Dissident Veteran For Peace

Jürgen Todenhöfer is the only known Western journalist to openly enter ISIS-controlled territory and return alive. His views are largely unheard in the US media; I learned about him via the BBC. Below are a few excerpts from him or articles about his visit to ISIS/ISIL territory.

"During the last 200 years an Arabic country has never attacked the West. We must explain why we fought wars in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Libya. And if we are looking for a reason why this horrible organisation ISIL exists, we must have a look at its history. ISIL was founded some weeks after the US-led invasion of Iraq. The organisation is the baby of George W. Bush. And the violence, that we face now is the fallout or boomerang effect of our own wars."

-Euronews. "ISIL is the baby of George W Bush."January 16, 2015.

Once within Isis territory, Todenhöfer said his strongest impression was "that Isis is much stronger than we think here". He said it now has "dimensions larger than the UK", and is supported by "an almost ecstatic enthusiasm that I have never encountered in any other warzone".

"Each day, hundreds of willing fighters arrive from all over the world," he told tz. "For me it is incomprehensible."

...

Todenhöfer says that this ultimately means Isis cannot be beaten by Western intervention or air strikes – despite US claims last week that they have proven effective. "With every bomb that is dropped and hits a civilian, the number of terrorists increases," he said.

Speaking in a TV interview with RTL's Nachtjournal programme two days after his return to Germany last week, Todenhöfer said Isis has worked hard to establish itself as a functioning state. He said it has "social welfare", a "school system", and that he was even surprised to see it has plans to provide education to girls.

-Adam Withnall. The Independent. "Inside Isis: The first Western journalist ever to be given access to the 'Islamic State' has just returned – and this is what he discovered." December 21, 2014.

See also Jürgen Todenhöfer's website.

Labels: Bush, Iraq, Islam, Syria, terrorism, video, war tax resistance

This groovy tune is featured in the intro to the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee's excellent video, Death and Taxes.

Labels: music, video, war tax resistance

I haven't written about the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund in more than two-and-a-half years now. The proposal is an extremely flawed effort that should be opposed by all people of conscience. As I summed up in August 2006, "... if you want to send more money to the war machine, split the war tax resistance movement, and help set up a feel good shell game then the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund bill (HR 2631) is for you." So, I was happy to read in the June 2009 issue of More Than a Paycheck that the Coordinating Committee of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee did not renew its previous endorsement of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund.

Labels: critical thinking, Peace Tax Fund Bill, politics, resistance, United States, war tax resistance

Another poster by SF Bay Area graphic artist Doug Minkler. Click on the image to enlarge it.

Labels: Doug Minkler, resistance, War, war tax resistance

This will be the first of six of my favorite anti-war posters by SF Bay Area graphic artist Doug Minkler. The first two will deal with war tax resistance. Click on the image to enlarge it.

Labels: Doug Minkler, resistance, War, war tax resistance

The following is reposted from wartaxboycott.org.

A People’s Campaign to Defund the War

For over five years peace activists have voted, lobbied, marched, and taken direct action to first prevent and then end the war in Iraq. Courageous soldiers have refused to fight the war. But Congress repeatedly votes to appropriate billions of dollars to continue the war and appears ready to authorize a future military attack on Iran. It’s time for taxpayers who oppose this war to join together in nonviolent civil disobedience and show Congress how to cut off the funds for this war and redirect resources to the pressing needs of people.

Register and Prepare for April 2008

The organizers and signers of the 2008 War Tax Boycott urge all who oppose this war to register and prepare for an April 2008 nationwide boycott and redirection of the federal income taxes that fuel the war in Iraq. If you are new to war tax resistance, you will find the information you need to get started on this website, or you can check off that you need more information when you register. We urge those who are already refusing to pay for war (whether by reducing their income or not paying some or all of taxes due) to sign on also. The more who sign on, the louder our voices will be in Washington as we demand an end to war and show Congress how to use our money for life affirming programs.

This campaign was initiated by the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee and is being promoted by Voices for Creative Nonviolence, War Resisters League, the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, Veterans for Peace, and the Nonviolent Direct Action Working Group of United for Peace and Justice.

