It's easier to tell a lie than it is to tell the truth
It's easier to kill a fly than it is to turn it loose
It's easier to criticize somebody else
Than to see yourself

It's easier to give a sigh and be like all the rest
Who stand around and crucify you while you do your best
It's easier to see the books upon the shelf
Than to see yourself

It's easier to hurt someone and make them cry
Than it is to dry their eyes
I got tired of fooling around with other people's lies
Rather i'd find someone that's true

It's easier to say you won't than it is to feel you can
It's easier to drag your feet than it is to be a man
It's easier to look at someone else's wealth
Than to see yourself

Your Government - USA

Democracy is Two Wolves and a Lamb Voting on What to have for Lunch.
Liberty is a Well-Armed Lamb Contesting the Vote
Benjamin Franklin

We do not live in a democracy.

War: The President should not hold the power to start wars. If a war is a just war then it should be so deemed by the Congress of the United States. Ron Paul is not oppossed to war, he is just oppossed to wars that can be started by one individual. It is the only way to protect ourselves from tyranny.

Economy: The powers not vested to the federal government shall be left to the states because we do not want the federal government to do too much. Once it does, it would then be forced to print more money and cause the inflationary tax.

State's Rights: The states should have more rights for a reason. This is because the federal government is incapable of making a one-size fits all rule for the whole country. For example, mandating the use of seat belts on the national level could put a farmer out of business. Mandating the states to educate every child may overburden those states that have an illegal immigration problem.

The Constitution was drafted to protect ourselves from tyranny, bankruptcy, and laws that make no sense.
http://www.lawyerucla.com

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. –Albert Einstein

Driving is a right not a privledge...

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and posses property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in doing so to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile, thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business. It is not a mere privilege..."Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E 579 inparamateria.

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 III. 200, 169 Ne 22, 66 ALR JUR (1st) Highways, Sec 163 inparamateria.

LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK

Money - Monitary Policy

The Inflation Tax
Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued. You pay an inflation tax without even realizing it ...
Dr. Ron Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_tax

Jury Duty

Your Leaders (you elected them)

Dick Cheney 1992 - 'How many additional American lives is Saddam worth, Not very Damn Many'...

Your Constitution (yes its yours, defend it, learn it, teach it)

When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet.
– Lyle Myhr

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing.
Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist.
And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little.
Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.
- Pastor Niemöller

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
-- Patrick Henry

The 5th amendment to the Constitution of the USA:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Asset Forfeiture:
Unconstitutional Property Theft by our Governments

Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
James Madison

DOWNSIZE DC!!!!!!!!

National Health care?... The Un-insured

• 37% of the un-insured live in households earning more than $50,000 a year (and 19% live in households earning more than $75,000). Can people at these income levels afford major medical insurance? Yes. Should they be subsidized by you and me? No. Subtract this group and the number of uninsured people drops to roughly 28 million.

• 20% of the un-insured are non-citizens. Should you and I pay to insure them through a top-down federal monopoly? We think not. Subtract this group and the number of un-insured people drops to roughly 19 million.

• 33% of the un-insured are already eligible for existing government programs. No new program is needed for people who are already covered by current programs. Subtract them and the number of uninsured people drops to roughly 4 million. This is much more likely to be the true size of the problem.

• We will expose the tricky means by which Americans are forced to subsidize the socialist health systems in countries like Britain, France, and Canada, so that they seem more efficient than they actually are.

• We will puncture the rankings published by the World Health Organization, showing how they're rigged to punish the American system for things it does well, while rewarding socialist systems for things they do poorly.

• We will debunk the egalitarian myth that socialized health care systems provide equal treatment to all. We will demonstrate that these systems are highly stratified, providing more health care to some, less to others, and generally poor care to all.

• Finally, we will show how the health of the whole world depends on saving what's left of the free market in America's health care system, and expanding that system to do even better by moving even more in the direction of a truly free market.

• We must let Congress know that we know the truth.
• We must tell them that we expect them to know and speak the truth too, and act on it, to improve our health care rather than make it worse.

