Financial Freedom: 3 Ways to Achieve Financial Independence

Financial Freedom: 3 Ways to Achieve Financial Independence

What does it mean to have financial freedom? Financial Independence has nothing to do with your net worth (assets less liabilities). To achieve financial independence, you only need to do three things!

First Amendment and Protesting Misunderstood

Contrary to popular belief, the First Amendment protects the individual from Government.  It does not protect individuals from businesses, nor other individuals or groups of individuals.

If you do not like what the Government is doing, you have the right to assemble or “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  That means, go to Congress, go to the White House, or City Hall, but, do not interfere with private businesses or the right of other individuals to go to work, travel, go shopping, or, to simply enjoy a football game.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, rightful liberty is “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. . .”

When you interfere with other people’s right to pursue happiness, you are either ignorant of what it truly means to be an American, or, you are just rude, obnoxious, and, have no respect for yourself or others.

Unfortunately, most individuals are ignorant due to their compulsory schooling or indoctrination, which has been controlled by the power-elites, who are global progressive-socialists.  This indoctrination continues through college; and, is reinforced by the elite-media.  

If we desire to improve things, we need to separate Education and State.  Teach our children to be self-reliant and respectful; and, educate them about the Constitution our Founders gave us; not the majoritarian Constitution we now have after the last 100 years of reinterpretation, making us slaves of those who are in control of government.

But, as Voltaire stated, “It is difficult to free fools from chains they revere.”

Dum spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

Slainte mhath,

Robert G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.   


Houston, Harvey and "Just Compensation"

It has been reported that 80% of the victims of Hurricane Harvey do not have flood insurance.   Furthermore, Government purposely flooded certain neighborhoods to save other neighborhoods, e.g., downtown Houston.   It has been reported that well over 100,000 homes have been destroyed, along with over 1-million automobiles, and, a massive amount of personal property.

Those with flood insurance may be able to recover quicker and put their lives back together.  But, the majority of the victims of Hurricane Harvey may suffer and struggle much longer; many of whom were also victims of Government making decisions to flood certain neighborhoods to save other property.  Unfortunately, Government does have the right to do this under the legal concept of Eminent Domain and the police powers of the State.  However, when Government takes property, they MUST pay “just compensation” under the law.

President Trump and Congress can make all the victims of Hurricane Harvey whole again, by paying “just compensation” for the taking of private property.

If our elected  politicians do not fix this problem, hopefully legal-aid organizations like the Institute for Justice and the American Center for Law and Justice will step-in and help.

Dum spiro, spero---While I breathe I hope.

Slainte mhath,

Robert G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.


PS: I would refer any interested Attorney and all victims of government regulation of private property to read Law Professor Richard A. Epstein’s book, Takings, Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, which was published in 1985.   


How to Create Jobs, Raise the Minimum Wage, and Create Prosperity

It is estimated that U.S. corporations have over $2.1-trillion of untaxed profits sitting offshore.  If this money was brought back into the United States without being taxed, we would experience a boom in investment activity and the creation of a substantial amount of high-paying jobs.  Even low-level and unskilled individuals would most likely be offered wages higher than the highest State minimum wage laws.

In addition, if we were to eliminate corporate and small business taxes completely, most every worldwide company in existence would move their domicile or headquarters to the United States, creating more investment and significantly more jobs.  Companies would be offering anybody and everybody employment opportunities through on-the-job training.  Welfare as we know it today would become practically non-existent.

Not only would eliminating corporate income taxes be highly beneficial to the American economy, it would actually provide relief to the poor and middle classes.  Corporations do not pay taxes; they are only efficient collectors of taxes.  Eventually, the taxes paid, along with the cost of government regulations, are priced into the products and services provided by corporations.  Therefore, everyone ultimately pays corporate income taxes but, it is the poor and middle classes that pay and suffer the most, from the regulation and taxation of American business.  This is a fraud perpetrated against the American people by the power-elites who control government.

President Donald Trump is trying to reduce regulations and bring the corporate income tax down to at least 15%.  This is a step in the right direction.  However, Ireland’s tax rate on corporations is 12.5%.  Accordingly, at a minimum, the corporate tax rate should not be higher than 10%. 

If the United States Congress seriously desired to create jobs, see wages rise, and reduce welfare, they would follow Trump’s lead.  They would send him a bill that cuts corporate taxes to zero; or, at the very least, reduces the tax rate to 10%, keeping all deductions for ordinary & necessary business expenses. 

Based upon 7-years of false promises and lies to repeal Obamacare, the odds are against us, against the American people.

Dum spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

Slainte mhath,

Robert G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.


Why Attack the Republicans?

I just read Allen West’s post at 9:01am June 15, 2017 in which he summarized and discussed the politically motivated attack on Republican Legislators practicing for a charity baseball game this evening (June 15, 2017).  Mr. West’s “biggest concern . . . is the question NO ONE is prepared to answer . . .”

“What we must come to grips with is why would Mr. Hodgkinson [—a 66-year old from Belleville, Illinois,  who worked for Bernie Sanders campaign, hater of Donald Trump and all Republicans—] decide that it was his duty to take the lives of those with whom he disagreed politically?”  Let me present my view of this unconscionable act.

When the “progressive socialist left,” which includes many in Government, Hollywood, Academia, and the Elite Media, disagree with the policies of President Trump, the Republicans, and those who support them, they attack and demonize the respective individuals as outlined in Saul D. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  Instead of debating those they dislike and offering better solutions, they call them deplorable names, try to limit their access to the public through the major media, and keep them from speaking at our elite Universities.

