Independent American News

Professor Wichman E-mail

Claim: A Michigan professor sent an e-mail telling Muslim students to leave the country.

Status: True.

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.

http://aolsearch..aolcom/aol/redir?src=image&requestIdecdf055a786dd58&clickedItemRank=5&userQuery=INDREK+WICHMAN&clickedItemURN=imageDetails?invocationType=imageDetails&query=INDREK+WICHMAN&img=http://www..westernresist

Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student’s Association.

The e-mail was in response to the students’ protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.

The group had complained the cartoons were ‘hate speech’

Enter Professor Wichman.

In his e-mail, he said the following:

Dear Moslem Association,

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.

I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests(the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women(called ‘whores’ in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile ‘protests.’

If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment -you are free to leave. I hope for God’s sake that most of you choose that option .

Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,

I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering

=============================

As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn’t like this too well. They’re demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen. Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn’t believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.

==========

For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don’t intend to publicly condemn his remarks.

Dear Christopher,

This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots - which occurred in reaction to anti-gay raids by NY police in 1969 and are considered by many to be the beginning of the modern gay rights movement in America.

My parents, compassionate people, taught me that it’s not enough to be tolerant of people different than ourselves: We must go beyond tolerance, and accept others as equals.

In my lifetime, the struggle for equal rights has made significant progress. Yet today, even with an African American president… even as we continue to break gender barriers and reverse the effects of centuries-long discrimination against African Americans, Native Americans, religious minorities, the disabled community, and others…. our laws actively discriminate against men and women who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered.

Throughout the country, this discrimination manifests in different ways.

In my own state of Florida, gays and lesbians are not allowed to adopt children, even as thousands of kids languish under state guardianship and in group homes. In Florida and most other states, no provision exists that grants legal recognition of civil unions - leaving many without benefits or visitation rights when their partner becomes ill or passes away.

This national lack of compassion and concern for our fellow Americans is immoral.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, honored combat veterans, desperately needed in the field, have been discharged from duty because it was disclosed they were gay.

Across America, couples who have lived together for decades in stable, committed relationships are denied health care benefits - because they are gay.

No one should have to uproot their family and move to a different state to gain these simple legal rights. It is fundamentally a denial of justice.

Like with so many issues we’ve discussed, we risk being defined by our inaction. Make no mistake — there will be a time when the children of this country ask their parents why we allowed things to be this way - why we allowed decisions such as to who one chooses to love to be used as cause for denying a job, right of survivorship, or access to an ill companion.

On this issue, I have felt a moral obligation to stand on the side of compassion and justice. Long after my career ends, I hope to be proud of where I stood and of the support I gave for those who have made achieving equal rights their life’s work.

I hope you see it as I do, and continue to push for equality for every American, including for our LGBT brothers and sisters.

With respect,

Congressman Robert Wexler

Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views ‘are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.

Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.

Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of “scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice”. But also check out Anthony Watt’s Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year’s recovery from its September 2007 low, this year’s ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.

By Christopher Hansen, writing from his undisclosed and secure location:

I went to Physical Therapy today trying to recover from the Cops hurting me. My dear wife took me, as she always does, but this time she read me an article out of Rolling Stone by Matt Tiabbi. Tiabbi’s writing style is brilliant, cutting edge and at the same time allows you to laugh at a horrible truth. When he called the investments Goldman Sachs recommended and promoted during the Dot Com bubble as being, “stillborn,” I laughed till I wept.

The image Tiabbi painted with the statement: “The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity,” proved that it takes far less than a thousand words to paint a truthful and telling picture.

The article is already stirring controversy as Goldman Sachs with article s like Goldman and Rolling Stone Writer Trade Barbs in the New York Times.

This is an article you should read to understand just how evil our current and past U.S. leadership are. Men that James Madison in Federalist Papers #62 called the ‘Moneyed few” that thrive on “public instability” caused by “voluminous” and “incoherent” laws. The prophesies of the Founding Fathers are coming to pass in rapid succession in these days.

