in one of the most dry, boring, and lengthy parts of the regulations was a nifty little part that limits the sources of "taxable income" from within the United States. It took a number of years for the regulation and its implications to be fully examined, but over the last few years it has found a dynamic champion in the person of Larken Rose. Rose has detailed the history of the regulations for more than 60 years. He has produced a video tape that lays out the regulation, and its history, and proves that the limits on what constitutes taxable income from sources within the United States has always been consistent. In other words, while the regulation has moved around a bit, its essential elements have remained unchanged for more than six decades. The facts on the tape raise troubling questions about whether there has been intentional fraud perpetrated on the American people by the federal and state governments in regard to what income has really been taxable to the average working American.

Rose, who has not filed a personal income tax return since 1997, has publicly dared the US Secretary of the Treasury and the US Attorney General to prosecute him for not filing. They have declined his offer. This is yet another telling development (much like the withdrawal from the hearing), which clearly indicates that the government has to hide in the dark, like a vampire in daytime, when the light of truth is openly shined upon the legal issues. Are these the only significant developments? Nope.

It is speculated that the most likely form of replacement tax for a discredited income tax will be a national sales tax. Interestingly, just last week, a number of state governments sent representatives to a conference to discuss the issue of establishing uniformity in the sales tax laws of the various states. This was approached under the guise of trying to convince Congress that the states are doing the hard work necessary to motivate Congress to permit sales tax on e-commerce transactions. Since it is thoroughly unlikely that Congress will lift its restriction on taxing Internet transactions anytime soon, the far more likely (but unspoken) explanation is that the states are preparing to piggyback a national sales tax onto their own sales tax system. The states want the power that comes from having a federal sales tax linked to their own state sales tax but there's a small stumbling block; states can't qualify to co-administrate a state/national sales tax unless their tax statutes mirror federal law. Getting the picture now?

Now we also see Congress beginning to jump on the "end the income tax" bandwagon. HR 2525, entitled, "The Fair Tax Act" [ha!], begins with these words, "Congress finds that the Federal income tax; (1) retards economic growth and has reduced the standard of living of the American public; (2) impedes the international competitiveness of United States industry; (3) reduces savings and investment in the United States by taxing income multiple times; (4) slows the capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase; (5) lowers productivity; (6) imposes unacceptable and unnecessary administrative and compliance costs on individual and business taxpayers; (7) is unfair and inequitable; (8) unnecessarily intrudes upon the privacy and civil rights of United States citizens; (9) hides the true cost of government by embedding taxes in the costs of everything Americans buy; (10) is not being complied with at satisfactory levels and therefore raises the tax burden on law abiding citizens; and (11) impedes upward social mobility." Well gee...there's a big news flash. It only took Congress 90 years to publicly admit what the American public has known all along.

Within the last few weeks former IRS Commission Rossotti has left office. Before he left office, Rossotti stressed to Congress that the IRS had inadequate funding and personnel to catch tax cheats and other tax scofflaws. I posit this question for your consideration: How much would it have cost to send some attorneys to the planned two-day hearing (to which the IRS had already committed itself in writing) to answer tax researcher's questions, and if the government is telling the truth, decimate the Tax Honesty Movement forever? I suspect that in terms of government expenditures, sending a whole fleet of attorneys to the hearing would not have created a blip in their spending radar. Let's see now...hmmm...what's the cost of sending a couple of DOJ and IRS attorneys to Capital Hill for two days, which if the government has the legal facts on its side would have scared millions of "tax protesters" back into the tax system. Gee, seems like a pretty good deal for the government (yet again). Why do you think Rossotti and Ashcroft didn't send their best attorneys? I think the answer is self-evident.

And if Rossotti was truly concerned with "compliance issues", why did he consistently refuse to prosecute Larken Rose during his tenure in office? Larken and his videotapes are well known to Rossotti, and the Service knows that the "gross income" position is compelling hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people not to file. Even multi-millionaires like Wesley Snipe are relying upon the argument. It would seem that if Rossotti wanted to kill the "gross income" argument, the best and cheapest way would be to convict Rose of Willful Failure to File. Once again a plainly inexpensive way to increase compliance is left undone by Rossotti. Obvious Rossotti was unwilling to bring the "gross income" argument before the courts and a jury.

As the Tax Honesty Movement has grown and the information has been disseminated more widely (thanks primarily to the Internet), the IRS has been hit with some humiliating defections. Most notable among the IRS employees who could no longer pursue their careers in good conscience is Joseph Banister.

Banister was a badge-carrying, gun-toting, criminal investigator for the IRS. His job was to put those nasty Tax Honesty People (as well as others) in jail. His service record with IRS shows that he was an excellent agent for the Service. However, in the course of one of his investigations, he made the mistake of actually reading some Tax Honesty information. He thought he'd read the information, de-bunk it, and be ready to show the opposition how wrong they were. Problem was, he found that he couldn't de-bunk it; it all checked out!