Unfortunately, the “progressive socialist left” have taken over our education system and through compulsory-schooling from K through 12th grade, such indoctrination has arrived at, and, taken over our institutions of higher learning.  In the name of the First Amendment, many progressive professors have incited their students to protest and violate the free speech of conservatives and libertarians, assault others they disagree with, interfere with commerce, and destroy property.  They have sowed the seeds of anarchy, which has likewise been done to Mr. Hodgkinson of Belleville.    

Because of this compulsory indoctrination, the Republic of the United States—with limited government and inalienable rights—has been converted to a Democratic Socialist Welfare State.  Aristotle referred to democracy as a perverted form of government and defined it as tyranny by the many.  Dr. Will Durant stated that democracy is now taking its turn in the misgovernment of mankind.  If democracy actually worked, we would all be speaking Greek today.

Socialism has never worked either.  The former Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) imploded in 1989 after a 70 year experiment in socialism.  Do you really want to live in Cuba or North Korea?  And, look what is happening in Venezuela today.

The problem with the Social-Welfare State is that once you start giving the masses free-stuff, it is never enough; they continue to want more and more.  As the late Margaret Thatcher stated, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

All great empires have self-destructed from within, on average, in 250 years.  If we continue down this same path, the United States government will implode in about 9 years from now in 2026.  This path to self-destruction began roughly 104 years ago in 1913 with the passage of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act.  The Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress the right to tax all incomes, ultimately turning every U.S. taxpaying citizen and resident into slaves to those in charge of government.  The Seventeenth Amendment took power away from the individual states by eliminating the State Legislature’s power to appoint U.S. Senators.  And, the Federal Reserve Act created the central bank giving Congress the ability to institute a hidden tax on Americans in the form of the federal debt closing in on $20-trillion on a cash basis but, more like $200-trillion if the federal government had to keep its books on the accrual method, similar to all publically-traded corporations, e.g., The Coca-Cola Company.

Former President Ronald Reagan once stated, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”  We lost our freedom several generations ago; similar to a frog put in a pot of cold water with the heat rising so slowly until it is boiled to death.  To clarify this disaster, you might want to read my new book, The United States Government is Illegitimate, which is now available through          

To avoid this prophecy of self-destruction by the end of the next decade, or hopefully delay it,  two things need to happen in the very near future.  First, limit the funding of the federal government by REPEALING the Sixteenth Amendment; and, get rid of our current compulsory schooling-indoctrination system.  We must begin teaching our children what real freedom is as defined by Thomas Jefferson, “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others,” e.g., we have no right to demand others pay for our education or our healthcare or housing or food or anything else, period.  And, we must encourage responsible self-reliant behavior, where going to school is deemed a privilege, not a requirement.

Dum spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

Slainte mhath,

Robert G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.



President Trump, A Threat to the Left and Right

For most of America, “occupied by people, who vote with, on average, common sense,”[1] President Trump has been a refreshing change as president.  He has actually done what he said he was going to do with less than two weeks in office!

The Left and the Democrats hate him because they believe he will put a stop to their socialist agenda.  Furthermore, they cannot believe Trump got elected in the first place.  They can thank Barrack H. Obama for his eight years of failed policies and lies to the American people, which has ruined the economy for many Americans, left the middle-east in complete chaos, and ramped-up racism in the United States.  With the exception of a small minority on both sides, I thought racism had been mostly eradicated since the mid-1980’s.  In addition, Obama was not entirely happy with the mess he created so he pitted men against women, gays against straights, rich against poor, public school teachers against private & home school teachers, and the educated against the blue-collar working class.

The Right and many Republicans don’t like Trump either.  They argue that since he wants to re-negotiate “free-trade” deals, he is against free trade.  Even Glenn Beck made a statement that all he wants Trump to do is follow the Constitution.  First, Beck and the other Trump-hating conservatives are just as bad as the liberal-left.  In today’s environment, the average American has no idea what the Constitution says; it has not been followed for the past 75-to-100 years.  Secondly, free-trade has not existed in the United States or any other country for well over 100 years; probably longer.  If we truly had free trade, we would need no agreement; or, the agreement would be about one paragraph long.  The existing so-called “free-trade” agreements pick winners and losers and line the pockets of the politically connected.  By re-negotiating these unconscionable restrictive deals, Trump can only improve things for more Americans.

Another benefit with Trump as President and his billionaire-cabinet; they are not doing this for the money.  In fact, most are not accepting any compensation and Trump is donating his presidential salary to charity.  Ben Franklin and George Washington, along with many of the American Founders never received any compensation for their public service.  Franklin warned us that if it became profitable to seek public office, we would revert back to where we had come from (Europe) and only attract scoundrels who are in it for the money.  Franklin’s warning went unheeded.  We now have a professional political class that have become members of the top 10% at the expense of poor and middle class taxpayers.

  I believe that the major media, academia, and the professional political class are most afraid of Donald J. Trump actually having a successful presidency.  If Trump succeeds, the average voter will realize that we do not need professional career politicians.  The professional political class, aided by academia, the judiciary, and the media, have been responsible for destroying the United States and what it is stands for---FREEDOM.  The United States of America is not a democracy, which as Aristotle stated was a perverted form of government, representing tyranny by the many.  We are a Constitutional Republic where the Government is charged with protecting our Freedom and Private Property; not taking it away from us as it has been doing for well over 100 years.  

Throughout recorded history, the average empire has lasted about 250 years (10 generations of 25 years).  The United States of America is in the final two stages before collapse, which would bring us to the year 2026.  To wish or assume that we are different is to assume or wish for something that has never occurred; everything as with life, has an ending.[2]   

President Trump may be able to create enough jobs, making many of our problems fade away.  He has an almost impossible task ahead of him.  Hopefully he can slow things down and delay the implosion of the Empire of the United States of America.  We all need to give him a chance.  He certainly cannot do any worse than Obama did during the past eight years.     

