What’s In It For Me?
 

Because of the potentially volatile topics presented at this web site and the monumental reforms offered in the bill, we occasionally receive email from people in the patriot movement. The movement grows by the day. An evening surfing the world wide web will reveal hundreds of patriot web sites. This letter is written to no particular person, but patriots in general.

***

Dear Patriot,

Thank you for your recent letter. We would like to believe you are a person who is part of the solution and not the problem.

Yes, we are still “pushing this stuff.” Like you, we have invested our resources into our effort and well, we guess when people spend resources toward something they believe they tend to keep pushing. We notice your own web site continues to expand and evolve, so we know you understand.

Despite your recent letter, we believe you agree with us on much more than you disagree. However, as stated previously, we believe you to be part of the solution and not the problem. Therefore, we would like to address several good points you raised. We think you will see, after some reasonable discussion, that we agree on much more than you think, or at least expressed in your recent letter. The differences between us are distinct, but few. Therefore, we should be working together.

You had objections to our using the word “amend” when we describe what the proposed bill does to the Federal Reserve Act. We believe the word is appropriate. We would like to use the word “abolish,” but the word would be technically incorrect and therefore lacking credibility.
 

The Fed performs several functions. One function is establishing monetary policy and another is acting as the government’s bank. If you spend some time at our web site, you will discover that we, like you, object to the former function. We believe monetary policy should be a public function, not a quasi-public, quasi-private function. We must return control of the nation’s currency to the people. We are familiar with your own opinion on this issue and therefore we know you agree.

However, the bill provides enough flexibility to allow the Fed to continue existing. By removing the Fed from participating or controlling monetary policy, the Fed would be then relegated to a simple role of acting like any other bank. Uncle Sam needs a bank to receive, clear, and issue checks; and maintain deposits; and we have no objections to the Fed serving in that capacity. Without participating in monetary policy, the Fed becomes a rather insignificant institution. A snake does not have much bite when you pull its fangs. Controlling the nation’s money supply is really the heart of the issue that so many have contempt. We think you agree. The proposed bill ends that 90 year-old relationship.

Therefore, we think the word “amend” is appropriate and technically correct, although we admit the word is not as emotional or uplifting as the word “abolish.”

The bill replaces the income tax system with a national retail sales tax. Although you did not directly state you are against the sales tax, your message implies as much. However, we know from your own work that you are against the income tax. As you can learn from visiting our web site, indeed, if you read the introductions in the bill, you can see that we too have had enough of the income tax. Browsing through our web site, one will discover that we believe the income tax to be immoral. Our series of educational articles clearly express that we are against any form of direct taxation. Whether the income tax is a direct tax without apportionment or an indirect tax in the nature of an excise, we believe you agree with us that the out-of-pocket effect is the same as a direct tax. Nonetheless, we find the income tax to be deplorable and impossible to defend. We therefore argue for eliminating the income tax. You agree with us.

However, what about a national retail sales tax?

If you visit our web site you will discover that the bill was originally written and presented to Congress more than ten years ago. Regarding a national sales tax, you probably will agree that ten years ago, the debate surrounding the income tax or a sales tax was almost non-existent. The only people raising the issue of the income tax were those battling in the “movement.” Nobody was discussing a sales tax. Therefore, we ask that you keep the history of the bill in context.

Can we revise the bill to exclude the sales tax? Yes, we could do that. However, we think a retail sales tax on consumption is a reasonable transitional tax. On our web site, we address why we replace the income tax with the sales tax (see the A National Retail Sales And Use Tax FAQ).

We admit that we would love to see Congress tuck its tail between its legs and start living more constitutionally. We really would. However, to use your own phrase, we do not think or believe “for one nano-second that the parasites in Congress” will abolish the income tax without also providing a revenue neutral replacement. Parasites might be a mite too strong of a word for us, but not only do we want to see positive change, we are attempting to provide a politically doable solution. King John needed the pointy end of a sword to be persuaded. We’re not quite ready for such tactics, nonetheless we do not believe for a moment that Congress will concede to live without an income tax and no revenue replacement. However, we do believe Congress can be convinced to eliminate the charades of the income tax if a politically doable, revenue neutral solution is offered as a replacement. As much as we dislike that option, we understand the political process. Politics requires compromise. We will take the inches one at a time until we get our mile.

We realize that some people within the “movement” reject the idea of a national sales tax. We understand the many reasons why. We ask that you browse our web site where we discuss the topic more thoroughly. However, all we ask of you and others is to share with us a practical, politically doable, and arguably constitutional solution. Therefore, we ask that you spend time at our web site to study our perspective.

In your letter, you noticed that our version of a national sales tax exempts specific activities from taxation. The bill recognizes fundamental natural rights. Groceries, rents, and mandated government expenses such as insurance and licenses are all exempt from the tax in our version of the national sales tax. We simply cannot understand any version of a national sales tax bill that taxes the necessities of life. That is why we are against other bills supporting a sales tax (see our How Does NESARA Compare to Other Bills or Proposals? FAQ). We think you agree with us on that too.

