11
Apr
10

The Sixteenth Amendment Did Not Allow the Government to Tax You!

So guess what time it is – TAX TIME! For many of you it is a viewed as a time to “get a refund.” Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the government has been taking your money, interest free mind you, for the entire year. That money never even hit your wallet (or purse for you ladies) so it never really seemed like yours in the first place.

But, what is the justification for the government to take 20 or so percent of your paycheck? If you listen to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) then they will tell you that they do.

The Law: The constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment has invariably been upheld when challenged. And numerous courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non‑apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited to Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the “sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation.” (link)

So POOF there you have it – the courts have undoubtedly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment allows a direct income tax on [all] United States citizens. If you are a United States citizen, then you are taxable.

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 950 (1991)

the court found defendant’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens similarly to be “devoid of any arguable basis in law.”

Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 930 (1981)

the court rejected a refund suit, stating that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states.

United States v. Hockensmith, 104 A.F.T.R.2d 2009-5133, 2009 WL 1883521 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 30, 2009)

the court rejected the taxpayer’s arguments that no law created an income tax and that the taxpayer was outside the government’s taxing authority. The court held that the Sixteenth Amendment allows for the taxation of income and eliminates the requirement for apportionment among the states.

IRS Publication 2105 entitled “Why Do I Have to Pay Taxes” also states,

Congress used the power granted by the Constitution and Sixteenth Amendment, and made laws requiring all individuals to pay tax.

So there you have it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the Sixteenth Amendment so you are taxable. The Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But wait…

The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913, so if it is what allowed the government to tax “incomes, from whatever source derived” then we should have an influx of people start filing starting around 1913 or 1914. Please review the chart below as I have compiled a list of the number of returns from 1913 to 2005 as well as a corresponding population. I have also added a category of the percentage of the American public filing as well as a percent increase of filings from the previous year.

Year Number of Returns Population % of Population Filing % Increase
1913 358,000 97,225,000 0.37% NULL
1914 358,000 99,111,000 0.36% 0.00%
1915 337,000 100,546,000 0.34% -5.87%
1916 437,000 101,961,000 0.43% 29.67%
1917 3,473,000 103,268,000 3.36% 694.74%
1918 4,425,000 103,208,000 4.29% 27.41%
1919 5,333,000 104,514,000 5.10% 20.52%
1920 7,260,000 106,461,000 6.82% 36.13%
1921 6,662,000 108,538,000 6.14% -8.24%
1922 6,787,000 110,049,000 6.17% 1.88%
1923 7,698,000 111,947,000 6.88% 13.42%
1924 7,370,000 114,109,000 6.46% -4.26%
1925 4,171,000 115,829,000 3.60% -43.41%
1926 4,138,000 117,397,000 3.52% -0.79%
1927 4,102,000 119,035,000 3.45% -0.87%
1928 4,144,000 120,509,000 3.44% 1.02%
1929 4,133,000 121,767,000 3.39% -0.27%
1930 3,852,000 123,076,741 3.13% -6.80%
1931 3,411,000 124,039,648 2.75% -11.45%
1932 4,083,000 124,840,471 3.27% 19.70%
1933 3,892,000 125,578,763 3.10% -4.68%
1934 4,198,000 126,373,773 3.32% 7.86%
1935 4,670,000 127,250,232 3.67% 11.24%
1936 5,486,000 128,053,180 4.28% 17.47%
1937 6,350,000 128,824,829 4.93% 15.75%
1938 6,251,000 129,824,939 4.81% -1.56%
1939 7,652,000 130,879,718 5.85% 22.41%
1940 14,711,000 132,122,446 11.13% 92.25%
1941 25,870,000 133,402,471 19.39% 75.85%
1942 36,619,000 134,859,553 27.15% 41.55%
1943 43,722,000 136,739,353 31.97% 19.40%
1944 47,111,000 138,397,345 34.04% 7.75%
1945 49,932,000 139,928,165 35.68% 5.99%
1946 52,817,000 141,388,566 37.36% 5.78%
1947 55,099,000 144,126,071 38.23% 4.32%
1948 52,072,000 146,631,302 35.51% -5.49%
1949 51,814,000 149,188,130 34.73% -0.50%
1950 53,060,000 152,271,417 34.85% 2.40%
1951 55,447,000 154,877,889 35.80% 4.50%
1952 56,529,000 157,552,740 35.88% 1.95%
1953 57,838,000 160,184,192 36.11% 2.32%
1954 56,747,000 163,025,854 34.81% -1.89%
1955 58,250,000 165,931,202 35.10% 2.65%
1956 59,197,000 168,903,031 35.05% 1.63%
1957 59,825,000 171,984,130 34.79% 1.06%
1958 59,085,000 174,881,904 33.79% -1.24%
1959 60,271,000 177,829,628 33.89% 2.01%
1960 61,028,000 180,671,158 33.78% 1.26%
1961 61,499,000 183,691,481 33.48% 0.77%
1962 62,712,000 186,537,737 33.62% 1.97%
1963 63,943,000 189,241,798 33.79% 1.96%
1964 65,376,000 191,888,791 34.07% 2.24%
1965 67,596,000 194,302,963 34.79% 3.40%
1966 70,160,000 196,560,338 35.69% 3.79%
1967 71,651,000 198,712,056 36.06% 2.13%
1968 73,729,000 200,706,052 36.73% 2.90%
1969 75,834,000 202,676,946 37.42% 2.86%
1970 74,280,000 205,052,174 36.22% -2.05%
1971 74,576,000 207,660,677 35.91% 0.40%
1972 77,573,000 209,896,021 36.96% 4.02%
1973 80,693,000 211,908,788 38.08% 4.02%
1974 83,340,000 213,853,928 38.97% 3.28%
1975 82,229,000 215,973,199 38.07% -1.33%
1976 84,670,000 218,035,164 38.83% 2.97%
1977 86,635,000 220,239,425 39.34% 2.32%
1978 89,772,000 222,584,545 40.33% 3.62%
1979 92,694,000 225,055,487 41.19% 3.25%
1980 93,902,000 227,224,681 41.33% 1.30%
1981 95,396,000 229,465,714 41.57% 1.59%
1982 95,337,000 231,664,458 41.15% -0.06%
1983 96,321,000 233,791,994 41.20% 1.03%
1984 99,439,000 235,824,902 42.17% 3.24%
1985 101,660,000 237,923,795 42.73% 2.23%
1986 103,045,000 240,132,887 42.91% 1.36%
1987 106,996,000 242,288,918 44.16% 3.83%
1988 109,708,000 244,498,982 44.87% 2.53%
1989 112,136,000 246,819,230 45.43% 2.21%
1990 113,717,000 249,438,712 45.59% 1.41%
1991 114,730,000 252,127,402 45.50% 0.89%
1992 113,605,000 254,994,517 44.55% -0.98%
1993 114,602,000 257,746,103 44.46% 0.88%
1994 115,943,000 260,289,237 44.54% 1.17%
1995 118,218,000 262,764,948 44.99% 1.96%
1996 120,351,000 265,189,794 45.38% 1.80%
1997 122,422,000 267,743,595 45.72% 1.72%
1998 124,771,000 270,298,524 46.16% 1.92%
1999 127,075,000 272,690,813 46.60% 1.85%
2000 129,374,000 281,421,906 45.97% 1.81%
2001 130,255,000 285,081,556 45.69% 0.68%
2002 130,076,000 287,803,914 45.20% -0.14%
2003 130,424,000 290,326,418 44.92% 0.27%
2004 132,226,000 290,045,739 45.59% 1.38%
2005 134,373,000 295,753,151 45.43% 1.62%

We will notice that there are a few years where there was a big jump over the previous year. The biggest one is from 1916 to 1917 going from 437000 returns filed to 3,473,000 returns filed respectively. The second big jump is from 1939 to 1940 with 7,652,000 and 14,711,000 returns filed respectively. For the first example, 1916 to 1917 there was a whopping 3,036,000 extra returns filed for a total jump of nearly 695%. Why in the world would we have that big of a jump and later a 92% jump in 1939 to 1940? If the Sixteenth Amendment was what made us liable, then what happened in 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916 where less than 0.43% of the American public filed? Was the government (IRS) so inept that it couldn’t wrangle in millions of righteous returns? Please… give me a break.

Take a minute and think about all your friends and family. Who files? If my life, everyone I know files (with the exception of children). I would venture to say that this is true for you as well. But look at the above table. Up until 1939 less than 6% of the public filed! For our purposes we will say that only 45% of the people file taxes today – the rest are underage or wholy exempt. By using this logic we still have a gap of 39% of the public not filing. That means that almost 4 of 10 people never filed up until 1939. And when I say they didn’t file, I mean they didn’t even fill out and sign a 1040 and of course didn’t pay taxes.

WHY!?

If you are more of a visual person let’s take a look at a graph. (Click on the graphic to see full view).

This graph was made from data from the IRS SOI report found here. The population data was found from Census.gov or other websites that derived their data from the Census Bureau. All data from the above table also was derived from these sites.

So seriously. Check that graph out. The part in orange is the number of returns filed and the yellow part is the population. Why is it that up until 1939 the number of returns generally did not change? But after about 1946 the amount of returns filed tracked with the population?

Look, it is pounded into our heads that we have to pay taxes. People always have and always have ever since the conception of government. This is true and I do not question this. Tax law has been around in America since it was founded – it is in the Constitution. However, America was founded on a unique idea that there were to be rules for how people were to be taxed. You know, the whole no tax without representation? No longer was it the will of the king or queen or dictator for what they wanted. No, for the first time the We the People were to have a say in how we were to be taxed.

Along the line something changed in America. I don’t know exactly what happened but I can speculate. I do know a few things though. The Sixteenth Amendment that was passed in 1913 did not make it so that I was taxable. If it was, then how do you explain the less than 6% of the population filing before 1939? Did it really take 26 years for them to finally enforce the Sixteenth Amendment? Certainly not the IRS I know.

The better answer is that in 1939 World War II started with the United States of America entering on December 8, 1941. Later in 1942 the American government signed into law what was called the Victory Tax of 1942. What it did was “There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year beginning after December 31, 1942, a victory tax of 5 per centum upon the victory tax net income of every individual (other than a nonresident alien subject to the tax imposed by section 211(a)).” So if you wern’t paying taxes before, then you were now. This was later repealed by the Income Tax Act of 1944. But alas, two years was enough for people to get used to the government mandating that they have money taken out of their paycheck to give to the “good of the government,” which at the time of the bill was to fight the Axis of Evil.

But this still doesn’t explain why we had massive increases in people filing from 1939 to 1942 – 7,652,000 to 36,619,000 filings respectively. I have a theory but I believe it was because of the Social Security Act of 1935. Prior to this America had gone through the Great Depression – 1929 to 1939. During these times people’s lives were ruined. Their savings depleted and many were looking for help. The government has always take care of it’s people with retirement plans, unemployment benefits, temporary assistance, and other programs to help its workers out. Essentially what the Social Security Act of 1935 did was open up these programs to the general public, even if they were not working for the government. In other words, people could purchase “insurance” through the government.