Dum spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

Robert G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.


[1] Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, Access To Energy, Vol.44 no. 5, December 2016.  According to Dr. Robinson, if you look at the electoral map of the United States, “Most of the land is occupied by people who vote with, on average, common sense.  It is in the population centers on the coasts that the densely packed crowd makes, on average, the poorer political decisions.  While many accomplished individualists are found in cities, there is a statistical tendency toward more group think in these places.”  There is a tendency to revert to the lowest common denominator or to the mean.

[2] Sir John Glubb, The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, William Blackwood & Sons, Ltd., 32 Thistle Street, Edinburgh EH1 1HA, Scotland. (1976,1977).

Healthcare, A Human Right?

In a town hall style meeting on Monday night, Bernie Sanders said that healthcare was a human right.   Bret Baier with FOX News asked Sanders where this right comes from.   Sanders stated that we have a right to health care simply because we are human beings.   The majority of the audience clearly agreed with Sanders.   Bret Baier moved on to the next question without challenging Sanders’ erroneous  and dangerous statement.   Is this “Fair and Balanced” news reporting?   But I digress!

We do not have a right to healthcare; we have a right to pursue healthcare.   If you or I have a right to healthcare, then someone else must be enslaved to provide us that healthcare.   Similarly, if we had a right to healthcare, then we should also have the right to food, to shelter, to clothing, to transportation, ad infinitum.   These would be considered positive rights, which require other individuals to be enslaved for our benefit.   This was the way the “Old World” operated resulting in compulsion, slavery, and extreme poverty for over 6,000 years.

The Founders of the United States challenged this “Old World” philosophy and fought a revolution to stop the oppression of the masses by and for the few.   As a result of their success, it was realized that we do have “certain unalienable Rights . . . [to] Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . .”   These are negative rights and constitutional.   This movement towards individual freedom for all has been reversed because the majority of Americans have been convinced that they should have positive rights, which represents the enslavement of others.

Americans have a right to pursue happiness or property, which would include a right to pursue healthcare.   However, a positive right to healthcare requires forcing others to pay for or provide healthcare.   Therefore, apositive right to healthcare results in the indentured servitude  of some individuals for the benefit of others.

As H. L. Mencken stated, politicians have “no special talent for the business of government,” only a talent for getting elected and holding office by offering to provide something to certain groups “by looting” other individuals.   “In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods.”

As Dr. Walter E. Williams recently wrote, “The moral tragedy that has befallen Americans is our belief that it is okay for government to forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another—that in my book is a working definition of slavery.”

Will we, as a human race, make real progress and understand this?

Dum spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

Slainte mhath,

Robert G. Beard, Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.

What Will Your Vote Accomplish?

We have two socialists running for President; one actually calls himself a socialist and the other refers to herself as “a progressive democrat who likes to get things done.”   Hillary Clinton’s progressive ideas are not new.   They go back to Plato’s time, to ancient Sparta (600 B.C.), and, as Henry Grady Weaver stated, such ideas represent “pagan superstition . . .  known by the persuasive name planned economy, which is nothing more than a weasel word for socialism or communism or fascism.”

Real progress occurred and lasted for about 160 years (1776 to 1936) when a majority of Americans were mostly free to do as they so desired with little to no government interference.   Thomas Jefferson believed that the tree of liberty must be refreshed at least every 20-years with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike.   It has been more than 150 years since the end of the civil war, with government gaining substantial power at the expense of individual freedom.   Jefferson turned out to be right.   James Madison agreed, “. . . there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”   For example, as Dr. Milton Friedman penned over 20-years ago, “every economic plank of the 1928 Socialist party platform has by now been either wholly or partly enacted.”

Like the Spartans and Prussians, who took children away from their parents at a very young age to mold them into obedient soldiers who would follow orders to their death, the power-elites in control of government, including the industrialists in America, developed a similar scheme in the early 1900’s.   They created a schooling system to mold children into good law-abiding taxpaying citizens; who accepted government as the solution to all their problems; who followed rules; who would seek employment rather than becoming entrepreneurs; and, who would endure working long hours, doing mundane work on factory assembly lines.

The masses have been convinced—through government-controlled compulsory schooling—that democracy and socialism are constitutional.   This has made it exceedingly easy for the power-elites in government to turn our American Republic of Freedom into a socialistic democracy, which is not only unconstitutional, but, flies in the face of liberty and our pursuit of happiness.

Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton can say anything they want while running for President; their speech is protected under the First Amendment.   However, the President, along with members of Congress must swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.

When the President and members of Congress violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution, by not reading legislation in its entirety and passing laws violating individual liberty, they have committed treason.

If, for example, Hillary Clinton is elected President and able to get some of her socialistic proposals passed by Congress, she and all of the Congressional members who vote yes would be committing “Treason against the United States.”   If this were to happen, she would not be the first President who has conspired with a majority of Congressional members to commit treason.    This has been going on for over 80 years by both Democratic and Republican Administrations.

Before it’s too late, we need to hold the professional political class accountable, either peaceably through the legal system; or, forcibly as Jefferson suggested, by taking up arms under the Second Amendment for “the security of a free State.”

Dum spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

Slainte mhath,

Robert G. Beard, Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL..M.

Who Benefits From The Income Tax?