If you have to pay for the Bailout because you pay income taxes or Social Secuirty taxes. Or you lost your savings, this article will explain to you who to blame, beside the Republicans and Democrats you so foolishly elected.

For the Goldman Sachs Rolling Stone article CLICK HERE

Or just look at this picture:

A few more good links http://www.nypost.com/seven/07012009/business/goldman_gotcha_176988.htm

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/

NEEDED: Funds would be greatly appreciated to keep up our tents: Please go to www.akwesasnewomensfire.com and donate online. For donations by check or money order please send to: Akwesasne Womens Fire, 936 Island Rd, Akwesasne ON K6H 5R7

Secretary of State Ross Miller Says Strong Enforcement Will Continue In
2010 Campaign Season

(Carson City, NV; June 26, 2009) - Secretary of State Ross Miller today announced what may be the largest penalty ever issued in Nevada for a political candidate’s failure to file campaign contribution and expenditure reports.

The First District Judicial Court earlier this month granted the state’s motion for summary judgment against Zachary Michael Triggs, a candidate for Washoe County Clerk in 2002.

The Honorable Judge James Russell ordered Triggs to pay $15,000 in civil penalties for failing to properly file three required campaign finance reports with the Secretary of State’s office. Triggs was also ordered to pay $33,369 in attorneys’ fees and $5,934 in interest and other costs. The award of judgment totaled $54,303.

“Nevada’s campaign finance laws are not arduous. There is no excuse for non-compliance,” said Secretary Miller. “These laws are necessary to protect the public’s right to know who is contributing to a candidate’s campaign and the amount of the contributions. I appreciate the message the court is sending with this judgment. My office will remain vigilant and will continue to aggressively enforce this state’s campaign finance laws.”

The Secretary of State’s office sends regular notices to political candidates reminding them of the dates by which campaign finance reports are due. By state law, the next report is not due until January 15, 2010.

The original complaint against Triggs was filed by the Secretary of State’s office on March 30, 2004. The June 1st judgment against Triggs follows a similar judgment issued last year by Judge Russell. In that case, a 2002 candidate for a Washoe County state senate seat was ordered to pay $37,000 in fines and fees for failure to file campaign finance reports.

The Nevada Attorney General’s office litigated both cases on behalf of the Secretary of State’s office.

For more information on Nevada’s campaign finance reporting laws, including deadlines for submitting reports, www.nvsos.gov.

Christopher Hansen writing from a secure and undisclosed location while recovering from the effects of governemnt tyranny writes:

In ruling in favor of the White firefighters and overruling Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee, federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor, the Court proved again the wisdom of Madison.

And then again our Supreme Court, in a ruling concerning DNA evidence it proved the words of PUBLIUS to be true.

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
“Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.
“In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. …
“But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.” PUBLIUS. (Madison) Federalist Papers 62

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion in favor of the White firefighters. Justice Scalia filed concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed concurring opinion joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Justice Ginsburg filed dissenting opinion joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer.

Got that? 5/4 decision.

Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion in District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne 129 S.Ct. 2308

Justice Alito filed concurring opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined and in which Justice Thomas joined in part. Justice Stevens filed dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined, and in which Justice Souter joined in part. Justice Souter filed dissenting opinion.

Got that? 5/4 decision.

When the Justices of the Supreme Court cannot agree as to what the law is by at least a super majority how can the average, “industrious and uniformed mass of the people” have a chance to know what the law is and how it will directly effect them?

Supreme Court justices have accountants prepare 1040 returns and then those same Justices file them not knowing if every material matter is true and correct but only hoping it is. That is perjury.

America, as predicted by Madison has become a nation that is not respected in the world, is not truly respectable as it does not possessing a certain portion of order and stability because laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, and so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

Hence continuous 5/4 6/3 rulings from the High Court.

By Christopher Hansen,

The American people do not have to tolerate an income tax system in which the federal government requires a citizen to give up any constitutional rights. The IRS has established a feudalist state and the State Civic Religion of Marxism/Socialism and that establishment violates the Establishment clause and the RFRA and even the Free Exercise Clause no matter what the Black Robed Tyrants that support their Spanish Inquisition, called Tax Court, tell us serfs.

