Thursday, February 25, 2016

The Regime's Relentless Persecution of Phil Hart





“Mr. Hart, do you contest the legitimacy of the federal government of the United States of America?”

That question was posed to former Idaho State Representative Phil Hart a few minutes into his February 3 federal bankruptcy hearing. By asking that question, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Newman transmuted the proceeding into a heresy trial.

“No, I do not,” replied Hart – a good and sufficient answer that was ignored by the Inquisitor.

 Newman read an excerpt from page 300 of Hart’s book in which the author complained that the political system of the United States, which was “originally intended to be a citizen/public servant relationship,” has degenerated into “a bureaucrat/master or licensee/slave relationship.”

“Do you believe that individuals in the United States are essentially in a slave relationship with the government?” inquired Newman. Unsatisfied with Hart’s reply, Newman proceeded to page 90 of the book, which referred to the New Testament principle that “godly government” was established “to reward good and punish evil.” 


“Our duty to submit to godly authority has a qualifier attached to it,” Hart pointed out in that passage, writing from the perspective of an Evangelical Christian. “When authority ceases to be godly, then we cease to have a duty to submit to it.”

“Does this accurately reflect your views?” asked Newman, prompting an objection from Hart’s defense attorney, Charles MacFarland, that the investigation of Hart’s religious opinions, which to an extent are shared “with a majority of mainstream Americans,” was improper. After Judge Terry Meyers overruled the objection, Newman continued.

“The bottom line of this is that when authority ceases to be godly, we cease to have a duty to submit to it,” the prosecutor asserted. “Does that accurately reflect your view?” More specifically, “As it relates to the IRS or the State of Idaho attempting to collect back taxes by levying or seizing your property or the property held in the name of the Sarah Elizabeth Hart Trust, do you think that the authority of the IRS had ceased to be godly, and that you had no duty to submit to it?”

Newman is a religious man. If he is at all a reflective man it might have occurred to him that he was literally playing the Pharisee by posing to Hart the same question that the Pharisees had presented to Jesus.
 
Furthermore, Newman belongs to a denomination, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,  whose 19th century leaders deliberately and systematically violated federal anti-bigamy laws out of devotion to a religious practice – “plural marriage” – that I regard as entirely repellent, but that they considered sublime and ennobling. Because of their principled refusal to submit to what they regarded (correctly) as unjust and unconstitutional laws, the corporation over which they presided was taken into receivership, its assets were seized, and the church itself slated for liquidation

In the face of the prohibitive advantage enjoyed by a government determined to do objective evil, the leaders of that church adjusted their convictions and submitted to that government’s putative authority (eventually, following a “decent interval” of continued covert disobedience).
In answering Newman’s question, Hart could honestly have said that the IRS never “ceased to be godly,” because it was a diabolical criminal syndicate from its inception. Instead, he pointed to the uncontested legal record demonstrating that he, like the 19th century leaders of Newman’s church, had complied in the face of the prohibitive destructive power wielded by the Regime that rules us.

“The record in the District Court case, and the record in the bankruptcy court case, really speaks for itself,” Hart pointed out. “I have paid probably close to $200,000 to the IRS in the last ten or twelve years. I have submitted all kinds of records, and complied with all kinds of requests. So I think that record speaks as to the actions that I have taken.”
Inquisitor Newman was not mollified by that response.

“I’m not asking about what you had to pay, but whether you believed that you were excused or somehow no longer obligated,” he persisted, tacitly claiming jurisdiction over Hart’s unspoken thoughts and imputed motives.  


Exploiting unusual leeway offered by Judge Meyers, Newman referred to a passage on page 91 of Hart’s book:

“When the government takes one third or more of a man’s yearly earnings, using as its authority to do so a law that is many thousands of pages long and so complicated that virtually no one can understand it, is government doing good? Or is government doing evil?”

