Over time, our politicians have been working to build a web of restrictions on our freedom. I have been working hard to defend our freedom and to promote it wherever I can. I’m not looking for the next political award. I just want to live my life as a free person and I want everyone to have this same opportunity. This is why being on the front lines in the battle between freedom and tyranny is exactly where I want to be.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson defined the main purpose for the existence of government being to secure these unalienable rights given us by our Creator – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Sadly, only a small percentage of our elected officials see it that way. Most want to find a way to get things done and view civil government as a means of salvation or a way of accomplishing a flawless social system.

The next term of the legislature will be the so-called “Sixty Second” Legislature – this means it is the shorter session of the biennium. If I return to Boise for another term, I plan to pick up where I left off. Since we adjourned, I have been working on a bill called the Idaho Food Freedom Act. Last session it was House Bill 700. This bill would allow for an unregulated relationship between an informed consumer and a farmer who is producing products the consumer wants to buy. Today there are a myriad of regulations hindering this freedom. This will take a lot of work.

Over the last four years I’ve worked on the illegal immigration problem in Idaho. This problem raises the cost of infrastructure, taxing the working man out of his freedom. But it has been difficult to get anything done as there are powerful interests who oppose any change to the status quo. However, I expect the next legislature will have a different make-up, and one that will be more supportive of legislation on this issue.

Sound Money is an issue important to all free men. In precious metal rich Idaho, I think we can and should provide for an alternative medium of exchange. The Federal Reserve Bank, a private corporation, has completely mismanaged our currency. We would be wise to have an alternative in place when their printing press money becomes worthless.

There are several other issues I will be promoting while also working to keep Idaho business friendly. We will accomplish this by keeping taxes minimal, by eliminating all unnecessary regulation and by legalizing freedom. By keeping Idaho business friendly, we keep more Idahoans employed and we make it easier to balance our state’s budget. Good commerce is essential to maintaining freedom and this will make for a brighter future for all of us and our posterity.

“I’ve worked with Phil on many of the freedom issues over the last eight years. Phil is the most effective legislator we have when it comes to defending the Constitution.” John Blatter, Chairman, Boise County Republican Party.

I will appreciate your vote, Tuesday, May 15th.

Dear Representative Hart,

On behalf of our four million members, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is proud to endorse your candidacy in the primary election for Idaho State House of Representatives. This endorsement is based on your outstanding record of support for Second Amendment issues during your tenure as a member of the Idaho Legislature. You have earned an “A+” rating from the NRA-PVF based on your long record of support, strong voting history, and your candidate questionnaire.

Please feel free to share this rating with your constituents as you see fit. If you have any questions or comments concerning your rating, please call me or my assistant, Samuel Sheetz at (703) 267-1217. Again, thank you for your unwavering support for Idaho’s gun owners, hunters and shooters. Good luck in your election and we look forward to our continued relationship.

Sincerely,
Matthew Dogali
Idaho State Liaison

We are disappointed in today’s decision by the Idaho Supreme Court in the Matter of Philip L. Hart vs. Idaho State Tax Commission and Idaho Board of Tax Appeals. It is but another phase of my quest for justice. I continue to believe that the most important question is “Does Phil Hart owe any tax to the State of Idaho?”

My answer to that question is an emphatic – No, I do not owe the State of Idaho any tax. In its opinion, the court stated “In this instance, Hart is just a taxpayer, with no greater privilege than his constituents.” I agree, I have no greater privilege when it comes to the amount of tax that I owe, and I am therefore, entitled to be treated with the same fairness and equal protection of the law that all other taxpayers enjoy.

With regard to the purported “unpaid” taxes, 100 percent of the remaining balance of $42,000 is based entirely on having been illegally deprived of 8 years of business deductions. The IRS has deprived me of those deductions, because I would not turn over, to the government, the names of people who had bought my book “Constitutional Income.”

The bottom line is that I have paid more than the amount that I legally owe in tax. But for the IRS illegally denying my deductions and submitting fraudulent “income” information to the State of Idaho, we would not be discussing this matter today. Furthermore, the waste of my time and the waste of the resources expended by the Idaho Tax Commission would have been fully avoided.