PERSONAL INCOME TAXES POLARIZE AND DIVIDE AN OTHERWISE UNITED NATION AND PROMOTE CLASS WARFARE AND MISTRUST OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

1. The second plank in the Communist Manifesto (the Ten Commandments of the Communist Civil Religion) calls for a heavy, progressive (graduated) income tax not unlike what we have now with the IRS and its 5th Amendment violating form 1040, which punishes Americans so that their wealth may be redistributed to the Corporations the wealthy and rarely the poor.
2. Such a redistribution of wealth by and through taxation is outside the powers of the Federal Legislature (Congress) and in violation of our Republican form of government according to the United States Supreme Court in Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, *388-389, (U.S. August Term 1798)

The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, *389 in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.

3. Communism is a religion.
4. Dr. Wallace Mills of St Mary’s University wrote the following to this reporter:

“I certainly came to the conclusion many years ago that Marxism is a religion, contrary to Marx’s contention that he was being ‘scientific’. This was related to my own upbringing in a fundamentalist, Pentecostal church and I came to see a huge number of similarities and parallels between the two belief systems.”

5. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot establish a religion of secularism in School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203, *225, (1963)

We agree of course that the State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’

6. The Supreme Court has ruled in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, *578, (1992) that the government cannot establish a civic religion.

[T]he government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds.

7. Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations by Linda Woodhead Chapter 4, Titled Chinese Religions, page 99 states:

“The Cultural Revolution can itself be viewed as a secular or civic religion and revitalization of revolution….This civic religion was enforced through education.”

8. HOST Krista Tippett. “From American Public Media, this is Speaking of Faith, public radio’s conversation about belief, meaning, ethics, and ideas. Today, author Anchee Min on ‘Surviving the Religion of Mao.’”

Author Anchee Min “I was taught to write ‘I love you, Chairman Mao’ before I was taught to write my own name. I never thought I belonged to myself. It was never ‘I love you, Papa’ and ‘I love you, Mama’; it’s always ‘I love you, Communist Party of China,’ ‘I love you, Chairman Mao.’ What I want to say is that Mao was our religion.” Surviving the Religion of Mao TRANSCRIPT Broadcast Date: August 10, 2006

9. Human Rights Watch/Asia Copyright © October 1997 by Human Rights Watch ISBN: 1-56432-224-6 stated that:

Every important Chinese leader and religious official has stressed that no one in China is prosecuted for his or her religious beliefs but rather for suspected criminal acts. Tightening of control over religion, they maintain, has come only at the expense of illegal groups and illegal activities. There are two problems with that argument, however. One is that refusal to register and submit to the kind of intrusive monitoring outlined above is precisely what renders an organization illegal. The second is that for Chinese officials, religious belief is a personal, individual act, and they distinguish between personal worship and participation in organized religious activities. It is the latter that they go to great lengths to control, not the former. The whole concept of religious freedom, however, involves not only freedom of the individual to believe but to manifest that belief in community with others.

10. The IRS acts much the same way as the Communist Chinese. They allow Americans to have religious liberty as long as they “submit to the kind of intrusive monitoring” created by the Communist promoted graduated income tax.
11. China allows for so-called religious freedom as long as you FIRST submit to their civic religion of Communism. The same is NOW true in the United States. As long as you get the Mark of the Beast, AKA Social Security Number and/or numerically marked Federal reserve notes (George Read of Delaware debating the Federal Government being allowed to print paper money at the Constitutional Convention where such powers were totally denied to the Federal Government said: “The words which grant this power, if not struck out, will be as alarming as the mark of the Beast, in the Apocalypse.”) and voluntary comply with the income tax code (for I cannot call it law) then and only then can you practice your religion after you practice the Judicially and Congressionally established Civic religion of Communism/Socialism/Fascism.
12. To be forced to practice atheistic communism is forcing us, by compulsion, of the acceptance of a creed (any system of principles or beliefs, WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University) or the practice of a form of religious worship and that is not lawful according the Supreme Court in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter 492 U.S. 573, *660, (1989)