“The point of that sentence was to make the assertion that government was doing evil in relation to taxation – is that correct?” demanded the Inquisitor. Hart replied by pointing out that former Treasury Secretary John Snow had called the tax code “incomprehensible.”

Implacably searching for evidence of thoughtcrime, Inquisitor Newman referred to page 172 of Hart’s book, in which the author quite sensibly observed that “The feudal system has crept back onto our land, but only because of the ignorance of our people. If enough Americans are willing to study the law and take action, we could defeat this feudal system using only paper bullets.”

Asked by Newman to justify this seditious statement, Hart pointed out that the signers of the Declaration of Independence – including his own ancestor, John Hart – believed that they were acting to throw off a feudal system.

“I think I’m infected with his political philosophy,” Hart conceded. 

Rebel ancestor: John Hart.
Evincing exasperation begotten by the knowledge that the witness was making a fool of him, Inquisitor Newman flung an accusation disguised as a question at Hart, without even pretending to lay a foundation for it:

“Do you believe that federal government employees have the ability, or the right, to murder American citizens as long as that employee has punched the time clock that morning and will stay on duty?”

Once again, if Hart could have honestly answered that question in the affirmative, citing the immunity from prosecution extended to FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi after he murdered Vicki Weaver during a 1992 siege that occurred roughly 70 miles from the courtroom where he was being interrogated. But the purpose of that question, of course, was to accuse, not to solicit an honest answer. 

“Your Honor, I don’t think I understand the question,” objected Hart’s bemused defense attorney.

“Neither do I,” observed Judge Meyers, whose patience with the federal attorney was finally exhausted. 


“Mr. Newman, I’ve already advised defense counsel that I’m going to deal with relevance issues later,” Meyer told the federal prosecutor. “But this has become so attenuated from the issue at hand … that I’m going to need something from you that establishes that I should continue to belabor it this afternoon as opposed to moving on to more material aspects of the case.” 

At this point, Newman tried to convince Judge Meyers that scrutinizing Hart’s political views, and inquiring into his unspoken opinions regarding hypothetical questions, was justified in order to establish his supposed “intent to defraud” the IRS by concealing assets in his bankruptcy. This was an elaborate exercise in question-begging: The federal government was trying to use Hart’s political opinions as evidence that such concealment had occurred, despite a detailed factual record demonstrating that the opposite was true.

“Part of that intent [to conceal] is evidenced by his views that taxation is improper [and] illegal,” Newman declared, “and to the extent he believes that the government is evil, that he is not obligated….”

“As the court that will be the ultimate fact-finder, it seems to me that, as Mr. Hart said, actions speak louder than words,” Judge Meyer pointed out. 

Objecting to Newman’s line of questioning, defense attorney McFarland briefly summarized Hart’s actions in relation to the IRS.

“From 2003 on he has dealt with the IRS forthrightly, and as Mr. Hart will testify, the IRS has not dealt with him forthrightly,” McFarland told the judge. “They disallowed all of his deductions for his business because he wouldn’t reveal who he sold this book to. So this is – excuse the term – I think this is a political witch hunt.”
Newman's professional progenitor Andrey Vyshinsky (center).
Like his philosophical progenitors in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, Newman not only sought to criminalize Hart’s political views, but also to misconstrue them in order to appeal to the prejudices of the ruling class. 

In the book from which Newman (or more likely a federal research drone) scoured up a few supposedly scandalous quotes, Hart makes it very clear that he does not oppose the income tax in principle, nor does he focus exclusively on the manifest iniquity of the IRS. 

“I believe Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was right when he said `Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society,’” wrote Hart two pages into the Introduction of his book, a passage carefully avoided by Newman. “Furthermore, I also believe that a balanced income tax is a desirable tax, and should be a part of the revenue collection apparatus of the federal government…. The original theory behind the income tax is good…. In the vernacular of the day, it was a tax on `accumulated wealth,’” rather than a direct, un-apportioned tax on wages and income. 

