FOUNDED: February 9, 2001
If you prefer to make a donation by check,
send an email to Support for the mailing address.
|06-24-2003, 11:14 AM||#1|
Join Date: Jun 2001
The world is flat right ?
We know that this statement is wrong. But, in 1690, it was treated as absolute truth. Isn't it interesting, that something can be true, and then later be false? What is truth? Is it like "beauty", in the eye of the beholder? Can we say that there really is such a thing as absolute "truth"? Is truth subject to "interpretation"? Does truth depend on the listener's point of view? In a larger scale, is there even a concept of "right" and "wrong"? Should we be allowed to view truth through our own unique shade of glasses?
These questions might seem obvious. People's perceptions of absolutes of any kind seem to be pliable. Nobody wants to be perceived as "rigid" in their thinking, "judgmental" of others.
We were told that Bill Clinton's behavior with Miss Lewinsky was understandable, because we shouldn't stick our nose in his private affairs. We shouldn't "judge" him. We shouldn't be judgmental about people's decisions, behaviors or beliefs. Well, can we "judge" between truth and lies?
What is truth? Let's look at our flat world example. How did everyone come to believe "the world is flat"? Here are the properties that make it believable:
1) It conforms to generally known scientific understanding
2) It is commonly known, understood to be true by the public,
3) It has just "always been that way".
4) If it weren't true, we'd know about it! My parents, friends and neighbors would know, and tell me about it.
As Columbus tried to get funding for his journey, he was ridiculed for being foolish. "You'll fall off the edge of the earth, and be devoured by monsters!", they jeered. There simply was not much knowledge known about the shape of the earth, and the earth's relationship to the heavens. Those who were exploring and explaining the subject were summarily ignored. Later, of course, the truth could not be denied any longer.
Here is another example:
"We all must pay our income taxes!" Once again, it meets the criteria:
1) It conforms to generally known (legal) understanding
2) It is commonly known, understood to be true by the public
3) It has just "always been this way".
4) If this wasn't true we'd all know about it! By "logical deduction", it is true until proven otherwise. Everyone just "knows" that is the truth....also, the big GUILT TRIP:
5) We all need to "pay our fair share"! By this, the assumption it that the tax dollars that are being spent are actually helping the economy and people as a whole.
Unfortunately, this matches the flat world example exactly, only we're no longer living in the 1600s. Here are some facts:
- Tax law has been written deceptively and complexly to deceive, but the law shows that citizens living and working exclusively in the several states are not the subject of the federal "income tax".
- The legal and accounting professions have been granted an official position of importance, and we've been convinced by the profession that tax law is to complex for average people to read.
- The establish media has been complicit. Misinformation is used to bury discussion on the topic.
In an area of life so very important, keeping what we're able to earn, so we can feed our families, you would think income tax understanding would be important, right? Why would someone NOT want to do the research for themselves? Because it would only prove that which they "know" to be true? That's flat world reasoning! Maybe they don't want to learn the truth, because if they did, they'd be looking at a rather ugly reality. They'd learn the income tax was essentially a hoax, they would be forced to see their government and representatives for what they are; deceitful. Do they perhaps already know something is not quite right? Do they not want to look under the hood, at the messy and complicated machine?
Here are the facts in a nutshell (please, check them out for yourself - who knows, I might be a flat world thinker too, right?)
- Rights come from God. They precede government. The right to live, earn a living, and to protect your family and property are supreme.
- Governments create no rights, they can only be set up to preserve them. Governments can create "benefits". People are coerced into trading real rights for seductive benefits.
- Since government generally creates no goods and services itself, "benefits" come in the form of redistribution. Certain people and things are taxed to pay for others. This is called socialism, Marxism, or communism. Most elected officials today appear to be socialists, whether they understand it or not.
- Socialism has failed everywhere around the globe, and this has been explained in detail by Austrian Economists. Only free markets are able to best suit the buyers and sellers in any economic situation.
- Unlike free markets, socialism hurts some people while it benefits others. Socialism hurts economies.
- American banks tried to create central banking for many years. They wanted the power to counterfeit.
- Central banking creates a mechanism which creates monopoly power, through Congressional permission.
- Our money system is fraudulent. It is a deception. It is a house built and then the foundation (gold and silver redemption) removed.
- The central banking money system works hand-in-hand with the income tax and so called "Social Security". One creates "money", currency or credit, the other destroys it.
- The 16th amendment granted "no new authority to tax", per the supreme court in Brushaber.
- The constitution provides for the raising of revenue, and for the preservation of freedoms, WRITTEN IN CLEAR ENGLISH. There are two types of legal taxes, direct (apportioned) and indirect (uniform).
- Laws passed which are NOT written in clear English, or NOT in agreement with the constitution are not laws at all, and may be ignored. They are "void for vagueness", or "repugnant to the constitution". A common excuse you'll hear is "that's just your INTERPRETATION of the law", does not hold water. If a law is written which is so confusing as to need "interpretation", then it is void for vagueness.
It shouldn't let it, but it bothers me when people question my sanity because I talk about the items above. I don't mind if they question my scholarship, but I do when they question my patriotism. I tell them, "hey, look up the facts and research yourselves", they don't. They chuckle. They make assumptions. And then the question always comes "But how will we be able to pay for the schools, the roads, the FAA, the Military?". So, I tell them. I tell them that schools are paid by property taxes. I tell them roads are paid by gasoline excise taxes. But they are not listening. After all the world is flat isn't it ?