In justice and equity, I am entitled to pay no more, nor less, for my tax liability than the law requires.

I seek only that which every law-abiding citizen of the State of Idaho would expect. I seek the law to be fully and fairly applied to my case. I expect that the State of Idaho recognize the lawful deductions to which I am justly entitled.

I thank my constituents for their support and patience as I continue to fight for justice in this case.

When I thought about what to talk about on Tax Day, I thought it would be appropriate to talk about the great contest we are involved in. It is the reason why the Tea Party exists – and why the Occupy movement exists.

My father was a runner. In the 50s he was the American record holder in the 5,000 meters. One of his favorite Bible verses was Hebrews 12:1-2 “I run with endurance the race set before me, fixing my eyes on Jesus the author and perfecter of my faith.”

At Gettysburg, speaking about the challenges facing our nation, Lincoln said, “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.” The Civil War was a contest between the North and South. Though the South had formed a separate nation their Constitution was very similar to our own. And if the South had won their independence from the North, today we would have two similar Constitutions in operation North America.

Today we are involved in another great contest, of a similar magnitude to that of the Civil War. It is a contest that will take endurance to win on the part of the American People. And this contest is very well described by Lincoln’s words as he closed out the Gettysburg Address when he referred to a government, “Of the People, by the People and for the People.” That is our contest today. Will government of the People, by the People and for the People survive?

So what am I talking about? I am talking about the practical application of the Constitution to our lives and to our government today.

The oath we take as legislators is found in the Idaho Constitution. It reads: “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Idaho and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of senator (or representative, as the case may be) according to the best of my ability.”

If you were to grab volume one of the United States Code, you would find in it the Magna Carta, which was signed near London in the year 1215. This is because the legal history of England is our legal history. The Magna Carta came about because King John had just suffered a military defeat in Normandy, which today is part of France. But just prior to 1215 Normandy had been controlled by England.

King John had debts to pay from this military effort and he was aggressively trying to collect taxes in England. As a result, King John had been abusing his taxation authority. He was also using foreigners to collect the taxes and the country was in an uproar. King John signed the Magna Carta with a sword to his throat. Had he not signed it, civil war would have ensued. And that document was the first in a chain of documents securing our God-given rights.

One of the most interesting things about the document was that it was the first time the notion was put forth in writing and agreed to stating the king could not collect taxes unless the people consented to them. The last line of the Magna Carta says “signed on the meadow of Runnymede between Winsor and Steins.” On that meadow today, there is only one monument honoring the Magna Carta – and that monument was designed, paid for and built by the American Bar Association.

When America was founded, it wasn’t the result of a military coup, or a battlefield victory. America was founded when a group of men, who were representing the people of the American colonies, met in Philadelphia and debated the issue of independence. There they made a decision to declare independence from England. That decision is memorialized in the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Independence is therefore a legal document.

Following up the Declaration, we have the Constitution, which came later – in 1787. This provides the mechanics for how we operate the government. The Constitution is the by-laws of America and the Declaration of Independence is the articles of incorporation. The means the Declaration of Independence provides the spirit and the purpose for which we are to interpret the provisions of the Constitution.

It must be understood the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – along with the chain of historical documents such as the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 are our foundational documents.

At Psalms 11:3 we read, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The current situation tempts me to say the Constitution is dead. But this is not yet true. It would be more accurate to say the portions of the Constitution that we are ignorant of, or that we ignore are dead. And those portions of the Constitution that we are familiar with, or that we defend, are still alive.

Let me give you some examples:
At Article 4, section 2 of the Constitution we read: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” And in the Declaration of Independence we find, “He [King George] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.”