Hart even directed criticism away from the agency that was tormenting him even then, and has not relented in the decade-and-a-half since: “Congress has intentionally written the Internal Revenue Code to be deceptive while at the same time refusing to answer our questions on the matter. Don’t blame the IRS, it is Congress that has the power to levy and collect taxes. Congress is the villain.”

People of goodwill might disagree with Hart’s opinions (especially those who understand that taxation of any kind is theft, and correctly perceive the IRS to be an artifact of unalloyed evil). Newman’s encapsulation of Hart’s view – namely, that he regards taxation as “illegal and improper” – was a lie. 

Although the State-aligned media will routinely berate Hart for being a “tax protester” (as if that description is truly pejorative to anyone who understands American history), or a "tax cheat" (an expression that connotes a moral delinquency on the part of someone trying to protect honestly earned wealth from the designs of government-sanctioned robbers), Hart does not refuse to pay taxes, nor does he encourage others to do so. 
Confiscated: Hart's home in Athol, Idaho.
After conducting detailed primary-source research into the origins of the Income Tax amendment, its legislative history, and the early court cases dealing with it, Hart came to the conclusion that it has been deliberately misconstrued as a tax on earnings, rather than “accumulated wealth.” It is true that during the late 1990s, Hart – a registered civil engineer who earned an MBA at the Wharton School – withheld his tax payments while pursuing a constitutional challenge to the federal income tax. This was necessary in order for him to gain standing to sue the government. After the Supreme Court denied him a hearing in 2004, Hart filed the necessary returns.

In the midst of his legal challenge, Hart published his research findings in his much-discussed book, which immediately came to the attention of the Regime’s extortion specialists. 

"I read your book `Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?'" Hart was notified in a letter from IRS agent Barbara Parks announcing that the terrorist clique employing her was beginning an "investigation" of the book. The purpose of that inquiry, she continued, was "to determine whether or not your statements are commercial speech and whether this activity causes harm to the government." 

With the help of the Center for Individual Rights, Hart successfully sued the IRS to interdict the agency's demand that he turn over the names of everybody who had purchased his book. Four years later, the IRS retaliated against Hart by issuing a final audit report denying all of his business deductions for eight years, hitting him with an additional tax liability of roughly $125,000. When he protested his treatment to the IRS, an official with the agency gloatingly explained: "When you don't give us everything we ask for, you get all of your deductions denied." 

"During [my] four year audit, I provided the IRS with all my canceled checks, receipts, invoices and so on -- boxes worth," Hart recounted to me. "Yet these deductions were denied solely for political reasons." 

The late Paul J. Desfosses, a Certified Public Accountant and retired U.S. Treasury Agent, confirmed and elaborated upon Hart's conclusion that he has been targeted forretaliation by the IRS "for failing to `snitch' on and provide the names of those citizens who might have dared to buy and read [his] book with its critical history and assessment of Federal Income Tax Law."

"While assigned to the Internal Revenue Service Idaho District, I was a National Treasury Employees Union Official and I routinely acted as the Union Steward in situations involving IRS employees who had been ordered to commit reprehensible and often felony criminal actions by their IRS managers or other IRS top officials," Desfosses testified. The agency "collected and compiled huge lists of citizens who were then targeted for audit and harassment for having bought and read a book such as Representative Hart's," or because they were perceived to be "a `threat' to the Federal Government's power" by IRS supervisors.

Despite the fact that Hart’s book was not a contested asset in the bankruptcy, or materially relevant to any controversy involving such assets, the US government did its formidable best to make it the centerpiece of its case. For at least six hours on the first day of his trial, and more than two hours on the second, Hart was interrogated not only about his financial affairs but his political and religious views. Three attorneys who had represented him in his dealings with the IRS were subpoenaed to testify against their client. 