I would assume that the support grew quite rapidly in the following years for the program. After all, people had just got done starving on the streets and living in the gutter – they wanted help. Of course, good old Uncle Sam was there to lend them a helping hand! In 1940 the government did a major overhaul to the tax law. The major addition was the Subtitle C taxes, called employment taxes. The language of Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Act of 1940 is almost, if not, word for word taken from the Social Security act of the 1935. What am I saying here? I am saying that if you wanted to participate in Social Security then you had to be treated in a different manner than you were before so you could be eligible. This is why there was an increase in taxes filed from 1935 to 1939. Look at the filings from 1925 to 1935. In general the amount of people filing is 4 million. There is very little deviating in these ten years. However when Social Security became an option (1935) about 1 million people voluntarily signed up every year until 1939 – then it was coded into law and then concreted into people’s minds that their “employer” took out money via the Victory Tax. It became commonplace. It became expected.

I am not really sure if I am making sense here. We will never know exactly how or what happened with the history of taxes. I do hope that by this table and chart that I have made you DO question what the government says about “why you must pay” though. They cite the Sixteenth Amendment as the precedent for being able to tax you but it can be clearly seen that it did not. Less than 6% of people filed taxes, much less paid taxes, before 1939.

Why? Why? WHY?!

Nothing has changed with laws. If you were not taxable back in 1920 then you are not taxable today. The Code has not changed in substance, only structure of how it was written. The courts, including the Supreme Court and Tax Court, have ruled that the Sixteenth did not expand the taxation power of the government.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. , 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113]in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. (link)

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co. 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation — that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.

[...]

…they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.” (link)

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 240 U. S. 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 247 U. S. 172-173. (link)

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926)

The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. (link)

Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. 653 at 659 (1959), aff’d, 277 F.2d 16, 60-1 U.S. Tax Cas

In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation [ . . . ] and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. (link, sorry I had to use wiki as I could not find a free link to the TC case)

Emphasis mine. So what is it besides the fear of the IRS that makes you eligible for taxes? Is it really the 16th like the government tells us? I’d like to know your thoughts.

About these ads

41 Responses to “The Sixteenth Amendment Did Not Allow the Government to Tax You!”


  1. 1 ROUGH JUSTICE
    13 April 2010 at 11:08

    Howdy, my friend: I have this vague idea (but I can’t think right now where to verify it) that originally, in 1913, the so-called ‘income tax’ was more or less ‘sold’ to the public that it was a tax on the rich. So if the ‘income tax’ only applied to incomes exceeding $100,000 per year – or whatever the number was – that alone would reduce the percentage of people who were even expected to file. Then, over the years, the payment threshold, if you will, was slowly lowered as the government, on par, reneged on its word, spent more and more money, thereby needing more and more income, and lowering the the payment threshold in order to obtain it. Of course, on a parallel track, the newly created private, for profit, Federal Reserve, discovered, or just applied, the compounding effect of inflation on what we pay according to the income tax tables. In other words, by not adjusting the income tax payment tables for inflation, every tax payer was being run through the inflation meat grinder in multiple ways. First, his income was not necessarily keeping up with inflation; but second, he was paying his income taxes as though his income were keeping up with inflation. Proving once again that crime does pay. In fact, it is the only sure way to keep up. But I can’t imagine that you aren’t aware of this income tax threshold situation; so I’m not sure whether it helps explain the low number of payers at the beginning, and the increase in number of payers as the years went on, or whether you have somehow accounted for the income tax threshold changing (being lowered) in your figures, making my point irrelevant.

    I would recommend that you try to get your hands on Aaron Russo’s DVD “America: Freedom to Fascism,” his last video production, produced in 2006 shortly before his early demise in ’07. You can buy the DVD off the website: http://www.freedomtofascism.com and also read about that group’s efforts to Restore the Republic. I would caution anyone viewing Russo’s video, that if they have been laboring under the illusion that our own government wouldn’t ‘do that’ to us, they are in for a jaw-dropping shock. Your view of the government will never be the same after you watch this video.

    As best I can recall and articulate the salient points about ‘income taxes’ (and the reason I keep putting those words in quotation marks) is that the original Constitution did not allow for taxes on a man’s labor, but only on his income earned from investment. The Sixteenth Abomination was meant to correct that little inconvenience, but arguments remain to this very day whether or not the Sixteenth was properly and legally adopted by the States. It was sort of the ‘Obamacare’ of its day: “Mark the damn thing down as passed and we can fix the problems later. Eventually even the loudest critics will die off. In the meantime, it is law because we said it is.” Anybody who thinks the antics of congress and obamie are something new, hasn’t read enough history. It’s been all down hill since the passing of John Q. Adams. RJ

  2. 19 April 2010 at 09:19

    @RJ: Heya and welcome back from your hiatus.

    The ability to tax has always been around under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. The first “income tax” was imposed through the Revenue Act of 1862 during the American Civil War. It was this tax that imposed a 3% tax on money in from $600 to $10,000 per year and 5% for anything over $10,000.

    Then we have Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 in 1895 where the Supreme Court ruled the Act to be unconstitutional due to the fact that it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

    Now this case was landmark because at this time there were a lot of monopolies and trusts (read: Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, American Tobacco Company, and International Mercantile Marine company) that were making tons of money but their money was not taxable due to the Act’s laws. So, here we have a growing dissent of Americans who are liable for taxes but the “fat cats” were not. If you read the dissent of Justice Brown in the aforementioned case it sums it up best,

    The decision involves nothing less than the surrender of the taxing power to the moneyed class…Even the spectre of socialism is conjured up to frighten Congress from laying taxes upon the people in proportion to their ability to pay them.

    you can see that they dissented in the decision because they felt that the rich should be taxed. After all, it was their large companies (trusts) that gained the most benefit from the government – the government would protect their assets (railroads, roads, etc) and allow them to grow… but never paid a dime for that service.

    Enter the 16th Amendment. The 16th removed the apportionment and thusly allowed the Congress to tax the rich on their money that were derived from somewhere else. This is a crucial point here. It was not a tax just on the rich themselves, but on the rich who derived their money from nothing. Essentially in laymen’s terms, it was a tax on people who made money from money. For example, if you had a car that you rented out… before the 16th the government couldn’t tax you on the money made from that car because the car was considered your property and the income from property had to be apportioned. After the 16th the government could tax you on the money you made off renting the car. The key word in the 16th Amendment truly is DERIVED. In other words, when you go to work at McDonalds, you are not DERIVING money, you are exchanging your time and labor. If you take your paycheck to the bank and DERIVE INTEREST from that money, then that is what the 16th is all about. Money made outside of the exchange of labor. If you don’t believe me, try to dig up some of the speeches given on the floor of the Congress of their intent. I don’t have a copy, but I have read it – maybe I need to dig it up and post it.

    So, no, it was not sold as a tax simply on the rich, but rather a tax on the money the rich made outside of their labor exchange.

    The Federal Reserve, is simply another horse to control money, the economy, and politics.

    The numbers, I believe, explain themselves. If you think the 16th Amendment or the Act of 1913 made the tax on the rich and the government simply squeezed more and more people “into the bracket” then that makes no sense. There is very little gain all the way up until 1939. Heck, there is even a decrease around 1924. Are we to assume that as they squeezed people in that we actually got less returns some years than others? The chart, the numbers, nor the changes in the tax laws support this idea. I quoted multiple tax cases that have, over the years, said that the 16th did not extend the taxing powers.

    I have seen AFTF. While the general notion is good, I think it is a little bit scatter brained and has too much of a “shotgun” approach. Bottom line, things are F’d up, but what are we supposed to do about it besides be pissed? I think this is where the video fails.

    As for the adoption of the 16th, it doesn’t matter if it was or was not. Do you really think it will ever be taken away? People have already tried and their efforts were futile. Bottom line, regardless of what happened then, it is here now. Even if we took it to the states for a “revote” do you think they would vote it down? I’d say, never.

    I am writing this all off the cuff so hopefully I didn’t write any errors. If so, I am sure someone will correct me. Ha!

  3. 3 ROUGH JUSTICE
    20 April 2010 at 11:47

    KK – I’m not going to write about taxes this evening, so you may want to move, or remove, this little dissertation.

    Hey, man – Thanks for your comments and response. You make some good points, many of which I knew nothing about. But I enjoy learning from you. My hiatus…yeah, as in severely depressed. As in pass the bullet. Personal issues, of course; but I almost vomit whenever the BigHO’s picture accidentally passes through my line of vision; or worse, I hear the veritable voice of Lucifer. Fortunately, my long suffering wife saves me from that agony, as she can’t stand to hear him either. I had an employee one time who said to a clerical employee in my same department (who was conspiring to catch moi in something discriminatory that would assure her a lifetime of ease – or so she imagined), “If I wanted to hear from an asshole, I would have farted.” I guess that is a common joke now – maybe it was then (and it was fun ironing it out) but oh, would love to say that to…wait a minute ! I have been trying to come up with a huge sign for the side of my box truck, that best expresses my…I need a word stronger than ‘disgust’, for our Great Leader, the BigHO. I think I may have just hit upon a possibility. Hehehe.

    I’m curious what your background is, that you are so well-versed in, well, a lot of things: law, tax law, history, women, definitely not biking. Maybe I’m supposed to look it up somewhere on your site; but since this is the only blog in which I participate, I don’t know the rules or traditions, or much else. Sometimes I can type. Even though I have been ‘hiating’ I’ve been reading regularly. All good articles; just not all need a reply or comment; but all interesting. How many ‘followers’ do you have (if that’s the right word) ? You don’t seem to get many comments, which is both unfortunate, and, I’m afraid, a sad statement on the intelligence level of the populace. Your subjects are too complex for most people to have interest, I guess; or maybe people just aren’t interested in stimulating thoughts on the level you write. I’m not complaining. I told you this is the only blog I follow, and I meant it. Gossip or speculation is useless; if I’m going to read, I want to learn – even if I have to embarrass myself to do so. Don’t ya just love Krauthammer, though ? What a perceptive intellectual, with a wonderful ability to express his thoughts concisely, yet in a manner easy to understand. I like Buchanan a lot, too; but his website is so screwed up, it has become useless. I have to read him other places.

    I have been contemplating the term ‘patriot’ or ‘patriotic.’ Not cause I ain’t one, or have any intention of disparaging anyone who refers to him/her self as such. Here is what I am contemplating: our troops in Afghanistan are patriotic; men and women from the Greatest Generation (as that moron Brokaw called them – sold some books anyway) were patriots because they rushed to enlist when Pearl was bombed; WWI vets were patriots. I’m sure you’ve guessed where I’m going with this, but I always used the term ‘patriot’ in a military sense, in reference to a soldier fighting to defend his homeland. Well, ole Dan’l Webster must have talked to Brokaw (who looks dead anyway) because in my 17 year old dictionary, ‘patriot’ is one who loves his or her country…and supports its authority and interests. (The damn traitor.)

    “The first panacea for a mismanaged nation,” said Ernest Hemingway, “is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.”

    Wilson won the presidency twice promising to keep America out of the developing European conflict. Then J.P.Morgan invited the putty president over for drinks, and when Wilson left, he had agreed to the Federal Reserve and that American troops were needed to do their patriotic duty dying in Europe. So Wilson had the ‘authority’ and Morgan had the ‘interests’ parts of patriotism, they just had to convince the reluctant Americans that dying in Europe was ‘patriotic.’