In the United States we have different jurisdictions. And we have different classes of citizens. In the opinion for the United States Supreme Court case of Balzac v. Puerto Rico 258 U.S. 298 (1922) the Court held the taxation restrictions of the Constitution do not apply in the territories. The Constitution requires that all direct taxes be apportioned, but only in the several States. Therefore, the requirement of apportionment for direct taxes does not apply in Puerto Rico which is a territory, not a state. So in Puerto Rico, direct taxes may legally be imposed without apportionment. Yet the people who live in the territories are United States Citizens. Therefore it is perfectly legal for Congress to impose an unapportioned direct tax on territorial United States citizens.

Is the average American aware of this? No. It is a provision of the Constitution we are completely ignorant of.

What is the “Pretended Legislation” referred to in the Declaration of Independence? And what does it mean to “combine with others” and to “give his assent.” An example today of the “pretended legislation,” that is referred to in the Declaration of Independence, would be Obamacare – but we are debating this at this very moment. Where in the Constitution does it talk about healthcare being a power delegated to the Federal Government by the several States?

This past legislative session there was a huge amount of pressure in Boise to implement the State Insurance Exchanges mandated by Obamacare. But the State of Idaho is involved in a lawsuit challenging Obamacare in the District Court of Florida. About half the states are a part of that suit.

We won at District Court Level, We also won at Appellate Court Level. Now the case is before the Supreme Court waiting for a decision. And the decision will hinge on whether or not Congress has the power to pass such a law. It is an issue of jurisdiction. The decision is expected to be 5 to 4, but which way the decision will go we don’t know. Most likely, this decision of the Supreme Court will depend on the amount of pressure the Court gets from each side. I believe the Court will adhere to the Constitution only if the American people demand it.

Let’s talk about Jurisdiction some more:
In 1774, First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia. The “First Continental Congress” sounds pretty official doesn’t it? Who were these men? In attendance at the First Continental Congress were George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Patrick Henry and John Jay. John Jay was our First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. We call them the Founding Fathers. They are our heroes. But in reality – at the time – they were rebels. But as men, they were created in the image of God, with God-given intelligence making them capable of self-government. And they were exercising their God-given right to protect their lives, their liberty and their property from the abuses of government.

In the 1774 Declaration of Resolves of the First Continental Congress it is written, “Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British parliament, claiming a power, or right, to bind The People of America by statutes in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts, expressly imposed taxes on them … but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a country.”

In the entire body of State and Federal law we have more than 450 different definitions of the term “United States.” I have personally read about 70 of them. There are 12 found in the Internal Revenue Code. Only 1 of the 12 is the definition you would think of if you were asked to come up with such a definition. Each one of these 450 definitions represents a different jurisdiction. Do not ever assume you know what the term “United States” means!

Generally speaking, when one makes a jurisdictional argument in court these days, the courts will call you frivolous. Was Thomas Jefferson frivolous? How about George Washington or John Jay, where they frivolous?

Let’s look at another issue: Our right to keep and bear arms. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the District of Columbia v. Heller Case, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The Heller case was about whether or not the Constitution provides for an individual right to own guns. It took 232 years from the writing of our Consitution before this issue came before the Supreme Court.

Dick Heller and his attorney are friends of mine. And I know they spent 17 years working on this case before it was heard by the Supreme Court. When the case was heard at the District Court level, the District Court dismissed the case. Yet the Appellate Court heard the case and upheld the individual right to keep arms.

At the Supreme Court level, the Heller decision was split in favor of Heller 5 to 4. It could have gone the other way very easily and maybe President Obama will get to appoint someone to the Supreme Court in the near future and a rerun of District of Columbia v. Heller will go the other way. But for now, the Heller Decision stands and the Supreme Court confirmed we do have an individual right to own firearms.

This is a right we understand and we have kept that portion of the Constitution alive by the mere fact that we understand the right to keep and bear arms and we defend it. On the other hand, as a nation we have no clue what a direct tax is today; and we wouldn’t know a direct tax if it bit us in the butt. So the constitutional requirement that a direct tax be apportioned among the several States is a part of the Constitution that is dead.

Let’s talk about another portion of the Constitution: The Power to Coin Money. This is another part of the Constitution we do not understand. We find in the Constitution at Article 1, section 8 POWERS OF CONGRESS “To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin.” The word “dollar” is a Spanish word and was the name of a one ounce Spanish coin. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the Spanish dollar was the most common coin in circulation.