Hart has conceded that roughly sixty percent of the contrived $586,000 tax liability imposed by the IRS cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. The purpose of the federal government’s spurious lawsuit against Hart was three-fold. First, the IRS wants to make it impossible for him to discharge any of the remaining “debt.” The second objective was to deprive him of the ability to find a home to replace the one that was seized through a tax auction conducted by the IRS’s Property Appraisal and Liquidation Specialists (PALS), a section of that organ of state terrorism devoted strictly to acts of dispossession. 

The third, and most insidious, objective being pursued by Newman on behalf of the people who slop his trough and hold his leash, was to create a legal record that could be used in a future criminal case – most likely for “perjury” and “obstruction.” This was made clear by the repeated and specific questions about perjury posed by the prosecutor in interrogating Hart’s defense attorneys. None of them offered any evidence of perjury on the part of the defendant, but as the IRS’s behavior demonstrates – and Newman’s courtroom tactics confirm – the Regime is quite capable of prolonging its pursuit of Hart despite the absence of evidence that he has committed an actual offense. 
 
Modern torture is more subtle. Somewhat.
Resolution of the government’s vindictive bankruptcy fraud suit remains elusive. Final arguments before U.S. Judge Myers will be submitted in writing after the trial transcript becomes available, which means a verdict won’t be rendered for several months.

“This has been going on for a decade and a half now,” Hart pointed out to me. “According to the best estimate I’ve seen, the government has probably spent about four million dollars by dragging me through the courts.”

Given that the resources of the Regime are as bottomless as its reservoir of malice, it’s likely that Hart will never see an end to official persecution while he remains within his mortal coil.

This week's Freedom Zealot Podcast also deals with the continuing persecution of Phil Hart -- and the mysterious death of the IRS whistleblower who defended him:






Dum spiro, pugno!

19 comments:

Libertarian Advocate said...

As always, a great post Bill!

eszeneri@gmail.com said...

It is not the view of Scripture that Christians may refuse to submit to ungodly government authority.
Scripture calls Christians to submit to government because all government is ultimately emanates from God Himself. Rom 13:1-2, 1Pet 2:13.
God told Israel to submit to the Babylonians who were invading Israel, and were the worst of tyrannies. The entire book of Jeremiah is a perpetual pleading for Israel to submit, live and go into captivity or die by the hand of God through Nebuchadnezzar. Jer 27:6, Jer 38, Jer 29:6,7, etc.

Christians may only refuse to obey the civil magistrate when the magistrate orders them to break the Law of God. There are many examples of this in Scripture - The Hebrew midwives - Ex 1, Daniel's friends - Dan 3, Daniel himself - Dan 6, Peter and John - Acts 4-5.

That being said, Christians who take an oath of office have a duty and an obligation to uphold those oaths. If they find themselves in a position that requires them to break that oath, (ie. act in opposition to The Constitution or the lesser laws of the land), they are duty bound to keep their oath, in opposition to illegal orders or rulings. The Founders understood this well, having been taught in many of the Catechisms, such as the Westminster catechism, and much more explicitly in Calvin's institutes - book 4 ch 20.

I believe everyone that reads this actually agrees with what is written here. As a test, let me ask you if John Wilkes Booth was an assassin or a freedom fighter when he killed Lincoln? If you say he was a freedom fighter, I would ask you to define vigilantism; If you say assassin, I would ask on what grounds, since he himself claimed he was a freedom fighter, still fighting the war.
Biblically, the authorities of the South had surrendered - rightly or wrongly. Therefore Booth was acting outside the authority of the legitimate government powers and was therefore outside of any moral legitimacy - biblically speaking.

Further, if we act on our own authority, claiming we do not believe in a particular law, how do we differ from those in power, who act outside the wording of the Constitution or lesser laws? Do they not also claim they are acting in a legitimate manner, consistent with their conscience and interpretation of the law, or with moral authority, as they disobey the written laws? Remember Lex Rex, by Samuel Rutheford?

