Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

Conservatism; and What is Liberalism, Really?

November 26, 2016


I have been hard on the liberals for their viewpoint, behavior and especially their outlook on ‘conservatives’. The question that posed itself to me is: do ‘liberals’ even know what ‘conservatives’ really believe, or the consequences of what they believe, or do they only know what their teachers, school administration and government curriculum have painted for them?

I have come to believe that liberals honestly do not even know what conservatism is, and are largely, like the animals that psychologists have worked with, programmed to respond to certain key words spoken by school teachers and media personalities. Like teaching a dog to avoid or engage certain behaviors by speaking a word like “no”, liberals are taught in the government schools to react certain ways to certain terms. Terms like “conservative”, “bigot”, “compound” and “cult” are common words with meanings which have largely been redefined by media and school officials to mean something else.

When Christians go to church or have a gathering, at a retreat or campground, it is often reported as a “compound.” What is a compound really? The internet dictionary states it is something that is “composed of two or more parts, elements, or ingredients”. It just means a place that is composed of more than one building. Oh, this sounds dangerously threatening, doesn’t it? It gets even worse if the participants are labelled as “cult members”. Such “code words” are programmed into students in today’s government schools, and the media takes “liberal” advantage (pun intended) of these terms to denigrate those the government disagrees with (i.e. conservatives).

While we’re on the subject of the schools, do you realize that Adolf Hitler was a national socialist (the liberal of his day) and one of his first acts was to revamp the educational system to produce socialists? Called “Hitler’s Youth”, they were taught to rat out their parents if they heard any non-party talk or anti-Hitler comments. The socialist fruit hasn’t fallen too far from the socialist tree. When a distraction or opposition was needed, the youth were called out to “protest”; hurt people and break things. Sound familiar? So, we could say with some truth that liberals are not so much “progressive” as “regressive”; going back to policies and practices that history shows are failures.

“Socialism” is nothing more than a regression to a tribal social structure, where the strong take the lion’s share of the resources, and the rest “share” the remainder. It is the elite’s vs the peasants, a form of feudalism. This is not some incredible, fantastic new utopian idea, it’s the same tired old doctrine of the tyrant.

Before we get too far, also realize that many call themselves “conservatives” but do not really hold to conservative values. These are often called “Neo-cons” or RHINO’s (Republicans In Name Only). Just because someone is labelled as conservative (or labels themselves such) doesn’t necessarily mean that they are. I dare say that most republican politicians are actually not very conservative.

So, what is Conservatism?

Conservatism is just as much a way of life and belief system as it is a political outlook. The definition of “conservative” might be a good starting point.

The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary states:

CONSERVATIVE, adjective Preservative; having power to preserve in a safe or entire state, or from loss, waste or injury.

The modern Webster’s Dictionary states:

a :  disposition in politics to preserve what is established b :  a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically :  such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs

In essence, a conservative believes that traditional values, those encapsulated by this nation’s founding fathers and our founding documents, form a near-perfect concept which would secure the freedom and prosperity for everyone… if they were followed. This is in opposition to those, called “progressives” or “liberals” who believe they alone know what is best for our society, and attempt to push their ‘novel’ concepts on society and force changes that may or may not be all that truly ‘progressive’, but which may rather be viewed as retrogressive.

Below I will enunciate some of the ‘Conservative values’ and the liberal alternative opinion.

* Personal Responsibility – A true conservative believes in taking responsibility for themselves and those in their household who fall under their responsibility. This includes maintaining their property and meeting their financial responsibilities and obligations. The taking care of their own household and making all decisions for it. You would know a true conservative as a person who provides for their own, respects their property and that of others, holds rights to be sacred, and basically ‘picks up after themselves’ as a normal or innate aspect of their character, not something they do just for show. This would of necessity require a small government with very limited powers and limited regulation. Some would call this simply being mature or responsible, but nevertheless it is an aspect of the conservative lifestyle and mindset.

The liberal mindset is that government is more intelligent,  compassionate, more able to handle each person’s affairs, even better than they can themselves, thus more regulation is seen as better. I think in terms of welfare and the abuse that system is infamous for. It used to be (and maybe still is) that in certain state and national parks, the park rangers set up signs “don’t feed the bears”, the stated reason is that once animals learn to get their food from humans, they tend to lose the instinct to get food naturally. The same goes for people who live off the government tit. They lose the ability (work history, work ethic) and desire to fend for themselves and instead become, essentially, slaves to the system. For an outlook like liberalism that views slavery as a social evil, it is odd the hypocrisy they follow when it comes to entitlements like welfare, illegal immigration, and the like. When people are provided for, they no longer have to provide for themselves, and they become servants to those that provide for them, at the ballot box and elsewhere.

* Biblical/Lawful Foundation – A true conservative views the Christian religion, founded upon a conservative, historical and faithful interpretation of the Bible as the Word of God, as the key to personal and civic peace and prosperity, and a system of laws founded upon those Biblical principles. As the United States Supreme Court itself has said:

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the redeemer of mankind… It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” –Supreme Court, 1892 Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States

The Scriptural examples by which our laws were originally fashioned were fair and equal. A murderer, for example, was to be executed. No exceptions by rank or status or ethnicity were allowed. One who stole was to replace what he/she stole and then pay a penalty on top of it as a punishment. Families were protected by stringent laws against adultery, and the fact that the government was largely kept out of the home. Crime was punished commensurate with the severity of the crime, and punishment was enacted swiftly.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 – “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”

Murder used to be a capital offense, because it was one of the most morally repugnant of crimes. This also happened to protect society from the ravages of men who, as rabid animals, were dangerous to the safety of others.

Genesis 9:5 – “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. 6)  Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

As a system of law is of necessity based upon the dominant religion of a nation, so too this nation was founded upon Biblical precepts and it could not have survived the trials it has endured, and remained free as long as it has, without that foundation. I mean, think about it: what is wrong with the moral commands in the Scriptures? Are they really so repressive, or are they actually the glue that holds a society together? Is abstaining from lusting after your neighbor’s wife strengthening to society, or weakening to it? What is there in Scriptural morals that is so repugnant to society that we must make a new, more “enlightened” legal system?

I believe that the liberal’s repugnance to law based on the morals from the Scriptures relates more to their spirit of rebellion to God and any lawful authority. As soon as God is mentioned, liberals begin to almost foam at the mouth and inevitably spout “separation of Church and State”, as if that really has any meaning. It was a poorly extrapolated statement that doesn’t mean what it says. The government was meant to maintain a Christian standard, and only a Christian-based system can survive. Humanist-based systems inevitably explode and are the spectacle of violence and inequality around the world.

“We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.” –U.S. Supreme Court–Zorach vs. Clauson, 1952.

What it boils down to is a liberal tolerance for crime to the point that criminals are a protected segment of society and have more rights than the people they victimize. A murderer, rather than suffer public contempt and execution are coddled in prison for life (sometimes), their expenses imposed on the backs of those who are already struggling to support themselves without having to pay for the housing, healthcare and dental care of a bunch of scum and gang members who are a blight on our society. Is this the “compassion” the liberals tote? Compassion for whom? Certainly not for the victims of crime, nor for the public at large. The simple fact is that some people should not be tolerated, some behaviors should not be accepted, and self-esteem be damned, some people legitimately should not be allowed to continue an existence on God’s earth.


* Liberty not ‘Freedom,’ AKA Moral Foundation – A true conservative recognizes that a people cannot coexist in any peaceable and lasting way unless they have the liberty to do so, not the “freedom.” Freedom implies no moral restraint, whereas liberty has the connotation of freedom within ethical constraints. We have the liberty to live as we will, provided we live in a moral and peaceable fashion. We do not have the ‘freedom’ to do whatever we want, for our very laws are founded upon the moral strictures of the Bible.

Once we begin to change the laws, to make perverse behaviors acceptable, the very foundations of our government and legal systems become corrupt. If a politician’s wife cannot trust him to be faithful to his marriage vows, why should his constituents trust him to honor his oath of office? Words and behaviors have repercussions, and conservatives desire only the highest of both as a bulwark to safeguard our government and personal lives.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to want to legalize if not grant special privileges to every aberrant behavior they can conceive. Gay marriage, openly gay behavior, the lust-inspiring and wicked “performances” of many singers and actors/actresses and content on public television erodes our society, it doesn’t “progress” or advance it. A liberal will rake a conservative over the coals, figuratively, for being a womanizer, all the while condoning a liberal singer who flagrantly flaunts and touches her body inappropriately in plain view of a public audience. It’s the singer who is inspiring lust in everyone around her, tempting them to do what they know is perverse, but it is the conservative, who is accused of some behavior or other, that is the evil one. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Our government was not designed to allow or function with uncontrolled wickedness. The wicked man cannot be self-controlled or self-governed, but must be governed with an iron fist.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31)

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” — Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Maybe this is why liberals keep calling this a “democracy,” perhaps they instinctively realize that their behavior is incompatible with a republic… or maybe I give them too much credit…

* General Political Considerations – The modern Webster’s dictionary pretty much has it right as far as what a true conservative emphasizes in the realm of politics. In a system where everyone lives by “conservative” standards, working to support themselves, following a law-abiding lifestyle, and living in a Constitutionally operative government, taxes would not need to be high, and welfare would be largely non-existent. We wouldn’t need many jails (there are always a few who just can’t follow rules), and if everyone exercised a little common sense, we wouldn’t need a lot of government regulation. These things are possible on a large-scale, but it requires the majority of the people to follow suit.

On the subject of “bigotry” and racism, one must realize that there are bigots and racists in every ethnicity and nationality. Some are borne of personal experience, some from a national or cultural source. American conservatives, in general, believe in taking their opinions of individuals based on that person’s behavior and attitudes. Obviously, there are exceptions, but conservatives in general hold no person to be less than any other just based on their genetics. So, this constant media and educational bias of calling anyone with a conservative bent “racist” is fear-mongering and slander at best, but sometimes a conservative’s record is of such quality that there is nothing else a liberal can do to sully that person’s reputation than to resort to innuendo and slander.

The Liberal Alternative

Do these points sound “archaic”? Intolerant? Does every behavior and idea necessarily have a right to be ‘tolerated’? Aren’t there ideas that are poisonous to a society? Those who enforce their concept of morality on the public, would they accept a modern Aztec practice of ritual heart removal? Why not? Is homosexuality any less moral than ritual murder, especially if the victim is willing to go under the knife? Or assisted suicide? Or the euthanasia of the elderly? Or bestiality, or incest? Or are all of these really sins and crimes? A true conservative would believe so.

Opposed to conservatism, what are the ‘liberal values’? Freedom from religion, freedom from morality, take from the rich and give to the poor (rather than build the poor up and make them self-sufficient), radical environmentalism, which devolves into a pseudo-religion for some of the more fanatical liberals. Liberalism is basically the ideology which opposes traditional values and standards, seeking to go from a place of peace and equality to a man-made, historically disproven kind of equality and fairness: the theoretical humanist utopia. Government over all, without any constraints from any God. Tribalism. Strong vs the weak. The doctrine of the wolf vs the lamb. A degeneration of society rather than its advancement.

What about the environment? What is the conservative position on that? Well, the modern ‘climate change’ ideology came largely from Karl Marx and company.

“The dialectical nature of climate change is a striking confirmation of the philosophy of dialectical materialism developed by the founders of scientific socialism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.”

The dialectical process is, in a nutshell, to create a problem for the express purpose of offering a solution to that problem, of course one that benefits Marxism, which are the ones who use this process. Incidentally, liberals and the government use it all the time…

So, create a problem (climate change) and then give the world a cause for this problem (human beings), then propose a (Marxist) solution to solve the problem – population control and taxing the right of everyone to live (the very air everyone needs to breathe). Environmentalism is not a conservative issue, since it’s largely a made-upon dialectical issue, not a real-life issue. If everyone lived a conservative lifestyle, lived responsibly, individuals and businesses, then “climate change”, if it were real, would be recognized as a product of a natural cycle (which it is), not a man-made problem.

Unfortunately, the end result of liberalism (which is Marxist socialism) is a Communist Dictatorship, which eliminates, as much as possible, any personal freedom (hence, everyone has equal freedom – none), financial incentive (fiscal freedom – total equality), and right to life. Liberals: under a system you would consider “fair” and “equal”, you would find all deformed/retarded children/adults would be euthanized. All babies considered by the state to be unnecessary would be aborted. The elderly and disabled, who under such a system would not be able to produce anything, would be euthanized. The government would tell you how to live and whether you would get the opportunity to live. This is the end result of extreme Marxism, and it is what liberalism is trying to create within our nation. It happened in Hitler Germany under a Socialist regime, and it can and will happen here if these Socialists (“Liberals”) are not stopped.

According to, the number of deaths from Marxism to date are as follows:

People’s Republic of China Body Count: 73,237,000

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Body Count: 58,627,000

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Body Count: 3,163,000

Cambodia Body Count: 2,627,000

Democratic Republic of Afghanistan Body Count: 1,750,000

Vietnam Body Count: 1,670,000

People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Body Count: 1,343,610

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Body Count: 1,072,000

To my knowledge, this does not include the number of infanticides and abortions by these nations.

Is this really preferable to a “conservative” system of fair laws and personal morals and responsibility? I think not.


ADDENDUM 11/28/16

Remember the hoopla about “Rush is Right”? Well, I was right, about the truth behind liberalism and its Marxist roots. Upon the death of the infamous Fidel Castro’s death, what was the reaction in the liberal world?


See, one of the most wicked men of our generation, responsible for his tight-fisted control of his country and abuse of his “peasants” is lauded by liberals as a great man. Are they really that stupid? No, but they share his Marxist opinions and that makes them bad for America. Anyone who would look up to a Castro, or a Hitler for that matter, who was also a Socialist, needs to be “re-educated”. In my opinion, they are too foolish to know what is good for themselves or this country. Yes, they need to be governed, for they do not have what it takes to be self-governed. That is the fault of the socialist government schools, also called “public schools”. Unless this is fixed, its very possible that a new civil war could be the result. Marxism and the Christian Republic our founders left us are not compatible. One must succeed and one must fail.



The Revised Codes of Washington (RCW’s) Are Not Law

October 22, 2016


The Revised Code of Washington specifically disclaims any authority of law, to wit:

RCW 1.04.021 Rule of construction – Prima facie law

“The contents of said code shall establish prima facie the laws of this state of a general and permanent nature in effect on January 1, 1949, but nothing herein shall be construed as changing the meaning of any such laws. In case of any omissions, or any inconsistency between any of the provisions of said code and the laws existing immediately preceding this enactment, the previously existing laws shall control.” [1950 ex.s. c 16 § 2.] (emphasis added)

Is it possible that something which is law cannot change the law? Absolutely not! Such a statement would be exceedingly ridiculous if the RCW were actually law.

While it is true that the Revised Code of Washington purports to be prima facie evidence of the law, this does not mean that it is the law, nor is its claim of prima facie authenticity necessarily valid.

The Washington State Supreme Court has specifically stated that it is not the law.

The Washington Supreme Court has specifically stated that the compilation entitled “Revised Code of Washington” is not the law.

“In this respect, the1951 legislature was following its own unconstitutional device for amending a section of an act in disregard of the specific constitutional mandate. The act before us does not purport to amend a section of an act, but only a section of a compilation entitled “Revised Code of Washington,” which is not the law. Such an act purporting to amend only a section of the prima facie compilation leaves the law unchanged.” Parosa vs Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d 409, 415 (1960) (emphasis added)

“But we think that the fundamental error into which the court fell was in assuming that the several sections cited are concurrent in point of time. A glance at the chapter alone will show that it is not composed of any single enactment of the legislature. On the contrary, it is a composite of several independent acts of the legislature ranging from territorial days down to the session of the state legislature of 1907; it is so to speak, the compilers idea of what now remains as law of the many enactments of the legislature. But the compilation has no official sanction in the sense that it controls the construction the court must put upon the several acts.” Spokane P. & S. R Co. vs Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 26, (1919). (Emphasis added)

The RCW is unlawfully revised

The compilation entitled “The Revised Code of Washington” is not the work of our legislature, or any elected body of legislative representatives. Instead, it is a private compilation, a private ‘law’ which is written for private purposes, private agendas, and private gain.

The code reviser himself is an appointed officer; he is not elected by “We the People.” Furthermore, he is appointed directly by the Governor, and as such, he is an executive agent. Yes, that ís right. The Revised Code of Washington is the work of our executive branch. Of all the possible scenarios, the executive operating legislatively is perhaps the most dangerous of all.

The RCW is copyrighted and private

It is an undeniable and indisputable fact that the compilation entitled “Revised Code of Washington” is in fact copyrighted by a private corporation Yes, it is true. The RCW, just like its predecessors, Remington’s & Balinger’s, is copyrighted. Arthur Remington compiled the statutes of Washington, and the work was copyrighted by the Bancroft-Whitney Company, originally in 1910.

The RCWs do not meet Constitutional requirements

One of the forms that all laws are required to follow by the Constitution of Washington (1889) is that they contain an enacting style or clause. This provision is stated as follows:

“The style of the laws of the state shall be: “Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington.’” Article II, Section 18.

None of the statutes found in the Revised Code of Washington contain any enacting clauses. The constitutional provision which prescribes an enacting clause for all laws is not discretionary, but is mandatory. This provision is to be strictly adhered to as asserted by the Supreme Court of Washington:

“Upon both principle and authority, we hold that article 4, Sec. 13, of our constitution, which provides that “the style of all laws of this state shall be, ‘Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Washington,’” is mandatory, and that a statute without any enacting clause is void.” Sjoberg vs Security Savings & Loan Assn., 73 Minn, 203, 212 (1898); The Seat of Government, 1 Wash. T. 115, 123 (1861).

The laws in the Revised Code of Washington do not show on their face the authority by which they are adopted and promulgated. There is nothing on their face which declares they should be law, or that they are of the proper legislative authority in this state.

The RCWs lack proper titles

All laws are to have titles indicating the subject matter of the law, as required by the Constitution of Washington (1889):

Article II, Sec. 19: No law shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

By this provision, a title is required to be on all laws. The title is another one of the forms of a law required by the Constitution. This type of constitutional provision “makes the title an essential part of every law.” Thus the title “is as much a part of the act as the body itself.” Leininger vs Alger, 26 N.W. 2d 348, 351, 316 Mich. 644 (1947).

The complete omission of a title is about as substantial and plain a violation of this constitutional provision as can exist. The laws cited in the ‘Revised Code of Washington’ are of that nature. They have no titles at all, and thus are not laws under our State Constitution.

The provisions requiring an enacting clause and one-subject titles were adhered to with the publications known as the “Session Law” and “General Laws” for the State of Washington. But because certain people in government thought that they could devise a more convenient way of doing things without regard for provisions of the State Constitution, they devised the contrivance known as the “Minnesota Statutes,” and then held it out to the public as being “law.” This of course was fraud, subversion, and a great deception upon the people of this State; fortunately, it has now been revealed and exposed (Matthew 10:26, Luke 12:2).

There is no justification for deviating from or violating a written constitution. The “Revised Code of Washington,” cannot be used as law, like the “Session Laws” were once used, solely because the circumstances may have changed and we now have more laws to deal with. It cannot be said that the use and need of revised statutes without titles and enacting clauses must be justified due to expediency.

The “Revised Code of Washington” is published by the Reviser of Statutes, and is copyrighted by him or his office. The “Session Laws” were never copyrighted, as they were a true public document. In fact, no true public document of this state or any state or of the United States has been or can be under a copyright. Public documents are in the public domain. A copyright infers a private right over the contents of a book, suggesting that the ‘laws’ in the “Revised Code of Washington” thus are not true public laws at all.

“Uncertain things are held for nothing.” “Maxim of Law

“The law requires not conjecture, but certainty.” Coffin vs Ogden, 85 U.S. 120, 124.

“Where the law is uncertain, there is no law.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Volume 2; “Maxims,” 1880 edition.

I would like to give credit to the now defunct Washington Jural Society for the above information. Lies and deception seem to be the the rule in politics and law, rather than the exception.

Rights vs Privileges

January 18, 2014


Everyone throws around that they have a “right” to this, or to be that. Gays are certain they have a “right” to marry and/or do whatever their agenda for the day is. Minorities are certain they have a “right” to “equal” privileges as the majority enjoy. Well, the question then arises, what are “rights”, the different kinds of “rights” and what “rights” do we really have? After all, if you don’t know your rights, you can’t assert them.

“Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences.” Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 (1970).

Inalienable Rights

Ok, in order to understand what we’re discussing we must first know what “rights” are. According to

“18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.

19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women’s rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.

20.  adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.

21. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.

22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.”

In essence, rights are claims or actions which are granted and protected by some higher authority. In a Constitutional sense, rights are granted by God to man. These God-granted rights are also called “natural” rights and are inalienable (in-a-lien-able or unable to be liened, or denied by any legal means).

Civil Rights

Also known as political rights. Civil rights are also rights granted by a higher authority, at least ostensibly (technically, the people are supposed to possess superior power vs the government in our system). Civil rights are typically granted by some branch of government to some or all of the people. This is from

“Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, colour, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.”

This list of civil rights is actually redundant, assuming a system that does not already recognize the God-given inalienable rights of “the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement”.

The major difference the two types is that inalienable rights, as I’ve already stated, cannot be abrogated by anyone less than the one who gave the rights in the first place, namely God Himself, while civil rights are “civil” or societal and are not so immutable. In fact, a civil right is little more than a government-granted privilege, and can be revoked just as easily as it was granted in the first place.

“A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law… Privilege is either absolute or conditional.”

Law Dictionary:, “Privilege”

Civil rights are typically granted to a class or group of persons for political reasons, and are usually revocable. To make them absolute would require that language to be specifically written in the law.

“There is inherent in the very word “privilege” the idea of something apart and distinct from a common right which pertains to all citizens or exists in all subjects. It connotes some sort of special grant from sovereignty, some type of necessary special permission or consent which the sovereign in its discretion might have withheld or failed to provide, such as the right to do business as a corporation or the right to record a mortgage.” State vs Welsh, 251 N.W. 189, 200 (S.D. 1933).

Inalienable Rights Enumerated

  • Right of Association and Religion (1st Amendment)
  • Right of Speech (1st Amendment)
  • Right of Self Defense (2nd Amendment)
  • Right to Contract (Article 1 Sec. 10)
  • Right to Privacy (4th Amendment)
  • Right to Equal Protection (14th Amendment)
  • Right to not be subjected to Involuntary Servitude (13th Amendment)
  • Right to Due Process (5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th Amendments)

Some of these rights are very broad, much more so than I have the time to get into. Also, don’t forget the most important 9th amendment which states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In other words, there are other rights which were not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but which are just as protected as those that are enumerated (there was a hotly contested argument when the idea of a Bill of Rights was contemplated, seeing as how the founders couldn’t possible mention every single right the people possessed).

The most important facts I wish all readers to take away from this article are these:

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

It is blatantly illegal for any level of government to convert a right 
either into a crime or a privilege.

Right to Travel
Our concept of rights came to us from English Common Law, which was formed 
over time and from practical experience. 
One of the first recognizable documents forming the English Common Law is 
the Magna Charta (or Carta). 
The right to travel appears to have had its origins in this document, 
paragraph 41:

 “All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us.”

The right was initially invested only in merchants, but later applied to commoners as well. All were free to travel on the King’s Highway without dispute or toll. Interfering with such free travel was illegal.

Now, we all know that in order to “drive” (this is a definable term) you have to have a license. What does “license” really mean? The below is taken from

License – The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act.

Ok, so, if a right cannot be converted into a privilege, then do we have a right to travel or not? Yes, to travel, but not to “drive”.

Recall my previous posting about Taxes and the Law. When a lawyer wants to hide what he is doing, he codes the statutes in “terms” which are definable at will. Words such as “drive” and “motor vehicle” are terms that are re-defined to suit their purposes.

Code of Federal Regulations

Subpart A — General Applicability and Definitions

Sec. 390.5  Definitions.

Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.

Sounds reasonable, right? Ok, what is a “motor vehicle” according to these people?

Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 31

Sec. 31. Definitions

When used in this chapter the term  – 

”Motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.  ”Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit;

Ok, do you “drive” a “motor vehicle” for “commercial purposes”? Most people don’t. Yet, you are still required to have a license to do that which is a right, to travel. License means permission. A common right, the right to freely travel along public streets and highways, has been converted into a privilege requiring government license (permission) to prevent suffering criminal action against you. Have the courts agreed to this?

The Supreme Court of Minnesota in the case of Hanson vs Hall, 202 Minn. 381, 383 (1938) had stated:

“Our society is builded in part upon the free passage of men and goods, and the public streets and highways may rightfully be used for travel by everyone.”

The Supreme Court of Nebraska in Michelsen vs Dwyer, 63 N.W.2d, 513, 517, 158 Neb. 427 (1954) stated:

“It is well settled that the public are entitled to a free passage along the highway.”

The Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of City of Chicago vs Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910, 175 Ill. 445, stating:

A license is a privilege granted by the state. To constitute a privilege, the grant must confer authority to do something which, without the grant, would be illegal; for if what is to be done under the license is open to everyone without it, the grant would be merely idle and nugatory, conferring no privilege whatever. A license, therefore implying a privilege, cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right, free and open to all, as is the right of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge and without toll.” Also in: Hubman vs State, 33 S.W. 843, 844-45, 61 Ark. 482.

The Supreme Court of Colorado said:

“Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state; every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People vs Nothaus, 363 P.2d 180, 182; 147 Colo. 210, 214 (1961).

How about Idaho?

“The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams vs City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

Virtually every State of the Union has cases such as these supporting the right of the people to travel over the roadways. Does the mode of transportation matter? The Supreme Court of Iowa has held that:

“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.” House vs Cramer, 112 N.W. 3, 134 Iowa 374.

Or this:

“Automobile vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.” Chicago Coach Co. vs City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205, 169 N.E. 22; Matson vs Dawson, 178 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Neb. 1970).

Now, travel upon the roads for commercial purposes, for the purpose of making money, is and always has been subject to license and taxation, i.e. vehicle registration. However, if you own a vehicle (which is property) and have a vested right to use that property, can you reasonably be taxed for its use? No, not unless you are doing so in a commercial capacity. So, why does the government seem to think everyone “drives” as part of a commercial venture?

The Revised Code of Washington is perhaps a good source to check out a theory of mine…

RCW 70.77.190

Definitions – “Person”

“Person” includes any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, concern, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.


RCW 1.16.080

“Person” – Construction of “association,” “unincorporated association,” and “person, firm, or corporation” to include a limited liability company.

(1) The term “person” may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited liability company, as well as an individual.

(2) Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms “association,” “unincorporated association,” and “person, firm, or corporation” or substantially identical terms shall, without limiting the application of any term to any other type of legal entity, be construed to include a limited liability company.

Other than the term “individual” everything else is clearly a legal creation. Firms, corporations, associations, trusts, etc, are all legal entities or constructs. There is a rule of legal interpretation called “ejusdem generis” and it simply states that in a list such as these, the items in the list must be presumed to be of the same kind or class. So, if every term listed is an artificial or legally-created entity, then it follows that an “individual” must also be a legally-created entity, which does not denote a flesh and blood human being. All legal fictions are subjects to licenses and taxes and fees which flesh-and-blood human beings with inalienable rights are not required to have or pay.

What this all means, people, is that the government views you as its creation, and under its total jurisdiction and authority. It means that legal entities, being created by a governmental agency, have no rights and must follow every rule, law and statute passed by their creator. It means, as far as your city, state, county and federal government is concerned, you are a legal fiction and not a real person and as a result, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AND MUST PAY FOR PRIVILEGES. And because you are a legal fiction, like a corporation, you must be licensed and all your property must be registered, and all the travel you engage in is for profit (after all, that’s what a corporation is created for, to make a profit). That’s the only thing that makes any sense to me, after getting this far. The question is: how can you convince the government that you are a sovereign human being and force it to respect your inalienable rights?

Truth or fiction? You decide.

Lawful Government and Lawful Taxation

December 25, 2013

Tax time is approaching again, and most people are preparing to bend over to have their fiscal bottom-line examined. How much did you make? How much investment income did you have? Did you receive any rents or tips? Well, if you love this kind of operation as much as I do, then maybe the following little collection of facts might be of interest to you, or at least give you something to think about as you are on the hypothetical operating table having your financial rear end searched and seized.

Lawful Government

‘Lawful government’ is exactly what it appears to be, government grounded on lawful principles, and operating within whatever lawful limits it was created to function within. A government that routinely operates outside its charter or laws and limitations is what is called de facto, or government in fact rather than government by law. A government that operates within its lawful limits is called de jure, or in law.

Unlawful Government

“… [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power [TYRANNY], no longer susceptible of any definition.” –Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791.

Any government that operates outside the law is not just de facto, but is in fact a tyranny.

Federal Authority and Responsibility

Our federal government was created by the 13 original States, after the Articles of Confederation were found to make the federal (federation) government too weak and ineffective. This was because the colonies didn’t want a federal authority with too much power, afraid that after all the trouble they went to create their own government that it would turn out to be dictatorial like England was. The States could operate their own business well enough individually, but needed an organization to see to things like import taxes, treaties and foreign relations in general, and the settlement of disputes between the States. All the powers delegated to the federal government are stated in the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, and are very limited.


Originally, each person was a citizen of his/her State. The States were actually small nations, with an agreed-upon intermediary, the “federal government” to deal with international and inter-state issues.

“We have in our political system (a) a government of the United States and (b) a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect.” U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 588, 590 (1875) – (a) and (b) notations added

“One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States.” McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323 (1883)

“Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors, 221 A.2d 431 (1966).

So, in the beginning, you were a citizen of your State, not of the “United States”. Technically, the “United States” isn’t a nation, it’s a corporation; but Washington or Oregon or California, etc, are all sovereign nations. I know, this is odd as we’ve all been taught we are citizens of the United States, but at least up until the 14th Amendment, that really wasn’t true. Next time you fill out a form that asks if you are a “U.S. Citizen”, think about what is the correct answer. Are you a subject of Congress, or a citizen of your State?

This next quote is a little deep, but revealing:

“By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage—arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy—has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing [in 1855, before the 14th Amendment created them, in 1868]….To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states. If we examine the language closely, and according to the rules of rigid construction always applicable to delegated powers, we will find that the power to naturalize in fact is not given to Congress, but simply the power to establish an uniform rule….[A] distinction both in name and privileges is made to exist between citizens of the United States ex vi termini [ by the very meaning of the term used. Reference is being made to those living in the District of Columbia.], and citizens of the respective States. To the former no privileges or immunities are granted…” Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300 (1855).

In other words, there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States”, but only citizens of the respective States, and naturalization was simply a uniform rule for the naturalization of citizens into each State of the Union. Something significant changed with the addition of the 14th Amendment. We may or may not get into that in this post, but we’ll see…



1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies.

2. power; authority; control: He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area.

3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority: This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police.

4. the territory over which authority is exercised: All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.

Each branch of government has territory and subjects over which it has “jurisdiction”. The federal government also has limitations as to its authority, except for those areas that are outside the States, or ceded to the federal government by the States.

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (1894)

“Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction.” New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. 662, 737 (1836).

As originally envisaged, the federal, or “national” government was intended to have interaction with the States and foreign nations. It was not intended to have any contact with citizens of the States themselves. The care of State citizens was under the jurisdiction of each individual State. That has obviously changed. What exactly is the jurisdiction of the federal government when it comes to taxes?

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union; the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)

“A canon of construction which teaches that [acts of] Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 (1949)

Were the income tax laws intended to be imposed over the States of the Union, or only internally (the territory under absolute control of the federal government)? Constitutionally, Congress only has absolute power over territories, those parts of the States given to the federal government such as military bases, shipyards, etc, and Washington DC. Read the U.S. Code and find out if the tax laws cover the “States” (of the Union) or “states” (territories of the federal government) and watch carefully the definitions of the terms. They are usually vague, and subject to change often.


“’Territories’ or ‘territory’ as including ‘state’ or ‘states’. While the term ‘territories of the’ United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of Congress ‘territory’ does not include a foreign state.

As used in this title, the term ‘territories’ generally refers to the political subdivisions created by Congress, and not within the boundaries of any of the several States.” Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), “Territories”, §1

Remember that the States of the Union are foreign jurisdictions to the federal government:

“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” N.Y. re: Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479; Affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287.

United States

Ok, we’ve looked at what States are, what about the “United States”? What is it, from a legal standpoint?

26 U.S.C. §7701 – Definitions

(a)(9) United   States

The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

(a)(10) State

The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

So, the “United States” includes the States (District of Columbia) and the District of Columbia? Is this what we pay these lawyers to write?

Sec. 3121 Definitions: (e) State, United States and citizen

For purposes of this chapter – (2) United States.  The term “United States” when used in the geographical sense, includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.”

Uh, something missing? Just to show you, when the feds want the definition to include the States, they know how to write them in. Example:

26 U.S.C. §4612(a)(4) – United States


The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.


In order to know whether I have to pay “income taxes” I must first know what “income” is:

“The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.” U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400(8th Cir., 1976).

That just figures.

Well, here is the definition of ‘income’ from other sources.

“…Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise scientific definition of “income”, it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax: conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.” Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918).

At least the courts know what income is. Ok, here’s the multi-billion dollar question: Are wages considered ‘income’?

“Whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber, supra, it was true under sect. 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under sect. 61(a)  of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income… Congress has taxed INCOME and not compensation.Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187 (1969)

“There is a clear distinction between profit [income] and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit [income] within the meaning of the law.” Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992, 86 S.E. 2d 858 (1955)

Does the average wage-earner engage in “corporate activities”? No. When an employer contracts with a person for their labor what they are essentially doing is saying, ‘Your time is worth $X/hour to me, and in exchange for your time I will compensate you by that rate.’ It is COMPENSATION not PROFIT. You exchange thousands of hours of your life in return for the dollar amount you and your employer agree those hours are worth. It’s called an “even exchange.”

Income Tax Origins

The discussions of Congress around the language and purpose of the income tax in 1913 are very revealing.


It ought not to be forgotten, however – and I am now speaking to the lawyers on the other side; I want to make a lawyer’s argument and not to raise at this moment any question of policy – that the authority of the Congress of the United States with regard to this subject is not unlimited. Our power is not like the power which Great Britain exercises over the subject. It is not like the power which the several States exercise over the subject. It is a power granted in article 16 of the Constitution, and I will read it:

Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Our authority is to levy a tax upon incomes. I take it that every lawyer will agree with me in the conclusion that we cannot levy under this amendment a tax upon anything but an income. I assume that every lawyer will agree with me that we cannot legislatively interpret the meaning of the word “income”. That is purely a judicial matter. We cannot enlarge the meaning of the word “income”. We need not levy our tax upon the entire income. We may levy it upon part of an income, but we cannot levy it upon anything but an income; and what is income must be determined by the courts of the country when the question is submitted to them.

I think there can be no controversy with regard to those propositions. I am very anxious that when this bill shall have passed it may be effective, that its operation may not be suspended or delayed through a resort to legal tribunals.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President –

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Iowa yield to the Senator from Florida?

Mr. CUMMINS.  I yield to the Senator.

Mr. FLETCHER.  I should like to enquire whether the Senator means to state that Congress cannot by statute define what shall be regarded as an income tax?

Mr. CUMMINS.  I do not think so, Mr. President. The word “income” had a well-defined meaning before the amendment of the Constitution was adopted. It had been defined in all the courts of this country. When the people of the country granted Congress the right to levy a tax on incomes, that right was granted with reference to the legal meaning and interpretation of the word “income” as it was then or might thereafter be defined or understood in legal procedure. If we could call anything income that we pleased, we could obliterate all the distinctions between income and principal. Whenever this law is tested in the courts of the country, it will be found that the courts will undertake to declare whether the thing upon which we levy the tax is income or whether it is something else, and therefore we ought to be in the highest degree careful in endeavoring to interpret the Constitution through a statutory enactment.” Congressional Record, August 18, 1913, Volume 50, p. 3843

Mr. Brandegee.  Mr. President, what I said was that the [16th] amendment exempts absolutely everything that a man makes for himself. Of course it would not exempt a legacy which somebody else made for him and gave to him. If a man’s occupation or vocation – for vocation means nothing but a calling – if his calling or occupation were that of a financier, it would exempt everything he made by underwriting and by financial operations in the course of a year that would be the product of his effort. Nothing can be imagined that a man can busy himself about with a view of profit which the amendment as drawn would not utterly exempt.” 50 Cong. Rec., p. 3839 (1913).

The courts have ruled more or less consistently since.

“Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed.” Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926).

“There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.” Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992, 86 S.E.2d 858 (1955).

“Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.” Lauderdale Cemetery Assn. v. Matthews, 345 Pa. 239, 47 A.2d 277, 280 (1946).

“Whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential feature of gain [profit] to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber, supra, it was true under sect. 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under sect. 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income… Congress has taxed INCOME and not compensation.” Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527 (1927).

So there you have it.

Corporate gain = profit = income = susceptible to the income tax.

Employment = wages = compensation = not susceptible to the income tax.

Of course, the IRS will not see it this way so you are advised to know what you are doing if you choose to use information like this in your own defense. I have found websites like to have a ton of information on the income tax and law in general.

There are a lot of misconceptions about law out there. Part of the problem is that law is not addressed in the public schools. The BAR Association wants to keep its monopoly on our legal system, and sharing any information with students at the public schools would, apparently, endanger that system. The government also doesn’t want too many savvy people catching on to their word games. The ignorant are more easily controlled than the educated. People, get yourselves educated.