We also read at Article 1, section 10 POWERS DENIED THE STATES. “(3) No state shall, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender for the payment of debts.” Do we do this at the state level? No, we don’t even think about it. We have completely forgotten that part of the Constitution. Instead, today we have paper money and electronic money. By far most money today is in electronic form. What intrinsic value and what security does that have?

At the time of the first $700 billion TARP bailout, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson issued himself a waiver and pocketed $211 million dollars of that TARP money. Probably it was electronic money and with a series of keystrokes on a computer he was able to transfer the money from the Federal Reserve to his own private account. But what if the money was in the form of gold? At $2,000 an ounce, that would be about 6,594 pounds of gold. Do you think Secretary Poulson would have wheeled 6,594 pounds of gold out of the Treasury Department and into a truck waiting in the parking garage?

You find almost nothing about this in the media. I found one article with the headline “Media should have Paulson’s Head.” But nothing happened. Why? I think it is because the same interests that control the Federal Reserve Bank also control the media. And those interests want bigger government, more regulations, higher taxes and less freedom for We the People.

And who got the $29 Trillion that has been created by the Federal Reserve Bank in the last 3 years? We don’t know, because the Fed is immune from audit. Yet all the while, the financial schannagans that have been going on lately are wrecking our country.

The power to control the money supply is a part of the Constitution that is poorly understood. It is a part of the Constitution that has been effectively dead. But now people are becoming aware of the operations of the Federal Reserve Bank and knowledgeable of the fact that it is a for-profit private bank. This increasing awareness of the American People could bring that formally dead part of the Constitution back to life. More frequently now we hear the chant “End the Fed” at political rallies.

So what do we do? Some people say we should secede from the Union! It is my observation that our understanding of the Constitution here in Idaho is only slightly better than the national average. In my opinion secession would not do any good at all. We would keep eighty percent of the problems we currently have.

Maybe we should revolt? But if we don’t know how to run a constitutional government at the state level, what benefit would a revolt have?

What we need to do is keep the Republic that we have.

In the movie “The Matrix,” the Matrix was powered by the energy of humans who were trapped in a cocoon type device. Power lines were connected to each human as they existed in a liquid womb type environment. These hibernating humans powered the Matrix. In the same way, the system that abuses us is powered by our ignorance. Our ignorance of the Constitution serves like a battery that empowers those who suppress our rights and freedoms.

Think about the notable dictators of the last 100 years. They all spoke to huge crowds of people, getting their approval from the people to do what they did. Even as dictators, they needed the appearance of consent from the people. Thomas Jefferson said. “Those who expect to be ignorant and free expect something that never was and never will be.”

General Gage, who was the military commander in Boston in 1775, said in a letter sent to King George, “I have a nation of lawyers. Everyone is a lawyer. They know your statutes better than you know them yourself.” At that time more copies of Blackstone’s “Commentaries of the Laws of England” were sold in the colonies than were sold in England. These American colonists knew their rights and were willing to fight for them. This combination of understanding one’s rights and a willingness to fight for them produced the freest nation in the history of mankind.

If we are going to regain our freedom, it is time for us to roll up our sleeves and get started educating ourselves about our God-given rights and our Constitution. We have it easier than the American Colonists, because we already have the Constitution in place. We need only to understand it and defend it.

At the beginning of this talk, I mentioned my Dad. In the 6th grade my Dad had asthma so bad he had to quit playing the trumpet in the school band. As a 7th and 8th grader he had arthritis so bad he got around on crutches. But when he was 29 years old, married with 3 kids working fulltime as an Aerospace Engineer, he managed to run the 10,000 meters in the Olympics. My dad struggled and overcame his difficulties.

Our contest to restore the Constitution is also a difficult one. But we can do it.

When I ran in one of my first Cross Country races as a freshman in high school, with about 200 yards to go I ran past my Dad. There was another runner about 15 yards in front of me and as I ran past my Dad, he said to me “He is yours if you want him.”