Michael said...

"...acting outside the authority of the legitimate government powers..."

Hmmm....OK. What were those involved in the Revolutionary War doing? Were they acting within the authority of "legitimate government powers"?

eszeneri@gmail.com said...

Yes, the Founders were acting within the authority of legitimate govt powers. They were acting on "the doctrine of the lesser magistrate".

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? In there they assert the crimes of the king of England. They understood their Constitution and their rights as Englishmen, subject to the crown of the king.

It was the Continental Congress that finally declared a break with England. In fact Thomas Paine's tract "Common Sense" is an argument against reconciliation and for Independence, which shows the colonies were split, EVEN WHILE BOSTON WAS OCCUPIED BY THE KING'S TROOPS, as well as after having experienced the "MASSACRE" at Lexington, as Paine refers to it. It was the legitimate governing authorities that declared their independence - not a mob.

Do you realize that such things as the Boston Tea Party were widely condemned by the Founders as vigilantism?

I asked a few questions in my original post. Perhaps you can answer them. I put them up because, more often than not, people actually do believe the same thing. The problem today seems to be that we have gotten to the point where the mere mention of God in a conversation causes folks to discount what was said - quite unlike the days of the founding of this nation.

kmartin@freestatenevada.com said...

Governments cannot be godly or ungodly. That characterization applies only to people and perhaps laws, in the sense that the laws promote, reward, or punish godly behavior and action. Therefore, the claim can be made that laws may be godly, ungodly, or perhaps neutral. As a Christian living in this nation, it is my duty and responsibility using the Laws of Providence and my conscience to make that determination.

You have freely admitted citizens are not required to submit to ungodly laws, such as murder (Hebrew midwives), idolatry (Daniel and his brethren), theft, etc. The midwives and Daniel used God’s Law and their consciences to justify their disobedience to unjust, immoral edicts (laws).

Many Americans refused to obey the Fugitive Slave Act enacted by the federal government to force the return of slave owners’ property (Dred Scott decision). They wouldn’t return escaped slaves, they wouldn’t convict fellow citizens accused of breaking that law, they wouldn’t obey warrants issued by lawful authorities. Were they disobeying God or following the Higher Law? You tell me. They certainly weren’t submitting to the federal government’s authority in that situation, were they? And yet slavery was quite common throughout the world’s history and considered quite normal and right (and still is in places, such as Islamic dominated societies).

Let’s return to subject of the article. Obviously, income tax and tax rates aren’t discussed too much in the Bible, as far as I know (a census was ordered by Caesar in order to tax the population; not an income tax). Mr. Hart wrote a book about his thoughts on income tax (more likely about how wages are taxed as income) and his belief that the federal government might be evil and not worthy of obedience. A federal prosecutor is attempting to use his written thoughts as evidence of hiding assets from the authorities. That is Orwellian thought-crime prosecution. If there are hidden assets let the feds present the evidence of it, not prosecute him for First Amendment protected speech.

Furthermore, he lost his original case about the constitutionality of income tax and subsequently paid what was owed. He has completely submitted to the governing authorities, which you seem to adore with unalloyed passion.

Finally, as a Christian I want to present MY view on income tax, guided by conscience and the Great Lawgiver Himself. What did Jesus say when confronted by the Pharisees about paying taxes to Caesar? “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what it God’s.” Caesar DID NOT create my body and he has nothing to do with any contract I may have with another person or entity for services rendered. Wages earned from working for another are not income (in spite of all court decisions) and do not belong to Caesar because Caesar did not create me.

Money stolen from me by the feds as unlawful taxes are used to support the murder of unborn children, and with the recent ruling “legalizing faggot marriage”, I believe almost all obedience to the federal government is abrogated. If Christians would grow a pair of balls and man up and refuse to financially support the feds the entire corrupt system would collapse from its own bloated weight. Good riddance in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Governments cannot be godly or ungodly. That characterization applies only to people and perhaps laws, in the sense that the laws promote, reward, or punish godly behavior and action. Therefore, the claim can be made that laws may be godly, ungodly, or perhaps neutral. As a Christian living in this nation, it is my duty and responsibility using the Laws of Providence and my conscience to make that determination.

