In all honesty I can not say I have put the "Rule of law" I have just learned to the test because I am just relearning all of this myself...as in the correct way of filing an educated tax return. But I guarantee you that come this April I will be doing just that...and from now on. I've spent the last week reading and re-reading everything on the site and rechecking all the claims and IRS codes and I've yet to find a flaw in anything said there. I've even bought the book...which was a small price to pay for all the work that has gone into it.

From this day on I will no longer bend over and pay a tax I do not owe. This is not about being a martyr...taking a risk....gambling with money...or wasting time for that matter. If you spend more than 5 minutes on that site you will learn something. It's about "Rule of Law"...it's about fallowing the law to the letter as it was meant to be...not just ignorantly followed as everyone has been told do all these years.

And what the site explains are not solutions or some hair brained scheme to defraud the IRS...it's about stopping them from continuing to defraud the American public every April and taking back what it rightfully and lawfully mine. According to the Constitution and the IRS tax cade. There is no magic bullet to be found...just the truth about how you should have been filing your taxes from day one. The problem was that it was never the government or the IRS' job to tell you the "Rule of Law"...its your job to learn it...but no one ever took the time to do that...everyone just followed along like a bunch of lemmings jumping off a cliff...and I was one of them as well.

And as far as not wanting to hear about people on the website...friends or friends of friends or relatives...do you know me? I could just as well be one of the people on the site...and soon will be. It is my intention to continue learning everything I can about the tax code before April arrives and put it into practice from now on...and I will also be documenting each step along the way so that I can physically show others how it shoud be done...legally...and then add my name to the every growing list of people that have become re-educated in regards to the "Rule of Law."

On a personal note...I would love to see people actually read what is on that site an learn something...but at the same time I understand why some people won't...and that's a shame.

WebGizmos, I'm not saying that what the website claims is wrong, or that it's a scam.  I watched "America: From Freedom to Fascism" and I'm well aware of the fact that income taxes are illegal.  But I also followed the case of Ed and Elaine Brown, and I don't want to end up like them!  They were right not to pay their taxes, but that didn't stop an onslaught of various government organizations to hold them siege in their own home, and then haul them off to jail, and forcing them to pay what the IRS says they owed, plus interest and penalities.

I can no more stand up against the IRS than I can standup against the Mafia, (for they run the same game by the same rules!).  I just don't have the kind of muscle that it takes to buck the power holders.  It's an illusion that we live in a just world, and that the United States is an honest country.  All one has to do is look at how the United States was BORN, to realize this is a con game of the highest order.

If you have the intestinal fortitude to put yourself out there along side people like Wesley Snipes, and the Browns, I will respect you, but please don't call me to bail you out of jail, because I'm doing everything I can just to tread water.  If, on the other hand, you know of some massive angry mob, where I can protest anonymously with a group of other people who are just as discontented and batshit crazy as I am, let me know about it, because THAT event is on the top of my bucket list.

Government insurance programs routinely deny benefits for an obvious reason--free health care is super expensive to the taxpayer. They end up discriminating against certain groups of people like smokers, the overweight and the elderly in order to cut costs. Having to make a profit, that is earn more than you spend, is a great motivator that is missing in government-run enterprises. They almost universally get into cost overruns. Health care is no different in that respect--Medicaid and Medicare (and Social Security) are going to go bankrupt in the not too distant future; this new plan will only make it even more expensive and hasten the arrival of bankruptcy. Isn't it ironic that in the end someone like you probably won't even qualify. There is no plan that provides universal coverage for the entire population.

Perhaps you don't mind the Health Care Police compelling you to eat your vegetables, make you exercise, and stop doing things they don't like, but I detest the idea. America was founded on the principle of minimal government intervention and individual liberty.  There's more risk in life when you have more responsibility for your own well-being, but it's better than being oppressed. Individual freedom is a valuable commodity. Demanding that people live in a proscribed manner in the name of health care costs is no less oppressive than any other excuse. I'd prefer to keep that at a minimum.

John, I thought you lived in Canada -- don't they have government health care up there?  Why do you care about what Acorn does here?  I'm totally confused about your interest in this.