Can we split the bill into two separate bills? Yes, and we do not mind if that happens. If you read the bill, you will see that Part I provides changes in monetary policy. Part I removes control of the nation’s currency from the hands of the Fed and places that control into the hands of the people, where that control should have been all along.

Part I of the bill also provides one mandate and only one mandate for the new Treasury Reserve Board: to provide a stable currency. The Fed could perform this feat right now, but Congress will not provide the laws to do so. The bill does just that. We believe you agree that providing a stable currency is important and necessary. Like you, we are also tired of continually having to adjust our lifestyles to compensate for the insult of currency inflation.

Part I of the bill also restores constitutional currency in the land. Gold and silver coins return to the landscape as a viable option in the currency choices people have. We know that you agree with this part of our plan.

Part I of the bill also immediately reduces the national (public) debt by approximately one trillion dollars. We believe you agree that this is good.

Part I of the bill provides the mechanisms to greatly regulate Congress’s ability to borrow. Congress has constitutional authority to borrow, and we have no problem with that authority. What we do have a problem with is Congress’s insatiable appetite to buy votes by creating money out of thin air by selling debt to the Fed. Under the bill, the new Treasury Reserve Board will be authorized only to buy and cancel government debt. The new board will be unable to buy, hold and later sell government debt as the Fed does today. This simple transition forces Congress to live on its budget just like us. Congress will be able to borrow only currency already in circulation. If Congress should decide to ignore the mechanisms, their ploy to buy votes through borrowing will be quickly exposed. This built-in self-regulation of Congress will also take much of the life out of special interest groups. We think you like that too.

Also included in Part I of the bill are much-needed banking reforms. The bill recognizes that banks perform a necessary function of creating currency by monetizing debt. However, this function is granted by special government license. We strongly believe that the profits banks receive for this privilege is outrageous and unfair. In short, usurious. We wish to change that and the bill does just that. The bill restores banking to a public service role.

The bill ends the practice of charging compound interest on secured loans made on a fractional reserve basis. The bill replaces that usurious compensation with a straightforward monetization fee. Banks still will be in the business of creating currency, backed of course, just like today, by goods and services; but they can only create currency with the help of their customers—the people—never for their own account. However, under the bill banks will receive less profit per loan than today.

The bill forbids lenders of such loans to collect any of the monetization fee until after borrowers repay the entire principal. In other words, not only does the bill provide a doable solution to reform banking, but helps borrowers, even the minimum wage earners, establish equity much faster than ever before or ever imagined. The new laws also provide incredible stability to lending, and bank failures (outside of criminal activities) will be history (see our Imagine Legislation That Eliminates Bank Failures article).

Oh yes, lest we forget, once the bill is passed into law, all current secured bank loans made on a fractional reserve basis are required to be immediately converted to the new banking laws, retroactive to the origination date. As you will note if you visit our web site, this will create a sudden and immediate financial windfall for many homeowners, as many of their mortgages will be recalculated to being paid in full. Overnight many Americans will be debt free. This sudden windfall of cash will help create an economic boom never before seen in this land (see our Imagine Legislation That Benefits Americans with an Unprecedented Economic Boom article). We suspect you might like this part of the bill too, especially if you are currently burdened by a mortgage (see our Imagine Legislation That Terminates or Drastically Reduces Mortgage Debt and Imagine Legislation That Provides Universal Home Ownership articles).

Yes, in the bill the evil Internal Revenue Service is converted into the National Tax Service (see Part II Section 4 of the bill). However, without the immoral and intrusive income tax, the National Tax Service (NTS) will be relegated to a mere collection agency. There will be little for these people to do, and we suspect that within a short period, the staff of the NTS will be reduced dramatically. The government needs a tax revenue collection agency. Like the Fed, there is no reason to abolish such agencies already established to perform those same functions; we merely change their roles and character. Even if Congress decided miraculously to live on duties, imposts, and excises, Congress still would need a collection agency to perform administrative functions. If we allow Congress to build that new collection agency, how long do you think it will take before the people are back in bondage? We despise the income tax too, but we are attempting to be realistic about life after the income tax.

As you noted, the bill does not eliminate the social security payroll tax. We address this issue on our web site (see our The Bill, Part II (Tax reform) FAQ section). We agree that optimistically we would like to see all forms of socialism disappear tomorrow. Yet, you know the reality of that happening. Our nation required more than 100 years to get into this mess and no realistic plan will end the mess tomorrow.