You have freely admitted citizens are not required to submit to ungodly laws, such as murder (Hebrew midwives), idolatry (Daniel and his brethren), theft, etc. The midwives and Daniel used God’s Law and their consciences to justify their disobedience to unjust, immoral edicts (laws).

Many Americans refused to obey the Fugitive Slave Act enacted by the federal government to force the return of slave owners’ property (Dred Scott decision). They wouldn’t return escaped slaves, they wouldn’t convict fellow citizens accused of breaking that law, they wouldn’t obey warrants issued by lawful authorities. Were they disobeying God or following the Higher Law? You tell me. They certainly weren’t submitting to the federal government’s authority in that situation, were they? And yet slavery was quite common throughout the world’s history and considered quite normal and right (and still is in places, such as Islamic dominated societies).

Let’s return to subject of the article. Obviously, income tax and tax rates aren’t discussed too much in the Bible, as far as I know (a census was ordered by Caesar in order to tax the population; not an income tax). Mr. Hart wrote a book about his thoughts on income tax (more likely about how wages are taxed as income) and his belief that the federal government might be evil and not worthy of obedience. A federal prosecutor is attempting to use his written thoughts as evidence of hiding assets from the authorities. That is Orwellian thought-crime prosecution. If there are hidden assets let the feds present the evidence of it, not prosecute him for First Amendment protected speech.

Furthermore, he lost his original case about the constitutionality of income tax and subsequently paid what was owed. He has completely submitted to the governing authorities, which you seem to adore with unalloyed passion.

Finally, as a Christian I want to present MY view on income tax, guided by conscience and the Great Lawgiver Himself. What did Jesus say when confronted by the Pharisees about paying taxes to Caesar? “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what it God’s.” Caesar DID NOT create my body and he has nothing to do with any contract I may have with another person or entity for services rendered. Wages earned from working for another are not income (in spite of all court decisions) and do not belong to Caesar because Caesar did not create me.

Money stolen from me by the feds as taxes are used to support the murder of unborn children, and with the recent ruling “legalizing sodomite marriage”, I believe almost all obedience to the federal government is abrogated. If Christians would grow a pair of balls and man up and refuse to financially support the feds the entire corrupt system would collapse from its own bloated weight. Good riddance in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Is government evil, inAmerica today? The answer to my next question is the answer to the question of government being evil. The question, is a government that lies to its people a government that serves its people?

eszeneri@gmail.com said...



Please do not take my words out of context, what I said was, "Christians may only refuse to obey the civil magistrate when the magistrate orders them to break the Law of God."

That is a far cry from obeying "ungodly" laws. I consider any law that does not follow the Scripture to be ungodly, yet I submit to them. In example, Scripture states that the proper punishment for theft is restitution, yet we incarcerate. While I don't think it just or godly to have my car stolen, then pay to have the theif incarcerated, while I am still out of a car, nonetheless, I cannot go and take his property as restitution. I follow the ungodly law.

Please go read Tim Hayshaw's "The Birth of Black America" then we can discuss the fugitive slave laws. There is actually quite a lot more to look into, but nonetheless, I think that book will gives a good feel for how things evolved. It is a shame that book is not taught in schools. (perhaps I should say "ungodly")
But, let me throw something back at you. Did you know the 13th amendment still allows for slavery in the U.S.? Are you, as a Christian against it?