The income tax started out as a tax only on the wealthy.   Unfortunately, there are not enough wealthy individuals to support the whims of the power-elites in government; therefore, hard-working middle-class Americans and many retirees are also required to pay income taxes.   The progressive nature of the income tax theoretically forces wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes because of the higher tax rates applied to their greater amount of income.   The more common argument in support of the progressive income tax is that the wealthy obtained their financial success because they enjoyed a greater share of government benefits; therefore, they ought to pay more in taxes.

But, did the government really create the wealth of the financially successful, the one-per- centers?   “If so,” as explained by Frank Chodorov, “then the government is at fault; the only way the government can enrich a citizen is by giving him a special advantage over other citizens, and in that case the government violates its trust.”

Government is not a producer or creator of wealth.   If government grants an advantage or special privilege for one citizen or group, there is an automatic disadvantage for all remaining citizens.   When someone receives a special privilege in the form of a financial subsidy from government (e.g., rents, green energy loans, grants and tax credits, farm subsidies, research and education grants, ad infinitum) it enriches them at the expense of the rest of us.   According to Chodorov:

It is obvious that in handing out special privileges the government is doing what it ought not to do; it is using its power not for the purpose of dispensing justice, but for the purpose of creating injustice.  This is in violation of the principle of equality, and the violation is not corrected by taxing some of the proceeds of privilege; the privileges should be abolished.  If I have acquired wealth by way of a special privilege granted me by government, then when it lays a tax on my ill-gotten wealth it is sharing my unfair advantage; it is, so to say, a partner in my loot.

In spite of what you may have heard from Hillary Clinton or President Barrack Obama, individuals, through business endeavors, create wealth, “government can only take it.”

So, who then really benefits from the income tax?   Frank Chodorov answered:

The only beneficiaries of income taxation are the politicians, for it not only gives them the means by which they can increase their emoluments but it also enables them to improve their importance.  The have-nots who support the politicians in the demand for income taxation do so only because they hate the haves; although they delude themselves with the thought that they might get some of the pelt, the fact is that the taxing of incomes cannot in any way improve their economic condition.

Since the income tax is really a tax on capital for investment, it is the middle-class and poor who suffer the most; and, the greater the tax, the less capital available for investment.   This results in a reduction in bonuses and pay increases for workers; fewer jobs; and inevitably, increases in the price of goods and services which are needed by the poor and middle-class.   Even though the poor may pay a lessor income tax or no income tax at all, they indirectly end up paying the income tax because the tax is ultimately included in the cost of the goods and services that everyone uses, including the poor.   At the same time, hard-working middle-class Americans not only directly pay an income tax, they also end up paying the taxes that are built into the cost of the products and services that they use.

The federal income tax only benefits politicians by giving them more power to grow government and enslave the American people.   Regardless of the progressive nature of the tax, i.e., taxing the so-called wealthy at higher rates, the inescapable losers are poor and middle-class Americans.   This is because the poor and middle-class, unlike wealthy Americans, have very few options, if any, when it comes to the income tax.

The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 have been trampled due to the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, resulting in a permanent income tax.   The only way the American people can rid themselves of this fraud and regain their freedom from an interventionist government is to repeal the 16th Amendment.   This would eliminate the income tax and abolish the IRS; or, at the very least, eliminate the ability of the IRS to impose their Gestapo Tactics to harass and terrify American citizens.

Dum Spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

Slainte mhath,

Robert G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.

Income Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete - The Real Purpose For The Income Tax


In 1945, then Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Beardsley Ruml, made a speech to the American Bar Association entitled, Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete.    According to Ruml, and understood by those familiar with Austrian Economics, the primary purpose of the federal income tax is to redistribute income and wealth; and, “in subsidizing or penalizing various industries and economic groups.”   Our Founders understood this; that is why we had no income tax while they were alive; and, no permanent income tax until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, which authorized Congress the authority to “lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”

As Ruml explained, since the U.S. government had a central bank, i.e., the Federal Reserve; and, since the U.S. dollar, for domestic purposes, was not convertible into gold or any other commodity, the U.S. government no longer had to enter “the domestic money market” to pay its bills or fund its operations.   Unlike the fifty States, which cannot print money, the federal government has unlimited access to the funds it needs and therefore, can do whatever it so desires.

The real purpose of the federal income tax, as explained by Bob Livingston, “is to regulate consumption, control behavior, control and redistribute wealth, and compile dossiers on all citizens.  The Form 1040 is the ‘taxpayer’s’ dossier.”

We no longer live in “the land of the free.”   The passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, which was contrary to the Founding generation’s principles of natural rights “to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” violated our individual rights to ourselves, to our labor, and to our property.

As stated by Frank Chodorov in 1954, “We cannot restore traditional American freedom unless we limit the government’s power to tax.  No tinkering with this, that, or the other law will stop the trend toward socialism.  We must repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.”

Read, The U.S. Individual Income Tax is Incompatible with a Free Society.   This book represents a legal justification for the abolishment of the IRS, the elimination of the income tax, and the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The more Americans begin to understand the fraud associated with the income tax, the closer we come to abolishing the IRS, replacing the income tax with a consumption tax, and repealing the 16th Amendment, limiting the power of the U.S. government to tax and enslave us.

Dum Spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

Slainte mhath,

Robert G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.


The Federal Income Tax, Another Fraud Perpetrated Against Americans

Americans are in the middle of tax season; attempting to figure out how much they owe and then file the appropriate paperwork by April 15th.   In recent history, this ritual has occurred at the same time each and every year while the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issues threats and warnings, including an updated version of their list of the Dirty Dozen Tax Scams. This was not always the plight of Americans.

