REBUTTAL: The Six Ways that People Falsely Argue Against Us or Our Research

“Blessed are you when they [the corrupted de facto government] revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My [God’s] sake.”
[Matt. 5:11, Bible, NKVJ]

This ministry has been a constant target of false allegations and propaganda since we began in 2003. The following resources on our site document these arguments and rebut them:

1. Forms/Pubs Page, section 1.8: Policy Documents, SEDM
   https://sedm.org/Forms/Navigation/FormIndex-Right-1.08.htm
2. Liberty University, Section 8: Resources to Rebut Government, Legal, and Tax Profession Deception and False Propaganda, SEDM
   https://sedm.org/Forms/Navigation/FormIndex-Right-1.08.htm
3. Liberty University, Section 9: Resources to Rebut Private Sector Deception and False Propaganda, SEDM
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU-Sect9.htm

This article will summarize the SIX main ways that people try to attack us or our research. Here are the ways, in descending order of frequency:

1. They will say THE WHOLE THING is frivolous and not provide evidence proving any aspect of the accusation.  That is a violation of due process because it doesn’t rebut the evidence behind the argument.  It’s the equivalent of saying “You’re a heretic because you won’t join our statist religion.  I’m not going to talk with you.”  Judges like to do this.  We cover this in:  
   Responding to “Frivolous” Penalties or Accusations, Form #05.027; https://sedm.org/product/meaning-of-the-word-frivolous-form-05-027/
2. If they aren’t a judge or legal professional, they will avoid a direct or factual argument entirely by calling us names without evidence. Neanderthal Democrats like to do this.  This approach completely violates due process and abuses emotions and presumptions to change public opinion without actually informing the audience they are speaking to about anything. This is the LAZIEST approach.
3. If they are legally more knowledgeable and have more resources or discipline on their side, they will pick the WEAKEST argument in a specific document and attack only that. A weak argument is one that can be exploited to LOOK wrong by using UNDEFINED terms or terms used out of the context we use them to create a GENERAL impression without any real or specific evidence. This is what we call equivocation and sophistry.
4. If they can’t find even one weak argument that they can abuse equivocation and sophistry to exploit, they will say we are “crazy” without actually even proving that.
5. If our audience believes we aren’t crazy and the government party who has to argue against us has to say SOMETHING to the audience in response to our evidence, they will punt and say things like: “This is all gibberish and I don’t understand it. It incomprehensible”. They use this tactic because they work for the government and can’t take the fifth amendment, but HAVE to say SOMETHING, so they punt and say they don’t understand. If they are a judge, the judicial version of this is simply: “I’m unconvinced by your arguments”. They won’t even address the evidence you have presented because it is irrefutable, would take too much work, and if they even begin to address the argument as a Third Rail issue, it would ultimately be professional suicide and a major reduction in customers and revenue for their massive Ponzi scheme.  The way to deal with this tactic is to:
   5.1  Present a series of admissions that lead them to agree with you.
   5.2  When you get to the end of the questions, say they DO agree with you because there is no other conclusion one can reach.  
   We use the above approach in most of our documents, by the way, by putting a series of questions at the end for those who doubt to answer so that by the time they get to the end of the questions, they are out of ammunition, cannot say they don’t understand because they understand each fact, and therefore they essentially agree.
6. The method of VERY LAST resort, and the one we NEVER see from ANY government is to address EVERY single argument in one of our documents or article and attempt to destroy it one statement at a time. This, by the way, is how we attack almost EVERYTHING, and the government has NEVER matched our level of effort in this area that we almost exclusively use against ALL their documents and publications.

The closest we have seen the government come to the last and most difficult level of effort above is the IRS Frivolous Tax Arguments, but even that is untrustworthy, because the author is not identified and because their own website and Internal Revenue Manual say that EVERYTHING they publish is UNTRUSTWORTHY. So you can’t even trust this. They also refuse to define the context of the words in their document between STATUTORY or CONSTITUTIONAL, so even in this document, they abuse equivocation to deceive. You can read this document at:

Rebutted Version of the IRS “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”, Form #08.005
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/friv_tax_rebuts.pdf