Remember earlier in this article we discussed that the government attorneys pulled out of the Tax Honesty hearing because they couldn't answer the questions presented by the researchers without bringing down their own house of cards? Well, Banister experienced the same thing on a smaller scale. After he found that significant parts of the Tax Honesty Movement's information were accurate, he compiled a 60-page report and submitted it to his boss (the regional director of CID) and the IRS Commissioner's office. He requested clarification of the issues that he'd discovered. Guess what? Not only did they refuse to respond to a single concern that he listed in his report, but they gave him a week off and told him he could either shut up and come back to work, or leave the Service, but under no circumstances would the Service respond to any of his questions.

Imagine that your job is to put people in jail for violating the law, but when you discover that it may be unlawful to apply the Code as you've been taught, no one in your chain of command will even consider having a discussion with you to clarify the issues. Hmmmdoesn't seem to pass the smell test does it? Banister didn't think so either, so he resigned. And what does Banister do today? He represents people against the IRS and conducts speaking engagements all over the country on the unlawful actions of the IRS. His personal story and much more information is available on his website, http://www.freedomabovefortune.com.

So let's review our facts:

The Tax Honesty Movement is bigger today than it was just a few years ago.
There are more non-filers every year. Many people are not filing because of what they're learning from the Tax Honesty Movement. Non-filers are reaching a dangerous level in the eyes of the Treasury Department.
The US Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service agreed, in writing, to attend a hearing on Capital Hill for the purpose of answering questions from the Tax Honesty Movement's legal researchers.
After reading the proposed questions, both DOJ and IRS pulled out of the hearing.
Efforts were made to get DOJ and IRS to honor their commitment, but they steadfastly refused.
Congress is now considering legislation that characterizes the income tax, with unusual candor, as an unfair form of taxation.
IRS criminal investigators and revenue officers are resigning as they discover the truth about US income tax laws.
Rossotti and Ashcroft have refused to prosecute Larken Rose for not filing income tax returns based on the "gross income" position.
Rossotti (one of the most popular IRS Commissioner with Congress) has resigned when the option to stay on was certainly open to him.
President Bush has asked the Treasury Department to report to him alternatives forms of taxation to the income tax. The leading option almost certainly being a national sales tax.
The states have begun to meet to make their sales tax laws uniform.
The states must have uniform sales tax laws, which mirror a federal sales tax, if they wish to "partner" with the federal government on the collection of sales tax.
As has been the case for many years now, the government is making a unilateral decision without involving their bosses - YOU! The decision has almost certainly been made to shift to a consumption tax (in the form of a national sales tax) and the only people who haven't been told about it yet are YOU! How does it feel to live in a country where national decisions of momentous proportion are made, which affect the fabric of your daily lives in a significant manner, and you weren't even asked about it?

This nation is supposed to be "by the people, and for the people". The truth however is that the decision to change tax systems has already been made. While your Representatives and Senators will vote on the change, there is no question how they will vote. We have reached the point in this nation's history where those who hold the true reins of power have no doubts as to their ability to control Congress. In short, our national legislature has been reduced to a footstool for the power elite.

The only thing that can derail a NST at this point is if the Treasury Department's report to Bush states that a Congressionally mandated national sales tax is constitutionally questionable (which it is). [Possibly this is why O'Neill is "out" and Snow is "in" at Treasury. Possibly O'Neill wouldn't write the report the way Bush wanted it written.]

So what is the good news in all of this? The good news is that what took researchers 50 years to unravel concerning the incredibly complex income tax laws, will take just a few short years for sales tax. Sales tax is an excise tax. An excise tax is a "privilege" tax. Most Americans don't exercise any "privilege" when buying something (which becomes their own personal property) and then selling it to someone else. Buying and selling non-regulated items in the course of the ordinary affairs of life is a common law right of every American and is not subject to taxation by the government as an excise. That point is so self-evident, and is supported by so much well-established legal history, that the government's shell game (kill one form of taxation and replace it with another) will likely only serve as a stopgap measure.

Another piece of good news is that well-informed "Mom and Pop" operations should see a significant increase in business once a national sales tax is implemented. If a major company like, sayBest Buysis tacking on 27% in sales tax, but Bob's Electronics down the road is not, you do the math. Many private businesses do not charge state sales tax. Nothing will change for them when Congress enacts a national sales tax.

Nevertheless, the tax shell game that the government is playing is a real threat and few understand why. The government is not proposing to repeal the 16th Amendment (which is the oft quoted "authority" for the modern income tax); the government is only planning to repeal the laws pertaining to a graduated income tax and replace them with a national sales tax. So what happens when the government decides that the NST isn't bringing in enough revenue? What is stopping them from re-instituting a revised form of individual income tax (possibly a flat tax) on top of the national sales tax? If you say, "We won't stand for it", think again. Congress no longer listens to you; its marching orders come from elsewhere.