I am here to say “Freedom is ours, if we want it.”

Once out of the car, one deputy, while apologizing to me, frisked me for weapons and explained to me that there had been a shooting at the Mineral Mountain Rest Area near Potlatch where I had stopped to get some needed sleep. I was driving home from Boise after the end of our 2012 legislative session and was late leaving due to a meeting with an organic farmer. His input was needed on the Idaho Food Freedom Act that I had been working on. (House Bill 700 from the 2012 session.)

My first thought while being frisked by the sheriff’s deputy was how appropriate it was for him to do so given the circumstances. His method of frisking me was not nearly as invasive as what the TSA does to me when I refuse to go through the body scanner at the airport. The sheriff’s deputy had “probable suspicion,” not so with the TSA.

Once they confirmed my ID, the intensity of the encounter decreased substantially. I was disappointed in myself that I did not have more information to offer the deputies as to who may have gone in and out of the rest area while I was there. But on the other hand, my objective was only to get some sleep so I would not nod-off at the wheel.

I thought the two Latah County Sheriff deputies were very professional and treated me with respect. I have two family members who made a career out of law enforcement, so I knew what was going on within the first few seconds after being woken up. The whole event occurred because of a shooting that had taken place at the rest area about the time I was there. So the event wasn’t quite as glamorous as the news tried to paint it.

The next day, I called the Latah County Sheriff to inquire of the victim. She is a 28 year old woman and is recovering in the hospital. Please remember to pray for her.

My name is Phil Hart and I’m running for re-election to the Idaho Legislature to once again to represent you in Boise. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you for the past eight years. I take it very seriously that I am entrusted to represent you and to protect your God-given, constitutional rights. I believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending. There is a strong tendency for government to grow programs and to expand its jurisdiction. It is natural for all organizations to want to grow, government included. Therefore, we must be on guard that we don’t get more government than we need. I feel passionate about protecting these rights and history proves we must work hard to preserve them.

In previous sessions, I have worked to protect the people and businesses of Idaho by sponsoring legislation that will protect your driver license from federal intrusion for a national ID scheme; protect ranchers and rural families from wolves by upholding their right to defend themselves and their cattle; and I have worked against efforts to expand the reach of sales taxes to out of state sales on the Internet. I have worked extensively on Urban Renewal bills that will benefit local communities while preserving transparency. In fact, I have worked to make transparency in government the norm, where I have been able. Let me explain a few other measures I have been working on and why they are important to you and your family:

One hundred years ago the American people were told we needed a central bank to help manage the economy and eliminate the ups and downs of the business cycle. Congress authorized the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, a bank that masquerades as a government agency, but is in fact a private for-profit corporation – and their profits are huge, but we don’t know how large because they have never been thoroughly audited. Furthermore, we do not know how much money they manufacture, nor where it goes. Despite all their secrecy, experts believe the Federal Reserve has created nearly $29 trillion in the last three years. This is enough to buy over half of all the assets of the United States. This is highly inflationary – and in a highly inflationary environment, capital dries up, factories close, crops are not planted and the economy shuts down. Unless we get control of this, there will be a terrible price to pay and the American family will bear this burden. This is why I sponsored the Idaho Constitutional Money Act of 2012.

A Farm Freedom Bill (HB 431) will facilitate and protect local agricultural commerce between an informed consumer and a local farmer or rancher. Sixty percent of every dollar spent locally on agricultural products stays in the local economy versus only 15% when that dollar is spent at a supermarket. Have you ever compared the size of a $20 bag of produce versus a $20 bag of groceries of processed food? The difference in size is tremendous. If the day ever comes when we must buy our food locally, I think we will be in a better position if we have developed our local agricultural economies. HB 431 is meant to do just that.

In 2010, I was the first legislator in the nation to pursue legislation (HB573) that would put side boards on the activities of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). I am concerned what TSA does is both unhealthy for airplane travelers and unreasonable in the scope of the searches that take place. Now, the federal plan is to take these TSA practices to bus and train stations and to our highways and other public meeting places. We should be weighing in on that process.