Building the Boycott

This campaign to boycott and redirect war taxes was launched in September 2007 as Congress began its consideration of a Bush Administration request for an additional $190 billion appropriation for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was begun in the fall, ahead of tax season, so that those who want to refuse to pay for war could explore the options, decide what to do, and prepare to resist well before 2007 taxes are due. The campaign is being promoted by peace activists around the country and is partnered with CODEPINK's “Don't Buy Bush's War" campaign.

Labels: Iran, Iraq, resistance, United States, war tax resistance

In April, the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee announced the winners of its first annual War Tax Resistance Video Contest. I liked the third-place winner best. It's called We Are Everywhere and its by Megan Ramsey. You can watch it below, just be sure to click on the play button. To see the other winners, go to http://www.nwtrcc.org/videofinalists.html Speaking of anti-war videos, if you haven't already seen it, then have a look at Not Your Soldier. It doesn't exactly epitomize principled nonviolence but it's worth checking out anyway.

Labels: anti-war movement, Iraq, video, war tax resistance

Unless you're already a telephone war tax resister then Uncle Sam, a.k.a. Uncle Scum, may owe you a refund. Thanks to corporate greed, the Internal Revenue Service conceded last May that its excise tax on long distance telephone service is illegal.

The federal telephone excise tax began with long distance calls under the Spanish War Act of 1898; it was applied to local calls shortly before the US entered World War II. The War Resisters League estimates that in 1972, perhaps one-half million people resisted the US war in Vietnam/Southeast Asia by refusing to pay the federal telephone tax. In 1990, the tax was set at 3%; phone companies collect the tax for the IRS and the money is allocated as general revenue for discretionary spending. According to IRS figures, from 1995 through 2001, the tax brought in over $34 billion to the US Treasury, including a record $5.7 billion in 2001 alone.

According to the IRS' "Telephone Tax Refund Questions and Answers" page, the IRS "will refund to you the taxes on long-distance or bundled service billed to you for the period after Feb. 28, 2003 and before Aug. 1, 2006" plus interest. To get this money you have to request it when you file your 2006 tax returns. Sweethearts that they are, "The IRS is making it easier for individual taxpayers by offering a standard refund amount between $30 and $60, so that these taxpayers don’t need to gather old phone bills."

The tax change does not apply to local telephone service. So, if you're opposed to the US war in Iraq and against funding the US war machine in general then now is a good time to consider telephone war tax resistance. Check out Hang Up On War! which is sponsored by the Iraq Pledge of Resistance network, which coordinated nonviolent civil disobedience actions to oppose the war; the War Resisters League, which has supported war tax resisters at all levels since World War II; and the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, a network of organizations that provide resources, information, and support for war tax resisters.

See also:

• War Tax Resistance: An Idea Whose Time Has Come . . . Again? (CommonDreams.org April 12, 2002)
• If You Work for Peace, Stop Paying for War (CommonDreams.org March 21, 2003)
• Telephone Excise Tax Refund (IRS)

Labels: Internal Revenue Service, Iraq, money, war tax resistance

Thanks to Bill H., I just learned that the Green Party of the United States' 2002 "Proposal on the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act" passed with 36 "Yes" votes to 29 "No" votes. I was surprised (and pleased) to learn how much opposition there was to the proposal and, maybe, now is a good time to start working to rescind this misguided endorsement and to propose a peace tax credit instead. I'm still waiting for the folks at the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund to respond to my blog post of 8/16 ("Peace Tax Fund Staffer Admits 'bill does not decrease military spending' ").

Addendum: Interested readers would do well to read the Picket Line post on this subject.

Last revised: 9/30/06

Labels: critical thinking, Peace Tax Fund Bill, politics, resistance, United States, war tax resistance

Below in italics and block quote are my responses to an August 2, 2006, comment by Chris Fretz, a staff member of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. Not all of his comment is reproduced below. I have emphasized some of his words by underlining them.

... Below you will find each question, followed by our response.

1. Why should War Tax Resisters (WTRs)/Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation (COMTs) or their allies support a bill that would admittedly INCREASE federal revenues?

As you said, HR 2631 would increase federal revenues. However, the bill also states "It is the sense of Congress that any increase in revenue to the Treasury resulting from creation of the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund shall be allocated in a manner consistent with the purposes of the Fund." Your question implies that War Tax Resisters (WTRs)/Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation (COMTs) are anti-government.