1. Forward this message to others.
2. Send Congress a message opposing further federal funding of personal health care expenses. In your personal comments you can cut and paste the above statistics to let Congress know that you know what the truth is, and that you know they have the power to make things better simply by letting people keep more of their own money. Send your message here.

www.stoprealidcoalition.com

TWIC - A Backdoor Real ID Card

There ain't no rules around here, we're trying to accomplish something.
Thomas Alva Edison

1-800-FLOWERS.COM Order Complaint
we received these flowers...

the Ad look like this...

Which Doctor Who are you?
this quiz was made by Auntie Krizu(:>)

Case Number CR-1-03-91, U.S. v. Lloyd Long.

Following is a recent victory for the People, filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, on October 15, 1993.

This story appeared in the "Independence Newspaper" Jan. 1994
(257 Ringwood Drive, Winter Springs Florida 32708).

TENNESSEE MAN FREED ON TAX CHARGES

In an amazing court case involving the "income tax," a Chattanooga jury agreed with the argument by the defendant that the "income tax" is actually an excise tax which only applies to certain classes of people.

Nationally prominent attorney, Lowell Beacraft of Huntsville, Alabama, assisted by attorney Russell J. Leonard of Sewanee, Tennessee, defended Lloyd R. Long of Decherd, Tennessee, who was charged by the Internal Revenue Service with willful failure to file income tax returns for the years 1989 and 1990.

In presenting the case for the Internal Revenue Service, assistant U.S. Attorney Collier, assisted by special agent Michael Geasley of the IRS, declared that Mr. Long had gross income in excess of $49,000 for each of the years, 1989 and 1990, and that he had "willfully" failed to file income tax returns. The defense admitted that Mr. Long did, in fact, earn such income and that he did not file a return. Long then proceeded to prove to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was not "liable" for an income tax, nor was he "required by law" to file.

Defense testimony presented a case titled, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad , wherein it was the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that the Sixteenth Amendment did not give Congress any new power to tax any new subjects. It also showed that the income tax was, in fact, an excise on corporate privileges and privileged occupations. The defense then brought out a case entitled Flint v. Stone Tracy wherein an excise tax was defined as a "tax being laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges".

Mr. Long's attorneys also brought out a case entitled Simms v. Arehns , wherein the court ruled that the income tax was neither a property tax nor a tax upon occupations of common right, but was an excise tax. The defense then brought out a case entitled Redfield v. Fisher , wherein the court ruled that the individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing but that the individual's right to live and own property were natural rights upon which an excise could not be imposed. Defense also pointed to studies done by the Congressional Research Service that confirmed that the income tax is an excise.

Next, the defense pointed out that in the Tennessee Supreme Court case, Jack Cole v. Commissioner , the court ruled that Citizens are entitled by right to income or earnings and that rights could not be taxed as privileges. In another Tennessee Supreme Court case, Corn v. Fort , the court ruled that individuals have a right to combine their activities as partnerships and that this is a natural right, independent and antecedent of government. The Government Prosecutors did not challenge or attempt to refute anv of the cases cited or the conclusions of the courts.

Long's defense brought out in testimony, the fact that nowhere in the entire Internal Revenue Code, was an American Citizen made liable for the graduated income tax. They showed that, in the IRS's own Privacy Act notice, only three sections were cited, and that none of these sections made anyone liable for the income tax. They also proved that this was not an oversight by showing that the alcohol tax was worded so clearly that no one could misinterpret who was made liable for the alcohol tax. The prosecution didn't challenge or attempt to refute this point, nor were they able to show a status that made anyone liable for the income tax.

Mr. Long's defense then presented the mission statement of the Internal Revenue Service, stating that the income tax relied upon "voluntary compliance" and a statement from the head of the alcohol and tobacco tax division of the IRS which showed that the income tax is 100% voluntary as opposed to the alcohol tax which is 100% enforced.