A federal income tax was not contemplated by the Founders and none existed while they were alive.   The Founders understood an income tax or a tax on a person’s labor was tantamount to slavery, while a tax on consumption or a sales tax was more appropriate for a free society.   As explained by Thomas Jefferson, “. . . a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.  This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circles of our felicities.”   As a result of this understanding, over the first 137 years of existence, Americans were not subjected to a permanent income tax.   Such a tax was viewed as a slave tax.

After the passage of the 16th Amendment and the first permanent income tax, which had a top rate of 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($10-million in 2007 dollars), the supporters argued that it would only impact the wealthy and never rise to 10% because the people would revolt.    As with all government programs, the proponents were wrong: The top marginal tax rate rose to 94% fluctuating up and down, depending upon the political whims of the power-elites that controlled government at any given time; today, the top marginal rate is 39.6% on taxable income starting around $406,750.   Unlike back in 1913 when only extremely wealthy individuals incurred a top tax of 7% on incomes exceeding $10-million in today’s dollars, the average hard-working individual currently pays more than twice that rate applied to incomes starting above $36,900.   As Margaret Thatcher once said, the problem with socialism is, that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.   Instead of the wealthy paying the price for American’s slave tax, it is the middle-class that is being devastated by it.

The IRS, the U.S. version of the Gestapo, terrorizes all Americans.   As Denis Kleinfeld recently wrote, “Letters from the IRS strike dread into the heart of even the most powerful people, as well as the least powerful.   The tax laws govern every aspect of our lives and behavior—from the moment we wake up until we finally go to sleep.  Where we live, how we dress, how we earn a living, whether we get married and have children, what we eat—every aspect of our lives are impacted and thereby dictated by the income tax code.”

The IRS, through the use of its Gestapo Tactics, promotes this fear.   For those of you who have experienced an audit of your personal and business tax returns, that fear is most likely well-founded.   As part of their fear-campaign during this time each year, the IRS releases the Dirty Dozen Tax Scams.   Always considered a notorious tax scam are the “Frivolous Arguments,” which include: The filing of Form 1040 violates the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination; and, the 4th Amendment right to privacy with respect to personal papers and effects.   According to the IRS, these arguments are false and no one has a right to disobey the law.

The IRS is wrong when they say that a Taxpayer’s4th and 5th Amendment rights represent a frivolous argument when it comes to filing tax returns and providing documentation or papers and effects to prove income and deductions.   Supreme Court Justice Bradley, in an opinion issued in 1886, explained why,

. . . any compulsory discovery by extorting the party’s oath [e.g., signing a tax return under penalties of perjury], or compelling the production of his private books and papers [e.g., documentation required by IRS Agents when audited] to convict him of crime, or to forfeit his property [e.g., increase taxes, interest and penalties], is contrary to the principles of a free government.  It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American.  It may suit the purposes of despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.

Justice Bradley ruled the tax law null and void and stated that it was repugnant to the Constitution because it violated the 4th and 5thAmendments.   Subsequent to Justice Bradley’s ruling, the 16th Amendment was passed, giving Congress the right to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.   However, it did not amend, modify, or replace any other provisions of the Constitution, in particular, the 4th and 5th Amendments.   Furthermore, it is not superior to any other amendments.   Therefore, Justice Bradley’s decision is still good law, which has been ignored by the IRS; and, has not been properly litigated in recent history.

The administration and collection of the income tax is unconstitutional.   However, do not stop filing your tax returns and paying your taxes; the IRS will destroy you if you do not follow the law as they understand it to be.

However, if selected for audit, pick up a copy of my LL.M. Thesis, The U.S. Individual Income Tax is Incompatible with a Free Society; give it to your Tax Advisor/Representative and make sure he or she understands how to properly exercise your 4th and 5thAmendment rights which may result in limiting the examination to one tax return and one year.   The IRS will usually ask for three years of personal tax returns and three years of all related business tax returns, along with all of your books and records, bank statements, etc.   If this information is provided, you have effectively waived your 4th and 5th Amendment rights, which will most likely result in an audit-from-hell.   Unfortunately, many tax return preparers, including some CPA’s and Tax Attorneys, are more than willing to fully capitulate, giving the IRS everything they demand, hoping that they will be reasonable.   My experience over the past 35 years is that they are never reasonable; IRS Agents only get promoted by wringing more money out of unsuspecting and naïve taxpayers, who believe they will be spared if they cooperate fully.

Spread the word.   The more people that understand this fraud perpetrated against Americans, the greater the likelihood that the IRS will be abolished and the income tax replaced with a national sales tax.

Dum spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

Slainte mhath,

Robert G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.

Is The American Dream Lost?

The American Dream has already been lost to many within 50% of the U.S. population that pays little-to-no income taxes. The American Dream will also disappear for the middle-to-upper classes if drastic changes are not made.  To recapture the American Dream, we must first understand our inalienable rights:

1. All Americans have the inalienable right to self-defense and should be able to have the weapons of their choice to protect their lives, their family, and their property. Individuals have the right to keep, carry, and bear arms without the Second Amendment; and, if the State denies this right, it should become responsible and financially liable to protect its’ citizens, residents, and their property.

2. Economic freedom is just as important to Americans as religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, voting, etc. but, the power elites and branches of government have purposely reinterpreted the Constitution, granting government more and more power at the expense of individual freedom. Without economic freedom, we are all slaves.