No, it does not. Even WTRs/COMTs who are not anti-government should be concerned about increasing federal revenues when HR 2631 does absolutely nothing to cut military spending. There is nothing very conscientious about feeding more money to the war machine but doing so indirectly and then patting yourself on the back for it.

... Many WTRs/COMTs support this legislation because they want their beliefs to be respected, and to have a legal option to pay their taxes without their personal tax money being spent on military activities. This legislation would increase revenue that would be allocated in a manner consistent to the purpose of the Fund, which is to extend COMT rights, and it would give them a legal option that does not violate their conscience. I hope you will come to see how that goal is worthy in itself.

Money is fungible and I don't see anything "worthy" in creating a feel good shell game that increases federal revenue and splits the WTR/COMT community.

2. Is there any evidence that HR 2631, if signed into law, would actually divert a single penny away from military spending?

The Campaign has never claimed that HR 2631 would divert money from the pentagon.

Well, this is an honest admission and I thank you for it.

Money is fungible, and HR 2631 would only divert money from military spending if enough taxpayers paid into the Peace Tax Fund that the government’s general fund became smaller than the military budget. That may seem unlikely, however, many taxpayers who are not currently WTRs/COMTs might use the bill once they become aware such an option exists.

A reasonable estimate that I quoted previously is that "in order to make any reduction to the 26% of every tax dollar that is spent for military purposes, more than 74% of taxpayers would have to declare themselves conscientious objectors." HR 2631 relies upon an already onerous statute that defines a conscientious objector as a person "who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form." However, the statute continues: "As used in this subsection, the term 'religious training and belief' does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code.

If you're going to go forward in this effort then why not at least adopt a less burdensome definition of conscientious objector? I recommend that you have a look at HR 5060 (102d Cong., 2nd Session).

However, the main goal of the bill has always been to extend to WTRs/COMTs the rights COs have enjoyed since 1940 by ensuring that legal penalties are not imposed because of their beliefs that killing is wrong, and so is paying others to kill in their names.

It would be much more honest and accurate to say "to extend to some WTRs/COMTs the rights some COs have enjoyed." Non-religious and other COs have always been excluded "since 1940" and they and others would be left out in the cold by HR 2631.

3a. If HR 2631 was signed into law wouldn't some WTRs/COMTs understandably still refuse to pay because they realize that money is fungible and the bill INCREASES federal revenues?

3b. Isn't it likely that prosecutors would invoke failure to avail themselves of the provisions of HR 2631 as an aggravating circumstance when prosecuting such WTRs/COMTs?

3c. Doesn't HR 2631 potentially create two classes of WTRs/COMTs--one legal (but helping to INCREASE federal revenues), the other illegal--thereby splitting an already too small movement and furthering a divide-and-conquer strategy by the government?

It is a personal choice whether one pays their full income taxes or practices war tax resistance. It would also be a personal choice whether or not a WTR/COMT would use the Peace Tax Fund.

Why not work to give them a real choice instead of a feel good shell game choice that would likely never divert a single penny away from the Pentagon? A Peace Tax Credit Bill would do that.

Some WTRs/COMTs may still refuse to pay taxes after HR 2631 is signed into law.

Yes, the WTRs/COMTs who are really conscientious, who don't want their money used to kill. They would continue to resist and they would be left out in the cold by HR 2631.

But we simply want to give people that choice. WTRs/COMTs do actually suffer at the hands of the IRS, which recently sent 3 WTRs to prison – a very rare punishment and troubling development. Had the bill been law, it would have prevented this abuse of conscience.

Not necessarily, what evidence do you have that the three WTRs in question would have paid under the scheme envisioned by HR 2631?

To be honest, we don’t know if prosecutors will consider failing to use the provisions of 2631 as an aggravating circumstance. That will probably vary greatly from case to case depending upon the WTR/COMT’s circumstance and legal argument.

How about including a clause that addresses the issue explicitly?

I think that most WTRs/COMTs would be glad to have legislation that brings attention to their dilemma of conscience. While the bill does not decrease military spending,

Again, an honest admission for which I am grateful.

a worthy goal of many other campaigns and organizations, it does recognize that conscientious objection extends not only to physical participation in war, but to financial participation as well, and increases visibility that such beliefs exist in our country. ... The bill would also require the government to report the level of Peace Tax Fund usage, providing a measure of the number of taxpayers who are COMTs. This would add to the dialogue about military spending priorities and could build momentum toward changing current priorities.