    Fast forward in what the Europeans call the Thirty Year War, and we call World Wars I & II. FDR isn’t playing patty-cake with J.P. anymore, (he had switched to J.D.) – what a great economic opportunity for the U.S. building all that war materiel, selling fuel, creating an unassailable industrial powerhouse while the rest of the world was in flames, and eventually becoming the First Imperial Nation of the World (stealing the title from G.B.). Side benefit possibly not realized until later: everybody comes out of WWII in debt to the U.S.of A., and we get to make the economic rules for the next 100 years. What a guy ! What a hero ! What a leader !

    (If you are interested, “The Imperial Cruise,” by James Bradley, tells the story of the trip made by TR’s Sec’y of War, W.H. Taft accompanied by the American Princess, Alice Roosevelt, for distraction, to the Philippines and the Far East countries. All the lurid details of the true nature of T.R. – who is displaying the wrong end of his anatomy at Mt. Rushmore – the secret treaties made without consent of Senate, pitting Japan against Korea, and China against both of them, all for the supposed benefit of having a shipping terminal in the Philippines to service ships leaving Shanghai for the western U.S. Never mind that the Philippines weren’t even on the route between Shanghai and the U.S. coast. TR was not only a wimp {his main occupation was writing books – about himself} he fully believed in Aryan superiority; and set out to conquer the inferior people of Puerto Rico, Cuba, Hawaii, and the Philippines – “Following the Western Sun” it was called. The Asian cultures also obviously needed Aryan guidance, but knowing he could never conquer those nations, he sent Taft to pit them against each other. Taft then stopped at the Philippines, while Alice went on home to distract the press, and made arrangements with the Spanish navy – who were tired of guarding this isolated area thousands of miles from home, for no apparent purpose – to put on a show of having the U.S. Navy run off the wooden Spanish warships and free the poor Filipinos. Once the Spanish fleet was out of sight, the U.S. Marines swept through Manila and killed, maimed, tortured, raped and water-boarded more Filipinos in ONE DAY, than American servicemen that died during the entire three month Normandy Campaign. But, then, as now, the first rule of politics is ‘Control the Story.’ But I digress….)

    My point of inserting that slight diversion is that TR’s shenanigans in SE Asia, set the stage for his cousin to, forty-five years later, agitate the Japanese into doing what he needed to have them do, in order to justify the U.S. entering the war in Europe. Against their better judgment, but with no option left to them by the imperious FDR who refused to even meet with their delegates – not once, but three times – while he supplied JDR’s oil to China to fight Japan, they had to hit either the British navy yard at Malay (I think) or Pearl. With FDR hoping and praying and ignoring all advice of his Admirals (except to send the aircraft carriers out to sea), along with all radio signals from Pearl; the Commander in Shit ordered all fleets into Pearl, to be sure the Japanese would take the bait, and then he could make patriotic speeches and get busy waging war and making money.

    Finally, to my question – with no disrespect intended for the brave troops that believed they were being ‘patriotic’ because their respective presidents had called on them to first, “Make the World Safe for Democracy;” then, when that didn’t work out, give ‘em the old “Day of Infamy” speech – is it “patriotic” to be fighting for “…the interests” of the elite, which are not aligned with “the interests” of the nation ? Is fighting for the freedom of others (but only if the potential exists for nuclear development should freedom fail) being ‘patriotic’ to the U.S. just because…..I don’t know – because the U.S. thinks every place in the world ought to have Big Macs and Wendy’s/Coke and Pepsi ? Is universal ‘freedom’ – again with the nuclear qualifier – one of the ‘interests’ of the U.S. that qualifies serving in any such war as ‘patriotic ?’

    And finally, finally – now that my brain is fried – is the stand of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin to refuse any deployment orders until the BigHO shows his tribal papers – just like any Little League player has to do – ‘unpatriotic ?’ If so, how is Lakin going against “…supporting [the U.S.] authority and interests ?” (The authority being, in this case, the U.S. Constitution, not the Dreams of his father – which I suspect were little more than another piece of white…never mind.)

    Well, I warned you that embarrassment wasn’t a deterrent for me. You have to have pride before you can be embarrassed. Sorry I got off the 16th Amendment. So, obviously, as proprietor of this blog site thingie, you can remove this commentary to the trash can of history; or move it to another blog subject if you wish to comment. Keep up the good work. Somebody probably should. It’s the ‘patriotic’ thing to do. RJ

  4. 20 April 2010 at 22:27

    @RJ: I don’t remove things from my blog unless they are calling names or something like that.

    I hear you on your disgust for BHO. I try to steer clear of him as much as I can. Every time I do hear him or see him I can’t help but think… is this guy running my country or a popularity contest. Everything he does seems so calculated to encompass more support of him when he needs it, not that he cares about the law or anything else. I guess, as you would say, a “true politician” instead of a “statesman.”

    I had a discussion/debate on Facebook with a friend of mine as well as my cousin. My friend is a Republican (not sure if he is a Conservative or not, as there is a difference to me) and my cousin is a flaming Liberal. I got into it with my friend because he blames all that is wrong on Obama and his supporters which I feel is unfair and unjust. Why? Because plenty of Republicans are just as bad as Democrats are. As Glenn Beck says, both are Socialist, just one wants to get there faster than the other. I agree. With my cousin, he felt that it was wrong for me to stereotype Democrats. Maybe I was to a degree, but all I was saying is that if you vote/support Democrats then you are supporting all their their goals. I don’t think that is too stereotypical. I continued the conversation with him and it seems that he is Liberal because he hates Bush. I didn’t care for Bush too much either, but that SURELY does not make me a Liberal. If anything, it makes me more Conservative! In summary, my cousin was just spouting Democratic/Socialist talking points instead of basing what he said on facts, which really angers me. Believe what you want, but don’t believe it just because it feels right, believe it because it has facts to back it up!

    Nope. I do not have any sort of biography on here so you don’t need to look for it. I am a jack of many trades and master of none. I am not sure where you get the women thing at, though. I do enjoy writing, history, and politics… obviously. All of which are just hobbies I guess you could say. Followers? I have no idea where or who my writings reach, honestly. All I can say is that I have about 100 readers a day, which isn’t a lot. As for comments, I actually DO get a lot. I know of other blogs that get like 10x more readers than I do but get less comments. So, I don’t know what is up with that but I’ll take it! I don’t really follow other people though. I tend to do my own research – if I get an idea then it probably has to do with my research or something I heard on talk radio.

    Interesting mention with the whole patriot bit. I served and have many friends that served. Some are blind followers to the authority that is above them and others are not. Some had to get out to see that maybe the authority they protected was the one that needed to be fought against. With this said, today there are many people who never were in the military that call themselves patriots. In my book, a patriot is one who stands up for what is right, not one who simply serves or one who blindly supports the authority.

    I do disagree about what came out of WWII. I don’t think that we all came out in debt to the USA. I think we all came out in debt to the international bankers, all of them. War is first and foremost a way, a means, and an excuse to spend a lot of money. So if that is the case, then everyone, both sides, will turn to banks and borrow large amounts of money.

    I think that Hermann Goering said it best,

    Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

    How does this quote stack up to all the wars we know? I think, quite well.

    I think that the goal of someone else is irrelevant in regards to whether or not you are patriotic. I mean, if you go there with good intentions and never know any ulterior motives of any “elites” behind the shadows than can you really be blamed? I mean, if you go there to protect your family and protect your country, then that is what you are doing in your heart. As I mentioned before, I served and at first I felt that I was doing good. Right before I got out I realized that I was not really a defender, but rather just a cog in a very large wheel of people much more powerful than myself. I have a friend that was in the military for over 20 years. He is very proud of his service. He now sees that he may have been not protecting his beloved country like he thought he was. And of course, there are others that will always blindly follow. It really depends on what your fram of reference is. In another example, could we say that if the city of Mobile, Alabama, stormed someone’s home (with just cause, let’s just say) and the person being invaded opened fire… could we say that they were acting maliciously? If they were simply defending their family then I think that the act can be forgiven. However, if they knew the invasion was coming and they just wanted to kill people, then that cannot be forgiven.

    I would caution you against the implication that the “U.S.” wants all this – McDonalds and Pepsi on every corner. Saying so implies that me, an American, wants this, which is not the case. Maybe the United States politicians cronies want that, but not me. Corporatism is the thing I am getting at here…

    In reference to Lakin. If he swore to protect the Constitution and all parts therin, then he only takes orders that are lawful under that agreement. If BHO refuses to show his lawful authority apart from his inconclusive “evidence,” then I agree that Lakin is correct and patriotic. It is just like if you were working and someone announced in the newspaper that your company was bought by another company… but when you walk in to work, nobody knows anything about it. Are you to just submit to the rumor or would you want some sort of proof that the company you once worked for is now owned by someone else? My guess is that you would want the latter.

    Hopefully I answered all your questions. (and BTW, you didn’t mess around with the character limit thing! Hahaha. I like it.)

  5. 5 Alan Scott
    23 April 2010 at 17:15

    Rough Justice,

    Forgive me for butting into your discussion . Both of you are arguing deeper than I care to, but I do have an interest in history and something you wrote attracted my attention . I am fairly well informed when it comes to wars and I have no love for President Woodrow Wilson, but the following words conflicted with my understanding of what lead to America’s entry into World War 1 .

    ” Wilson won the presidency twice promising to keep America out of the developing European conflict. Then J.P.Morgan invited the putty president over for drinks, and when Wilson left, he had agreed to the Federal Reserve and that American troops were needed to do their patriotic duty dying in Europe. So Wilson had the ‘authority’ and Morgan had the ‘interests’ parts of patriotism, they just had to convince the reluctant Americans that dying in Europe was ‘patriotic.’ ”

    President Wilson fought against the various factions trying to involve the US in the European war . Those Americans with ties to Britain and France wanted us to come in on the Allied side, while German-Americans wanted us to side with the Central Powers . Wilson resisted growing public clamor to declare war on Germany because of the Submarine sinkings . The Lusitania sinking on May 7,1915 raised that clamor . It was smoothed over partially by Germany’s modifying of it’s Submarine policy . President Wilson even tried to broker peace in Feb.1916, but this fell apart with Germany’s return to a more aggressive Submarine campaign .

    Adding to this was the British release of the Zimmerman Telegram sent Jan,19, 1917 and released Feb.24,1917 . It tried to get Mexico to ally with Germany against the US and getting former territories returned to Mexico . In the previous few years there had been serious trouble between the US and Mexico . Public opinion pretty much dictated the declaration of war on April 6,1917 .

    I also question your time line about this Morgan, Wilson meeting that sent American troops to die in Europe . How could it have happened when JP Morgan died in 1913 ?

  6. 6 ROUGH JUSTICE
    24 April 2010 at 00:22

    Sir Scott – I have more I want to write in discussion with the Chief, but that is going to take more time and concentration than I have available right at the moment.

    This note will be to answer only one of your questions; because I am curious what you mean by “I am fairly well informed when it comes to wars…” ? Would you please explain your statement before I try to explain my comments about Wilson’s interest in entering the war, and respond to your statements about the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram ?

    I will however, clarify my reference to J.P.Morgan meeting with Wilson since it has created some confusion, and at the same time explain why Morgan had the ‘interests’ part of patriotism close to his heart.