3. The income tax is a slave tax as understood by the Founders of the United States and there was no income tax while our Founders were alive. The government created by the Founders in 1787 is best described by Thomas Jefferson, “. . . a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circles of our felicities.” As explained by Thomas Jefferson, the Founders did not anticipate government regulation of economic activity nor a direct tax on labor, i.e., they considered an income tax on wages to be tantamount to slavery. In spite of the Bill of Rights–the first ten Amendments to the Constitution–being unchanged, Americans are saddled with extensive regulation with respect to their economic activity, along with a permanent and progressive income tax. Although the Sixteenth Amendment allows Congress to “lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,” it did not amend, modify, or replace the Fourth Amendment (the right to be secure in one’s papers and effects), or the Fifth Amendment (the right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself). Therefore, the administration and collection of the income tax is unconstitutional. However, do not stop filing your tax returns and paying your taxes; the IRS will destroy you if you do not follow the law as they understand it to be. Instead, spread the word. The more people that understand this fraud perpetrated on the American public, the greater the likelihood a consumption or national sales tax will be strongly considered as a replacement for the income (slave) tax. Forget the flat tax, it will still require enforcement by the IRS and violations of our 4th and 5th Amendment rights; and, it is still a slave tax whether flat or progressive.

How did this happen? Our Founders started us on the road to individual freedom but, somewhere along the way, we Americans took the wrong turn and have reversed course. James Madison warned the Colonists that “. . . there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Jefferson continued, “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

What better way to control the masses than by government-controlled compulsory schooling. The clergy, which controlled much of the education of the masses up through the 18th century, has been replaced by government-controlled compulsory schooling. The new religion being taught is democracy and the need for greater government power to solve America’s problems.

Democracy has been described as two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner; freedom is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Former President Ronald Reagan rightly stated, “Government is not the solution to our problem government is the problem.”  Although the power-elites controlling government would like us to believe we live in a democracy,  and that democracy is a good thing, America was intended to be a Constitutional Republic, with a limited government whose only responsibility was to protect the inalienable rights of individuals.

Understand your rights, educate those around you (family, friends & associates), be prepared for disasters (e.g., hurricanes, riots), become self-sufficient and financially independent; be able to get away from your home, if necessary, especially if you live in any major metropolitan area (New York, Chicago, St. Louis, etc.).  If Americans become knowledgeable on these issues and wake up to the realization that big government is not the answer,  we can begin to recapture the American Dream.


Back to Blog

The Right To Healthcare?

President Barrack Obama and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi have said numerous times that healthcare has become a right because of the passage of the [Un] Affordable Care Act commonly referred to as ObamaCare.

The President and Congresswoman either: (1) unwittingly believe in the institution of slavery and do not understand our Constitution, nor the concept of positive versus negative rights; or (2) they firmly are in favor of slavery, as long as they can convince the majority to go along with it.   Either way, they are misinterpreting or ignoring our Constitution.

Under the natural rights philosophy, which is enshrined in our founding documents (including our Constitution, the “supreme Law of the Land”), we have a right to pursue happiness or property.   This would include a right to pursue healthcare.   Whereas, a positive right to healthcare, forcing other individuals to provide healthcare, is contrary to the natural rights philosophy in that it requires another individual to “do some act for the benefit of the person entitled.”

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, we have “certain unalienable Rights” that include “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”   The rights granted us by our creator (e.g., God or Nature) and so-stated in our founding documents are negative rights not positive rights.   We have a right to pursue food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, insurance, and other property, but, we do not have a right to these things.   If we did, then somebody else would have to be enslaved to provide these things for us.

Obviously, the President and Congresswoman did not read the legislation they passed, which is now referred to as ObamaCare.   If they had read it, they may have understood that it is an insurance program designed to limit access to healthcare for the poor and middle-class, along with restricting access to certain life-enhancing and life-saving procedures and expensive technologies.

President Obama and Congresswoman Pelosi, along with the full support of the democratic majority, have not granted us a right to healthcare; they have granted us a right to a very bad and expensive health insurance program.   A positive right which enslaves some of us for the benefit of others.

Think about it, if our elected officials have the ability, through legislation, to grant us rights, they can just as easily take them away.   Unfortunately, and with great frequency, that is what has been happening since 1937.

Under our Constitutional Republic,  our rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” are not supposed to be legislated away.   If we desire to restore rightful liberty, we must throw the socialists out and elect only those to office that understand our Constitutional order.

Dum spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

Slainte mhath,

Robert G. Beard, Jr., J.D., LL.M., C.G.M.A., C.P.A.

Tax Day, The Day We Waive Our Rights

On this infamous day each year, every United States citizen and resident, who has taxable income, is required to file their individual income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service (our version of the Gestapo), pay any taxes that still may be due, or, at the very least, request an extension of time to file it.

Unbeknownst to the average person, including most attorneys and accountants, when we file our tax returns and disclose the preponderance of information required, which keeps growing each and every year, we are waiving our right to be secure in our papers and effects (4th Amendment) and our right not to be compelled to be a witness against ourselves (5th Amendment).   And, to add insult-to-injury, we have to sign the return under penalties of perjury.

Real criminals (e.g., those that commit robbery and murder) are usually subject to less harsh punishment than taxpayers who use aggressive tax-shelters to protect their property.   Real criminals receive a Miranda warning explaining their rights.   We (taxpayers) are not explained our rights and are purposely lied to.

The U.S. individual income tax, as administered today, is unconstitutional.   If you do not believe this, please read The U.S. Individual Income Tax is Incompatible with a Free Society; it is available at,, and Barnes & Noble.   If you believe the arguments are sound, please encourage family members, friends, neighbors, and associates to read and distribute copies of this book.

In order to restore the experiment in freedom started by our founders, we must get past the propaganda and require truth in politics.

Dum spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

Slainte mhath,

Robert G. Beard, Jr., J.D., LL.M., C.G.M.A., C.P.A.