We can't know the future, and laws can be amended as necessary. First we have to pass the bill.

Why put so much time, energy, and money into a very faulty bill to be amended later? Why not put forward a good bill that would still raise the important issues and would deprive the Pentagon of its blood money? Why not ask for what you want at the outset and compromise if you must but only when you have a real chance of getting something passed?

... 4. Have supporters of HR 2631 considered a Peace Tax Credit bill that instead of increasing federal revenues would give WTRs/COMTs a 100% tax credit for money spent on non-profits charities, non-profits, etc.? If not, why not?

The Campaign has been around for over 30 years and continues to evolve. In the peace tax movement there has not been broad consideration of a Peace Tax Credit Bill.

It doesn't seem like much evolution is going on. The bill is very faulty and in 30 years these faults have, apparently, not been corrected. Maybe it's time to punctuate the equilibrium.

However, our legislative committee carefully considers how the legislation gets written, though ultimately the final phrasing is up to our lead sponsor in Congress, which is currently Rep. John Lewis (GA-5). If you have ideas on how the tax credit idea would be implemented I’d be glad to discuss it with you. You are also welcome to make a written proposal to the Campaign’s board of directors. But the Campaign remains focused on passing the bill that we have and trying to build grassroots awareness and support among our allies.

It doesn't seem like the Campaign is really very open to change or constructive criticism.

In sum, if you want to send more money to the war machine, split the war tax resistance movement, and help set up a feel good shell game then the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund bill (HR 2631) is for you. If you want a legal way to stop feeding the war machine against your will then encourage the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund to drop its support for HR 2631 and to start drafting a Peace Tax Credit bill.

...

Peace,

Chris Fretz
National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund

See also:

• Concerning the Peace Tax Fund Bill
• Concerning the Peace Tax Fund Bill--Part II

Labels: critical thinking, money, Peace Tax Fund Bill, politics, resistance, United States, war tax resistance

I first discussed this topic in my post of June 26. I recently got an e-mail from a volunteer with the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. He hasn't really addressed my longstanding concerns about the legislation but then he probably hasn't seen them but he'll get his chance. Here's the text of a message I sent to him:

Hi [name withheld by request],

I have some questions for you.

1. The proposed legislation (currently HR 2631--the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act) says, "The Joint Committee on Taxation has certified that a tax trust fund, providing for conscientious objector taxpayers to pay their full taxes for non-military purposes, would INCREASE Federal revenues" (emphasis added). The text of a previous version (HR 1186) of the bill claimed that two committees/studies determined that the bill, if passed, would INCREASE total federal revenues. Why should war tax resisters (WTRs)/Conscientious Objector to Military Taxation (COMTs) or their allies support a bill that would admittedly INCREASE federal revenues?

2. Money is fungible, is there any evidence that HR 2631, if signed into law, would actually divert a single penny away from military spending?

3. If HR 2631 was signed into law wouldn't some WTRs/COMTs understandably still refuse to pay because they realize that money is fungible and the bill INCREASES federal revenues and isn't it likely that prosecutors would invoke failure to avail themselves of the provisions of HR 2631 as an aggravating circumstance when prosecuting such WTRs/COMTs? In short, doesn't HR 2631 potentially create two classes of WTRs/COMTs--one legal (but helping to INCREASE federal revenues), the other illegal--thereby splitting an already too small movement and furthering a divide-and-conquer strategy by the government?

4. Have supporters of HR 2631 considered a Peace Tax Credit bill that instead of INCREASING federal revenues would give WTRs/COMTs a 100% tax credit for money spent on non-profits charities, non-profits, etc.? If not, why not?

Salaam,

Michelle

I'll keep you posted on what the Peace Tax Fund volunteer has to say or maybe he'll leave a comment or two.

Below is a section from the "Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act" Wikipedia article that illustrates why I think the legislation may be a well-intentioned shell game (and, no, I didn't write any part of this Wikipedia article).