Lastly, I have been working on a bill (HB620) to set a protocol for the storage of DNA evidence. My legislation has to do with the storage and access to existing DNA evidence. DNA testing is a fast changing field, and there are over a thousand different DNA based tests. With so many new tests available, we have the opportunity to double check the accuracy of past criminal convictions. The upside is we can set free someone who may have been convicted of a crime they did not commit, while at the same time getting a conviction on the actual perpetrator of the crime.

The media has told you of a controversy related to logs I took from state land. I lost this case to the Department of Lands even after the prosecutor said “I think Hart is right, and I am not touching this case with a ten foot pole.” The short story about the logs was there were no procedures in place at the time I collected the logs for personal use. In fact, federal law was specific and state law implied the removal of logs from government grounds was free of charge for personal use. Furthermore, this was the accepted practice and understanding among logging professionals prior to my court case. As I mentioned above, I lost the case. Whether this means I was right or wrong is a mute point as the matter was settled between the state and myself many years ago.

The media has distorted my battles with the IRS – and framed me as a tax-cheat. The entire sage is quite complicated, but the short story is this: As a result of the education I gained from researching and studying the income tax issue, I wrote a book about my findings back in 2000. It is 450 pages in length. I just released a DVD based on this book. The book and the DVD are titled “Constitutional Income.” As the author, I function only as a historian who brings forward the history of the income tax. Our nation is based on the rule of law and legislative intent means everything but there are people who do not want this history known because it challenges the scope and the methods of what is now being done.

The IRS audited me – no surprise there. But what was a surprise was their demand that I turn over all the names, addresses, phone numbers and credit card numbers of everyone who bought the book. I’m told this was the first time in American history that this ever happened. I was defended pro bono by the Center for Individual Rights; a Freedom of Speech law firm which helped me win the case. As a result of this case, the IRS had to publish a white paper setting new nationwide policy protecting this First Amendment right.

However, the IRS auditors struck back and denied all of my business deductions for 8 years. I was not allowed to write off a single postage stamp or paperclip for 8 years. Impossible and illegal, as Congress provided for these deductions in statute – these are not discretionary. I have paid over $150,000 in state and federal income taxes covering those years on taxable income of $449,000. However, the government claims I owe $740,000 – this makes my tax rate 165%, which is mathematically impossible to pay.

This was my punishment for not turning the names and their private information over to the IRS, for those who purchased my book. Had I rolled over, you never would have heard of it but I would have put my readers in harms way. The whole experience gives me a pretty skeptical bias against bureaucrats when it comes to my work as a legislator. The famous French philosopher Voltaire said, “It is dangerous to be right, when the government is wrong.” If there is no pushback when the government is wrong, where does that road lead us? I plan on continuing to push back, and I hope you will support me in that effort.

If you want to read more about these issues and my work on your behalf, please visit my website at hart4legislature.com.

Sincerely, Phil Hart

Thank you all for allowing me to speak to you tonight. And thank you to the Twin Falls County Ron Paul campaign for inviting me here.

As I have observed Dr. Paul’s life over the last few decades, I know him to be a friendly gentleman. And as both a medical doctor and a congressman, he is servant of people.

Dr. Paul is also the only member of Congress who has delivered over 4,000 babies. Congressman Ron Paul is 100% pro-life and has never voted for any funding for Planned Parenthood. As a doctor he refused to take Medicare, but when necessary would treat people for free instead.

He is the only veteran in the race. And he is the only candidate for president who advocates the Christian Just War Theory.

He is also a man who has a realistic plan to eliminate 5 cabinet departments of our federal government. A plan to eliminate $1 trillion of the federal budget, and to Restore America to our roots of limited government.

And as I have observed his life over the last 4 years, I see a man who has a passion for justice, an ambassador of free markets, and a champion of liberty. And with an aggressive plan as his to cut the size of government, he has also become a target of many.

What carries Ron Paul forward, against all the criticism of those who do not want to see a Trillion Dollars cut from the federal budget, is his knowledge that unless America makes a hard course correction our future is uncertain.

