January 16, 2001
| <<Previous |
|
| January 16, 2001 | ||
|
|
The United States Supreme Court meets today to decide if it will hear the case of an Indianapolis church set to be seized by U.S. Marshals for not withholding certain employment taxes from employees' paychecks.
As reported by WorldNetDaily, the Indianapolis Baptist Temple stands by its convictions that a church and its property belong only to God. However, what individuals choose to do with the money they receive from the church is their own decision, said IBT's attorney Al Cunningham.
Cunningham said the Internal Revenue Service audited approximately 60 of the church's ministers and found they had all filed their own tax forms and paid all taxes due, including the total amount of their FICA taxes. Therefore, the taxes in question had already been paid, the church claims. Nevertheless, Indianapolis Baptist Temple says the IRS sent half of the FICA taxes back, saying the church should have collected and remitted them instead of the individuals who paid them.
To view the entire article, click here.
Tax Freedom 101 Side Note: Take our survey: Do you believe US Marshals will seize Indianapolis Baptist Temple before Clinton leaves office? NOTE: This poll expires the day before President Elect George W. Bush is inaugurated - for obvious reasons.
* Another Wakefield Shooting Perspective
Sunday, January 07, 2001
COLUMN BY: Vin Suprynowicz
Last week we discussed how "gun control" laws failed in the day-after-Christmas shooting spree of bearded 42-year-old misfit Michael McDermott in Wakefield, Mass.
But what about the final, proximate cause that drove this man to his wrongful acts?
McDermott bypassed several other potential targets to kill seven occupants of the firm's accounting and personnel department, which apparently had recently informed McDermott they would be seizing his paychecks and sending them to the IRS for "back taxes."
Employers are routinely instructed under the "Notice Of Intent To Levy" (Form 668-W) to seize and send every dime to Washington -- the very thing the Constitution with its careful limits on "direct taxation" (not to mention the Fourth and Fifth amendments) was designed to prevent.
These illegal paycheck seizures are done to create an "incentive" for the worker to crawl on bended knee to the local IRS office, where he is expected to bare his financial soul -- bringing along a year's worth of utility and car repair bills, grocery receipts, etc.
For the rest of this article, click here.
* IRS Worried About Guns Too.
Subject: Second Amendment - IRS Wants To Shut Down Pro-gun Internet Activities
Gun Owners of America
January 8, 2001
The IRS has proposed some dangerous threats to free speech in their IRS Announcement 2000-84 (10/16/00).
In a transparent effort to protect the incumbents in Congress, the Announcement would prohibit a link from the GOA web site to, for example, the Bush and the Gore sites so that you can see for yourself what their positions on firearms are during a campaign. Of course, GOA could do so if we subjected ourselves to the terms of the Speech Police at the Federal Election Commission.
If GOA were to be treated as a political committee by the federal government, all of its members would have to be reported. That is obviously totally unacceptable.
In an effort to deny funds for communications to members and the public, the Announcement would tax any proceeds from books and other products purchased at the GOA web site. If someone wants to further the work of GOA by purchasing things from GOA, why should the government put its greedy hands on that "income?" In other words, the IRS wants a Speech Tax.
The announcement would also limit those with whom GOA could communicate. The IRS would determine who is a member and then say that only members can receive e-mail from GOA.
Please communicate your displeasure with this Announcement by February 13, 2001.
To read more on this subject from GOA's perspective and what you can do click here.
Tax Freedom 101 Commentary: IRS Announcement 2000-84 is the same announcement we reported on back in our December 19th issue of The Tax Freedom 101 Report. The title was of this story was, IRS Wants to Police Internet - We Say Go For it! To read this related article click here.
"Liberal" on the other hand has evolved into a term for many "bad" things that "conservatives" oppose. The "us" and "them" camps are currently defined in media and education in this fashion which clouds reason and mires debate.
It was not always this way. Further, an understanding of the illustrious past of the word "liberal" reveals that many who are proud to wear the name "conservative" now, would probably have considered it an insult not to be called a "liberal" in our not too distant past.
The main differences between the classical liberal and the modern liberal:
The classical liberal only personally gives away his own stuff. He sets an example for others. He may even encourage others to follow his example, but he would never consider coercing others to give away their own private stuff. In many instances he is even secretive about giving away his own stuff, believing his reward will come from Something, or Someone who knows and sees what he is doing. "And your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly" [see Matthew Chapter 6 in the Bible].