When you say " He has completely submitted to the governing authorities, which you seem to adore with unalloyed passion."
Please note the only thing I did was correct the idea that Scripture teaches us to disobey wicked rulers.
I am completely open to you giving a Biblical defense to government disobedience. I hate most things the govt does, but I love my Savior, so it is my goal to please my King, who installed those wicked rulers for my good and the punishment of our nation,in the working out of His providence.
My emotions, are similar to yours. I am one who uses imprecatory prayers when it comes to govt. I am self employed, so I hate taxes more than the average person who knows nothing of how much the govt has actually taken from them.
But what you are doing here is not unlike what was done to Elijah in 1Kings 18:17,18.

I note, it is YOUR view, as you expressed. You are welcome to your view; I want my view to be that of Scripture. We will both be held accountable by one infinitely greater than the government of the United States, and whether or not we obeyed His Law. Matt 7:22,23

Since my posts are only correcting an erroneous view of Scripture, can you give me a Scripture reference for "growing a pair of balls and man up and refuse to financially support the feds......."???

The main reason our nation is in trouble is Christian sin, not unbelievers, (2Chron 7:14) and as long as we walk in our own understanding, and forsake His Law, we things will only get worse for us.

Please give me a Scriptural defense of your "duty and responsibility using the Laws of Providence and my conscience to make that determination." Because so far, all I saw was "MY view" and not the King's.






eszeneri@gmail.com said...

Here is a proper example of a moral, legal way to oppose tyrannical govt., in line with the Scriptural mandate, expressed in Ex 18:20-23.

http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2015/04/oregon-sheriffs-testify-before-house-were-not-going-to-enforce-your-gun-grabbing-law/

kmartin@freestatenevada.com said...

I'm sure most readers of this blog are not interested in the theological hair-splitting of two pontificating pedants.

Let us continue this debate privately. I have your email address and you have mine.

I'll talk to ya' there.

Michael said...

Thank goodness! I don't read this blog to have someone tell me that THEIR view of the scriptures dictates how the rest of us should function or live. Thank you KMartin for taking the discussion private.

kmartin@freestatenevada.com said...

You're welcome, Michael.

cecilia said...

''A matter is established upon the testimony of two witnesses.''

Here are three of Christ Jesus>

Christ Jesus has said;
“And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.21 Luke 22:25 ..."But ye shall not be so."

Jesus said in Matthew 20:25 “But Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you

Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you

"Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants." ~ William Penn

'We ought to obey God rather than men .”

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

God commands to have no one before him, for he is jealous.
Man says ''I will have your first-fruits. You are my slave.''

God commands thou shall not kill.
Man says ''Sally forth and spread my statist religion with the edge of a sword.''

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.~ G. Washington.

"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves (John Locke)", is based on Natural Rights, that "all men are created equal", that [is to say] they are endowed by their Creator with certain un-alien-able Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property.

cecilia said...

“We the People” are not who we think they are.

“The popular leaders, who in all ages have called themselves “the people.” ~ Blackstone's Commentaries 438/Ballentines Dictionary

"What, then, is the law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. ... since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individual groups. ... But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others." ~ Frederic Bastiat

Where did society get the authority to use a Constitution to give its agent, the government, powers that none of the individuals in the society possess by themselves as single individuals?

If your neighbor does not have the right to force you to be his slave, could it be that two of your neighbors have this right? If not two, then what about 1000 of your neighbors? 10,000 neighbors? 100,000 neighbors? 250,000,000 neighbors? Everyone living on the same continent? What gives a group (or a society, or its agent, a government) any right to act that any individual member of the group would not have? Rights are not additive: two people who form a group have no more rights than either one has separately. The rights of any group, even society as whole, are simply the union of the rights of all the individuals in the group. It therefore necessarily follows that a group cannot have any rights that any individual member of the group does not also have. So if your neighbor has no just right to simply take from you whatever he or she wants, then neither do any group of neighbors--not even the entire society.