Mr. Long stated that in 1988 he knew that the income tax was an excise tax that could only be imposed upon the exercise of a privilege. He was aware that he was not enjoying any corporate privilege nor was he engaged in any privileged occupation. Long realized that he was merely engaged in an "occupation of common right" that was not taxable as an excise or otherwise. He knew that there was nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code that he was made liable for the income tax and he knew that the income tax was voluntary. However, in spite of these facts, Mr. Long was so intimidated by the IRS that he filed and paid a voluntary assessment.

Long then began writing a series of letters to the IRS explaining that he had no licenses or privileges issued to him by the federal government. He asked for direct answers to simple questions. Instead the IRS inferred, insinuated, extrapolated, beat around the bush and avoided answering his questions. So, Mr. Long testified, he decided to stop "volunteering".

The IRS brought in two "expert" witnesses. Both were actually IRS employees who had received training as professional witnesses. Upon cross-examination by Mr. Becraft, one witness, Ms. Jeu, (after avoiding the question, frustrating the jury and finally being ordered by the judge to answer), admitted: There was, in fact, a secret code known only to the IRS and encoded on Mr. Long's permanent record, that showed that the IRS knew Mr. Lone was not required to file a return!

In summation, Mr. Becraft acknowledged that what the jury had heard, may be in conflict with what the Government had mislead them into believing was true. However, Mr. Beacraft reminded them that Galileo was imprisoned for holding a belief that conflicted with what everyone else believed was fact and that Colwnbus, acting on a contrary belief, discovered a land that no one thought existed.

In a monumental victory, the jury agreed with Long's defense and found Lloyd Long NOT GUILTY on all counts! Mr. Lloyds final statement to a reporter was, "To God be the glory!"

In a blatant example of governmental corruption, and in direct violation of the People's Right to freedom of Speech, the federal government issued a "gag order" on this case. However, as Lila Buchanan, the publisher of the Independence Newspaper stated, "fortunately a transcript of the trial was whisked out of the Courtroom prior to the gag order!" We the People have a complete copy of this transcript available.

In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”

Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency. This is precisely what McCain-Feingold represents: blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.

Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.

Outrageously, the Court failed to strike down a provision of the campaign finance bill that virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent politicians for 60 days before an election—exactly the time when most voters learn about candidates and issues. The ban essentially prohibits any group from airing radio or television ads that cast politicians in a negative light during the critical final months of an election. The ban even carries the possibility of criminal penalties, meaning the Court has endorsed criminalizing political dissent! Incumbent politicians certainly will be the beneficiaries of the new ban, as they no longer have to suffer through ads that criticize their performance.

Wealthy people will always seek to influence politicians, because government unfortunately plays a very big role in determining who gets (and stays) rich in our country. Our federal government has become a taxing, spending, and regulating leviathan that virtually controls the economy. Having rejected the notion of limited, constitutional government, we can hardly be surprised when special interests use corrupting campaign money to influence the process! We need to get money out of government; only then will money not be important in politics. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.

regulation and subsidies.
"Once government does become involved in something, intellectual and instutional inertia tends to keep it there for good. People lose their political imagination. It becomes impossible to conceive of dealing with the matter in any other way. Repealing the new bureaucracy becomes unthinkable. Mythology about how terrible things were in the old days becomes the conventional wisdom. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy itself, with a vested interest in maintaining itself and increasing funding, employs all the resources it can to ensuring that it gets a bigger budget next year, regardless of its performance. In fact, the worse it does, the more funding it is likely to get - exactly the opposite of what happens in the private sector, in which those who sucessfully meet the needs of their fellow men are rewarded with profits, and those who poorly anticipate consumer demand are punished with losses".

racism.
"Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby individuals are treated not on their merits but on the basis of group identity. Nothing in my political philosophy, which is the exact opposite of the racial totalitarianism of the twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking." "Government exacerbates racial thinking and undermines individualism because its very existence encourages people to organize along racial lines in order to lobby for benefits for their group. That lobbying, in turn, creates animosity and suspicion among all groups, each of which believes that it is getting less of its fair share than the others."
by Ron Paul

Rand Paul 2010 for Kentucky | US Senate