In 2011, Congress’s approval rating was only 9 percent.

And while Congress is going in the wrong direction, Congressman Paul was earning the nick-name “Dr. No”.

Congressman Paul votes NO on any legislation that is not expressly authorized by the Constitution. He votes No a lot.

He has NEVER voted to raise taxes; He has NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget; He has NEVER voted for a restriction on gun ownership; NEVER voted to raise congressional pay.

Nor has he ever voted to fund the United Nations.

According to a University of Georgia political scientist, Ron Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress from 1937 to 2002. His future performance as president can be predicted based on his past performance as a Congressman.

In 1775, the military commander of the British forces in Boston, General Gage, wrote a letter to King George. General Gage complained, “I have a nation of lawyers, everyone is a lawyer, they know your statutes better than you know them yourself.”

At that time more copies of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England were sold in the Colonies then were sold in England. These colonists knew their rights, they knew the law, and consequently they were willing to fight for their rights.

So it is with those of us who, one by one, become Ron Paul supporters.

In 2008, Ron Paul held a national convention for his Campaign for Liberty at the Target Center in Minneapolis.

There were over 10,000 people in attendance. I was one of them. And when the name of a free market economist was mentioned, names like Fredrick Hyack, Milton Freedman or Ludwig von Misses, the crowd cheered as if Magic Johnson had been in the arena playing basketball.

Oh, and by the way, we booed economist John Maynard Keynes.

Those of us who support Dr. Paul do so because we know Dr. Paul has done the personal study to understand how our economy works, how our monetary system works, and mostly, how our government is supposed to work based on our Constitution.

He is like one of our Founding Fathers who knew all the failures of other systems of government in human history. But they also knew what worked. The same is true for Ron Paul. Congressman Paul knows what works for nations. And he knows what will work for America.

Congressman Paul is the only candidate for President who has a realistic plan to Restore our Republic.

Tonight, Please cast your vote for Ron Paul. Thank you.

In that column Oliveria referred to me as an “artful tax dodger.” One must assume he gets this term from the Charles Dickens story “Oliver Twist.” I had a difficult time making any connection between that story and my circumstances. But there is one similarity, in that, the Dickens’ novel is a fictional story and what Oliveria wrote about me was also fiction.

The following are a few non-fictional facts, none of which Oliveria cares to report.

In my situation, I have paid $150,000 in state and federal income taxes over the last seven years, on taxable income of $449,000. However, the government claims I owe $740,000. Those of you who are good at math will discover this constitutes a tax rate of 165%.

The entire alleged unpaid State of Idaho amount as of this date is based on having lost 8 years of business deductions. The IRS has illegally denied deductions that are allowed by statute. The State of Idaho has piled on demanding its share of this trumped up increase in so-called “taxable income.” For these 8 years, both the state and the feds have not allowed me to deduct a single postage stamp nor a single paperclip. No business on planet Earth can operate for 8 years without any expenses – nor afford the taxes without deducting those expenses from their gross income.

This was my punishment for not turning over the names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers to the IRS for people who purchased the book I authored about the history of the income tax. Had I rolled over, no one would know that I had surrendered the names, and I would have long ago had closure on my tax controversy. But I would have left the readers of my book in harm’s way.

As for “dodging”: in addition to authoring a book, I have been on radio and TV, appeared in a Hollywood movie, spoken many times in public and produced a DVD – all about taxes. This is not the behavior of a “dodger.”

Since David Oliveria has been most unkind to me over the past year, one can only conclude his big government world view requires me to rat out my readers in violation of their First Amendment right to Free Speech. It surprises me – and it is ironic – how hostile the media is to one who has taken heat for the defense of the First Amendment. The summons demanding the names, etc., is posted on my website. My attorney, Michael Rosman of the Center for Individual Rights, a Washington D.C. Freedom of Speech lawfirm, thinks I am the first author in American history to deal with such a demand for names.

A word of caution is warranted to those who would be a “source” of information for Oliveria. If he finds fault with me for interposing myself between the IRS and my readers, you might logically assume he will not protect you as a source.