Visit the Original Website Today For More Informative Articles: ORIGINAL INTENT


FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN, THINK ABOUT IT!







GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR

This is an exicting announcement I am able to make this morning. We The People are going live on Internet Television. You will be able to view the broadcast right from your own computer and this program will begin to teach all the people about our Constitution, taxes, freedom and what is happening in America. We The People founder, Robert Schulz is a Christian and is dedicated to teaching fellow Americans the truth about all of the above mentioned topics plus more. I plan on being there January 7th along thousands of other Americans. I pray you will be there and begin an education none of us ever received in the government schools. I am providing a link below to the TV site so bookmark it and join me on January 7th.

God Bless
Elaine

Welcome to WPT-TV !

We The People Television


To access the internet broadcast click here: Go To WPT-TV
(Note: The Link will NOT be active until 6 PM Eastern, Jan 7th)

Don’t Change That Channel:
WTP-TV Is On The Air

Next week, WTP unveils its latest technological weapon in the quest to restore the Republic and the Constitution: The ability to produce and broadcast, a regularly scheduled live multimedia, multi-source, television quality program series across America.

We The People Foundation has acquired access to a large Internet broadcast "pipeline" and specialized conferencing/video collaboration software that will enable live video feeds from multiple locations around the nation to be broadcast live over the Internet. These feeds can be integrated into a single viewing screen that will be transmitted nationwide for TV quality reception.


Moving far beyond our previous experiences with Internet web casts, which have already been seen by tens of thousands, WTP now possesses the capability to reach a virtually unlimited mass audience each week. The technology that allowed us to have just a few (and very expensive) webcast events (such as the Freedom Drive event in DC on November 14th, or our National Press Club press conferences or the Truth-in-Taxation hearing) is now available for our weekly and eventually, even daily use.

Aside from live broadcasts, WTP intends to produce and deploy a full "library" of video oriented and non-video training and educational materials that will be necessary to obtain our objectives. Our weekly WTP shows will also be archived for later viewing.

With this technology, WTP now has the ability to independently cover tax and freedom related events and news stories from anywhere we can get a digital camera and an Internet connection. We will bring this coverage into the offices and living rooms of freedom defenders everywhere.

Consider being able to participate in a conference or live training class and ask questions from your virtual conference seat. Consider the ability to regularly witness – live -- the real-time TV coverage of freedom related news events or video of the daily Constitutional travesties that are ignored by the dominant media. Consider virtual WTP Congress Coordinator meetings. Consider that this might grow to be the first television channel devoted solely to restoring freedom as it was intended.

The initial program series will be directed at informing masses of Americans about our new agenda to restore our Constitution and enforce our Right to Petition including a new WTP Legal Defense Fund and new educational materials and programs informing:

a) employers about why and how they should stop withholding;

b) employees about why and how they should approach their employers to stop withholding; and

c) the self-employed about why and how they should stop filing and paying income taxes.

Our broadcast can also be displayed on your own television if your computer has a video output port and your television has an appropriate video input jack. We encourage everyone to start to investigate connecting your computer to your television so that groups of people can gather together to view our broadcasts and share the vision and energy of what is happening as we act together to correct what ails our nation. We encourage you to share news of WTP-TV with everyone. This is particularly imperative for our first broadcast next week.

You must have the latest version of Microsoft Media Player to receive the broadcast. lf you need it, click on the following link below, save it to your desk top, then follow the instructions for installing.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/winmediaplayer/wmp71/7.1/w982kme/en-us/mp71.exe


The initial broadcast will be at 9:30 PM (Eastern) on TUESDAY January 7, 2003 (6:30 PM Pacific).

To watch the broadcast go to the following url: http://www.givemeliberty.org/WTP-TV.htm

The initial broadcast will be introductory in nature and will only exercise a fraction of the video production and broadcast capability we now possess.

We will present a clearly defined mission statement and a plan of action.

Future broadcasts will include specific "How To" instructions, "Action Item" recommendations, "New and Views" with individual guests and panels from around the nation.

The program will be user friendly, if not government friendly.

The producers and hosts of the program acknowledge and will start from the Points of Departure as established by the We The People organization: the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing; the 538 Causes of Action; the Four Petitions for Redress; the demand for an apology from and response to Daniel Bryant; etc.


First Broadcast: January 7, 2003

9:30 PM (Eastern), 6:30 PM (Pacific)


ARTICLE FROM THE WORLD NET DAILY 1-3-03: BOB SHULZ DEMANDS APOLOGY FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

Those people who are not governed by God will be ruled by tyrants. -- William Penn







GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR

Good Morning Everyone and Happy New Year 2003.

Today I am posting an article that is disturbing and I am sure will stir up some "cognitive dissonance" in many people. Please know that I have prayerfully written these comments not to hurt anyone. My hope is that The Let Freedom Ring Site will awaken Christians and Americans to what is happening in our beloved country.