As for "Individual freedom is a valuable commodity. Demanding that people live in a proscribed manner in the name of health care costs is no less oppressive than any other excuse." -- I guess in this situation to me, at least it seems reasonable -- we have so many freedoms' being suppressed which have nothing to do with the good of the people, but simply a process to guarantee the maximum amount of power and cash get funneled into the prescribed hands, for no good reason, I find it refreshing an altruistic purpose would be offered up for a change.

"They" aren't going to make you do anything. I've said that several times, but it doesn't make a dent. Actually, if knowing what is healthy you decide to do the unhealthy, you should pay a higher premium or not be covered for any negative outcome resulting from those things. That's the responsibility end of freedom. Saying that x number of times won't convince you, nor will x+1 times. 

It however irks me a bit you telling me which principles America was founded on, while being Canadian. Would knowing my first relative arrived here on the Mayflower, wrote the Mayflower Compact and was the first Governor of Plymouth Rock Colony deter you in the slightest, I wonder?

I understand where your coming from Karen. The problem is that there are tons of sites out there all claiming to get the IRS off your back with one hair brained scheme after the other...I've seen lots of them. And a lot of well intention people followed bad advice and paid the price.

But losthorizons.com doesn't make any claims...it only educates you in the "Rule of law" according to the IRS tax code and the Constitution and then you can either choose to learn and understand what its telling you and put it into practice or you continue to pay taxes you don't owe.

And I know what you mean about being poor...I used to be able to at least say I'm reaching up to touch bottom...but I can't even see bottom anymore...which is exactly why I won't be giving them anymore money that doesn't belong to them.Just read the site Karen...it cost nothing to learn by reading...and then maybe as you get a better understanding of what the "Rule of law" actually is you might just get the courage to "abide" by the law...think about that.

I know there's a lot to read on that site...but you owe it to yourself to read it...I've been on it for the past week and haven't even put a dent in it...but it's worth the time.

"I am a revolutionist by birth, reading, and principle. I am always on the side of the revolutionists because there never was a revolution unless there were some oppressive and intolerable conditions against which to revolt."
~ Mark Twain ~

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
~ Mark Twain ~

Yes, ma'am, I'm Canadian, and we have nationalized health care, so you and everybody would be covered within the limitations of availability. They don't cover everything, many important procedures have long waiting lists, sometimes people die because of that, some people have to go to America to get treatment, it's ILLEGAL to operate a private MRI clinic for humans, but not for dogs and cats. We're pure up here in that regard. Did I mention that it's extremely difficult to find a doctor?

ACORN is a criminal organization engaged in intimidating people that registers phony voters all over the country. These are the people that you think are altruistic. Altruism isn't defined as using someone else's money and giving that away. President Obama has a long and important history with them, used them in his election campaign, and told them after the election that they would influence his decisions. Giving taxpayers money away to someone is not altruistic.

As for my interest in America, it's because it's an interesting country. There are a lot of Americans that don't seem to appreciate their own country, but it's unique in the world. It was founded on different principles by men who appreciated the dangers of power in the hands of the few, and devised a system to have competing powers struggling against each other. It limited the power of the government on purpose.

You should investigate the background of President Obama's cabinet, and especially his czars. Do you realize that these czars have no legal accountabilty to congress? The purpose is to concentrate power in his hands, and he is exercising it. He has succeeded in muscling out the owners and bondholders of two of the biggest carmakers in the country, and given the companies mostly to the unions, all without congressional approval or oversight. He is now dictating executive salaries for them, private companies that used to belong to the shareholders and bondholders.

Your problem with American health care is not the care itself, but the fact that somebody is not paying for yours, or your daughters, or other people who can't afford it. People from all over the world go to America because it's the best care there is, for the most part.

America is a bit of a shining beacon to the rest of the world, which makes socialists around the world furious. I don't want to see that light go out.

They end up discriminating against certain groups of people like smokers, the overweight and the elderly in order to cut costs.

Really? Could you show me when that happened and where...be specific please.

Just something I saw in the news about the National Health service in England. I might look it up, but probably not. These are the kinds of things you see from time to time in the news. Patients die from time to time in Canada because some waiting lists for some procedures are so long. Could I name you a single specific instance? No. I don't collect that kind of information.

Having to make a profit, that is earn more than you spend, is a great motivator that is missing in government-run enterprises.

Yeah. Some motivator. Denial for breast cancer treatment because you forgot you were treated for anxiety decades before? Or for acne? No, their yachts sail on a sea of blood. I know because I quit a job at ****** because they asked me to find ways to deny claims.

