Thread: Income tax...legal or not...

RED ALERT, STOP AMNESTY, GO HERE!!!!!

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-190480.html

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Well, first of all, no matter how you slice it, our monetary system is unConstitutional. A central bank is not authorized by it, as the Founders knew the dangers of it. Those dangers have come to fruition.

No corruption did not make us great. It has made despised. How are we viewed by the rest of the world? Mostly as an encroaching empire like that of ancient Rome.

A gift horse? That would be the Hamiltonian view. "a national debt if not excessive, to us should be a national blessing" A blessing to whom?

So with real lawful money you wouldn't be able to purchase a home? Or a car?

How can an End the Fed ideology be an end America ideology? What it would do, is replace a mafia mentality with one that would hopefully be honorable again. But it would require us, the people to be again good stewards and remain vigilant so that when liberty shivers in the cold of night, we come to the rescue immediately.

Gezzzz...don't get your panties in a bunch!!! LOL. I appreciate your patriotism, support of the American way and the idealism's you purport and support.

My questions were in far site to the arguments that may ensue as the sleepy republic wakes up and starts looking around.

What do you suppose will be the Fed supporting rhetoric we will have to listen to and endure? Can you hear it?... We should be hearing it soon as HR 1207 heats up. Go Ron!!!!

I did my best on what I think about the Feds on my blog below... whathappenedtothestimulusmoney...

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

I believe in ending the fed, but I do not believe in letting people enter illegally, nor giving amnesty to those who are already here. The law is the law. Either we stand on principle, or we fall from folly.

I know there are many libertarians who believe in letting them stay, and that is where I part ways with them. Which is why I am a Constitutionalist. The law is the law, and if we bend one or are willing to bend one to meet an end, then what law(s) are we willing to bend to get a desired effect in the future? It is tantamount to retrial after retrial until a desired verdict is reached. That is why it is not allowed by our foundations.

This is why I discussed at length with you about the fairtax. John Marshall, Fischer Ames, Elbridge Gerry, George Washington, and even Alexander Hamilton would have discussed and debated it with you or me or anyone else who wished to. And it would have been at great length and finely detailed in words spoken, and probably in their minds, they would have been against it as it is too easy to corrupt it. Remember, thy just freed themselves from a tyrannical King George III, and were very leary about giving anything even remotely corruptable a chance to gain a foothold. That is why it was discussed at length in their time and dropped by them. But they were good discussions. Especially once we started to have a more civily oriented exchange.

So in the end, the way I see it, is either we have a solid foundation to build on, or we build a structure on a faulty foundation that could come down around us when we least expect it. And no ammount of money, lawful or otherwise will stop it.

But you don't believe ending the fed is ending America ideology, do you? Republicans have always opposed the Federal Reserve and voted against it when it was proposed, same as they did the Federal Income Tax.

No, ending the fed is not ending American ideology. THe fed and all who support it have corrupted the American ideology to mean nothing more than the want of money and power to the extreme that it is sought out even if it is criminal to do.

Ending the fed will only help in restoring the American ideology. What we call the American ideology today is anything but that. More like the Al Capone ideology.

It's what happens when money becomes king.

Yes Judy, I do know the the debates about the fed and the stiff resistance the Republican Senators had for it in the Senate. Charles A. Kindbergh Sr. of Minnesota was one of the most vocal if not the most vocal against the fed. I admire that part of the GOP. I wish they had those principles today.

And yes the same was with the income tax. I could stand behind the older Republican candidates for those princples alone. That's why the it took until Dec. 23, 1913 to pass the Fed Res Act. Those who wanyed it had to wait until they could strike, and they did it when the Congress was on vacation for Christmas and New Years. And that was only possible as Congress hadn't adjourned sine die. If they would have done that, it would have never passed and the income tax would have been shelved.

But the powers of evil like to work out of sight, and that's what they did there. Deceive and you shall receive is their motto.

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

I believe in ending the fed, but I do not believe in letting people enter illegally, nor giving amnesty to those who are already here. The law is the law. Either we stand on principle, or we fall from folly.

I know there are many libertarians who believe in letting them stay, and that is where I part ways with them. Which is why I am a Constitutionalist. The law is the law, and if we bend one or are willing to bend one to meet an end, then what law(s) are we willing to bend to get a desired effect in the future? It is tantamount to retrial after retrial until a desired verdict is reached. That is why it is not allowed by our foundations.

This is why I discussed at length with you about the fairtax. John Marshall, Fischer Ames, Elbridge Gerry, George Washington, and even Alexander Hamilton would have discussed and debated it with you or me or anyone else who wished to. And it would have been at great length and finely detailed in words spoken, and probably in their minds, they would have been against it as it is too easy to corrupt it. Remember, thy just freed themselves from a tyrannical King George III, and were very leary about giving anything even remotely corruptable a chance to gain a foothold. That is why it was discussed at length in their time and dropped by them. But they were good discussions. Especially once we started to have a more civily oriented exchange.

So in the end, the way I see it, is either we have a solid foundation to build on, or we build a structure on a faulty foundation that could come down around us when we least expect it. And no ammount of money, lawful or otherwise will stop it.

The FairTax isn't corruptible at all. It's transparent. It's voluntary. It's uniform. The people control it totally without threat, mandate, intrusion or reprisal.

This is what I fear, for even though the Constitution isn't corrupt, it has been corrupted, and if given a chance men will corrupt the most benevolent of ideas if they can realize a gain.

And to preserve their independence, we must
not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our
election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.
If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat
and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our
labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as
the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to
labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of
fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily
expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us
bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes;
have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to
account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to
rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers...."
(Thomas Jefferson 1791)

These ends of evil are always done when the people are distracted or weary from foreign or domestic strife, often employed by those who have a reason to gain from it. And if slowly applied over a period of time, could become so intrusive as to be a hardship on the people as opposed to a way of liberating them from unjust burdens.

From my understanding, the 16th amendment was never ratified.
Meaning it was never made into a real law.
The FBI was created to enforce the idea, though.

Originally Posted by Floorguy

From my understanding, the 16th amendment was never ratified.
Meaning it was never made into a real law.
The FBI was created to enforce the idea, though.

Yes, that's true. The version of the bill that was circulated to the states had a typo in it, making it different than the version passed by Congress. Technically, the 16th Amendment was never ratified.

Also in 2005(?) I think it was, a US District Court Judge admitted that if one does a study of the 16th Amendment, one finds that an insufficient number of states ratified it.

there is no money in truth freedom and democracy...

How true......... how true. But I would take justice over democracy (mobocracy) anyday.