We all have heard the old saying, "Do not argue politics and religion". Well, because I come from a line of Whaley's that fled England due to being on the wrong side of politics, I inherited the ability to say things that might not be so popular with a lot of the general public. Let me say at the outset of this article that there are a lot of saved people in the mainline churches. I know that many people stay due to tradition, blind loyalty or with the belief that they will change their church by staying in it. However, there is no stopping the One World Church Movement because prophetic scriptures tell us a False Prophet will come who aligns himself with the Antichrist to head an ungodly conglomeration of all of the world religions.

Before I comment further, let me quote a couple of scriptures that warn people of the false prophets and religions that would come.

Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

2 Corinthians 6:17
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

These scriptures tell us that there will come false religions and prophets who would masquarade as true believers but in truth oppose the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Included in this group are the false teachers who deny the Atoning Death of our Savior and the Literal truth of the Scriptures. We are seeing this apstasy today in the Ecumenical Movement and among the members of this One World Religous group are Mainline Churches in America!

Back in the early 1960's when my Dad began to teach against the National Council of Churches, we were members of the United Methodist Church. Daddy had researched the NCC and WCC and found it full of Marxist Leaders who opposed the True Church of the Living God and had a desire to unite all religions into one big happy family. Truth was not important to these people. Heiarchy in the UMC did not appreciate my dad revealing these facts and the word went out that they had to "get rid of George Whaley". Well my dad resigned the church and my mother still has the letter he wrote to the church leaders.

As a result of our leaving that church where I had Sunday School Attendance Pins down to the floor, my family, due to the grace of our Lord, found a church that taught the fundamentals of the faith and we all were gloriously saved. We began to learn the truths of scripture and doctrine instead of a social gospel that would not offend or save anyone. Never had we been taught in the UMC that you had to be "Born Again". Never were we taught that the Word of God was pure and living and divinely inspired. In our new church family we learned these things and began to truly love the precious Word of God.

Well enough personal history. I have posted this article from the World Net Daily to show the facts as to what some of our mainline denominations are doing these days. Number one they have aligned themselves with ungodly cults and false religions. Sadly for members in these denominations, they must realize that they are being counted among the flock and even if they send no money to these groups, the sheer numbers of members give these false prophets political clout. I pray that more precious Christians who are numbered in these groups will do what the scripture teaches and get out of them. I pray that the Lord will lead them to churches who love the Word of God and stand on truth against this organization whose head is Satan. I pray that many who are not saved will find the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord before it is everlastingly too late.



**********Note: I realize that there are many fine Christian Leaders in mainline churches today who love the Lord. However they are rapidly becoming outnumbered by the Liberal factions in Seminaries that train preachers. As the One World Church moves forward and truths are exposed we need to pray for these leaders that the Lord will guide them to make the right decision as to what is happening and what to do about it.***************


Now let the truths from this article speak for themselves. From The : World Net Daily

EYE ON THE GULF
Anti-war U.S. church leaders
in Baghdad
Peace mission includes unplanned visit with Deputy PM Tariq Aziz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 1, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
A delegation of U.S. religious leaders who oppose war with Iraq is in Baghdad on a "humanitarian mission of peace" organized by the National Council of Churches.

NCC General Secretary Bob Edgar arrived with the group Monday for meetings with heads of local churches, mosques, schools, hospitals, the Red Crescent Society and other agencies operating in Iraq.

The itinerary did not include visits with government leaders, but the delegation met yesterday with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, according to a media coordinator for the NCC.

The trip's purpose is to assess the needs of suffering Iraqis, Trevor Fitzgibbon told WorldNetDaily.

"They aren't there to critique the U.S. administration policy on Iraq," he said. "They are there in a season of peace to deliver a message of peace."

But a chief critic of the NCC called the trip "ill considered and dangerous" in a Dec. 24 letter to Edgar, urging him to cancel the mission.

"Such a visit by senior U.S. church officials already on record as strongly opposed to any U.S. military action can only give encouragement to Saddam Hussein and his supporters," said Diane Knippers, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C., in a statement.

Knippers asserted that the delegation, like a similar one 12 years ago, will be an "embarrassment" to U.S. church members whose officials are claiming to speak for them.

"This peace visit will do nothing to forestall war or alleviate the plight of Iraqis who suffer under a brutal dictatorship," Knippers maintained.

Knippers wrote in the conclusion to her letter to Edgar, who served six terms in the House of Representatives as a Pennsylvania Democrat, that she hoped in these "perilous and difficult days" that "the church leaders could face such times realistically."

"Instead," she wrote, "you are about to embark on an effort that is ill considered, foolish, and dangerous. Neither the church of Jesus Christ nor the people of Iraq will be well served by this ecumenical peace mission. Please stay home."

Attempts by WND to reach the delegation at their hotel in Baghdad were unsuccessful. Fitzgibbon said the group members' cellphones were confiscated.