The modern liberal, when he is functioning at peak efficiency, will make every attempt to appear truly charitable while he gives away only other peoples stuff. In some cases he will seek out ways to give stuff to people who may not yet know they want it or need it. This aspect will not be discouraged even after many years of proven failures heaped sky high. He will even try to "help" fund government-controlled schools partially for the purpose of "informing" the "unwashed masses" with regard to just how much of his "help" they need. With the help of tenure his counterpart in the educational establishment will defend to the death his right to teach ideas which have been proven unworkable for centuries as if they were new and absolutely valid. The last theoretical stronghold of global communism is the tenured university chair in America, which is not to say that communism is otherwise truly dead in the rest of the world.
Of course there are hybrid conservative/liberals about. There are those who are torn between private and public charity. There are those within the Republican Party who consider themselves to be staunch "conservatives" but would not blush as they describe how the Republican Party is the party that "saved social security." They wouldn't be caught dead saying that the Republican Party "saved socialism in America." However, for those who not ignorantly equate social security [another oxymoron] with socialism, that is exactly what they have already said and they openly brag about it.
Only total ignorance of the fundamentals of original American philosophy could make social security sacrosanct. Those who don't understand how unearned "benefits" can destroy have only to watch the further decay of our urban areas as "government" continues to wage its "War on Poverty." In the pages of lexrex.com you will see how a careful study of a younger and more candid FDR will refute social security. Don't let memorials fool you.
A basic law of political economics is that you get more of what you subsidize - less of what you tax. Has America has been indirectly subsidizing poverty by waging a so-called war against it? I wonder how much "ignorance" we can "find" or create as we continue to fund the Department of "Education."
The "Conservative Movement" is also an oxymoron grammatically speaking. If it is "conserving" or defending an absolute position philosophically, how does it "move?" Are we all slow dancing together toward the left as the Democrats lead?
In the last few years the "conservatives" would seem to be more reactionary than creative in their approach to modern political problems. The so-called left accuses. The "right" apologizes and tries to justify a position that is gradually moving in the socialistic direction toward the left. The "right" continues to drift toward the "left" at a rate that will hopefully keep the public from perceiving the fact that both are drifting in the same direction. One was just drifting earlier.
If we try to revert to the old adjective form, we would be trying to identify what noun applies to those who love to be called "conservative." We can agree, almost no one wants to be called a "conservative socialist." If we are not going to "conserve" socialism what can we settle on preserving? Why not open up the dialogue and return to our American roots so we can intelligently decide what to keep or "conserve?"
It hasn't always been this way.
Let's get into the word "conservative" itself. What does it really mean? Is it a noun or an adjective? Surely, in the past it was an adjective but what has happened? Can we make valuable comparisons?
The real purpose of this article is to show how a specific anomaly in semantics points to an underlying and very serious condition, and to offer concrete solutions. We have been gradually losing our heritage, partially through neglect and partially by design. The evolution in language that we have outlined here is a symptom of a pervasive and dangerous disease. We don't really need to identify anyone, including ourselves, as coming from the left, the right, or even the center. What we do need most desperately is to return to the rule of law under our founding principles. Their generation had fastened down the meanings of a great many terms that apply to a government of law and not of men.
Do you wonder why Bill Clinton, Al Gore or even "W" don't often quote the Founders and Framers in comprehensive context? Is it not the case that de facto government has wondered so far from the beaten path that it is in their best interest for the current ignorance to prevail? In fact, it becomes an absolute necessity when you are attempting to substitute tyranny for liberty.
What can you do now?
Pick a contemporary argument and lay it alongside the writings of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, or, pick an economic concept being advanced by your favorite demagogue and compare it to the writings of Frederick Bastiat. You will soon see that the old maxims and rules that were formerly embodied in something they once called "common sense" will put down most of the cartoon characters we called elected officials these days.
Please don't let your own ignorance keep you in a vulnerable position! Start studying lexrex.com until you can articulate American solutions. Don't be a dupe or an operative! Be a well-informed and well-armed American Patriot! Conserve your blood-bought American Heritage once you truly comprehend it.
Suggested reading: "The American Ideal of 1776."
Copyright at Common Law by LEXREX, 2000. Explore the LEXREX website...
|
| |||
  | |||
| |||
| DISCLAIMER: The data on this website is the collaborative experience, contributions, and research of various websites, legal books, tax documents, researchers, associates, attorneys, CPA's, etc. and does not constitute legal advice. The primary purpose of this site is education. We do not advocate any specific course of action. What you do with this information and any course of action you decide to take, if any, is entirely your responsibility. | |||
 | |||