    Of course, J.P. Sr. had conceded to death in 1913, as you pointed out. And J.P. Sr. is the Morgan most people think of when that name is used. He was the man associated with the steel companies and the railroads; he built a banking empire; had a grand portrait painted that is used either correctly, or incorrectly, in almost every reference to J.P.Morgan; and, of course, he was one of the ‘thieves’ behind the creation of the “Creature from Jekyll Island” – the PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT, FEDERAL RESERVE (which some folks are under the sadly misguided illusion will soon be audited). The Federal Reserve continues to this day, to manipulate the U.S. money supply for the benefit of its members and friends; and detrimental to those of us not among the Financial or political elite, as well as to most of the economies of the rest of the world.

    (Side note – J.P.Morgan was involved in the Jekyll Island meeting in 1910 that outlined the concept of what would be the third central bank attempted in the U.S. It took until 1913, though, for all the details to be pulled together and legislation written, debated, finalized and passed. J.P. Morgan passed away in March 1913; the passage of the Federal Reserve Act took place in December of that same year.)

    //Interesting, is it not ?, that one of the biggest frauds foisted on the American people in the Twentieth Century took from 1908 until the end of 1913 to be devised, written, debated, finalized and passed by Congress along partisan lines by the Democratic Party. But at least Congress passed the ill-advised legislation while following all the rules, and with the mis-guided support of the American people. What will probably go down in history as the second biggest fraud of the Obama administration, the socialization of healthcare, was devised and written by a few members of one political party in secrecy; debated only in the media, based entirely on speculation; and passed by Congress in an unconstitutional maneuver, with public approval for the legislation well below 50%. The elitist power struggle is eternal.//

    But as to your comment/question about the timing of the Morgan/Wilson meeting, or even the occurrence of such a meeting, I will try to set the record straight this time. Both of us have made misstatements.

    >> J.P. Morgan Sr. did, in fact, die in March 1913. His only son was named – guess what ? – J.P. Morgan. As the only son, J.P.M. inherited most of his father’s fortune, including J.P. Morgan & Co., the bank, which became his base operation. While J.P. Sr. was a very large man, who smoked huge cigars and dominated every conversation in which he became involved; his son J.P. was more studious and quiet – preferring to remain in the background as he conducted business.
    >> As war rumblings started across Europe in 1915, J.P. Morgan & Co. made large loans to both Russia and France, and became the purchasing agent for the British government. As Great Britain expended more and more on the war effort, J.P. Morgan & Co. started making unsecured loans to the British government.
    >> Even though the U.S. did not enter the war until 1917, we were supplying machinery, firearms, soft goods and food to the Allies. In short, even though the country did not generally see the European war as a patriotic duty until it was almost over, there was certainly no question that American industries were selling product, people were employed for as many hours as they wanted, and J.P.M. & Co. was making money by making loans to both American businesses to build products, and to the countries of Europe who needed loans to buy the products.

    I would imagine J.P. Morgan (Jr) personally felt very patriotic at least a couple years before most Americans felt the urge. RJ

  7. 7 Alan Scott
    24 April 2010 at 12:19

    Rough Justice,

    ” because I am curious what you mean by “I am fairly well informed when it comes to wars…” ? Would you please explain your statement before I try to explain my comments about Wilson’s interest in entering the war, ”

    When I was younger, one of my interests was reading history . Primarily Western European history . Wars were particularly fascinating . I do not read so much anymore, preferring to get my fix from the History and Military channels. Much has been forgotten over the years . I retain just enough to know where to go to look things up when something does not sound right . And what you wrote about the reasons for US entry in to the war, did not sound right .

    I was curious as to how you would explain the Morgan time line . Nowadays JP Morgan means The Bank. In the old days it meant the old man . I was not sure there was junior . After researching what you said, I have no reason to doubt you on Morgan JR. The family had strong business ties to England going back to JS Morgan . That they would be heavily involved in financing the British war effort, and then the whole Allied war effort is not surprising .

    I merely question your Woodrow Wilson information . Wilson was a fairly pacifist man . I’ve read that his Treasury Secretary was suspicious that Morgan’s financial dealings would get us into the war . Once we were in the war the Treasury Secretary fully cooperated with Morgan’s efforts .

    I believe still, that it was Germany’s Submarine threat and the Zimmerman telegram that forced a reluctant Wilson into declaring war .

  8. 8 ROUGH JUSTICE
    24 April 2010 at 20:47

    Sir Scott: Thank you for clarifying your comment about being fairly well informed when it comes to wars. I meant no disrespect for you or your viewpoints; in fact, I was slightly concerned that I wasn’t giving you enough respect. I wanted to be sure I was not corresponding with a retired high ranking officer from one of the services, and here I was making like I know everything – which I don’t, and don’t pretend I do. My statements and premises come only from what I have read, as well as I remember it, and as I understood it. Maybe I should put a big asterisk on my entire message qualifying what I have written “as best I remember it; and as I understood it at the time I read it.” To be technically correct, I suppose I should qualify most of my statements with some comment along that line, but I think that would make reading pretty difficult. Or I could put feet-notes referencing the resources (assuming I could keep them all sorted out as to what information I got from what book) but that would just give readers an even greater opportunity to check out what I say, and tell me that I interpreted such and so forth incorrectly. I come on this very fine blog to learn, to be challenged in my thinking; occasionally to challenge someone else’s thinking; or to hopefully make a contribution based on something I think I know because I read it some where. If I wanted someone to tell me, in reference to what I stated a couple lines up – that I interpreted such and so forth incorrectly – or, in fewer words, that I don’t know what I’m talking about, I can go sit in the living room with my wife and avoid the risk of carpal tunnel damage. ;-) Here I only have to suffer the indignities of the Head Blogger burying me with legal references, quotations from the Federal Register, and well thought out arguments. I would say he is doing pretty well for a junior in H.S. Maybe there is slight hope for the future.
    ———————————————————————————-
    To change the subject for uno momento, KK (if you are still reading this exchange), how very cool that Arizona passed legislation to take charge of its own immigration problems, using state authorities and law enforcement. I haven’t heard if the governor signed it today, but as outspoken as she seemed to be, I don’t know why she would quit now, with the legislation on her desk. Unless, of course, there have been an inordinate number of black Suburbans in the capital today; and no one, including her family, has seen her since she left for the office this morning. Since the BigHO immediately took to the teleprompters, implying that Arizona authorities simply aren’t capable of making good, non-profiling judgments about illegal immigrants, much less providing them with all the benefits and protections of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, he was going to have the Justice Department determine whether the State of Arizona had itself broken the law by passing this legislation. Sort of like Congress did by ignoring the U.S. Constitution in their haste to make Obamacare the law of the land. So I imagine “Turn ‘em loose” Holder intends to have a personal chat with Madam Governor, and probably incarcerate her as a flight risk while he conducts his investigation. Habeas corpus is, of course, suspended since we are at war in Afghanistan. Convincing Madam Governor who is really in charge of immigration issues, might even require some water-boarding. Who knows ? These are tough cases when we are dealing with such hard core radicals.

    As Zipper Bill Clinton said, it was that radical Rush Limbaugh who incited the tragedy at Oklahoma City fifteen years ago this month – neatly forgetting that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred two years to the day, of the end of the disastrous siege by the out-of-control and head-strong ATF on the branch Davidian compound outside Waco, Texas. Zipper Bill must have gotten confused and thought Limbaugh had been broadcasting live from the Davidian compound.

    As you have said just recently KK, it is so difficult to carry on a rational conversation with a liberal. Maybe it will help you from becoming so frustrated if you keep this thought in mind: Conservatives have principles they believe in. (Obviously you do, because you frequently cite them to make your point.) Liberals have no set principles. They have plenty of ideas, but, in general, no principles that last beyond Friday at 5:00 PM. So how can you reasonably expect to carry on a rational conversation about philosophy with someone who has no principles to fall back on ? Or maybe this old story will help you remember not to get your hopes too high:

    Q. How many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb ?
    A. Four. One to change the light bulb and three to hold the chandelier.

    Q. How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb ?
    A. Four. One to change the light bulb and three to curse the darkness.

    End of that diversion – unless, KK, being an Arizonian you can share some insight into this excellent decision by your state leaders.
    —————————————————————————-

    Sir Scott – I apologize, but I am going to have to stop shortly, and obviously I haven’t even gotten to continuing our discussion of Wilson and WWI; the influence of the money interests in going to war; and your premise that it was actually the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram that changed Wilson’s mind about going into the war.

    I would like to leave you with a couple of my thoughts before signing off this evening (I’m on EDT) which you may, as you wish, contemplate and respond to; or at least keep in mind as a little insight into my thinking about Wilson and the War – which I promise I will take up and finish at the next sitting, within a day or two.

    First, we both agree Wilson was a pacifist. He was also a Progressive, as it was understood at the time. You said you didn’t have any particular high regard for Wilson, so that will save us from discussing that point. I’ll make an even stronger statement about Wilson: he wasn’t qualified to be President. (I’m speaking in a relative sense now, because he was more experienced in administration and more qualified intellectually, than two other duds that come to mind: A. Lincoln and B. Oblamy) He was an intellectual, of course, but his experience consisted of having been President of Princeton University for eight years, and governor of New Jersey for only two years. He was well known for his writings and popular for his persistently ignoring the wishes of the political machine that ran most elections. But the Democrats were handed a great opportunity in the 1912 Presidential election. TR had had so much fun being President for eight years before he handed the reins to his pal Taft – only to find Taft didn’t measure up, in TR’s view, to his own performance in office – that TR coveted the Republican nomination again in 1912. When the Republicans would have none of it, TR started his own “Progressive” (here we go again with that name) party, splitting Republicans on who was their favorite candidate. Still, it took the Democratic convention a comedic 43 ballots to choose Wilson (I guess they didn’t recognize the opportunity they had been handed.) as their candidate – and then only with the powerful influence of William Jennings Bryant; but with a split Republican party, Wilson easily carried the election.

    I review this short history for only one reason – who wanted Wilson to be President ? Who chose this politically naive and inexperienced president of Princeton, to run for governor of N.J., so he at least had some political experience in elected office on his resume, knowing he wouldn’t even complete his full term before he had to make his move to become President ? Are we to believe Wilson took all of this combative, rough and tumble election activity totally on his own initiative ? I don’t know the answer, Sir Scott; I’m just posing the question, as it might give us insight into how someone believed Wilson would handle the European war dilemma with the American people.

    Finally, our excellent Blog Leader gave us a great quotation (that I plan to steal from him) from Hermann Goring, second in command to Hitler and Commander of the Luftwaffe, in his April 20 entry, that well supports my next premise. I would ask you to take a quick look at it, unless you already know it well enough, but it basically states that the citizenry of any country, regardless of the political system in place there, can be convinced by their leadership of the necessity of their patriotism to their homeland, in time of war. I’m not sure the task is as easy as Goring makes it out to be, but I daresay Goring and I have quite different personalities to bring to bear on the subject.

    Regardless, my premise is this: Every war ever fought in the history of mankind began over some economic issue or desire on the part of the aggressor. However, once the war had commenced, the aggressor had to convince the populace that fighting the war was in their own best interest. In other words, in order to get the populace to fight, sacrifice and die, the leaders of the aggressor force had to convince the populace that the war had to be fought for patriotic (not economic) reasons. There are no exceptions to this premise. RJ

  9. 9 Alan Scott
    25 April 2010 at 12:30

    Rough Justice,

    It is a pleasure to discuss history with someone who takes the time to research it . Again I did not want to interfere with your dialogue with Kyle . I only joined in because of my historical interest .