Meeting with Aziz

Fitzgibbon did not have details of the meeting with Aziz, but said the group's purpose for visiting with the Iraqi leader was to restate their concern for the country's humanitarian crisis.

"They didn't get into who's to blame," Fitzgibbon said. "They weren't pointing fingers at the U.S. government."

Fitzgibbon said he did not know how the meeting with Aziz was arranged, but insisted that it did not come about at the request of the delegation.

Aziz, the chief spokesman for Iraq during the Gulf War, is a rare non-Muslim leader in the Arab world. He was reared in a Chaldean Christian family in northern Iraq and joined Saddam's Baathist movement in the 1960s.

Another church-related delegation to Iraq this month also had an unscheduled meeting with Aziz.

Cliff Kindy – one of a dozen members of the "Iraq Peace Team" organized by a Church of the Brethren movement called "On Earth Peace" – wrote Dec. 11 in a diary account of his trip, "Yesterday on very short notice seven of us were invited to meet with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and former Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Hamdoon."

"It was a free-flowing, friendly meeting at which we were able to get approval for our [Iraq Peace Team] plans and we talked extensively about the contrast between U.S. and world opinion concerning the potential war in Iraq," Kindy said.

Kindy noted that "Aziz closed by saying that if war is prevented it will be a miracle. Hamdoon said such a miracle can never happen. I invited him to come walk with us in our work because we depend on miracles."

While in Amman, Jordan, on Oct. 21, Kindy wrote: "Yesterday, Sadaam [sic] Hussein announced the release of all prisoners in Iraq except murderers who have not been forgiven by families or repayed [sic] their debt to society. It sets a good model for all other states and is an echo of Jesus' 'release to the captives.'"

Aziz has insisted that, since the end of 1991, all of Iraq's weapons prohibited by the U.N. have been destroyed.

At a conference in October of Arab intellectuals and politicians opposed to military action against Iraq, Aziz asserted that all Arab states faced U.S. and Israeli domination in the event of war.

"Don't think that [they are safe] if they make nice statements and offer bases to the Americans," he said at the conference in Damascus, Syria. "When the crime ends, they will be made to submit to America and Zionism."

'Win Without War'

The NCC's Edgar is part of a broad coalition of leaders of religious and civic organizations that launched a movement earlier this month titled "Keep America Safe: Win Without War."

In a statement, the group said it "will seek to bring the case of alternative action to stop Iraqi militarism without resorting to American militarism."

The coalition members assert that they are "patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction."

Founding members include the NCC, the National Organization for Women, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Move On, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Sojourners, Women’s Action for New Directions and Working Assets.

The group says it supports "rigorous U.N. weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament."

"We believe that a preemptive military invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests," the group said. "Unprovoked war will increase human suffering, arouse animosity toward our country, increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, damage the economy and undermine our moral standing in the world. It will make us less, not more, secure."

The coalition said, "We reject the doctrine – a reversal of long-held American tradition – that our country, alone, has the right to launch first-strike attacks. America is not that kind of country."

"We can achieve the valid U.S. and U.N. objective of disarming Saddam Hussein through legal diplomatic means," the members said. "There is no need for war. Let us instead devote our resources to improving the security and well being of people here at home and around the world."

Messages of encouragement

Prior to the NCC's current trip, which ends Friday, the delegation received messages of encouragement from members of the World Council of Churches, the umbrella group to which the NCC belongs.

WCC General Secretary Konrad Raiser said the WCC "deplores the fact that the most powerful nations of this world continue to regard war as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy, in violation of both the United Nations Charter and Christian teachings."

The German church leader said the WCC "has always advocated for every member state to comply with binding U.N. resolutions and to resolve conflicts by peaceful means. Since the end of the Gulf War we have repeatedly called the government of Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction and related research and production facilities, to cooperate fully with U.N. inspectors deployed to oversee compliance, and to guarantee full respect of the civil and political, economic, social and cultural human rights for all its citizens."

"We are, however, deeply concerned with the potential human costs of a new war," Raiser said. "The people of Iraq have suffered enough under a sanctions regime since 1991. Inflicting further punishment on innocent civilians is not morally acceptable to anyone. Churches around the world also caution against the potential social, cultural, and religious as well as diplomatic long-term consequences of such a war, especially a unilateral one."

Keith Clements, general secretary of the Conference of European Churches, said to the delegation that "at a time when the language of conflict becomes so distorting and divisive, you will be demonstrating that the human family remains one, under the grace of the one God who creates, loves, judges and reconciles all."