Another Fraud On The Public – Government Creates Jobs

We often hear that government has created or saved millions of jobs.   On October 21, 2012, The New York Times contained an article titled, The Myth of Job Creation, in which they discussed the presidential debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney. In particular, they addressed the exchange “about the offshoring of American jobs” where Mitt Romney interrupted President Obama and stated that “Government does not create jobs.”

The New York Times continued, “Except that it does, millions of them—including teachers, police officers, firefighters, soldiers, sailors, astronauts, epidemiologists, antiterrorist agents, park rangers, diplomats, governors (Mr. Romney’s old job) and congressmen (like Paul Ryan).”

The Times ended their article as follows: “The government does not create jobs?  It most certainly does.  And at this time of state budgetary hardship, a dose of federal fiscal aid to states and localities could create more jobs, in both the public and private sectors.”

On the following day, Professor John T. Harvey, an economist from Texas Christian University, wrote an article for Forbes titled, Of Course the Government Can Create Jobs!.    His mantra, “I want to explain how things work, not what you should believe.”    The professor stated, “Why would someone embrace such a questionable characterization [i.e. that government does not create jobs]?  Because their true goal isn’t to generate a scientific understanding of the manner in which the macro-economy operates, but to make a moral statement.”

Professor Harvey’s conclusion: “But, one thing is clear: the government creates jobs, and lots of them.  In fact, the private sector needs them to do so.  Don’t forget, the rules of accounting tell us that if the government is in deficit, then the private sector must be in surplus . . . ”   The professor should probably go back and brush-up on his principals of economics and let the accountants explain the “rules of accounting.”

What Professor Harvey and The New York Times are doing is described by the late Dr. Will Durant, a renowned historian awarded the Pulitzer Prize and Medal of Freedom, “Education has spread, but intelligence is perpetually retarded by the fertility of the simple. . . ignorance lends itself to manipulation by the forces that mold public opinion.  It may be true, as Lincoln supposed, that ‘you can’t fool all the people all the time,’ but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country.”

The late Henry Hazlitt explains the problems associated with the creation of jobs by government and the propaganda spewed by the likes of The New York Times and Professor Harvey , in Economics in One Lesson.   Mr. Hazlitt states, “many of the ideas which now pass for brilliant innovations and advances are in fact mere revivals of ancient errors, and a further proof of the dictum that those who are ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat it.”

In Chapter I, The Lesson, Mr. Hazlitt explains, “certain public policies . . . would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups.  The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently.  It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case.  And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.”    Mr. Hazlitt continues, “In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day.  This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups.  It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.  In this lies the whole difference between good economics and bad.  The bad economist [e.g., Professor Harvey] sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond.”

Mr. Hazlitt explains in Chapter IV, Public Works Mean Taxes, why government does not create or add any new jobs.   His example is a bridge costing $10 million resulting in taxpayers losing $10 million that they could have spent on other things that they needed most. “Therefore,” wrote Mr. Hazlitt, “for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else.  We can see the men employed on the bridge.  We can watch them at work.  The employment argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and probably for most people convincing.  But there are other things we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence.  They are the jobs destroyed by the $10 million taken from the taxpayers.  All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project.  More bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, television technicians, clothing workers, farmers.”

“But then we come to the second argument.  The bridge exists.”    Mr. Hazlitt continues, “It is, let us suppose, a beautiful and not an ugly bridge.  It has come into being through the magic of government spending.  Where would it have been if the obstructionists and the reactionaries had had their way?  There would have been no bridge.  The country would have been just that much poorer.  Here again the government spenders have the better of the argument with all those who cannot see beyond the immediate range of their physical eyes.  They can see the bridge.  But if they have taught themselves to look for indirect as well as direct consequences they can once more see in the eye of imagination the possibilities that have never been allowed to come into existence.  They can see the unbuilt homes, the unmade cars and washing machines, the unmade dresses and coats, perhaps the un-grown and unsold foodstuffs. To see these uncreated things requires a kind of imagination that not many people have.  We can think of these nonexistent objects once, perhaps, but we cannot keep them before our minds as we can the bridge that we pass every  working day.  What has happened is merely that one thing has been created instead of others.”

Government is incapable of creating any net new jobs; at best, any job created by government in the private sector destroys another job in a different industry, which results in government picking winners and losers.   And, any job created in government or the public sector, not only displaces private sector jobs, but, continues to destroy wealth through taxation to pay for the wages, benefits, and retirement programs for government employees.

There is a famous story about Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman, which illustrates the absurdity of job creation by government.   Dr. Friedman was touring “a giant Chinese infrastructure project of some kind, in which the workers were using old-fashioned shovels and picks and wheelbarrows.  Curious, Friedman asked his guide why they weren’t using bulldozers and other heavy machinery.  The answer was: ‘We care about creating jobs for our people.’  To which Friedman responded: ‘Then why not use spoons?’”

Excessive government regulation and taxation puts a strangle-hold on the creation of private sector jobs and wealth.   As stated by Lawrence W. Reed,  “central planning [e.g., government programs to create jobs,] is an exercise in arrogance and futility. . . .”   Because government has gotten into the business of determining winners and losers, we are no longer governed by the rule of law—we are governed by men.   If we could get Hazlitt’s book, Economics in One Lesson, into our public schools and in the hands of most voters, we may be able to vote out-of-office the politicians with “good intentions and good will who wish to reform us” through central planning, thereby destroying our wealth and impoverishing our nation.

Dum spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

-Robert G. Beard, Jr., J.D., LL.M., C.P.A.

