Think TV

Visit our store and try our
bestselling products!

Magnesium cream for
pain, iodine for energy,
eye-friendly LED bulbs,
best bath and body soaps ever!

How aware are you of chemtrails?

Doreen Hendrickson and her childrenIt isn't just another "tax case" with a guilty verdict.  Doreen Hendrickson was being forced by the justice system to testify against her beliefs, and when unwilling to do so, was incarcerated.  Her story is explained in detail by World Net Daily (, with the title "Woman Jailed for Refusing Federal Order to Commit Perjury."  Opening lines: When a federal court and the federal government ordered Doreen Hendrickson to sign a form under penalty of perjury that she believed to be inaccurate, the mother of two initially refused to comply. Eventually she obeyed, but noted that the sworn statement was being made under duress. Now, because of that decision, she is sitting behind bars for "contempt of court." A federal appeal is being considered in what sources called an "unprecedented" case, with arguments from both sides presented last month. The case has broad implications for free speech and due process.

From the end of the article: "Today Doreen Hendrickson sits in a federal prison for having the temerity to disagree with the government and expressing her disagreement," Doreen Hendrickson's attorney for the appeals process told WND. "As required under the court order for which she stands convicted of violating, Mrs. Hendrickson submitted amended tax returns. In doing so, she reported as 'income' earnings that she truly believes are not properly subject to tax. Since tax returns require [us] to affirm [our] subjective belief of the accuracy of the recorded information, Mrs. Hendrickson qualified her filings by stating her disagreement with the compelled characterization of certain items as 'income.' No one disputes that Mrs. Hendrickson believes what she claims to believe. Instead, our constitutional government has unilaterally decided that her good efforts to comply with a court order are simply not good enough because she expressed her sincerely held view that the items she was required to declare as 'income' are not 'income.' This represents a shameful abuse of public authority."

Read full article here.