Along with Edgar, the delegation includes Dr. Huw Anwyl, minister, United Churches of Christ; Rev. Ray Buchanan, president, Stop Hunger Now and United Methodist minister; Rev. John Buehrens, former president, the Unitarian Universalist Association; Rev. Dr. Robert Evans, executive director, Plowshares Institute, Presbyterian pastor; Robin Hoeker, legislative assistant, Unitarian Universalist Association; Dr. Victor Makari, General Assembly staff, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Don Mosley, co-founder of Jubilee Partners; Ginger Paul, Episcopal Church, executive committee; Dr. Samer Shehata, assistant professor of Arab Politics, Georgetown University; Retired Bishop Melvin Talbert, United Methodist Church; Jim Winkler, general secretary, the General Board, United Methodist Church; and host Rev. Dr. Riad Jarjour, general secretary, Middle East Council of Churches.



Revelation 19:20
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.







GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR

Good Morning Everyone and Happy New Year 2003.

Today I am posting an article that is disturbing and I am sure will stir up some "cognitive dissonance" in many people. We all have heard the old saying, "Do not argue politics and religion". Well, because I come from a line of Whaley's that fled England due to being on the wrong side of politics, I inherited the ability to say things that might not be so popular with a lot of the general public. Let me say at the outset of this article that I know there are a lot of saved people in the mainline churches. However due to events like the article below, I cannot understand why they stay in them. I know that many people stay due to tradition, blind loyalty or with the belief that they will change their church by staying in it. However, there is no stopping the One World Church Movement because prophetic scriptures tell us a False Prophet will come who aligns himself with the Antichrist to head an ungodly conglomeration of all of the world religions.

Before I comment furtherquote a scripture that warns people of the false prophets and religions that would come. Many have told me that their particular church does not contribute money to the National Council of Churches but as a member of one of their churches you are counted in numbers which gives them political clout!

Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

2 Corinthians 6:17
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

These scriptures warn us that there will come false religions and prophets who would masquarade as true believers but in truth oppose the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. This group would even deny the Atoning Death of our Savior and deny the truth of the scriptures. We are seeing this today in the Ecumenical Movement and among the members of this One World Religous group are Mainline Churches in America.

Back in the early 1960's when my Dad began to teach against the National Council of Churches, we were members of the United Methodist Church. Daddy had researched the NCC and WCC and found it full of Marxist Leaders who oppose the true church of the Living God and had a desire to unite all religions into one big happy family. Truth was not important to these people and the True Church was not included in this bunch.
Heiarchy in the UMC did not appreciate my dad revealing the truth and the word went out that they had to "get rid of George Whaley. Well my dad resigned the church and my mother still has the letter he wrote to the church.

As a result of our leaving that church where I had Sunday School Attendance Pins down to the floor, my family, due to the grace of our Lord, found a church that taught the fundamentals of the faith and we all were gloriously saved. We began to learn the truths of scripture and doctrine instead of a social gospel that would not offend or save anyone. Never had we been taught in the UMC that you had to be "Born Again".








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EYE ON THE GULF
Anti-war U.S. church leaders
in Baghdad
Peace mission includes unplanned visit with Deputy PM Tariq Aziz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 1, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Art Moore
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A delegation of U.S. religious leaders who oppose war with Iraq is in Baghdad on a "humanitarian mission of peace" organized by the National Council of Churches.

NCC General Secretary Bob Edgar arrived with the group Monday for meetings with heads of local churches, mosques, schools, hospitals, the Red Crescent Society and other agencies operating in Iraq.

The itinerary did not include visits with government leaders, but the delegation met yesterday with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, according to a media coordinator for the NCC.

The trip's purpose is to assess the needs of suffering Iraqis, Trevor Fitzgibbon told WorldNetDaily.

"They aren't there to critique the U.S. administration policy on Iraq," he said. "They are there in a season of peace to deliver a message of peace."

But a chief critic of the NCC called the trip "ill considered and dangerous" in a Dec. 24 letter to Edgar, urging him to cancel the mission.

"Such a visit by senior U.S. church officials already on record as strongly opposed to any U.S. military action can only give encouragement to Saddam Hussein and his supporters," said Diane Knippers, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C., in a statement.

Knippers asserted that the delegation, like a similar one 12 years ago, will be an "embarrassment" to U.S. church members whose officials are claiming to speak for them.

"This peace visit will do nothing to forestall war or alleviate the plight of Iraqis who suffer under a brutal dictatorship," Knippers maintained.

Knippers wrote in the conclusion to her letter to Edgar, who served six terms in the House of Representatives as a Pennsylvania Democrat, that she hoped in these "perilous and difficult days" that "the church leaders could face such times realistically."

"Instead," she wrote, "you are about to embark on an effort that is ill considered, foolish, and dangerous. Neither the church of Jesus Christ nor the people of Iraq will be well served by this ecumenical peace mission. Please stay home."

Attempts by WND to reach the delegation at their hotel in Baghdad were unsuccessful. Fitzgibbon said the group members' cellphones were confiscated.

Meeting with Aziz

Fitzgibbon did not have details of the meeting with Aziz, but said the group's purpose for visiting with the Iraqi leader was to restate their concern for the country's humanitarian crisis.

"They didn't get into who's to blame," Fitzgibbon said. "They weren't pointing fingers at the U.S. government."