Effect of the act on government revenue and spending

The legislation itself notes that "The Joint Committee on Taxation has certified that a tax trust fund, providing for conscientious objector taxpayers to pay their full taxes for non-military purposes, would increase Federal revenues."[4] This presumably because some war tax resisters would return to paying taxes.

There would be some additional cost in implementing and accounting for such a distinct fund and in providing mechanisms for taxpayers to use it.

The act would not directly reduce either the amount of money the federal government spends on the military nor the percentage of the federal budget that goes to military spending. The National Priorities Project, using a similar definition of "military purpose" as is in this bill, estimates that “[m]ilitary spending consumes 26 cents out of every individual income tax dollar. It makes up about 20% of total federal spending and over half of the discretionary budget.”

The bill would only directly affect the amount of military spending if the general fund were to become smaller than the amount to be spent on the military. If that were to happen, the government would either have to borrow money to make up the difference, illegally dip into the Peace Tax Fund, or reduce military spending.

How many people would have to become conscientious objectors to military taxation for this to happen? If, for simplicity’s sake, we assume that likely conscientious objectors to military taxation currently pay on average about the same amount of taxes as everyone else, in order to make any reduction to the 26% of every tax dollar that is spent for military purposes, more than 74% of taxpayers would have to declare themselves conscientious objectors.

Remember, too, that the bill has a historically pretty restrictive definition of a CO:

Designated Conscientious Objector- For purposes of this Act, the term 'designated conscientious objector' means a taxpayer who is opposed to participation in war in any form based upon the taxpayer's deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or training (within the meaning of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 450 et seq. [the specific section is 456(j)])), and who has certified these beliefs in writing to the Secretary of the Treasury in such form and manner as the Secretary provides.

Labels: critical thinking, money, Peace Tax Fund Bill, politics, resistance, United States, war tax resistance

Here's an edited version of something I wrote to a Green Party list a couple of days ago:

I first looked into the Peace Tax Fund (PTF) legislation several years ago. While I believe the people working for the PTF have the best of motives nevertheless I think the effort is fatally misguided. The proposed legislation (currently H.R. 2631--the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act) might make individual taxpayers feel better but it would not divert one cent from the military budget until a highly unlikely, critical mass of the taxpayers participated in the PTF. The text of a previous version (H.R. 1186) of the bill claimed that two committees/studies determined that the bill, if passed, would INCREASE total federal revenues, presumably, because war tax resisters would begin paying their taxes. In Sec. 2, Para. 6 of the current bill, it says, "The Joint Committee on Taxation has certified that a tax trust fund, providing for conscientious objector taxpayers to pay their full taxes for non-military purposes, would increase Federal revenues." Until the large, critical mass is reached H.R. 2631 creates nothing but a shell game, at best. A higher proportion of tax revenues from non-PTF participants would simply be diverted to military spending to make up any loss.

Another serious criticism of PTF is that the law creating it would probably become another legal ax to wield against war tax resisters (although few of the legal defenses employed thus far have been very successful, in any event). By analogy, think of conscientious objectors (CO) to military conscription. In WWI (and probably other wars, too), some COs refused to do any alternative work that supported the war effort. They reasoned that their non-combat war work simply freed up someone else to perform the combat duty which they opposed and had been excused from. The CO laws were later used against these COs--the most 'conscientious' COs, in fact. They were sent to prison where they were often brutalized.

None of the advocates of the PTF I have corresponded with have ever addressed these concerns. Having said all that, I am humble enough to admit that my analysis and/or vision may be deficient and I would, however, support a well written Peace Tax Credit bill.

So, if passage of the Peace Tax Fund bill would--as it claims--increase federal revenues then why don't more members of Congress support it? My guess is that they don't want to give any credence to the notion that people have any right of conscience to decide individually how their taxes are spent. They may be afraid of the broader consequences of legislatively affirming "the religious freedom of taxpayers who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war ..." and they may also see the bill as a slippery slope opening the door to claims of conscience on subjects other than war.

Here are two other pieces I have written on war tax resistance:

• War Tax Resistance: An Idea Whose Time Has Come . . . Again? (CommonDreams.org April 12, 2002)
• If You Work for Peace, Stop Paying for War (CommonDreams.org March 21, 2003)

Labels: critical thinking, Peace Tax Fund Bill, politics, resistance, United States, war tax resistance