We want to see social security disappear, but we do not want to kick out onto the street all of those already depending upon the scheme. Rather than eliminate social security overnight, we are “content” to watch the scheme fade away (one mile one inch at a time, remember?). As people who now receive benefits die, the need for the program will diminish, and within one generation, the need will exist no more. Political solutions need time to blossom, and the bill is no different. With a sound currency, fair banking laws, and no income tax, we strongly believe that within one generation the land will heal itself. We strongly believe the effects of such transitions will be immediate, but the long-term projection is one generation.

We could revise the bill to eliminate social security payroll taxes. Currently as written, that would require revising the bill also to provide for a higher initial national sales tax rate. We have no problem eliminating social security payroll taxes—we really do not. Only that within the realm of being politically doable, we thought that a compromise between a reasonable sales tax rate and eliminating the income tax might prove easier to present to Congress—if we momentarily left social security taxes as is. The key here is being politically doable.

We accept your disagreement with the national sales tax, but try to understand that within the realm of being practical, politically doable, and arguably constitutional, the compromise is reasonable.

We understand your concerns for non-ratification of constitutional amendments, voting fraud, administrative agencies, crooked politics, etc. The bill does not address every political problem in this land. Nor could we ever hope to do so in one bill. However, we look at any solution to resolve these numerous problems with a particular viewpoint: is the solution practical, politically doable, and constitutional? We believe the bill meets those criteria.

The bill attempts to consider both sides of the fence. As you noted, we do not believe the legislators in Congress will motivate themselves to act. The bill is designed to provide a win-win situation for all parties. The bill is designed to help Americans get their foot back into the door. With a sound currency, fair banking laws, and no income tax, we refuse to believe that other reforms will not be forthcoming and rather quickly too.

For example, how about the problems we see in the nation’s court rooms? No more income tax cases to clog the system. With millions of debt free Americans, the number of bankruptcy hearings will decrease dramatically. Suddenly the case loads drop. In addition, with no income tax, judges no longer have to live the lie of winking at the conflict of interest between “preserving” the system and providing justice. Suddenly, the court system has an opportunity to start healing.

Consider the topic of voting fraud. The bill does not directly address this issue. However, think about the after-effects of the bill. With a sound currency, Congress being regulated in its spending, no income tax, millions of people becoming debt free and therefore financially less dependent upon government, suddenly the voting picture changes. No longer do representatives buy votes through legal plunder schemes; they now have to earn those votes. Indirectly NESARA encourages voting reform.

The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments? Once the healing in this land begins and Congress finds its uncontrolled spending ways greatly regulated, maybe people will finally have time and motivation to resolve these issues.

You might be correct that our plan has no chance of succeeding. We suspect some of the signers of the Declaration of Independence felt that way. Everyone dreams and hopes for a better tomorrow. We are no different. Like you, we are trying to provide a way for that betterment. However, simply to say we will fail is self-defeating. If you had such an attitude, then you would not have your web site. We each are seeking ways to provide solutions.

We appreciate your opinion. Much more than you can probably imagine. We do not believe our plan is “perfect.” Frankly, short of the Second Coming we do not believe a “perfect” plan exists. That leaves us operating within the realm of human nature and the political process.

There are two options to exercise within the political process. One option seeks doable but peaceful solutions. The other option seeks violent revolution. Both options have been exercised often throughout history, and undoubtedly people will continue to exercise both options. We prefer the peaceful method. We do not discount the emotions in this land and we recognize that sadly, maybe violent revolution will be the final solution, but until then, we strive for the peaceful option. We think you agree.

Hopefully you see that we agree on much more than we disagree. We agree that we must reform monetary policy, reform banking, eliminate forever the income tax, that socialism must die or at least fade away at a respectable rate.

Therefore, we regret that you see “absolutely nothing” in the bill to forward to others. However, we can only hope that with this response, and perhaps after you spend some time at our web site, you might change your mind.

We want healing in this land. There is far too much waste, hate, discontent, and corruption. We want the good life for all, not just a few. At our web site you will discover that our goal is straightforward: To establish the American Dream as a way of life—internationally. The theme of our web site rests upon a fundamental concept: that all people, regardless of race, sex, creed, beliefs, etc., have an inalienable, irrevocable, inseparable right to their property.

We also believe that there are several alternatives for providing reform and change. We have decided to “do our part” by providing a web site and the proposed bill. However, not only does the web site provide a forum for the bill, but also provides a tremendous amount of information, information that will help many people.

Help us promote those things on which you agree. Constructively criticize anything you find disagreeable and then provide us an opportunity to explain our viewpoint. We do not mind taking the time, after all, that is what we are about. After a reasonable exchange, if you still disagree, so be it. There is far too much upon which we do agree.

You’ve been around this business long enough to know that internal fighting and squabbling is one of the many reasons why solutions are difficult to obtain. We can live without you, but we appreciate your constructive criticism and insight, and we would rather see us working together. After all, we are on the same side, aren’t we? If people in the “movement” cannot tolerate their differences, what hope do we have for meaningful political action?