[T]he Religion Clauses “forestal[l] compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship…”

13. In Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488, *494-495, (1961) the court overturned a requirement for public office in Maryland that required a belief in God stating:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’ Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

14. If Americans are forced to sign a 1040 (subornation of perjury) or other tax returns that are ONLY for “taxpayers” (See also South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, (1984) (Non-taxpayers have different remedies), Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50, *83-84, (1982) (only taxpayers can go to Tax Court) Economy Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. U. S. 470 F.2d 585, *589 (Ct.Cl.,1972) “[P]ersons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers…” ) Therefore a taxpayer must be considered by a Christian, Jew or Muslim to be a member of a religious cult, then we are forced “to profess a belief or disbelief in [a] religion” that is anathema to our religious beliefs and exercise and that is both unconstitutional and violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
15. In Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488, *496, (1961) the court overturned a requirement for public office in Maryland that required a belief in God stating:

This was settled by our holding in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S.Ct. 215, 219, 97 L.Ed. 216. We there pointed out that whether or not ‘an abstract right to public employment exists,’ Congress could not pass a law providing “ that no federal employee shall attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.”

16. Congress, by the reasoning in Torcaso could also not require a person receiving a Congressionally created right to “attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.” But this is exactly what is occurring with the Income tax as it is allegedly requiring us to obtain and or use a Social Security Number to promote the plans (do missionary work) demanded in the Communist Manifesto which was paid for by those same groups that have debauched Americas currency in order to destroy the Liberty of this people. Liberty and the promotion of liberty is an essential part of our religious exercise. To force us, through threats of sanctions, frivolous penalties, arrest, etc. to be a part of this obvious religious and/or anti-religious doctrine and practice is akin to forcing us to “attend [BLACK] Mass or take any active part in missionary work” and is therefore a violation of both the First Amendment and the RFRA.
17. Americans, therefore, cannot be forced to participate in a religious or creed promoting taxing scheme that “takes property from A. and gives it to B: [because] It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it” (see Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, *389, (U.S. August Term 1798)
18. Communism is a different belief than a belief in God and therefore neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion’… based on different beliefs than the existence of God and against those religions founded on the existence of God and yet that is exactly what the income Tax and the Federal Reserve System is attempting to do to us.
19. Communism meets the standards of a religion a defined by the United States Supreme Court.
20. To define what a religion is, is an establishment of a religion as it limits religion by acts of the court and/or Congress.
21. Religion is the science of determining what is good and evil.
22. It is a maxim of law that: Jus est ars boni et aequi. Law is the science of what is good and evil.
23. Communism is being established by the governments of the USA as a civic or secular religion in the United States of America because the Communist Manifesto is being forced upon Americans especially, but not limited to, the 2nd, 5th and 10th planks of that manifesto.
24. The redistribution of wealth by debauched currency such as Federal reserve notes and Income Taxes are Communist and/or Capitalist Sorcery in there design and nature.
25. There was no income tax in the United States until after the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 AD.
26. The U.S. Constitution requires that all direct taxes must be uniform as follows, from in Article 1, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which says:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

27. To be uniform, a tax must apply equally to all persons similarly situated and all property of the same type or class being taxed must be taxed at the same percentage rate, no matter where people live, where the property is, or how much taxable income the person makes. Otherwise, the tax discriminates against the rich.
28. The Supreme Court stated in the case of Pollack v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) that:

“Congress has the exclusive power of selecting the class. It has regulated that particular branch of commerce which concerns the bringing of alien passengers,’ and that taxes shall be levied upon such property as shall be prescribed by law. The object of this provision was to prevent unjust discriminations. It prevents property from being classified, and taxed as classed, by different rules. All kinds of property must be taxed uniformly or be entirely exempt. The uniformity must be coextensive with the territory to which the tax applies. Mr. Justice Miller, in his lectures on the constitution, 1889 -1890 ( pages 240, 241), said of taxes levied by congress: ‘ The tax must be uniform on the particular article; and it is uniform, within the meaning of the constitutional requirement, if it is made to bear the same percentage over all the United States. That is manifestly the meaning of this word, as used in this clause. The framers of the constitution could not have meant to say that the government, in raising its revenues, should not be allowed to discriminate between the articles which it should tax.’ In discussing generally the requirement of uniformity found in state constitutions, he said: ‘The difficulties in the way of this construction have, however, been very largely obviated by the meaning of the word [157 U.S. 429, 595] ‘uniform,’ which has been adopted, holding that the uniformity must refer to articles of the same class; that is, different articles may be taxed at different amounts, provided the rate is uniform on the same class everywhere, with all people, and at all times.’ One of the learned counsel puts it very clearly when he says that the correct meaning of the provisions requiring duties, imposts, and excises to be ‘uniform throughout the United States’ is that the law imposing them should ‘have an equal and uniform application in every part of the Union.’
If there were any doubt as to the intention of the states to make the grant of the right to impose indirect taxes subject to the condition that such taxes shall be in all respects uniform and impartial, that doubt, as said by counsel, should be resolved in the interest of justice, in favor of the taxpayer.”

29. The article being taxed in the case of Subtitle A income taxes is “income” as constitutionally defined. In order to meet the uniformity requirement, every dollar bill (the article being taxed) taxed must be taxed at the same rate and not in a way that is based on the income of the person receiving it, because this would amount to discrimination according to the Supreme Court as listed above.
30. Because graduated income taxes violate the uniformity requirement of the Constitution, they must be voluntary, because the government cannot by legislation compel its citizens to violate the Constitution.
31. The Supreme Court stated the following about the nature of income taxes in general, and that neither of these two cases has ever been overruled: “To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals.. is none the less robbery because it is…called taxation.” Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874) “A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another. ” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
32. All entitlement programs, including Welfare, Social Security, FICA, etc, fall into the class of taxes identified in U.S. v. Butler that are “expropriations of money from one group for the benefit of another.” Using income taxes to redistribute income or property between social classes or persons within society makes the U.S. into a socialist country:

“socialism 1.: any of various economic political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2. a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled [partially or wholly] by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.” [Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, Merriam -Webster, p. 1118]

33. The Supreme Court, in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), stated, concerning the income tax instituted by Congress that:

“The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping stone to others larger and more sweeping, until our political contest will become war of the poor against the rich; a war of growing intensity and bitterness. … The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society.”

34. The payment of social benefits to persons not associated with the government under entitlement programs such as Social Security and Welfare invites and encourages the kind of class warfare described above in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895).
35. Compelled charity is not charity at all, but slavery disguised as charity.
36. It is also an anti-Christ religion and an establishment of religion in violation of the Constitutional restrictions against such on by the federal government.
37. Social Security is not insurance and is not a contract as ruled by the Supreme Court in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) and Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).
38. Social Security is Socialism, and that socialism must be voluntary at all times in a free country if liberty is to be preserved.
39. For the Social Security program to be called voluntary, a participant should be able or at least know how to quit a program, at all times, and that the agency should not constrain or restrict those who quit or refuse to provide information about how to quit.
40. The Social Security Administration has no well documented means to quit the Social Security religious program on their website or in any of their publications, and that they will not tell you how to do so if you call their 800 number.
41. Absent an ability to leave the Social Security program at any time, the program constructively becomes a compulsory/involuntary program for those joined or were defrauded into joining because they are not allowed to quit.
42. The application for joining Social Security does not indicate that the choice to join is irrevocable.
43. Most persons who allegedly joined the Social Security program did so when they were not competent adults, and/or joining was done by the parents and without the consent or assent of the child joining.
44. Persons whose parents applied for Social Security on their behalf are not offered a choice, upon reaching adulthood, to rescind the application so that their participation is entirely voluntary.
45. The Enumeration at Birth Program of the Social Security Administration creates the impression at hospitals where babies are born that the obtaining of Social Security numbers for their children is mandatory, and that they make it inconvenient and awkward to refuse receiving a number for their child. The child must be “baptized” into Socialism by being Marked with a numerical marking before they are allowed to leave.
46. Even though income tax returns require listing social security numbers for children who are dependents in order to claim them as deductions, parents may provide other proof such as a birth certificate in lieu of a social(ist) security number to claim the deduction for certain religious people.
47. A majority of employers will insist that their employees obtain a Social Security Number as a precondition of employment, and that makes joining the program compulsory and not mandatory for all practical purposes. (See the definition of voluntary as defined in LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992))
48. The United States Supreme Court defined what voluntary meant in LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)

