“If the spirit of liberty should vanish in other parts of the union and support of our institutions should languish, it could all be replenished from the generous store held by the people of this brave little state of Vermont.” Calvin Coolidge
Chapter One, Article 18 of the Vermont Constitution: “That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free; the people ought, therefore to pay particular attention to these points, in the choice of officers and representatives, and have a right, in a legal way, to exact a due and constant regard to them, from their legislators and magistrates, in making and executing such laws as are necessary for the good government of the State.”
The Vermont Campaign for Liberty is guided by the sentiments quoted above and the philosophy of our founding fathers. Our motto is "educate, empower, and motivate". We seek to create a political environment here in the Green Mountains where liberty-minded candidates will find a welcomed reception and a receptive audience. Change will happen not in Montpelier until change happens in the small towns and cities of the Green Mountain State. We dedicate ourselves to educate our fellow citizens in the message of liberty, empower them to resume their sovereignty over their government, and motivate them to act on their new found power and elect a government worthy of the title "republic". Liberty is not easy or without costs, but it is the only condition that allows us all to be the best we can be.
The Center for Constitutional Rights has unfortunately decided to take action in support of ACORN.
http://ccrjustice.org/acorn-v-usa
The case alleges that the government's decision to terminate funding to ACORN amounts to a violation of the Constitution under Article I, Section 9, the "Bill of Attainder clause".
I've been a past financial supporter of the CCR because they have taken up "unpopular" cases which the ACLU would not touch. I can't express how disappointed I am at their decision to pursue this case. The following is my letter to them:
As a past financial supporter of the CCR and a strong believer in the U.S. Constitution and civil liberties, I am writing to express my outrage and disappointment at your decision to take up the case in defense of ACORN.
I do not consider myself "Republican" or "Right Wing", and I am well aware of the U.S. Constitution's "Bill of Attainder" clause. However, I do not consider the termination of government funding to an organization as "punishment" in the Constitutional sense of the term.
In this case, we have video evidence of multiple representatives of ACORN in multiple locations advising people on how to break the law . . . even to the extent that they were willing to aid and abet a child prostitution ring! This is simply outrageous. Can you imagine what would happen if a "Left Wing" activist obtained video evidence of NRA representatives providing advice on how to circumvent Federal and State firearms laws?
I do not want my tax dollars going to people who would willingly facilitate prostitution or the child sex trade. Furthermore, I do not want my donations to an organization that presents itself as a champion of Constitutional Rights defending such people. I'm sorry that you chose such a course of action. I've planned a donation to the CCR as part of my employer's annual charitable contribution campaign. I will be doing all that I can to make sure that this donation is canceled. You may no longer count on my moral or financial support.
All patriotic Americans must enjoy paying income taxes, especially to finance benign protective foreign invasions, impartial Wall Street bailouts, pre-eminent industrial cartels, philanthropic world hegemony, and brilliant public education. But seriously folks, perhaps, they are amused by the imbecilic grandeur of it all instead, else they would collectively refuse to pay.
I do not mean that they would stop paying income taxes individually, a la Irwin Schiff, on the less than slim chance that the courts would enforce the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Few of them would relish sharing a prison cell with the quixotic old warrior.
On the contrary, if they were not so entertained by the stupendous show for which they dearly pay, they would have voted long ago to abolish the income tax. Taxpayers are far and away the largest voting block there is. By contrast, redistributees are a scattered hodgepodge of diverse interests from banksters to unwed mothers who buy politicians with bribes or votes. The largest interest group of all is the one that pays for all the rest. As such, it is strange they have not effectively hawked their votes on the congressional trading floor. It might be an amusing change of pace for the goats to nudge their masters as they stoop to fill the hog trough. What might happen if tax chumps demanded just enough to get their overlords' attention, say a one year income tax suspension? Wouldn't their employees in congress have to play along in most districts or loose their seats? As for whence the funding for such a tax vacation, need taxpayers be any more concerned than any of the tax consumers? It is not the fault of tax mules that tax guzzlers fell for the bogus sales pitch of the brokers of forced labor on the campaign trail.