    However, I do not believe you have really addressed my idea that Wilson did not willingly push into war . I do not want to go into your main point about the Federal Reserve . I figure that you and Kyle can discuss that . Actually you have to forgive for derailing this whole topic which was the 16th Amendment . It was just your that comment ” Then J.P.Morgan invited the putty president over for drinks, and when Wilson left, he had agreed to the Federal Reserve and that American troops were needed to do their patriotic duty dying in Europe. ” kind of stunned me .

    My whole notion of that time period was that public opinion was so whipped up to a fever pitch by newspaper headlines of German submarines murdering innocent Americans, that Wilson did not have much of a choice . I will say that I believe Woodrow Wilson carried on a kind of armed neutrality favoring the Allies over Germany, similar to but not quite matching FDR in 1940-41 . You could cite this as evidence of Wilson preparing early to go to war against Germany . Also even though the British intercepted and decoded the Zimmerman telegram, it was Wilson who released it to build public support .

    I am trying to be fair and give evidence on both sides of the question .

    I know that the war went on far longer than either side anticipated . The longer the war went on the more it favored Britain and France because the British blockade of the Central Powers with it’s large surface fleet was more effective than Germany’s submarine blockade . The only way a submarine can blockade is to sink merchants and kill people .

    Germany at some point knew it would lose just because the British could get food and munitions from the Americas and it could not . After the Lusitania public relations disaster it backed off from unlimited submarine warfare . It then took a calculated gamble on total submarine war to shut off Britain’s American lifeline . They decided to make a total push for victory on land and sea before the US would enter the war . They knew that it would take a long time before a peace time US could mobilize enough troops to shift the balance in the battlefields of France . Considering that Russia was knocked out of the war just as the US presence was beginning to be felt, Germany could have won .

    Ultimately food shortages in Germany probably did as much to cause German collapse as American troops did . World War 1 also was the signature event that marked the beginning of the shift in economic power from Europe to the US . Four years of war exhausted the great European powers . Whereas the US had only about 1 1/2 years of war and benefited from 2 1/2 years of selling supplies to Europe as a so called neutral .

  10. 10 ROUGH JUSTICE
    25 April 2010 at 18:26

    Wilson was a pacifist and an intellectual, but he was not qualified to be President. He never “willingly pushed into” anything on his own initiative, except maybe his shoes; but he was pushed into a lot of things, making him a useful patsy for both the Morgan interests and Churchill on behalf of British interests. JP Morgan Sr. got him elected President despite his lack of qualifications because he knew Wilson could be controlled in agreeing to the establishment of he Federal Reserve – which JP Sr accomplished before his death. JP Jr had financial interests in the emerging European war, and represented Britain in many business deals. JP Jr had even more to gain if the U.S. would enter the war.
    As to the Lusitania, the German embassy had prominently warned passengers boarding the Lusitania in NY that the ship would be entering a war zone (all waters around the British Isles) so they traveled at their own risk. Whether or not the Lusitania was carrying war materiel has never been established. Regardless the ship was sunk on a stroke of sheer luck by a German sub on its way back to port, with only one torpedo on board, in a declared war zone. It escapes me why that is a war crime; but regardless, it was a propaganda coup for GB, who desperately needed the US in the war – so they milked it for all it was worth, fabricating stories and keeping the US press in an uproar. Keep in mind GB had total control over all electronic communications between northern Europe and NA, so nothing they said could be proven or refuted. The hypocritical non-distinction between killing innocent victims on a ship in a war zone, and starving innocent and uninvolved German citizens not in a war zone by use of a naval blockade, is disgusting. But Churchill was a disgusting man.
    You have made reference to a more aggressive submarine campaign by Germany after the sinking of the Lusitania, but I don’t know what you are referring to. Actually, German reduced the area of the naval war zone to just the North Sea, after the Lusitania. Your statement that “The only way a submarine can blockade is to sink merchants and kill people.” is incorrect, but not relevant to this discussion.
    As for the Zimmerman Telegram, I remind you again that GB had complete control of the only electronic communication channel between northern Europe and North America; and GB was getting more and more desperate to bring a seemingly ambivalent US citizenry with a pacifist President into the war. So was JP Jr. Nobody has ever proven the validity of the proposal contained in the Zimmerman Telegram, but the proposal was so ludicrous I personally find it hard to believe it came from the German high command. I think the more likely author was Churchill, who had pretty well sized up Wilson. So I do agree that it seems that the congruence of the sinking of the L. and the Z. telegram finally got the US populace stirred up enough to give it a go. All GB had to do to entice Wilson to agree was to let him do his professorial thing by composing and presenting his ridiculous and naive 14 Points, and design his League of Nations concept to make the world safe for Democracy. That speech was probably a real snore-fest.

    It has been said that WWI did more to change the course of world events than any other war in history. Maybe the Romans and the Greeks felt the same way back when they were throwing rocks and spears at each other. Who knows ? Others might say, “How can you say it wasn’t the first American Revolution that did more to change world events ?” Because personally I don’t believe the first Am.R. was anymore ‘necessary’ than the second one. But don’t tell G.W. I said that. He was a good chap with good intentions, so I don’t want to make him feel any less significant, now that he has passed on. I’ll still vote for WWI as more influential. RJ

  11. 25 April 2010 at 19:58

    @RJ and alan Scott: Talk away. I don’t mind even though the discussion is clearly off-topic. It is an interesting conversation and I don’t see why I should stop it. Now for my weigh in…

    It seems that the debate is whether or not JP Morgan (or any of his group) convinced Woodrow Wilson to do two things – (1) create the Federal Reserve and (2) enter World War I.

    I think with both of these bullet points we can say what is true to many things in life – follow the money. JP Morgan and other international debt bankers are in the business of making debt because debt makes them money. It is in their best interest to keep people in debt and this is why we have perpetual unpayable loans being issued on top of one another from the Federal Reserve and the IMF. This is some sense a slavery of the people through their respective governments because to get these loans the money is secured through taxation of the people. So with this very brief summary, it seems safe to say that JP Morgan and others like him had vested interest in passing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. However, it was Nelson W. Aldrich and Congress that pushed it through – of course, Wilson did sign it.

    On a side note, I do find it interesting that Nelson W. Aldrich became independently welathy through railroads, sugar, rubber, and railroads. I also find it interesting that his duahgter, Abby, married John D. Rockefeller, Jr. I guess I mention this because we are following the money here.

    But why did Wilson sign it? I am not sure that it is as easy as him being invited over for tea. Maybe it is, but I don’t think so. Off the top of my head, it strikes me that the Progressive Party was formed in 1912, a year before Wilson. Of course, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft kind of carried the idea of the party… In any case it seems that if Wilson was running with this Progressie Party rise on the political spectrum that he maybe wasn’t being a man, Democrat, or Republican… but rather a politician. So with the panics in the early 1900s (1907 most notably) there were outcries to reign in big monopolies/trusts. There were big cries to put some of the burden back on the “fat-cats” instead of just the American Peoples. For example, view the Pollock case, which then in turn inspired the 16th Amendment, which then cemented in the Brushaber case.

    So as what many Presidents do, they cater to the people’s cries, which may or may not be manipulated/constructed by so-called elites. So it seems to me that Wilson didn’t or wouldn’t have just signed in the FRA of 1913 just because… it seems more likely that the elites contructed a situation or a series of situations (or promulgated them) to cater to their needs. After all, if there was no support for such a thing, then who is going to sign it? That is political suicide.

    As for the war, Wilson was a pacifist, as mentioned. However, through the manipulation of the public outcry, support was gained for war. If we again jump back and look at the money trail, who profits from war and who did from WWI? Again, it seems logical that the international bankers profited… and from both sides in some cases.

    So in conclusion it seems more likely that Wilson was more of a spineless puppet politician than anything. Maybe he was trying to garner support for “his” party platform of Progressiveness. The “elites” know what they want and what they want is more control of people and the politics that govern people. To get either of these missions it has to be done in two ways – brute force (Communism) or slow manipulations (Fabianism). Since Communism is so harsh it normally has a backlash and a failure at some point. However, small changes in the populations mindset can and is digested easily. If there is any resistance to the changes they want then they can use a crisis, real or imagined. This is still used today by politicians and is exemplified with the Hermann Goering quote above. (Take a minute and think about it just for wars since about 1900. Yeah! And now today with healthcare, bailouts, Wall Street takeover, buying auto manufacturers, etc.).

    As Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff, said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before” (video link)(link). This was later parroted by Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, in 2009.

    So instead of being a patriot and a statesman wilson chose to be a politician. he didn’t get bought off monetarily (I don’t see the evidence) or anything like that. He loved his 14 points and wanted to see it through, as a politician, and he would do anything to see it happen. Maybe the elites offered him some sort of support his 14, if he gave them the Federal Reserve. I can definitely see that. The 14 was never brought to fruition, the the United Nations did come about a few years later in 1945, which was a shadow of the 14 Points. So, tea? No. A promise for a promise? Maybe so. Follow the money, otherwise.

  12. 12 ROUGH JUSTICE
    25 April 2010 at 23:59

    Hey, Kyle – Welcome back. I figured you had given up on us and gone cactus riding. Or maybe you were out shooting illegal immigrants – which is legal in Arizona now, isn’t it ? Thought I heard that somewhere…

    Well, we’ve gotten this pretty mucked up. I think I’m going to have to retire from writing. I think I am remembering things correctly, and I’ve got them exactly backward. When you mentioned Aldrich that rang a bell, so back to Wiki to check a couple things, and…Sen. Aldrich put together the group at Jekyl Island with the purpose of designing a central bank. Due to recent ups and downs in the economy, the populace supposedly got in their heads that a central bank was needed to assist the plethora of small banks throughout the land. Of course, this illustrates one of the shortcomings of Wiki – we’re supposed to believe that the populace knew enough about finance and banking to feel that a central bank was needed ? The U.S. had not had a central bank since 1832 – a couple generations in the past, when Andrew Jackson refused to renew the charter of the Second Bank of United States, and threatened to withdraw all of the Federal Govt’s funds, with this little speech that I enjoy reading:

    “Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the bread-stuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves . . . I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out!” – President Andrew Jackson vetoing the charter of the Second Bank of the United States 1832

    Do you think Old Hickory and Bald Benny would get along well today ? But, wherever the idea came from (I doubt it was the populace) Aldrich and the Sec’y of the Treasury sneaked off to Jekyl Island to meet privately with the five biggest financiers in America – and Aldrich was a Republican ! Secret meeting to design legislation – right down to the characters, almost a precursor of October ’08. So that is where the idea of a central bank came from. Not from the populace.

    Back in Congress, the Dems don’t really like the idea of the private bankers having so much control of the Treasury’s money, so no less a person than Wilson brokers a compromise that turned to be the Federal Reserve Board to oversee the private banks, with members appointed and approved by the Prez and the Senate. My point is only a slight correction to where I threw you off – that JPM ‘forced’ Wilson to accept the FRB. I have no doubt all of these money men were just as generous and persuasive with elected officials back then as they are today. (I am sure I have read somewhere that Wilson was in agony after he signed the FR act. That he cried to his wife that he had betrayed his country by giving so much authority to the private banks. But, that is what I said earlier – I have read so many books and articles on the history of finance over the years, I can’t remember the facts well enough any more, much less where to find what I am remembering. “Live fast; love hard; die young.” my friend. Just stop kissing the cacti cause that hurts.)