Do you really think that those kinds of decisions aren't made by clerks in government offices wherever there is nationalized health care? It isn't free. There isn't an unlimited supply of money available for health care anywhere on the planet, and those kinds of horrible decisions confront any entity that has to pay for it. It's a sad fact of life. Are bureacrats sailing on a sea of blood as well? Governments are notoriously inefficent; they use more money to get the same thing done than private enterprises do, and they bungle things more often. I can't fault you for wanting to treat everybody for everything; that's perfectly reasonable.


Perhaps you don't mind the Health Care Police compelling you to eat your vegetables, make you exercise, and stop doing things they don't like, but I detest the idea.

Demanding that people live in a proscribed manner in the name of health care costs is no less oppressive than any other excuse. I'd prefer to keep that at a minimum.


"They" aren't going to make you do anything. I've said that several times, but it doesn't make a dent. Actually, if knowing what is healthy you decide to do the unhealthy, you should pay a higher premium or not be covered for any negative outcome resulting from those things. That's the responsibility end of freedom. Saying that x number of times won't convince you, nor will x+1 times. 

You've said it several times, but you aren't writing the legislation, are you? I'm reading the legislation. I'm in agreement with you about paying a higher premium if you do obviously dangerous things; that's a reasonable proposition. Paying for your own health care is also the responsibility end of freedom as well, isn't it? I'm pretty sure I ran across a clause that says the companies can't charge you higher premiums. Paying higher premiums isn't the same as having the local community organizer knocking on your door and having the authority to dictate to you what you can and cannot do, is it?

It however irks me a bit you telling me which principles America was founded on, while being Canadian. Would knowing my first relative arrived here on the Mayflower, wrote the Mayflower Compact and was the first Governor of Plymouth Rock Colony deter you in the slightest, I wonder?

I may be Canadian, but I can also read. The Declaration Of Independence and the Bill Of Rights are not secret documents, nor are the writings of the fathers of independence, nor are history books or documentaries on television.

It's very interesting to know about your ancestor, and I hope you'll elaborate on that. I'm genuinely curious, but I can't imagine how that has any bearing on the subject. It doesn't add any weight to your arguments, and definitely won't deter me in the slightest.

So--tell us more about your famous ancestor. I think I'm not the only one who'd be interested in finding out.

 

For me one of the attributes a country has to have to be called civilised is to have care for people less fortunate than the majority. For people to not have treatment because they have no money is not acceptable in any modern society.

Spot on Fuzzy. Its something a capitalistic society tends to forget.

Thank god I live in OZ.

When you're not on a waiting list at all...even for routine health maintenance, you wait even longer than the people on the lists in Canada, John, and yeah...many people die because of it.  For those of us with inadequate insurance coverage, or no coverage at all, a waiting list sounds like a huge improvement over no hope of being seen at all.

Is that the real reason you're concerned about Obama's plan in the US?  Because it might remove the safety net for Canadians who have the resources to cross the border and bypass the waiting list?  How about you lobby and campaign in your own country to REMOVE the public option before you start having an opinion about what goes on in a country you don't belong to, and hence can't really fully understand NO AVAILABLE SERVICES FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T PAY. It doesn't matter HOW many doctors or clinics, or MRI facilities there are, if you don't have enough money or adequate insurance coverage down here, YOU DON'T GET TO UTILIZE WHAT IS AVAILABLE.

Did you just take an interest in American politics since Obama was elected?  Where were you during the Bush years?  This is just politics as usual in this country--the patricians working deals in government to benefit their cronies, and scamming the plebs to pay for it, causing the plebs to drive the slaves a little bit harder to make up the difference.

Your damn right, that's my problem with it.  You can't see how frustrating it is to live in a country and pay taxes to a country that has the "best" of something in the world, so much so that rich foreigners can access it, but it's own citizens are dying in the streets because they CAN'T afford it?  "Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink" sort of thing -- it's a TEASE to see clinics on every street corner, hospitals on every block, but to those who who don't have access to adequate insurance, those clinics and hospitals may as well be a big, dark, hole in the ground!  A waiting list sounds like a HUGE improvement to no access whatsoever.

