The MYTH of the Big Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

99.9% of the professional political hacks either in office or running for office as a Repub or Dem subscribe to (or support)...or at least, do not oppose:

Corporatocracy-promoted Globalism;

no-term-limits, which virtually guarantees corruption;

the bogus "War on Terror";

the bogus "War on Drugs";

the concept of American dominance;

the devastating practice of deficit-spending;

an ever-growing Fed Govt;

a two-party monopoly in politics;

the very idea of political parties (which are completely unnecessary);

soft money in political campaigns;

our destructive fiat money system;

the misapplied Individual Income Tax (all of which goes to pay the interest on the nat'l debt);

the concept that Govt knows best what is good for the individual;

the military-industrial complex;

the concept of Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), which allows the abrogation of the Constitution;

the idea that it's just too complicated to end the war in Iraq now;

the idea that individuals must be forced to pay for items that the majority thinks are necessary, even when there is no Constitutional authority to permit the central govt to delve into those areas;

the welfare state;

the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System; and,

the Patriot Act (which virtually has trashed much of the Bill of Rights).

So, where are the big differences?

Another Tool: Another "Notice"

For the Record: NOTICE to CEASE and DESIST

Demand for truth is made, of all parties or interests, for full disclosure.

NOTICE
From: scott c. haley

To:______________________________


Regarding: ______________________________________ _________________________________________ _____________________________________________________

____________________________________
____________________________________
__________________________, _________


Dear: ___________________________

This is actual notification that by and through this correspondence:

Your items are refused for cause without dishonor, and without recourse to me, and returned herewith because they are irregular, unauthorized, incomplete, and void process.

Your paperwork is incomplete and defective upon its face due to insufficient law.

All paperwork was received but not accepted.

That I, in my sovereign status possessing unalienable rights, have no contractual or other relationship with you that is in dishonor; therefore your vexatious harassment is a foreign private trespass.

Demand is made that you cease and desist. You are in dishonor.


So done by virtue of common law individual superior court, Skagit county, WA:


This ____ day of ___________, two-thousand seven. ____________________________,
_____________________________ ______________

scott c. haley
Expressly Reserving All Rights.

[Address]



Page one of one page

More Practical Sovereignty

Once in awhile an individual or business will receive a "Notice" or a "Notice to Comply" from a governmental agency. Such "Notices" are sometimes not proper or lawful. For example, I once received a Notice to Comply from the Environmental Health Dept. of a rural northern California county, regarding how I handled septic waste on my place (at the time) of thirty-eight acres. Said Notice was entirely improper because the department that issued it had never done an onsite inspection. The "inspector" apparently was too busy, or lazy, and was operating on hearsay knowledge. [When I pointed this out, the "Notice" was deleted from their records, I received an apology, and the department took no further action.]

Even if the Notice received is proper and lawful, it is often helpful to oppose it, thereby delaying a re-inspection or administrative action by the agency. Many times (more often than not) agencies are so backlogged with compliance work that they pick only the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. In any case, it is always good to stand up for your rights when you believe that you've done nothing wrong, or you believe that the ordinance in question is excessive or intrusive.

Below is a Notice that you may copy and use when necessary. Simply change my name to yours and change the county (location of Affiant). One way to demonstrate to an agency (especially local or State) that you do not intend their Notice to go unchallenged is to turn right around and issue THEM a Notice. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. It always buys you time.

Notice and Affirmation

Whereas the Declaration of Independence states with clarity that all individuals are endowed with certain unalienable rights; and,
Whereas the Declaration illustrates that said rights are independent of any government; and,
Whereas I affirm that I possess said unalienable rights, and thus possess individual sovereignty; and,
Whereas in Common Law an individual is free to do whatever one wishes, as long as that individual does not trespass upon the rights or property of another individual and honors all lawful contracts;

Now Therefore:

I refuse your paperwork that alleges violations of law or contract foreign to my venue, which no oath, promise, or common law attaches me thereto.

Your documents were received but not accepted.

All items are refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to me.

Your paperwork is returned herewith because it is irregular, incomplete, and void process.

Further foreign intrusion upon my sovereignty by you or any agent of yours shall result in my charge of $200.00 per hour (or portion thereof) for any time that I must spend responding.

Recovery of charges shall be pursued in de jure common law superior court.

No response from you or your agency/department/entity will be taken as agreement with the statements contained in this Notice and Affirmation, according to de jure common law.

I affirm and attest that, to the best of my knowledge, the above is true and correct. So stated by Affiant: Scott C. Haley, in Skagit County, Washington

(signature)_________________________________
Date _____________

Notice and Affirmation received by:
(print name) _________________________________

(signature)_________________________________
Date ______________

More on Boycotting

This is only my opinion and perhaps many will disagree, but national elections in this country have become truly meaningless. They present us with this choice: a horrible, especially corrupted evil, OR, just a corrupted evil.

I see only two reasonable options left to honorable people:
1. Boycott the Establishment---that can be done minimally, maximally, or anything in-between. (Use your imagination.) One's stage of life plays a big part in how much you're willing to risk.
2. Secession: not as crazy as it sounds. Vermont has a very active secessionist movement currently, with about 64,000 people involved. I've found this site, http://middleburyinstitute.org/ , to be the most responsible and logical of the various secessionist websites.

Armed revolt obviously is out of the question. Any such action would be thoroughly crushed. Pockets of resistance might survive for years, but not enough to matter. Some people are talking about this very action on the web...I think they are very unrealistic.

Only nonviolent civil disobedience will ever change the entrenched DC way of doing things. People have forgotten that being under a government is voluntary, and that we really do have unalienable rights that have nothing at all to do with any government...whatsoever.

There were/are three types of "citizen" (legally) in this country:
1. a citizen of a State of the Union (this is the most important category, Constitutionally);
2. a citizen of "the United States", prior to the 14th Amendment (which really is a different name for number 1 above); and,
3. a citizen of "the United States" per the 14th Amendment (which is clearly different from either of the above, and is one who enjoys "civil" rights---which are granted by Congress).

See: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php

"In drafting the [14th] Amendment, Congress was looking to make its federal laws (the Enforcement Act, the Freedman's Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866) a part of the US Constitution. In doing so they intended to ensure that the freed blacks would have certain privileges and protections remain in place after the United States pulled its army out of the South and restored the Southern states to their previous status as states of the Union. The Amendment would also insure that Congress had the national authority to enforce the provisions of the Amendment upon any state that attempted to violate them."

Civil rights entail allegiance to the Govt; unalienable rights do not. Our present Govt places civil rights ABOVE unalienable rights. Furthermore, it is no longer a representative government; special interests of the Corporatocracy have seen to that.

In general, the Govt of this country is too corrupted to change in any meaningful way... unless it is forced to by nonviolent civil disobedience. (That can be done locally, or individually---it doesn't necessarily mean a massive "March on DC".) Failing that, I see only more of the same in the future. I realize full well that many support the Democrats, and see them as an agent for positive change. I don't; and even after the NeoCons have faded into history, I don't see the Republicans that way either. The movers and shakers of both parties are committed to the Globalist New World Order.

Frankly, having been a serious observer of American politics since 1956, I've concluded that the current dominating corruption of principles by both Democrats and Republicans at the national level will continue until they are both forced out of the American political system. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Government is always best at the local or regional level. Even then it can be a stinker. I'm beginning to believe that we should have stuck with the European model---that is to say, each State being an independent Republic. Of course, the Articles of Confederation would have to be expanded to allow for the military defense of all...meaning, "national" taxes for defense only would have to be implemented.

Naturally, the above will never happen. So we're back to square one. I would like to live long enough to see the time when "citizens" of this great land finally realize that significant, positive change (for peace and Freedom) here will never be the result of voting in national elections. Forty or fifty years ago that was possible, but no longer. The Corporatocracy is firmly entrenched, almost completely out in the open relative to their actions, and has almost absolute control of the voting process---from A to Z.

Boycott the Corporatocracy whenever possible! [EXAMPLES: stop watching the drivel on commercial TV (the major networks already are concerned about losing viewers); stop buying crap made in China; don't patronize Exxon-Mobil stations---the corp has the most obscene profits in the oil industry; stop voting in politicians who spend beyond our means, trample on the 10th Amendment, or believe that it's just too complicated to end the war now; every time you sign ANY Govt form, write "All Rights Reserved", or, "Expressly Reserving All Rights" beneath your name; participate at http://www.downsizeDC.org/ ; whenever possible, buy locally at independent stores---avoid the big chains; etc. Those are ways to boycott at only a minimal level.]

BOYCOTT!

Here's one reason that voting is not the way to restore the Republic: once well-meaning newcomers get into the DC Club they are effectively neutralized by the Good 'Ol Boys (& Gals). Another reason: there simply are not enough well-meaning candidates who want to get into that snakepit. Another reason: running is one thing---getting elected is another. Another reason: it takes a significant amount of money to run for national office. Another reason: the Corporate Media virtually will destroy (or completely ignore) someone like Ron Paul (as an example) who is running for President...with very little effort. In the Establishment system, he'll be lucky to get 15% of the vote...that is, if he even gets the nomination (which is unlikely). Even if by some miracle he gets elected, he won't have a prayer of "cleaning up the mess". He will be shut out, ostracized, and neutralized by the "no-term-limits" hacks who have been there for years and control the whole show.

I could go on, but you get the drift.

Proposing well-meaning candidates has been going on for decades. I don't see any significant change. The Corporatocracy likes us to believe that voting at the national level still matters. In my opinion, it doesn't...and hasn't for a LONG time. [Just look at the last two Presidential elections: in 2000 King George was appointed by the Supreme Court; in 2004 he scraped in due to confirmed voting fraud in at least Ohio, and if I recall correctly, Florida as well.]

We are way past having any chance of success at trying to change the system by actions within the system. Unfortunately, 50% or so of the people still think that voting matters (they still vote because they mistakenly believe that it makes a difference); the other 50% realize that voting accomplishes almost nothing...and so they don't vote. It's not because they're lazy, or apathetic, or dumb...it's because they've seen that the same old crap keeps rolling downhill---no matter who gets elected. Want to make a real difference?---boycott...or write in "None of the Above". That's what people who are NOT voting are doing wrong---instead of just ignoring national elections, they should go to the polls, or obtain an absentee ballot (which makes the whole process easier), and write in "NONE OF THE ABOVE". If over 50%-75% of the voters would do it, that would do more to shake up DC than anything else. People should lobby for a "None of the Above" box on every national ballot.

It's time to seriously boycott national elections, the Corporate Media, big corporate sponsors, etc., AND inform all Establishment, professional politicians that they no longer have our support...because they have failed, and failed miserably.

Here's another idea (some rich person needs to organize, fund, & promote this):
Boycott the Establishment national elections by having our own grassroots elections online. Where is it written that only the Repub & Dem Political Machines get to organize elections. We the People gave them that power---we can take it away. Instead of their hacks, we'll run CITIZEN politicians...but NOT in the Establishment system. Properly promoted, that might result in their hacks getting 40,000 votes (an arbitrary number), and our citizen politicians getting 40 MILLION votes. What are they going to say?---"You didn't follow proper procedures". Yeah, but our folks received 99% of the votes. [Unrealistic, perhaps...BUT the point is: a lot can be tried without resorting to the system that is entirely sewn up by the Corporatocracy.]

I think that currently there is an effort similar to what I'm suggesting...and it's already on the web. I believe it's called the "Unity" ticket, or party, or whatever. But they don't go far enough---they are attempting to get unlike ESTABLISHMENT, professional politicians to run on their ticket. I'm not sure if anyone has agreed to run.

Boycott, Boycott, Boycott. Once the Establishment Political Machine crumbles from sheer lack of support, decent candidates will make themselves known...and more importantly, have a chance to make a genuine difference.

Political hacks exist in the system ONLY because we support them...having been duly propagandized to do so by the Corporate Media. The corrupt system exists ONLY because we don't boycott it.

26 USC and You

Title 26 USC is impeccably Constitutional BECAUSE, as written, it DOES NOT tax the income of the average American wage-earner. It only taxes "taxable income", which does not include "eliminated income", "exempt income", or "excluded income" (all terms from the Tax Code).

See: www.whatistaxed.com/ Be sure to view the two short videos---the link for them is on the right side of the page, at the picture of a ball & chain. Those videos are a demonstration (with results) of data-mining the Tax Code to determine the meaning of key sections.

The uninformed believers in the Individual Income Tax respond by saying something like, "Taxable income is gross income minus deductions" (and so the tax applies to all); but they leave out this CRUCIAL introduction--- "Except as otherwise provided...", found in the description of gross income.

The Tax Code is riddled with phrases like that. "Section XX.XX to the contrary notwithstanding...", or, "Except as provided for in Section XX.XX...", "In general...", "Notwithstanding Section 61...", "Other than those specified...", "Except for excluded income...", etc.---when deciphering the Tax Code, ALL such phrases must be researched further.

The average duped American never bothers to fully research anything beyond, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual a tax...". No wonder they think the tax applies to everyone! You folks who oppose the Tax Honesty Movement really do need to read the ENTIRE THING---26 USC, Subtitle A, Chapter 1 (the Income Tax)...and when it says things like, "Notwithstanding Section 61...", you have to go to 61 and see what they're talking about if you expect to truly understand the Tax Code.

Some dupe/dope in one comment on another website said something like, "They [members of the Tax Honesty Movement] keep saying 'Show me the law!'---well, it's on the very first page!". Such people don't have a clue; they don't do proper due diligence.

For those new to this blog, here a few pertinent points:
1. the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to correct a glitch in the 1909 Corporate Excise Tax Statute;
2. several Supreme Court rulings (never reversed) between 1918 and 1923 concluded that the word "incomes" in the 16th Amendment meant "gain or profit from corporate activity", and that the Amendment conferred "no new taxing powers" upon the Fed Govt;
3. Fed Govt services are not paid for by individual income taxes (those revenues pay the interest on the national debt, according to the Grace Commission)---Govt services are paid for by corporate taxes, many excise taxes, SS taxes, Medicare taxes, duties, imposts, a few miscellaneous taxes, and more borrowed money.

Practical Individual Sovereignty II

Again, as with "Practical Individual Sovereignty" [a separate article], nothing below should be construed as legal advice. These are my opinions, and I assume no liability whatsoever for any errors or omissions.

Here is a brief guide to dealing with Peace Officers. This is a very tricky area; proceed with caution, and at your own risk. It all depends on how far you want to take things.

Peace Officers are, above all else, human beings. Some are “good”, some “bad”, and some are a mixture…like most of us. The tricky part is that they do have authority over us in certain circumstances…and they do have weapons on them everyday. Despite that, their authority has limits.

Following are some legitimate questions that can be asked of Peace Officers. Ask these questions either before or immediately after presenting your ID. [Some people refuse to present their ID until they have verified the Officer’s ID. I think that’s a good idea, but it’s risky…especially with an Officer who is out-of-sorts at the moment, or one who is on a power trip.] There are a few folks in the individual sovereignty movement who claim that a sovereign individual (who has done nothing illegal) does NOT have to present an ID when asked to by a Peace Officer. I agree that it should be that way, but I know for a fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

Questions for Peace Officers [Except for the first one, these are not in any order. The remainder should be asked whenever you feel that it is appropriate for each one. That will require careful listening and not being intimidated by statements such as, "I'll arrest you for obstruction of justice!".]

1. Could I please see your badge number, ID, and business card? [Be certain that the badge number on the business card matches the one on the badge.]

2. Are you giving me an order? If the answer is “Yes”, and even though to your knowledge you’ve done nothing wrong but wish to comply to avoid conflict, state clearly that you are complying “under protest and duress, with all rights reserved”.

3. Who is your immediate supervisor?

4. Are you aware that gross negligence by a public servant is equal to fraud?

5. Are you violating my Fourth Amendment right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects from search and seizure without a warrant? [If the answer is “No”, then ask, “Exactly what is it that you want?”.]

6. Are you violating my First Amendment right to free speech? [If the answer is “No”, then ask, “So I am free to speak, correct?”.]

7. Am I under arrest? [If you are, IMMEDIATELY ask for an attorney...and stop talking.]

Always remember that lying during interrogation is standard police procedure, and allowed by law. If you are not under arrest, you still have the choice to not answer questions. If the Officer states that though you are not under arrest, you should come to the police station to answer questions, ask, "Are you ordering me to go with you?". If the answer is "Yes" (which it shouldn't be), state clearly at that moment AND when you arrive at the station that you are doing so "under protest and duress, with all rights reserved".

Finally, exercise common sense: never physically resist, and always be polite and respectful.