Fitzgibbon said he did not know how the meeting with Aziz was arranged, but insisted that it did not come about at the request of the delegation.

Aziz, the chief spokesman for Iraq during the Gulf War, is a rare non-Muslim leader in the Arab world. He was reared in a Chaldean Christian family in northern Iraq and joined Saddam's Baathist movement in the 1960s.

Another church-related delegation to Iraq this month also had an unscheduled meeting with Aziz.

Cliff Kindy – one of a dozen members of the "Iraq Peace Team" organized by a Church of the Brethren movement called "On Earth Peace" – wrote Dec. 11 in a diary account of his trip, "Yesterday on very short notice seven of us were invited to meet with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and former Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Hamdoon."

"It was a free-flowing, friendly meeting at which we were able to get approval for our [Iraq Peace Team] plans and we talked extensively about the contrast between U.S. and world opinion concerning the potential war in Iraq," Kindy said.

Kindy noted that "Aziz closed by saying that if war is prevented it will be a miracle. Hamdoon said such a miracle can never happen. I invited him to come walk with us in our work because we depend on miracles."

While in Amman, Jordan, on Oct. 21, Kindy wrote: "Yesterday, Sadaam [sic] Hussein announced the release of all prisoners in Iraq except murderers who have not been forgiven by families or repayed [sic] their debt to society. It sets a good model for all other states and is an echo of Jesus' 'release to the captives.'"

Aziz has insisted that, since the end of 1991, all of Iraq's weapons prohibited by the U.N. have been destroyed.

At a conference in October of Arab intellectuals and politicians opposed to military action against Iraq, Aziz asserted that all Arab states faced U.S. and Israeli domination in the event of war.

"Don't think that [they are safe] if they make nice statements and offer bases to the Americans," he said at the conference in Damascus, Syria. "When the crime ends, they will be made to submit to America and Zionism."

'Win Without War'

The NCC's Edgar is part of a broad coalition of leaders of religious and civic organizations that launched a movement earlier this month titled "Keep America Safe: Win Without War."

In a statement, the group said it "will seek to bring the case of alternative action to stop Iraqi militarism without resorting to American militarism."

The coalition members assert that they are "patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction."

Founding members include the NCC, the National Organization for Women, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Move On, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Sojourners, Women’s Action for New Directions and Working Assets.

The group says it supports "rigorous U.N. weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament."

"We believe that a preemptive military invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests," the group said. "Unprovoked war will increase human suffering, arouse animosity toward our country, increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, damage the economy and undermine our moral standing in the world. It will make us less, not more, secure."

The coalition said, "We reject the doctrine – a reversal of long-held American tradition – that our country, alone, has the right to launch first-strike attacks. America is not that kind of country."

"We can achieve the valid U.S. and U.N. objective of disarming Saddam Hussein through legal diplomatic means," the members said. "There is no need for war. Let us instead devote our resources to improving the security and well being of people here at home and around the world."

Messages of encouragement

Prior to the NCC's current trip, which ends Friday, the delegation received messages of encouragement from members of the World Council of Churches, the umbrella group to which the NCC belongs.

WCC General Secretary Konrad Raiser said the WCC "deplores the fact that the most powerful nations of this world continue to regard war as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy, in violation of both the United Nations Charter and Christian teachings."

The German church leader said the WCC "has always advocated for every member state to comply with binding U.N. resolutions and to resolve conflicts by peaceful means. Since the end of the Gulf War we have repeatedly called the government of Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction and related research and production facilities, to cooperate fully with U.N. inspectors deployed to oversee compliance, and to guarantee full respect of the civil and political, economic, social and cultural human rights for all its citizens."

"We are, however, deeply concerned with the potential human costs of a new war," Raiser said. "The people of Iraq have suffered enough under a sanctions regime since 1991. Inflicting further punishment on innocent civilians is not morally acceptable to anyone. Churches around the world also caution against the potential social, cultural, and religious as well as diplomatic long-term consequences of such a war, especially a unilateral one."

Keith Clements, general secretary of the Conference of European Churches, said to the delegation that "at a time when the language of conflict becomes so distorting and divisive, you will be demonstrating that the human family remains one, under the grace of the one God who creates, loves, judges and reconciles all."

Along with Edgar, the delegation includes Dr. Huw Anwyl, minister, United Churches of Christ; Rev. Ray Buchanan, president, Stop Hunger Now and United Methodist minister; Rev. John Buehrens, former president, the Unitarian Universalist Association; Rev. Dr. Robert Evans, executive director, Plowshares Institute, Presbyterian pastor; Robin Hoeker, legislative assistant, Unitarian Universalist Association; Dr. Victor Makari, General Assembly staff, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Don Mosley, co-founder of Jubilee Partners; Ginger Paul, Episcopal Church, executive committee; Dr. Samer Shehata, assistant professor of Arab Politics, Georgetown University; Retired Bishop Melvin Talbert, United Methodist Church; Jim Winkler, general secretary, the General Board, United Methodist Church; and host Rev. Dr. Riad Jarjour, general secretary, Middle East Council of Churches.