Then give up your socialized medicine and MOVE HERE if you love it so much!  If this is where your heart is, come on down!  Establish yourself, run for office, make dang sure the status quo down here continues.  As for me...I can't afford a passport to leave this place, so I'm going to keep voting for change, because I'm NOT happy with the way it is (and has been) -- it's not right that in the wealthiest country in the world, people are dying in their homes because they can't afford to see a doctor.

I can't disagree with that-it's better being on a list than not on one, only, the trouble for you is that none of the plans have universal care, do they? It's not likely that your position will change--you probably won't be covered.

Some Canadians would indeed miss the opportunity to go to the U.S.A. for treatment that they couldn't get here, because, just like you, they want to get it. In our country, there is no option; it's take it or tough luck for you. It isn't necessary for me to campaign in order to have an opinion about what goes on in a country that I don't belong to. Belonging to a country doesn't mean you're informed; I can read and watch and listen just as well as you whichever side of the border I'm on. Your statement that there are no available services for those that can't pay is totally false, and you know that, surely. There is Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration plan, the prescription drug benefit plan, and the fact that hospitals are required  to serve people in need of emergency care by law.

That is just silly. You still have elections, there is still greater opportunity in your country for the individual than anywhere else on earth. The fact that there are greedy weasels is no great revelation. The reason that there is no place on earth where men are equal is because men aren't equal; some are better and some are worse. The premise is that men are created equal, not that they are equal. All countries are not remotely the same; that's preposterous. There are numerous forms of governing, and conditions vary with the type of government you live under. You have a decent chance of becoming a patrician in America, at least, by being highly productive.

I've been interested in American politics for almost 40 years; I watched American news every night for decades, among other things. I disagree that it's politics as usual; nobody as radical as President Obama and his cronies have ever held such power. You really ought to check out his associates; it might even scare you.

I can appreciate frustration; we have it here too. Like the great philosopher said, life sucks, and then you die. My doctor is the emergency room. I'm very fortunate so far in not having any serious problems requiring medical care.

I've entertained the possibility from time to time, I confess, but Canada is still a pretty good country to live in, relative to most of the rest of the world. People in countries with socialized medecine are dying in their homes because the government denies them treatment that they can afford to pay for, but aren't allowed to get by law.

Absolutely correct, appropriate and just.

In every country where there is a single payor system, there is two tiered care. One for the hoi-polloi, and the second: preferred, rapid and efficient care for those who pay extra not to wait on line. There is no way around that, unless you have a multi-payor system but that already means there are some who pay more and some, less.

The only option is to have a "public option".  I would hope ANYONE but the government administer it, but in all the years of having the uninsured and the cost of their care shifted onto the insured, not one Insurance Co. objected. That's because it never cost them a cent. So, who else is there?

The public paid one way or the other.

Now, everyone is up in arms for the "poor" Insurance Co.'s that might get driven out of business. I don't get it. Either they are more efficient or less efficient than the gov't. Either they offer more and do it cheaper, or not.

I want the competition increased, the choice increased and the cost driven down at the same time the uninsured get basic and catastrophic care assured.

I say it CAN be done and done right.

I think all that has been discused here, with maybe one or exception has more than likely made the existing problem more understandable to just about everyone.

We all need to remember one really basic and important fact, there is no, repeat, no issue or problem that we face day in and day out that can not be solved or fixed.  That is the bottom line folks.  Where things usually break down centers on the unwillingness to take the appropriate steps to do just that by the people that have been put in charge.

An example of the blatant abuse of power by this administration is the fact that all but one of the Chrysler dealers that were closed and essentially screwed out of their businesses were Republicans that did not contribute to the Obama campain. Only one Obama supporter was touched.

My sentiment as well, Philly, and very well put. 

Thanks old friend. We need to put aside our nonsense and work together.

Let us do that out of sincere goodness and desire to help others. That transcends every other consideration.

I can't disagree with too much of what you're saying, although the "public option" is code for a "single payer" which is code for a government monopoly. The plans are set up in such a way that private insurers will be squeezed out eventually. Having many options is much more desirable; supporting those who can't afford it can be accomplished at the same time as allowing the freedom of purchasing private insurance. It's a great sentiment to want to provide health care for everyone, but it's financially impossible.

Isn't that interesting. It's not surprising; it's just more proof that these guys are playing serious hardball.

There's also the problem of what the appropriate steps are, and, let's face it, some desirable things like providing basic food and accomodation to all are financial catastrophes in practise.