    Final item – you threw out an unfamiliar term that sent me off to Wiki again – Fabianism. Fabian was a teen idol in the early Sixties who I remember…but you wouldn’t have known that. No, Kyle has this name for a socialist movement (they just always are around, aren’t they ?) whose beliefs I can’t even understand in Wikipedia. That means it is time for bed. But there was another famous man from my lifespan whose name every body in the U.S. knew. Not Fabian, but he sort of had the same idea, apparently, as the Fabianists, because he said:

    “We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism…but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.” — Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971)

    And all this time I thought the BigHo was the enemy. Instead, he is our destiny. Bummer. RJ

  13. 26 April 2010 at 07:12

    Small tidbit. I hope my friend, DJ, comes along and responds to this thread as he knows quite a bit about this subject here.

    I do want to point out that while I do believe that Aldrich had financial benefit from pushing the bill through, it is very possible that Wilson did too. It is very possible that the “elites” may have funded his campaign for Presidency, with the promise to sign the bill once Aldrich pushed it through. Just a thought.

  14. 14 Alan Scott
    26 April 2010 at 15:45

    Rough Justice,

    I am a stickler for accuracy and details and I want to clear up one detail that you brought up .

    ” You have made reference to a more aggressive submarine campaign by Germany after the sinking of the Lusitania, but I don’t know what you are referring to. Actually, German reduced the area of the naval war zone to just the North Sea, after the Lusitania. ”

    The Germans did indeed cut back on unrestricted submarine warfare after the Lusitania sinking . They were well aware of the public relations battle they were in with the British . My point was that later on they resumed unrestricted warfare when they saw they were going to lose . They knew they risked bringing the US into the war because of that . They felt they had to take the gamble . They gambled they could partially starve out the British, as they were being starved out . They had to bring things to a head .

    I am not pro German in my outlook on the war . If anything I’m pro British . With that I agree with you that American civilians had no business traveling into a war zone on a ship that I believe did have war supplies for the British .

    WW2 is an easier war to take sides . More clearly good versus evil except perhaps the Soviet alliance . WW1 has to be the most stupid major war ever fought . At every point all of the parties should have cut their losses and tried to make peace . Even the US should have just stayed out . If Germany had won I don’t know that the result would have been that worse . If that happened with us out of it we would have benefited even more economically . Certainly a little Austrian corporal would not have amounted to much .

    It is also a moral question as to whether Germany and Austria Hungary were any worse than the British and French Colonial Empires .

  15. 15 Antonio Alejandro
    30 April 2011 at 12:28

    Although I am from Puerto Rico, I have studied the matter quite a bit. First off Aarons video just adds to the confusion, despite that it tried to help us in recognizing that there is a problem. Let me clarify the whole thing about the income tax. Your basic problem is twofold: You did not actually read the cases, and in particular the two landmark and unanimous supreme court cases, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916) . And you are not clear what an indirect and direct tax is.

    Let me also add that Tax Court Cases, Appellate Court cases, lower court cases are irrelevant because they contradict each other. One court states that the subject of the tax is property, the other court somewhere else states that the subject of the tax is the activity, and yet another court states that the income tax is neither a direct tax nor is it an indirect tax, that the 16th Amendment created some new type of tax. It is clear that the income tax cannot be all three. I have given the matter a lot of thought so please bear with me.

    Understanding the Income tax is a four step process:

    1) THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX (INDIRECT TAX)
    There is absolutely no supreme court case, after the 16th Amendment, that states that the income tax is a direct tax. In all post 16th Amendment Supreme court cases the income tax is an excise Tax (indirect tax). The Supreme court actually uses the name indirect taxes for excise taxes. The expression, indirect taxes, does not appear in the constitution but it is an excise tax. So excise tax = indirect tax.

    Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such….
    Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916

    By the previous ruling [Brushaber Case] it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning [of our national government under the Constitution] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged…. Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916)

    So in the first case it states that taxation on income is in its nature an excise tax (indirect tax). The second case it states that the income tax should not have been taken out of the category of indirect taxation. This is referring to the 1895 Pollock case where the supreme court held that the income tax from the income of renting property was a direct tax. So now the Supreme Court says not to take it out of the category of indirect tax…SO DON’T. Now back to the Stanton case, the supreme court states that the income tax is in its nature an indirect tax. Why does the supreme court uses the expression “in its nature”? The concept of INDIRECT TAX, is an intellectual hurdle. You may not understand it right away but one day it will come and you will be pretty clear as to what it is. Let me try to explain indirect tax and why the supreme court says “in its nature”.

    2) INDIRECT TAX DEFINED
    What better way to define Indirect tax (excise tax) than to have the supreme court do it for us:
    “A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.” Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930)
    The event (activity) that produces the fruits (income) is the thing being taxed. The subject of the of the income tax is the activity that one endures in order to make money. So if you are sweeping floors they are taxing the sweeping of the floor. If you are an EMT worker and you just saved someone life using CPR , they are taxing the saving of someone’s life.

    Samples of other indirect taxes are sales taxes, paying a toll to cross a bridge or use a road.

    What then does the supreme court mean by “in its nature”. This is a far stronger statement of claiming what the income tax is an indirect than a flat out statement that the income tax is an indirect tax. You see a direct and indirect tax are natural circumstances, they are define mainly to bring about logic into the collection of taxes. The founding fathers merely define them for convenience, they did not invent the circumstance. Therefore the supreme court cannot destroy the two classes anymore than they can destroy the effects of gravity as they are natural events. All that the supreme court could do is to interpret the rules for the logical and equitable collection of these two classes of taxes.

    Note
    Let me clear a bit of confusion. Generally and in the Pollock case the supreme court stated that an indirect tax is one that can be shifted. This means that if you are not paying the tax directly then it is an indirect tax. Someone else is paying the tax for you as in a sales tax. In a sales tax you pay the vendor and the vendor will in turn pay the tax to the state.
    Poor definition:
    Indirect Tax definition: The passing on of a tax or duty by the person who first pays it, through subsequent transactions.

    But this clearly is not a good definition as there are taxes that we pay directly to government and are still classified as an indirect tax. For example, when you pay license tags, or utility taxes such as water or sewer. These are indirect taxes paid directly to your government. Remember there are only two classes of taxes.

    Note II
    There is also an argument that the subject of an indirect tax is the income (fruits). They reason that if you work on some activity, it is only a taxable activity if you produce an income. There is a logical problem here. When you pay a toll to cross a bridge, this is clearly an indirect tax. But if you claim that the paying of the tax is the subject, then what they are claiming is that you are paying a tax on paying a tax?

    3) INDIRECT TAXES ARE ONLY ON CERTAIN ACTIVITIES AND PRIVILEGES
    This means that the income tax is constitutionally legal but that it is on certain activities only.
    The 16th Amendment actually limits the government, because only certain activities (privileges) are taxable. There are a multitude of activities that the government cannot tax because to do so will inhibit life itself Can you think of one?
    Once should not dwell on this too much, because it is up to the government to prove its point. If the government ever comes up with a law that states that are income producing activities are taxable, then we can dwell on the constitutional legality of taxing certain activities.

    Note
    Breaking down of the 16th Amendment using the supreme court as a guide. The Supreme Court stated: “…the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…” That means that it did not give congress any new taxing authority. What, then, did the 16th Amendment do? The supreme court states: [it] “simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged…. “ So what this is saying is that the Supreme court corrected the 1895 Pollock decision that the particular income tax was a direct tax. The wording of the 16th Amendment appear clear to anyone that is not familiar with that a direct or indirect tax is. Most people uneducated in the matter will believe that the 16th Amendment reversed the Pollock decision, that the income tax is now legal because it does not need to be apportioned. Here is the trick: the income tax does not need to be apportioned because it is an indirect tax. As soon as you claim that the income tax is not apportioned you are essentially stating it is an indirect tax. The 16th Amendment did not destroy article 1 Section 8 as all income taxes are uniform:
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
    “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
    And it must certainly did not destroy the apportionment rule in the constitution because they income tax does not need to follow the direct tax rule for income tax which is apportionment:
    Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:
    “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States….”
    And
    “No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration….”

    16th Amendment
    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    If the 16th Amendment created a new type of tax, where is the direction on how to collect it? Note the original constitution. It tell explicitly how to collect it, either by uniformity or apportionment. Some will illogically assume that the direct unapportioned tax will automatically be uniform. This is an error because the laws concerning the collection of taxes need to be clear and not a guess.

    What does “whatever source derived”? This clearly means that despite the fact that the income tax may be from property (as in the Pollock case), it is still an indirect tax. Whatever the source the tax will still be indirect.

    4) GOVERNMENT MUST PRODUCE THE LAW THAT CLARIFIES YOUR TYPE OF WORK, GENERALLY SPEAKING, AS A REVENUE TAXABLE EVENT. The government cannot generally state “whatever source derived” misusing the 16th Amendment. It must be clear. The 6th Amendment of the constitution states that the accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the crime. Have you ever seen an IRS indictment that shows the activity as a taxable event and make reference to a law?
    Let me clarify. Suppose that in the state of New York you were indicted for grand larceny. Well in the state of NY grand larceny is define as stealing property with a value of, or more than 1000 dollars. What is the indictment never mentions what you allegedly stole? What if the prosecutor cites that the item was worth 1000 dollars but never mentions what that item was. This is the same as if the IRS uses income to ruse one into believing that your liable, because income is not the subject of the tax.

    A final note as to where the income tax go. Here is a curious report:
    “100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt … all
    individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services
    taxpayers expect from government.”
    -Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan – January 15, 1984

    Some will argue that the report have been misread, that in fact we are paying far less on maintaining the debt. But that does not matter. Why? Because the National Debt is a scam. Here is what Thomas Edison stated:
    “If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the
    money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises
    to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People.”
    Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War with debt free money. China is allegedly using debt free money. Borrowing does not prohibit inflation. One curious thing is that the private banks, commercial and investment banking can create money out of thin air by using the Fractional Reserve Scheme and Shorting stocks. So we are paying on an artificiality. Since the government can produce all the debt free money it needs, why submit treasury bonds? I believe that income taxes pull money out of circulation so that, that while the bank are creating money out of thin air taxes, to some degree prevents hyper inflation, even though the government is using the money to pay for things.

  16. 16 DJ
    30 April 2011 at 22:31

    @Antonio,

    So basically, your taxes argument is that the 16th amendment makes an indirect tax and a direct tax the same thing, and that the inalienable right to ones labor is an event that is Constitutionally taxable as an indirect tax because of the 16th amendment?

    And your money argument is that the printing of Fiat money is debt free money? If this is true, then why not just print 14 trillion dollars and pay off the Federal debt? Also, why does the value of the dollar decline with every dollar of fiat money printed?

