America’s Established Religion…Marxism
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.