The conclusion is inescapable: you don't owe taxes merely because one or more of your neighbors say you do. I don't have the right to take your property without your consent. Therefore, no group of people has the right to take your property without your consent--no matter how many people are in the group, nor how many of them vote in favor.

http://www.suijurisforum.com/income-tax-liability-pollock-v-farmers-loan-trust-co-t277.html

Anonymous said...

"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves....whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence." ~ John Locke

http://www.suijurisforum.com/filing-1040-return-declaring-wages-violates-law-t42.html

Anonymous said...

The LORD suggested another means of getting around 'tribute takers'. In those early days as a disciple, Peter worried a bit much over governing entities and political correctness. I find this account extremely satisfying - especially when I imagine this to be the origin of the in your face idiom - "go fish".

Matthew 17
24 ¶And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

eszeneri@gmail.com said...

I think it is rather funny that I respond to a claim in the article that it is Biblical to not pay your taxes or submit to unjust laws. I use Scripture references and context, as well as appealing to the view of the Reformers, at whose feet the Founders of this nation learned.

kmartin@freestatenevada chose to voice his opinion and claim it was Scriptural, but gave no reference to Scripture, and when called on it, proposed we take the argument private to keep from "theological hairsplitting" YET I have heard not a word from him for the past two weeks.

I further note that Michael voiced his relief at the suggestion. Since that time, several others have put forward their views, and I give them kudos for at least trying to use Scripture to back up their claims, regardless of whether I see Scriptural merit in their arguments, (which I do not). That said, Michael has been silent. Perhaps because they agree with him. What other conclusion can I come to?

This issue is specific to Christians, and I understand that the blogger is a professing Christian, so none of this should have been an issue on this site.

I am happy to continue to discuss the issue publicly or privately. That said, Scripture gives the following admonitions and warnings:

2Ch 7:14 if my people, who 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.
(It is for the sins of Christians that God is punishing America with calamities and evil rulers, and how can any believer expect God to bless while we continue to disobey??)

Pro_14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; But the end thereof are the ways of death.
(Think Biblically, much of the Scripture was written by political rulers - politics is addressed throughout the Scripture, but particularly in the OT - heed the inspired Word).

Deu 29:19 and it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart, to destroy the moist with the dry.
Deu 29:20 Jehovah will not pardon him, but then the anger of Jehovah and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and all the curse that is written in this book shall lie upon him, and Jehovah will blot out his name from under heaven.
(God will punish the believer who disobeys Him and walks in the way of his own opinion, rather than the clear teaching of Scripture).

Personally, I would be very weary of anyone who claimed to give counsel from the Word of God that tells you to disobey the govt for anything other than which conflicts with the commands of God. It is Scripture that tells you God is the ultimate authority behind govt, and that He puts in evil men in power to punish nations. So how can the nation recover by further rebellion against God and His commands??

Kent McManigal said...

"Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society"
That's backwards. To the extent there is a civilized society in America (or anywhere), it is achieved in spite of "taxation" and other evil committed by The State.

And that commenter up there whipping out his "Romans 13" and waving it around ought to be ashamed. If his is the proper interpretation, then it means the Bible is a lie and nothing but justification for evil. If his interpretation is "misguided" (as most thinking people believe it to be), then he needs to ask forgiveness for taking the Lord's name in vain and making it appear God sides with evil.

kmartin@freestatenevada.com said...

I sent an email to eszeneri@gmail.com on February 28th and haven't checked the comments here until today. He didn't see my email until March 15th because eszeneri@gmail.com is not his personal account.

From eszenri@gmail.com when he saw my email and responded;

On 3/15/2016 7:26 PM, Emily Szeneri wrote:
"BTW, just noticed that you sent this awhile back. I was not aware that you sent it, as it is not my personal account, but what happened to be signed in at the time, and since I was getting notifications on MY email, I never even thought to look here."

We are continuing to argue and anyone else is welcome to join in via email unless you all prefer to debate here.

I tried to move the debate into a private space because I thought many readers of this blog are not Christians and aren't interested in our theological arguments.