Another Fraud On The Public – The Corporate Income Tax

Recently the Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), or, as I like to refer to them as, Citizens for Tax INJUSTICE, conducted a study of 288 Fortune 500 companies and stated that 26 of them paid no federal income tax in a 5-year period.   Reuters jumped on this and stated, “Many of the most profitable U.S. corporations paid little or no federal income tax from 2008 to 2012, according to a five-year study issued . . . by a . . . tax activist group.”   To Reuters credit, they did mention the fact that several of the companies singled out disputed the CTJ study.   The spokesman for General Electric stated that the CTJ “inaccurately uses the current tax provision—a book accounting number—to make definitive statements about our U.S. income taxes.  This is not the same as the cash income tax that we pay for a given year.”   According to the spokesman, “For each year cited by [CTJ], GE paid income taxes in the U.S., as well as billions in other state, local and federal taxes in the U.S.”

Ignoring the fact that the CTJ’s study may be flawed, as indicated by the GE example, this study is being used by the CTJ, at least several large media organizations, and some politicians, arguing that many U.S. corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes.   In 2007, one of Candidate Hilary Clinton’s proposals included a “strategic energy fund” which would be funded “by taking away the tax break for the oil companies.”   At least one Democratic Senator is on the record stating, “It’s time for the big corporations to pay their fair share [of income taxes].”

Before proceeding to the real fraud perpetrated on the public, it is easy to dispute the broad conclusions reached by these individuals and groups.   When these socialists state that many of the most profitable corporations paid little to no federal income taxes, this seems to suggest that at least most of the Fortune 500 companies fall into this category.   The CTJ study singled-out 26 companies, which represents about 5% of the Fortune 500 or 9% of the 288 companies studied.   To be considered many or most, I would suggest that the typical person might envision at least 80%-to-90% fall into this category, not less than 10%.   In addition, we also know that at least one company (General Electric) should be removed from the 26 companies singled-out, further reducing many, to a few.

And, in spite of what many politicians have said, the major oil companies (e.g., ExxonMobil and Chevron) do not receive any additional tax breaks greater than most other businesses; and, they pay more income taxes than most other corporations.

The real fraud perpetrated on the public is that Americans are led to believe that corporations actually pay income taxes in the first place.   Think about it, how can property or an inanimate object pay taxes?

In the February 22, 2014 issue of The Economist, far from a conservative or libertarian magazine, they stated: “The big question is whether it makes sense to tax corporate profits at all.  A company is a legal entity; if it is taxed, it must pass it on.”   Corporations do not pay taxes, only individuals pay taxes.   When a corporation is taxed, either: (1) the stockholders absorb the tax, through a reduction of dividends and/or company value; (2) employees are penalized, by cancelling raises or bonuses and not hiring new workers; and/or (3) customers pay the tax through an increase in the cost of the products or services purchased from the corporation.   Contrary to what we hear from the media, academia, and the politicians, it is the middle-class and poor that suffer from taxes imposed upon corporate profits.

The Economist has even taken the position that “the rich world needs to cut red tape to encourage business.”   The cost of government regulationrepresents another tax or fee ultimately absorbed by the middle-class and poor.   The regulatory and tax environment that exists today keeps the middle-class and poor from being able to start new businesses; they are unable to compete with the entrenched large corporations who have huge armies of attorneys and accountants, which are necessary in today’s over-regulated and over-taxed environment.

Only consumers, workers, and investors pay taxes, not corporations.   The corporate income tax and regulatory environment is a hidden stealth tax that negatively impacts poor and middle-class Americans.

If enough people begin to understand this fraud, the politicians expounding these types of untruths, whether they are outright lying or just plain ignorant, may be voted out of office.

Dum spiro, spero—While I breathe I hope.

-Robert G. Beard, Jr., J.D., LL.M., C.P.A.

Financial Independence = Freedom & Prosperity

Financial independence has nothing to do with retirement. In fact, nobody should ever retire. According to Dr. David Eifrig, Jr., “too many people work and save all their lives only to retire and discover they are bored… literally to death. Many succumb to depression and disease (even terminal illness) because they are unprepared for the mental shift in retirement. In fact, a shocking study in 2005 (The Retirement Millionaire Manifesto), showed people who retire at age 55 die twice as fast as those who keep working.”

Colonel Harland David Sanders (1890-1980), at age 65, after his restaurant failed because of reduced customer traffic from the newly completed Interstate 75, took $105 from his first Social Security check and began visiting potential investors that may be interested in becoming franchisees. About nine years later he sold the Kentucky Fried Chicken corporation for $2-million to a partnership of Kentucky businessmen. This sale did not include his Canadian franchises. One year later he moved to Mississauga, Ontario to oversee his Canadian franchises; and, he continued to collect franchise and appearance fees in both Canada and in the United States. He also created several charitable trusts that to this day continue to donate money to various groups that specialize in women’s and children’s care. Colonel Sanders was 90 years old when he passed away.

The Colonel Sanders story illustrates several important lessons: It is never too late; learn from your mistakes, never give up, adapt and prosper. Also, this is an excellent example of turning a negative event, i.e., the failure of a business, into something much more beneficial. After all, there are no problems, only opportunities. Colonel Sanders took this negative event—the failure of his business— reevaluated his situation and made changes. The changes he made greatly improved his life and the lives of many others, who are continuing to this day to benefit from his success.

Therefore, your goal should be financial independence and not retirement. Financial independence allows a person to work less, participate in more leisure activities, change careers, start new businesses, organize and contribute to charitable causes, etc.. Furthermore, the quicker you become financially independent, the more freedom you have to do as you so please.