  17. 17 Antonio Alejandro
    30 April 2011 at 23:37

    No. The income tax is an indirect tax, not a direct tax. It was assumed in the pollock decision that the collection of taxes from a particular income was a direct tax. The Supreme Court reversed that position because of the 16th Amendment, and stated that no matter what the source, be it income from property…the income tax is an indirect tax. A direct tax is a tax on property (capitation tax included), the indirect tax is a tax on an event.
    There is a supreme court case that claims that the 16th Amendment is as if it obliterated the distinction between direct and indirect taxes. But to actually obliterate the distinction between these two class of taxes would be illogical because how would you define a tax that is clearly on an event? When you pay a toll for crossing a bridge, they are not taxing the bridge, they are not taxing the receipt of money, they are taxing the use of the bridge – clearly. If you obliterate the distinction, exactly what would that mean? How would you define the subject of a tax when it is clearly “on” an event? In later Supreme Court cases the idea of obliterating the two classes of taxes is never mentioned and assumed invalid.

    Balance. Money is nothing more than a means to facilitate commerce. But too much money in the system and you have inflation, and your paycheck and savings is devalued. Too little money and the economy will falter. There will be apples on the trees, and people to collect them. There might be customers waiting to buy the apples but there is no money to pay the workers.

    Right now in the United States we have a very bad system.. Most everyone believes that the government is the creator of most of the money in circulation. We are led to believe this when we see a TV footage of the government printing money. And some economist might debate on the goldbugs v greenbackers money system. The reality is far worst than fiat currency. Most of the money in circulation exist as a digital entry in some private bank. Most of the money in circulation is either created by investment bankers, or commercial bankers. The Money that the Federal Reserve introduces into the economy (the M0 money aggregate) is a mere 3% of the overall money in circulation. Investment Bankers create money by shorting stocks, for example. Commercial Banks create money using the fractional reserve scheme. When the banks loan money we assume that they are taking money from depositors. But if you deposit $100,000 dollars in a 5 year CD, it lends that money out for 30 years in some mortgage deal. When you withdraw the $100,000 from the bank, the bank does not recall the loan. So the money loaned and your deposit exist independently. Credit is how money is created in the USA. When the bank stops credit it essentially shrinks the money supply, and what follows unemployment, bankruptcies, and foreclosures..

  18. 18 Antonio Alejandro
    30 April 2011 at 23:46

    “…and that the inalienable right to ones labor is an event that is Constitutionally taxable as an indirect tax because of the 16th amendment?” Wow No! Did you read what I posted?

  19. 19 DJ
    1 May 2011 at 07:50

    “Wow No! Did you read what I posted?”

    Of course I read what you posted, what a stupid question.

    I think your misunderstanding of the 16th amendment stems from your misunderstanding of what a taxable event is in regards to indirect taxes. An indirect tax is one that can be passed on to someone else, as you mentioned. When I buy a shirt, that event is taxed and the store charges me the tax for the buying the shirt-they passed the tax on to me, therefore it is an indirect tax. The other aspect of an indirect tax is that I choose to engage in the activity that is taxed, such as buying the shirt. Your analogy of the toll booth is incorrect because one pays a fee not a tax. Example, if I buy a shirt for 25 dollars, and the tax is 6 percent, I am paying a fee for choosing to buy the shirt and a 6 percent tax for choosing to engage in the activity of buying the shirt. When I cross a toll bridge, I am paying a fee alone, there is no tax added.

    In Butchers Union v. Crescent City (1883) the Supreme Court stated “Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right of any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment… It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable…” Here the Court is saying I have the right to do what ever I want to make a living so long as it does not interfere with anyone elses rights, how is my employing my unalienable right to make a living a taxable activity? In Redfield v. Fischer (1931) the Supreme Court stated “The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The Corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals’ rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed” Note that Redfield is a post 16th amendment decision. Again I ask how can my compensation be taxed after the 16th Amendment if the power to tax my compensation was not legal before the 16th Amendment and the 16th amendment created no new power to tax?

    When I get paid, the monies I receive are not taxable as an excise because it is not “income” it is a trade of my time for a specified number of hours per day to the company I work for. If I take those monies and put them in a bank, any interest I receive IS taxable if it exceeds the threshold of the tax code. Evidence of this can also be found from the Supreme Court. In Lucas v. Earl (1930) again post 16th amendment, the court stated “The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it… It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.” (emphasis added). And in Conner v. US (1969) the Supreme court stated “… whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income … Congress has taxed income not compensation.” (emphasis added)

    Banks create the “paper trail” and the Federal Reserve issues the money whether it is paper or electronic, banks cannot create currency. If the bank does not have the funds on hand, they borrow it from a regional bank which in turn borrows it from the Federal Reserve (a bit more complicated, but that is how the system works). The money supply is reduced when the interest on a loan is paid back to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve then destroys the returned money in order to reduce the amount in circulation, the more money in circulation the lower the value of the dollar, the less money in circulation, the higher the value of the dollar. When the Federal Reserve floods the market with low interest money, the spending power of the existing money is reduced, this causes the price to make things rise which in turn makes the price we pay for the item go up-this is what causes inflation.

  20. 20 Antonio Alejandro
    1 May 2011 at 12:06

    “I think your misunderstanding of the 16th amendment stems from your misunderstanding of what a taxable event is in regards to indirect taxes.”
    What could be more simple and clear than what the supreme court stated?
    “A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.” Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930)

    There is no constitutional basis for a broad unincorporated fee. It is either a direct or indirect tax.

    “banks cannot create currency.” Did i not already state that? Re: The Money that the Federal Reserve via the congress introduces into the economy (the M0 money aggregate) is a mere 3% of the overall money in circulation. M0 money aggregate is the base money supply congress (most of the time) introduces into the economy, your so-called currency. I also stated that that is a mere 3% of the overall volume of money. The rest of the money aggregates are created by the Fractional Reserve banking scheme, Shorting Stocks, etc. The base money is not sufficient to maintain the economy, and that is why the great depression is also called THE GREAT CONTRACTION. If credit is inhibited the money supply shrinks. We are talking about the control of the volume of money here …not money to buy things.

    “When I get paid, the monies I receive are not taxable as an excise because it is not “income”.”
    Well that is nice that you know that. Now translate that into violations of federal rules of criminal procedure. So if a person is indicted what part of the federal rules of criminal procedure (or civil procedure if the IRS choose to go that route) is the IRS violating? Look at an indictment and tell me what is missing?

  21. 21 DJ
    1 May 2011 at 16:03

    “There is no constitutional basis for a broad unincorporated fee. It is either a direct or indirect tax.” Okay, so you like the fee-equals-a-tax argument, it is wrong, but it still allows for debate. Working to make a living is NOT an event. Buying something IS an event, huge difference. I agree that if I partake of an event, and there is a tax involved with the event, and the tax is passed on to me it is an indirect tax. If I am working and my compensation is taxed, that is a direct tax, it comes directly out of my compensation, it is taken from me directly. The Supreme Court has been fairly clear on this as I pointed out. So for (at least) the third time, How is my working to make a living and pursue my happiness somehow a taxable event after the 16th amendment?

    “Now translate that into violations of federal rules of criminal procedure. So if a person is indicted what part of the federal rules of criminal procedure (or civil procedure if the IRS choose to go that route) is the IRS violating?” I guess that is the primary question, please enlighten me Oh Great-knower-of the-law.

  22. 22 Antonio Alejandro
    2 May 2011 at 08:04

    here is great-knower-of-the-law, Brains! I am going to repeat this for the third time:
    “A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.” Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930)
    When you talk about income or wages is irrelevant in a court of law. Why? Read the above citation. You are beating a dead horse, BECAUSE INCOME, WAGES IS/ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX! let me clarify further.
    You are in court in the great state of New York and you have been indicted for Grand Larceny. The prosecutor just indicted you for grand larceny but he never mentioned what it was that you stole. So you ignore that fact in the indictment and you go on to argue that the item is not worth $1000. In such a court case you are allowing jurisdiction over subject matter – THICK!

  23. 23 Antonio Alejandro
    2 May 2011 at 08:29

    This story takes place in a time where we no longer live in a constitutional republic:

    You are laying on your couch and you are watching your favorite tv program when all of a sudden, you hear a knock on your door. You answered and there is the Tax collector with four arm policeman ready to take you in. Mr DJ you owe the state $5000 dollars for unpaid taxes. You must pay it now or we are going to take you in and throw you in prison. You start to argue that you don’t recognize that amount as being owed, but the tax collector claims that they have perfect records and he has you apprehended and taken to prison.

    I am laying on my couch watching my favorite tv program when all of a sudden, I hear a knock on my door. I answered and there is the tax collector with four arm policeman ready to take me in. Mr great-knower-of-the-law you owe the state $5000 dollars for unpaid taxes. You must pay it now or we are going to take you in and throw you in prison. I simply ask: what is the tax for? The tax collector says: why it is a property tax for these here house. I answer: Oh this is not my house, I am just renting. You need to talk to the owner of the house. Pardon me sir, says the tax collector I apologize. He goes off and i continue watching tv. Bummer for the property owner.

  24. 24 Antonio Alejandro
    2 May 2011 at 08:46

    It is not for you to prove to the state that your particular activity is not a taxable event…It is for them to prove to you that there is a law that ADDRESSES THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX, that such a law addresses the particular event that produced the fruits. And only if they do do you then address that “law” in regards to what the supreme court had said.
    Reading the Tom Cryer case, the judge was acting as a prosecutor and overruled court procedure, so this is not always going to keep you out of court.

  25. 2 May 2011 at 08:50

    Antonio Alejandro says:

    “A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.” Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930)
    When you talk about income or wages is irrelevant in a court of law. Why? Read the above citation. You are beating a dead horse, BECAUSE INCOME, WAGES IS/ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX!

    OK, so income/wages is not the subject of the tax… the act of working is.

    But yet Butchers Union v. Crescent City (1883) the Supreme Court states,

    Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right of any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment… It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable

    Therefore Buther’s Union shows that nobody can take my sacred and inviolable right to work in whatever lawful business of vocation. But yet above you seem to be saying that we are indeed lawfully taking (taxing is taking) part of my labor.

    How do you explain this? Or am I just having a heck of a time understanding what in the world you are talking about?

    Also, on a side note I find it interesting that somehow out of every modern day court case that deals with personal income taxes the main question is whether or not you made income or wages. And I agree with DJ – an indirect tax is a tax on an event. An event that one can bypass as DJ has explicitly stated. One cannot bypass the event of working as it is inalienable.

  26. 2 May 2011 at 08:59

    Antonio Alejandro

    It is not for you to prove to the state that your particular activity is not a taxable event…It is for them to prove to you that there is a law that ADDRESSES THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX, that such a law addresses the particular event that produced the fruits. And only if they do do you then address that “law” in regards to what the supreme court had said.

    And as of right now they say that if you earn money (everyone calls it wages) then you are taxable. The court hasn’t taken into consideration the subject as you mention in decades.

    So the question is… why is all labor compensated by wages… and wages are what are taxable automatically by the IRS?

    Is all labor a subject of taxation? Is laboring an event which is automatically taxed?

  27. 27 Antonio Alejandro
    2 May 2011 at 16:51

    “OK, so income/wages is not the subject of the tax… the act of working is.”
    The act of working, AKA the activity that you involved yourself in that produces income.
    Taking your property is one thing………but it is far worse than that. When a doctor, EMT worker resuscitates a dying person using CPR, etc. They are attempting to tax that particular event. You are being tax on the activity of saving someones life. This is why they try so hard to make it appear as though the income tax is a direct tax. Because with a direct tax they are dealing with property, and taxing property is more tolerable than taxing essential activities.

