July 13, 2007: Who's Crying Now?
Tom Cryer vs IRS: NOT GUILTY! I was at the trial to hear the NOT guilty verdict come out. He was acquitted on 2 counts of willful failure to file and all tax evasion charges were dropped even before the trial started. This goes to show that the IRS is full of shit and that people are catching on about the fact that there's no law that requires the average American to pay an income tax. This is how Tom won: He is a seasoned attorney of 30 years. He's even made laws. So if he can't find a law after 15 years of research and after reading the entire Internal Revenue Code (6,000 pages), then where the hell is the law? Also, he's always said that the income tax is legal and it is constitutional BUT to whom does it apply to? Only to those involved in international trade and foreign commerce like corporations (61% of corporations, however, don't pay any income tax according to the GAO since they write off your labor as an expense and put the burden on your shoulders to pay it for them. And to think that your company loves you!)
It was an unanimous verdict of 12-0 NOT guilty. The jury isn't stupid. Neither are you. Demand that the IRS show you the law (hint: there's none)!
I made a guest appearance on a radio show in Austin: http://blogtalkradio.com/pnac (July 14, 1:00PM)
Please listen to what went on at the trial and what you can do to fight the complicit income tax! Thanks!
June 7, 2007: Ron Paul, Baby!
I have not had an update since April because of my love for Ron Paul! This is so exciting because we have a really great chance of making him President: Why him? Simple: He's authentic; I'll prove it real fast:
1) He's the ONLY Rep. candidate to vote against the Iraq War; The others flip-flopped.
2) He's never voted to raise taxes; He's never voted to regulate the Internet; He's NEVER flip-flopped unlike Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Giuliani, Romney and so many others.
3) He wants to abolish the IRS and abolish the income tax because it is extremely oppressive to you. Do you think the other candidates like Clinton, Obama or Romney want to do this? The answer is HELL NO.
I'll be succinct: If you love the idea of nearly 1,000,000 dead Iraqis, 3,000+ dead U.S. soldiers and love the IRS and the income tax, then don't vote for Ron Paul. :D
Earth Day 2007
Ron Paul is a Presidential candidate who believes the US can withdraw its armed forces from Iraq immediately. In this outstanding speech Dr. Paul cites the dereliction of duty by the Congress, and by the President, and is clear as to how the USA should proceed out of this terrible dilemma.
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
April 17, 2007
We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out)
All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.
Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003.
Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the President, and the President did not hesitate to use it.
Although it is clear there was no cause for war, we just marched in. Our leaders deceived themselves and the public with assurances that the war was righteous and would be over quickly. Their justifications were false, and they failed to grasp even basic facts about the chaotic political and religious history of the region.
Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch, and gave open sanction to anything the president did. In fact the founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Today just about everyone acknowledges the war has gone badly, and 70% of the American people want it to end. Our national defense is weakened, the financial costs continue to drain us, our allies have deserted us, and our enemies are multiplying not to mention the tragic toll of death and injury suffered by American forces.
Iraq is a mess, and we urgently need a new direction- but our leaders offer only hand wringing and platitudes. They have no clear-cut ideas to end the suffering and war. Even the most ardent war hawks cannot begin to define victory in Iraq.
As an Air Force officer serving from 1963-1968, I heard the same agonizing pleas from the American people. These pleas were met with the same excuses about why we could not change a deeply flawed policy and rethink the war in Vietnam. That bloody conflict, also undeclared and unconstitutional, seems to have taught us little despite the horrific costs.
Once again, though everyone now accepts that the original justifications for invading Iraq were not legitimate, we are given excuses for not leaving. We flaunt our power by building permanent military bases and an enormous billion-dollar embassy, yet claim we have no plans to stay in Iraq permanently. Assurances that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil are not believed in the Middle East.
The argument for staying- to prevent civil war and bring stability to the region- logically falls on deaf ears.
If the justifications for war were wrong;
If the war is going badly;
If we can’t afford the costs, both human and economic;
If civil war and chaos have resulted from our occupation;
If the reasons for staying are no more credible than the reasons for going;
THEN..
Why the dilemma? The American people have spoken, and continue to speak out, against this war. So why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We just marched in, and we can just march out.
More good things may come of it than anyone can imagine. Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner. Certainly we are doing better with her than when we tried to impose our will by force. It is time to march out of Iraq and march home.
April 17, 2007
It Would Take Two Armies Working Full Time to File Income Tax Returns
Written by djahn
Saturday, 14 April 2007
According to the following letter to the editor, the government's own assertions in the 1040 instruction booklet suggests it would take nearly twice the number of people as there are currently serving in our military working full time just to satisfy the government's insane income tax laws. Check it out.
David Jahn
###
Letter from the Pittsburgh Tribune
Taxing stuff
Friday, April 13, 2007
Consider two obscure claims in the 1040 instructions for filing the 2006 federal income tax:
** Almost 200 million taxpayers file a return ("Message from the Commissioner," Page 2).
** The 2006 estimated average total time burden to file for an individual is 24.2 hours ("Estimated Average Taxpayer Burden for Individuals by Activity," Page 81).
How many people working 2,000 hours per year would it take to file these 2006 tax returns? (Assume, for laughs, that each corporate and organizational filer in that 200 million needs only 24.2 hours, too.) About 2.42 million people.
Consider also that the number of 2006 active-duty U.S. military personnel was 1.38 million.
Unbelievably, it takes about 1 million more people just to file 2006 federal taxes than to serve as America's 2006 active duty defenders.
Conscription and insanity are alive and well, thanks to Congress and its IRS.
Mark Crowley
Plum
So, we need three armies. One to defend our country, and two more just to fill out income tax returns.
April 10, 2007
April 09, 2007
Nothing. 
Well...something. I am avidly involved in Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign. What sets him apart from everyone else is that he's always been against the Iraq War since Day 1 unlike flip-floppers Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Plus, he wants to get rid of the income tax and the privately owned, Federal Reserve. Talk about patriotic! 
April 04, 2007
Let's see...oh yeah. I'm moving to Austin. Good riddance, huh? haha. :D
I've been reading more books by the Dalai Lama. Here's something I'd like to share:
Romance is a fallacy; If you look up the word romance in the dictionary, it's defined as 'imaginative', 'fictitious", 'fantasy', etc.
"The idealization of this romantic love can be seen as an extreme. It cannot be seen as a positive thing. It's something that is based on fantasy, unattainable. So, on that basis it cannot be seen as a positive thing." - Dalai Lama
Please understand that I think relationships are definitely okay; I have nothing against that. But when a girl wants a guy to do everything for her or when a guy waits hand and foot for a girl, that's called obsession. "It cannot be seen as a positive thing." That's why relationships fail all the time. That's why marriages fail all the time.
Don't believe me? Look at your relationship. Look at how many people are divorced (over 53% in America)
Don't believe in the hype. A relationship based on genuine compassion and mutual respect is what maintains a strong relationship...not this romantic idealistic bullshit.
Besides, there are more important things in life than chasing tail or "being in love".
If there weren't, we'd be like animals in the wild...just eat and breed. Human beings are meant to be more than just animals.