“Petitioners’ argument that the option of not attending the ceremony excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself is rejected. In this society, high school graduation is one of life’s most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term “voluntary.” Also not dispositive is the contention that prayers are an essential part of these ceremonies because, for many persons, the occasion would lack meaning without the recognition that human achievements cannot be understood apart from their spiritual essence. This position fails to acknowledge that what for many was a spiritual imperative was for the Weismans religious conformance compelled by the State. It also gives insufficient recognition to the real conflict of conscience faced by a student who would have to choose whether to miss graduation or conform to the state-sponsored practice in an environment where the risk of compulsion is especially high.”

49. The government of the United States is acting in an invidious and/or covert manner to establish an anti-Christ religion and is calling it a voluntary system while violating the definition given of voluntary by the United States Supreme Court.
50. Using the government to plunder the assets of the rich to support the poor using the force of the law is no less extortion or theft because it is called “taxation”.
51. All of the preceding alleged actions and or violations assist in creating a feudalist state and the State Civic Religion of Socialism and violate the Establishment clause and the RFRA.

So at least rattle your chains a lit while you commit perjury and sign that 1040 while you practice the enforced established Civic Religion of Amerika.

By Christopher Hansen,

Admit it. You are one of millions of people in the United States of America that commit perjury every year. Do you want proof. Okay…

But first a quote from history: The great mass of people…will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. –Adolph Hitler (1889–1945), Mein Kampf

Now on to the reasons why you commit perjury every year.

First let us look at the statute:

26 USC § 7206. Fraud and false statements
Any person who—
(1) Declaration under penalties of perjury
Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

So according to 26 USC § 7206, if you sign a tax form using a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury and you not believe it to be true and correct as to every material matter you are “guilty of a felony.”

So be honest. Do you honestly believe you even owe an income tax?

Do you have any reservations whatsoever that the 16th Amendment was legally passed?

Do you know if you have a “legal residence” in any “internal revenue district”?

Are you SURE you are a person required to file? Have you read the code? Do you understand it in every material matter.

Do you honestly believe that Federal Reserve Notes are dollars even though you know in your heart that a note CANNOT be a dollar?

Do you believe that the Income tax is “voluntary“?

And if you do believe it is voluntary then why are you filing a return?

Do you honestly believe that when you sign a 1040 under penalties of perjury that you believe it is true and CORRECT as to EVERY material matter? If you do then the words of Senator Elihu Root, 1913 debate regarding the first eighty-eight page income tax act come to mind concerning your intellect:

“I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.”

In other words…If you believe the 1040 you sign every year is true and CORRECT as to EVERY material matter then you, “have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.”

Got that? If you file believing that the 1040 you signed under penalties of perjury is true and CORRECT as to EVERY material matter… You are stupid. But at least you are a part of big group.

But now let us move on to those people that procure you to commit perjury by signing a 1040 form when you do not and cannot, unless you are a moron believe it is true and CORRECT as to EVERY material matter.

USC 18 § 1622. Subornation of perjury
Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

That’s right, IRS agents, Department of Justice Attorneys like Greg Damm, federal judges like Judge Jones and Judge Dawson. You know… traitors to the Constitution and liberty. Thugs.

So now if you did believe you could sign a 1040 and not commit perjury you no longer can, unless of course you, “have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.”

Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.

Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397, 24 S.Ct. 376, 418, U.S. 1904

Tax laws, like all other laws, are made to be obeyed. They should therefore be intelligible to those who are expected to obey them.

White v. Aronson, 302 U.S. 16, 20 & 21, 58 S.Ct. 95, U.S. 1937