So where is the line, David, between what constitutes an “artful tax-dodger” and a defender of the people and their constitutional rights? It appears you believe objecting to a 165% tax rate is tax-dodging, as those are my circumstances. But how, David, does one pay any tax at a rate greater than 100 percent? It is mathematically impossible. Shall I ask Ben Bernanke? Maybe he can show me how to create money out of thin air.

Should Lewis and Clark have gotten a permit from the state of Idaho to cut down these pine trees to be fashioned into canoes? Well that depends. Were the pine trees growing on state land, or was it federal land? If it was federal land, and the pine trees were not to be used commercially, private use of timber from federal lands, free of charge, had been the norm back then and even today. Today this is addressed by Title 16, section 477 of the United States Code which states:

The Secretary of Agriculture may permit, under regulations to be prescribed by him, the use of timber and stone found upon national forests, free of charge, by bona fide settlers, miners, residents, and prospectors for minerals, for firewood, fencing, buildings, mining, prospecting, and other domestic purposes…

But what if the pine trees were located on Idaho lands? (Idaho wasn’t a state back in 1805.) Well if the year were 1996, and the trees were located on Idaho lands, it would be debatable.

In the Idaho Code, at title 38, chapter 13 we find the Forest Practices Act. Section 1302 of the act states: “To encourage uniform forest practices implementing the policy of this chapter, and to provide a mechanism for harmonizing… laws and rules relating to federal, state and private forest land….” We also find at section 1303 under definitions: “Forest practice” means (a) the harvesting of forest tree species….” And another definition: “Harvesting” means a commercial activity related to the cutting or removal of forest tree species to be used as a forest product. A commercial activity does not include the cutting or removal of forest tree species by a person for his own personal use.”

And in the 1996 regulations for the Forest Practice Act we find at IDAPA 20.02.01.07 (b) 07. “Types of Operation for Which Notice Will Not Be Required. (b) Noncommercial cutting and removal of forest tree species by a person for his own personal use.”

The federal statues allowing the “free of charge” use of timber taken off of federal lands by a person for his own personal use has been in United States Code since 1897. The Idaho Forest Practices Act was added to the Idaho Code in 1975. If we were to “harmonize” these state and federal laws, which is stated as one of the goals of the Forest Practices Act, we would also allow the “free of charge” use of timber off of state land by a person for his own personal use. Given the exemptions previously quoted from the Idaho Code, this seemed reasonable to me.

But this line of thinking did not originate with me. In 1995 I contracted with a timber landowner to purchase a quantity of logs to build a house. When it came time to deliver the logs, he could not fill the entire order. It was springtime and the back roads all had load limits. There were several other landowners who could have provided the logs I needed, but because of the load limits, they could not access their property with heavy equipment.

After calling nearly every logger and timber owner within 50 miles, I finally talked to a landowner who had the logs I needed and whose property was located on a road without load limits. But he literally talked himself out of a sale by saying to me “I would feel guilty if I didn’t tell you that if you’re using the logs personally, you can take them off of state land. My dad and I did it when we built a house for my dad. He had studied the law and ran it by our legislator verified that this was allowed.”

I then studied the law for myself, and I came to the same conclusion. I also talked to an elderly logging friend of mine who told me that this was common practice when he was actively logging. This man also signed an affidavit to that effect when I went to court over the issue.

When the state later demanded I pay for logs because I neglected to get a permit or sign a contract, I agreed to pay for them if the state would show me a sample copy of the permit or contract they were referring to. They never showed me the alleged permit or contract because they had none. Nor was there ever a court case in the state of Idaho that litigated these facts, nor such a case in our neighboring states. This was going to be a case of “first impression”, so we went to court and I lost.

Had I rolled over, even when the state could not produce the permit or contract they complained I did not execute, there never would have been the court records that my political enemies could have dug up sixteen years later. This whole story presents a question for us. Do we want people in elected office who roll over for the bureaucrats? Or do we want people in public office who fight back when they believe they are right?