This is the most awesomest thing I've ever read...

OK, maybe I'm overstating the case a bit, but it sure does rank right up there: Ossumness

NOTE: Clicking on the link may take you to the end of the thread...click on the '1' at either the top or bottom right corner to read the original post.

A Democrat leaves his party...

...and explains why here.

Welcome friends...

Use the comments section however you like. :-)

Bleh...

I just wrote what I hope will be one of the last letters that I ever have to write to the Internal Revenue Service.

Background:

Right after 9/11/01 I got wrapped up in some of the more conspiracy-oriented information that was out on the web. As I am trained in the fields of mechanical and structural engineering, I was skeptical of the official story regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.

As I took in all of this conspiracy information, I came across a website called www.taxableincome.net (this website has since changed, but most of the relevant information that was on that site is now at www.861.info ).

As I started looking through the “taxableincome” site, I came across a report entitled “Taxable Income” by Larken Rose. While I found the notion that the income of most Americans is not taxable under the current United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations to be absurd, the report was concise and well-written, and it seemed to be well-documented.

I remained skeptical, so what did I do? Well, I just HAD to look into his legal citations for myself and find out what the law really said.

Lo and behold, I believed (and still believe) that he was right! The income tax is perfectly constitutional…it’s just grossly misapplied.

Thereafter, I presented some yes or no questions (2 or 3) to my Congressman and to the IRS that would have clarified and/or confirmed my understanding of the laws involved, and I have yet to receive direct responses to these questions. How’s THAT for due process?!

You may be thinking “WTF? Just file your return and avoid a fight with the IRS.”

That’s all well and good, but I have a slight problem: ethics. Why ethics? Because the 1040 form requires me to affix my signature, under penalty of perjury, stating that I believe everything on that 1040 form is true and correct.

Well, after reading the law, I was unable to do that.

I was raised to tell the truth. I raise my children to tell the truth. I expect others to tell the truth. Furthermore, my profession requires me to behave ethically and tell the truth because my work involves protecting the public’s safety through sound design work.

Ethics are so important to me that I can’t just turn them off. Granted, being able to ignore them would be much less expensive for me, but in my humble opinion, they apply at all times to all situations.

Otherwise, they are completely useless. (and I happen to believe that the concept of ethics is very closely, if not intimately, related to the teachings of the man known as Jesus Christ).

Long story short…I haven’t filed a federal income tax return since April 2002. This is not to say that I haven’t paid any federal taxes. On the contrary, I have paid more than I would have if I had just filed a return.

I may be a fool, but to me, there some things in life that are more important than the accumulation of money.

Maintaining my ethical integrity is one of them.

What about the children, part deux…

This one is about a woman’s right to choose.

I support a woman’s right to choose…which state to live in.

This issue is a veritable lightning rod with the American people.

I believe Dr. Paul’s position is correct in saying that the federal government has no authority to regulate abortion; this is a states’ rights issue.

That's all I have to say about that.

What about the children?

I was watching Bill Maher on HBO, and I think I just figured out the perfect (well, semi-perfect) logic to counter the socialist argument that the government needs to provide care for poor people. This one has always been a tough one for me because of the track record of the Republican party.

Let’s start with a couple of assumptions:

1) Liberals with a normal social conscience are concerned about poor people;

2) Conservatives with a normal social conscience, especially Christian conservatives, are concerned about poor people.

Now that we have established that both liberals and conservatives care about poor people, we may state the problem:

What is the best way to help poor people?

Liberals may likely be inclined to believe that the federal government should tax it’s citizenry and dole that money out to the poor. Conservatives would likely believe that private charity would better serve the needs of the poor.

I believe the conservative approach is the best way, and I think most liberals could be persuaded to believe this to be true if there were more honest communication between the two sides.

The problem lies with the lack of strict adherence to conservative principles (i.e., strict constitutional constructionism). Liberals don’t seem to trust most conservatives, and why should they? The (neo)conservative movement has apparently co-opted and traded true conservative principles for a turn at the government trough for entitlements that are anathema to the liberal's way of thinking.

Until now.

Dr. Ron Paul’s message of strict constitutional constructionism solves all of these problems.

I don’t have the budget figures to prove it, but I would imagine that if the size of federal government was drastically reduced, and all liberals only gave half of the money that they would have paid in income taxes to the charitable organization of their choice, then there would be no lapse in care for the poor. In fact, I imagine that some of those same charitable organizations would receive money from conservatives, as well.

The money is there, it's just not being spent wisely under the current system. Furthermore, no one, conservative or liberal, can seriously argue that the government is as efficient as a private organization.

Therefore, it is true to say (assuming the budget figures support it) that the poor would be better served if the federal government adhered to the Constitution and let private individuals (or even individual states) handle welfare.

Ultimately, neither conservatives nor liberals want to see children go without care, least of all Dr. Paul (who I might add, has delivered babies for free at times).

ZOMG!

I have a blog...now I'll NEVAR get any work done.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

http://www.ronpaulforums.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8