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!

Today's post has everything to do with ideas. What has made America great? Where have we gone wrong?

We are facing some of the most perilous times in our history and I fear there are still some who are asleep and others who simply hate all we stand for. Those haters of the American Dream have cunningly placed themselves in our government, institutions and churches.

I still believe with all my heart that the Lord directed the founding of America and her preservation. He has an ultimate purpose for our nation and that is the reason the evil one has come against our country in so many ways. This is the reason I think that our Lord will bring us through war and persecution. His plan will go forward and will not fail if we do our part.

The scriptures tell us:

2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Oh that America will turn back to the Lord in this coming year of trials! That is when our victory over the dark forces will come and the purpose for us will be fulfilled.

Most Bible Believing Christians realize that we are living in the last days and although the times are perilous, we could be the generation to experience the Rapture and Gods final dealings with a sin-filled world. It is an exciting time to be alive and working for Him. The false gods of the Ism's are nearing judgement and nothing will prevent this from happening.

My prayer is that America will seek His face once more, stand firm and not waver. Our God is in control and He will place all things under his feet. It is He that will once again deliver us from the heathen and we will see Him come for his own, put down evil and create a new heaven and earth that will be eternal.

God Bless
Elaine

JESUS IS COMING AGAIN! ARE YOU READY? READ JOHN 3:16






World Net Daily
Rededication to 'The Proposition'
David Limbaugh
Posted: December 31, 2002

© 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
The new year approaches and, like many others, I consider what lies ahead – the promises and the challenges. What kind of world, or more precisely, what kind of America will we bequeath to our children?

The threats from terrorists and rogue, tyrannical dictatorships are real and formidable, but I'm confident we'll overcome them because we have a realistic president who recognizes the threats and is committed to eliminating them. And, the American people are behind him.

The greater threat comes from within, not from domestic terrorists or criminals, but from our own ignorance, complacency and licentiousness. There have always been those in our midst devoted to overturning everything America stands for, but until fairly recently, they didn't have a firm foothold in our institutions and culture.

While we must vigorously fight the war against terrorism and confront all other enemies we encounter, it is the war of ideas that poses the greatest risk to our children's freedom. If we continue to sit this war out, we'll lose it more quickly than we can imagine.

The war of ideas involves two contrasting visions of America. One was recently articulated by columnist George Will on a fascinating three-hour C-SPAN interview with Brian Lamb. Will emphasized that America is "a nation dedicated to a proposition," likely referring to Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg formulation that this country was based on a shared promise to enforce the belief that all men are created equal and entitled to equal rights.

We are not a particular race of people united by a common ethnic heritage, but a collection of all different races, colors and ethnicities bonded by a social compact that ensures we are all equals before God and under the law. It is not our diversity that we should celebrate, but our unity. As Will wrote in an earlier column on the subject, "we are a nation defined by our unum, not our pluribus." That's one vision.

The other vision is that which fails to appreciate our country as a melting pot. It sees no benefit in promoting a unique American culture, much less encouraging others to blend into it. It sees nothing sacred in America's proposition and even rejects it. Ultimately, it is inherently hostile to America's founding ideals because it regards as sinful any preference for certain ideas over others.

All ideas, according to this intellectual nihilism, are equal. America's secret, it holds, is its refusal to favor certain ideas above others – all ideas are of equal weight in a nation that elevates a distorted concept of tolerance to a godly virtue.

I view this alternative vision as dangerous because it fails to honor our essential "dedication to the proposition." It is no accident that America is the greatest and freest nation in the history of the world. And it's certainly not because we were founded with the absurd notion that no ideas are superior to others.

It's not our so-called diversity that has made us great, but a system of government sculpted around the affirmation that all men of all backgrounds are sinners. In order for men to sustain their liberty, they must be willing to accept reasonable limitations on it and temper it with personal responsibility.

The bedrock of our freedom is not representative government – people can vote themselves a dictatorship anytime they want – but limitations on government institutionally guaranteed by a Constitution undergirded by moral absolutes.

I fear that those subscribing to the alternative vision of America believe that freedom is the natural state of man and that little sacrifice is required to preserve it. Man, left to his own devices, will inevitably enslave himself. He always has. And we are in the process of doing that in this country by forgetting these elemental truths. Our sinful pride is causing us to abandon our heritage by lulling us into the seductive notion that we can handle freedom without restraints or responsibility.

Our children's future will depend on whether our society will have the courage to make moral choices, including the willingness to declare that the American system – despite the nostrums of political correctness and multiculturalism – is superior to all others ever tried on the planet. It will depend, in short, on their rededication to "the proposition."








GIVE YOUR LOVED ONE THE GIFT OF HEALTH THIS YEAR