Wouldn't it be fun to see congress, the executive, and the courts squirm? How would they avoid defaulting on the national debt and mooning the dollar? Would they begin to abandon military occupations in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe? Would they sell government properties? Would they panic and even consider the Liberty Amendment? How would the economy fair if average workers could keep thousands more of their own earnings? What would happen if the public began to take financial command of the economy, social welfare, and national security away from the central government? The answers are worth the risk of disrupting income taxes, and for the voter, the risk of an IRS audit is low.
Luwig von Who??? I was both surprised and pleased to see someone in the mainstream press even MENTIONING Austrian economics, and in a generally POSITIVE light no less!
When I see things like this, and the links posted here to many video clips and articles representing the viewpoints of liberty-minded people, it makes me believe that the effors of The Campaign for Liberty are having an impact.
The Liberty Amendment has been introduced and reintroduced in congress several times since 1952 and 6 times by Ron Paul since 1998, but it has not developed enough exposure and popular appeal to pass a constitutional amendment. It is not long at less than half a page, and it is not hard to understand. It is fiscally sound in that it would fund the loss of revenue occasioned by its fourth section which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Yet, it has been relatively impotent for nearly 30 years since Arizona, Indiana and Mississippi became the last of 9 states to adopt it. This reveals that it has not found a way to attract the average taxpayer. What it needs is a conveyance to introduce it to the public and to educate it. It has no teeth, because it is not a popular threat to the income tax. It would be an excellent companion for a serious popular threat to the income tax, but plainly from its history, it is not by itself a vigorous threat. A real challenge would involve a public appeal stronger than that of the special interests.
Since taxpayers make up the largest of all special interests, go figure why they have not rallied behind the Liberty Amendment to protect themselves from from all the grasping interests. Have they lost patience with it? After all, it was introduced almost 60 years ago and has stalled for nearly 30. How about re-introducing it by way of a simpler, more direct first step? Mobilize taxpayers now to vote for new candidates for congress or incumbents who support a temporary income tax suspension, say for a year. Buying their votes with their own earnings is better than buying other people's votes with it. Since they are the largest special interest in every congressional district, they could have a tremendous effect on next year's elections. What better way to invigorate the Liberty Amendment and revive the momentum to pass it?
Is there a legal way not to pay income tax without triggering an IRS audit? Of course there is; vote for it. With effective promotion, taxpayers will vote for politicians to suspend income taxes, at least temporarily, say for one year. If people will vote for vote-brokers to nationalize health care, start wars, and subsidize financial and industrial cartels, taxpayers will certainly trade their votes to keep their earnings for at least a year. Suspending income taxes would allow those who earned the money to keep it versus transferring it to those who covet it by politicians buying votes or distributing favors. Who deserves the money more, those who work for it or those who vote to take it away for their own or others narrow interests? If voting to relocate income is fair, voting to keep ones own belongings must be at least as fair, and as such, is a morally more justifiable reason for voting.
The threat of a popular income tax suspension can be a powerful counterweight to profligate spending for special interests. It does not matter how to pay for a tax suspension. What matters is that it is possible to convince majorities in most congressional districts to unseat the rogues in congress who represent limited interests at citizen expense. That is the pressure needed to get congress to recognize the folly of record deficit spending and to consider the real cost cutting, decolonizing, and selling needed to get the economy under control. Returning income taxes to the citizens for a year would stimulate the economy, as it would add to consumption, savings, bank deposits, investments, production, and jobs. It would certainly boost the economy better than bailing out over-exposed banks, unsound industries, and failed states. It might even get voters used to the idea and stimulate the public will to abolish the income tax and the IRS for keeps.
This ultimate tax rebellion would overpower all narrower interests in favor of the largest interest group of all, the one that finances all the rest and pays the interest on the national debt. Talk about leverage! The group that pays holds all the cards, but inexplicably, it does not play them. The special interests play hardball with their neighbor's money when they trade their votes and bribes for favors. The people who pay the bills can sell their votes to politicians who know how to win fairly without plundering their neighbors. They need an anti-statist to sponsor an income tax suspension bill in congress. Then watch how exploited taxpayers flock to support it.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