    “The court hasn’t taken into consideration the subject as you mention in decades.”
    I have sherpardize both cases: Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916), THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED! There are recent supreme court cases that support them. You cannot look at tax court cases, appellate court cases. You need only to look at Supreme Court cases. Why? Because there is about a hundred years of lower court cases contradicting each other. Additionally the court has to address the subject as a matter of procedure, You will have to force them to address it per the 6th Amendment, nature and cause:
    “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

    Investigating the Income tax is what led me to believe that there is something wrong in America. Something bad is happening. You could ask high school graduates if they ever heard of direct and indirect taxes and they wont know. You could ask then if they know what a Federal Reserve Note is and they wont know. Not teaching relevant concepts is the cruelest form of censorship.

  28. 28 Antonio Alejandro
    2 May 2011 at 19:18

    The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
    House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580.

  29. 2 May 2011 at 23:02

    Antonio Alejandro states:

    “OK, so income/wages is not the subject of the tax… the act of working is.”
    The act of working, AKA the activity that you involved yourself in that produces income.
    Taking your property is one thing………but it is far worse than that. When a doctor, EMT worker resuscitates a dying person using CPR, etc. They are attempting to tax that particular event. You are being tax on the activity of saving someones life. This is why they try so hard to make it appear as though the income tax is a direct tax. Because with a direct tax they are dealing with property, and taxing property is more tolerable than taxing essential activities.

    Just state it directly – are you trying to say that general labor is a taxable activity? I want a Yes or No answer.

    Antonio Alejandro states:

    You cannot look at tax court cases, appellate court cases. You need only to look at Supreme Court cases. Why? Because there is about a hundred years of lower court cases contradicting each other. Additionally the court has to address the subject as a matter of procedure, You will have to force them to address it per the 6th Amendment, nature and cause:

    It seems that DJ and myself are both only quoting SCOTUS cases. Who are you talking to?

    Speaking of, how about the Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926) case? Also a SCOTUS case. Also a post-16th Amendment case. It explicitly states, “It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.” So as the original post suggests… if you were not taxable before the 16th Amendment… then you are not taxable after the 16th Amendment. In other words, if you were cobbling shoes in 1910 and weren’t taxable… then you wouldn’t be taxable for cobbling shoes in 1920. What do you not understand about this?

    Antonio Alejandro states:

    The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges

    Yes, exactly. An excise. An excise is an indirect tax that can be passed on. How is taxing me on general labor that is afforded to me by Butchers Union v. Crescent City, an excise tax?

  30. 30 Antonio Alejandro
    2 May 2011 at 23:41

    Just state it directly – are you trying to say that general labor is a taxable activity? I want a Yes or No answer.
    No

    I really do not see where i am confusing you.

    I have yet to see an IRS indictment that cites a law that making general labor a taxable activity. The IRS wins mainly by confusion, uneducated public, undermining court procedure, and playing on the sentiment of the people to pay their fair share.

    Title 26 does not contain a reference to general labor as a taxable activity.

  31. 31 Antonio Alejandro
    3 May 2011 at 00:00

    It seems that DJ and myself are both only quoting SCOTUS cases. Who are you talking to?
    You stated this:
    And as of right now they say that if you earn money (everyone calls it wages) then you are taxable. The court hasn’t taken into consideration the subject as you mention in decades.

    When you say “as of right now THEY say…” I take it that “they” are tax court, appellate courts. If in fact the supreme court refers to wages and income it must be from activities that are revenue taxable. The three traditional revenue taxable activities are the production of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, for example.

  32. 32 Antonio Alejandro
    3 May 2011 at 00:30

    It is certain that you and I agree that general work is not subject to a tax. What I am saying is that If you ever had the displeasure of going to tax court, there is a procedure to follow. They will attempt to label you as a taxpayer in the indictment. If you plead not guilty (or guilty for that matter), then you are not challenging the IRS to produce the law that REFERS TO GENERAL WORK as a taxable event. You cannot enter a plea if the IRS has not fulfill its requirement to detail nature and cause, and you can motion to dismiss on the grounds that they have no subject matter jurisdiction. If they claim that the your income is taxable under title 26, then you have to challenge that the income is not the thing being taxed (that income is not the subject of the tax), but that it is the activity (citing Supreme Court cases). This is criminal court procedure.

    If you go into court with a no guilty plea, claiming that wages are not taxable, you will not be forcing them to reference the specific law. Nature and Cause is a MUST before stepping into a court. According to Amendment 6, you cannot go to trial or enter a plea until all aspect of the “crime” has been presented.

  33. 33 Antonio Alejandro
    3 May 2011 at 07:22

    Let me clear the air…
    When the IRS collects the income tax from most people, they are taxing the activity that produced the income according to the Supreme Court. This is what they are doing, but you and I agree that there is no constitutional basis for this. We have read the Supreme Court cases that state that certain activities are not subject to an income tax. The IRS objective is to keep the idea of “taxed activities” from being mention at all, if you are challenge in a court of law you need to go through certain procedures to force them into showing you the law in respect to activities. They will readily show you the law for the income tax in respect to income, but income is not the thing being taxed. Income is not the subject of the tax.

  34. 3 May 2011 at 08:07

    Antonio Alejandro stated:

    Let me clear the air…
    When the IRS collects the income tax from most people, they are taxing the activity that produced the income according to the Supreme Court. This is what they are doing, but you and I agree that there is no constitutional basis for this. We have read the Supreme Court cases that state that certain activities are not subject to an income tax. The IRS objective is to keep the idea of “taxed activities” from being mention at all, if you are challenge in a court of law you need to go through certain procedures to force them into showing you the law in respect to activities. They will readily show you the law for the income tax in respect to income, but income is not the thing being taxed. Income is not the subject of the tax.

    I am not sure if you changed your position as you spoke or you just suddenly started to make sense… but if I am reading this correctly, then I agree with this statement in general.

    Income tax is an excise tax and thus an indirect tax. Any indirect tax must be a tax that we can either pass on or one that we can avoid. However, taxing “any income from any labor” cannot be avoided. In a sense, they want us to think that it is a direct tax in the sense that we cannot avoid it. However, it is not.

    Therefore the question is… why does everyone treat all jobs to be a taxable labor activity?

    You stated,

    The IRS wins mainly by confusion, uneducated public, undermining court procedure, and playing on the sentiment of the people to pay their fair share.

    In part, I agree. Many people have been taught that taxes are a way of life. As the old saying goes, “…but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” But this was said by Benjamin Franklin in 1789… long before the 16th Amendment of which we are all told is the lawful basis that our paychecks are taxable. I believe that Franklin simply meant that there will always be taxes on things in life – indirect taxes mainly on things such as tea, alcohol, or whatever else the government wanted to tax. But there was no real income tax back then… so I don’t think he meant that we were to be taxed on everything we labored on.

    With that said, I find it hard to believe that nobody has gone to court and asked what activity they were being taxed on. In fact, I believe Hendrickson of 2010 went in and asked what activity he participated in that made him taxable and he got jail time. So, I’m not quite sold on your procedure argument as I am nearly positive that it has been tried.

    I think there is much more here. I think that it has to do with the Social Security Act of 1935 as I originally posted in my original post (not a comment). The Social Security Act of 1935 was the first opportunity for normal non-federal employees to join a federal retirement plan. But, as the law was, one couldn’t join the federal retirement plan… so the SS Act of 1935 was invented… and the language of the SSAo1935 was implemented, nearly word-for-word, into the Revenue act in 1940.

    I think that when we use our membership number to the SS program on payment documents, you are essentially agreeing to pay your membership fees. Once you pay your entrance fees (seen as SS taxes on your paycheck) you have to pay your dues (income taxes). All this money is your payment with the expectation to be paid later.

    By signing the W-2 with your payer, you are agreeing to be paid wages for a pseudo-federal position… which is taxable.

    What say you?

  35. 35 DJ
    4 May 2011 at 06:11

    “I am not sure if you changed your position as you spoke or you just suddenly started to make sense…” I tend to believe that your initial thought is correct, although I am willing to accept your second thought. It is always good to expand the coalition of those that understand the Law.

  36. 36 Antonio Alejandro
    5 May 2011 at 08:12

    1) The Income Tax is an indirect tax
    You and I know with absolute certainty that the income tax is an indirect tax. You and I could read. The Supreme Court stated that in two landmark unanimous decisions that have never been overturned.

    2) We also know with absolute certainty that the Subject of the income tax is not the income (fruits) but the activity (event) that produces the income.
    “A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.” Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930)

    3) We also know that the law must be clear as to what the subject of the tax is (the thing being taxed). It must be clear because without clarity the ability to enforce the law will be non-existent (per the 6th Amendment’s Nature and Cause).

    4) We know that the law given to us by the IRS does not address the subject of the tax (the thing being taxed).

    Example:
    TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
    § 1. Tax imposed
    (a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
    There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
    (1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
    (2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
    a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

    If taxable income is: The tax is:

    Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
    Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
    Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.

    ETC…..

    Finally If there is no law that addresses the activities of common workers (not corporations, not the production of alcohol, firearms, or tabacco, not government granted priviliges), how then does the IRS make conviction without a law that addresses the SUBJECT OF THE INCOME TAX?

  37. 37 Antonio Alejandro
    5 May 2011 at 08:26

    There are many official websites that attest to the fact that the legal authority for the collection of the Income Tax is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:
    “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”
    But they dont finish connecting the dots.
    Additionally, there are some government proponents that may argue, that the government has the authority to tax ALL activities. That arguable for sure, but the fact remains that THERE IS NO LAW THAT ADDRESSES MOST WORKING PEOPLE! So why are we arguing what the government can or cannot do?

    IRS PLOY:
    You are a taxpayer
    You have taxable income
    how do you become a taxpayer?
    Because you have taxable income.
    How is your income taxable?
    Because you are a taxpayer!

  38. 38 Antonio Alejandro
    5 May 2011 at 08:31

    We should be paying more attention to the illegal procedure that allows the IRS to circumvent Federal Court Procedure and win court hearings!

  39. 39 DJ
    6 May 2011 at 04:28

    @AA
    “We should be paying more attention to the illegal procedure that allows the IRS to circumvent Federal Court Procedure and win court hearings!” If you peruse this site you will find that that is precisely what many of us have been trying to do. So, now that we understand each other, how about enlightening the readers of this fair blog with your plan of attack. Many of us have tried and had some success, others have tried and had their asses handed to them.

    WHATCHA GOT?

  40. 40 Ray Barboni
    9 May 2011 at 05:54

    I don’t know why people just re-read and re-read the Brushaber Case which the “Landmark” case regarding the Sixteenth Amendment. Sure is may be a confusing case to read but over time you will come to realize that it was designed for one purpose.

    It certifies that all excise taxes are taxable regardless were those taxes come from real estate or otherwise. This is the so-called direct tax because it is directly on the activities of a taxable entity. However when a direct violates the rule of apportionment that tax will be construed as unconstitutional. The indirect or direct rule has not been overturned except by fraud of the lower courts and the media.

    Peace

  41. 23 March 2012 at 17:03

    Unlike recent sites This one shares posts that is actually excellent. Keep up thegreat work. Thanks


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: