America: Freedom to Fascism

[N4P4LM]

If you've got a couple hours, give this movie a watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&hl=en

[koruptid]

With the passing of the recent bill that allows Bush to declare anyone a terrorist
What bill is this?

[VeeKaChu]

Just don't start asking a lot of questions about what happened 10/11/06 at FOB Falcon (don't news/google "forward base falcon") and you'll be fine.

[Kartikeya-OD]

Although I just skimmed this for the first time, my doubts concerning the morality of this law were realized. It seems they give the president the ability to point his finger, and without any pre-trial investigation, pick up the unlawful enemy combatant (who may have done nothing more than ?improperly use a distinctive emblem?) and hold them for as long as the president deems necessary.

Why do you have an issue with the use of military tribunals for unlawful enemy combatants? If you did that would fly right in the face of a recent Supreme Court ruling which ruled against the Government or did we forget that case already? The Hamdan case set the framework for this law. This law doesn’t apply to U.S citizens either. No where in this law does it state the President has the power to label you as such and hold you indefinitely.

[Flyingcow]

the reason you can be held indefinitely is because that you dont get a trial. you just go to jail.

[MidnightStalker]

Wow, that is one of the most flagrant uses of ignorance I have seen you use in one of your posts yet, GlobeRunner.

[schtoofa]

(18) improperly using a flag of truce; (19) improperly using a distinctive emblem;

Not sure why you bolded those, but it's pretty easy to come up with examples of how those could be "terrorist" activities.

(18) Terrorists hold up a truce flag. Coalition soldiers go in to assess damage and provide medical aid. Terrorists fire on coalition soldiers right as they get close.

(19) Terrorists ambush a Red Cross convoy and steal their uniforms and vehicles. Terrorists dress up as Red Cross members and approach a scene where help is expected. Terrorists blow up lots of innocent people.

[larcain]

Terrorists blow up lots of innocent people.


They're just misunderstood.

[kiken]

globerunner im by far not the smartest in this forum, but damn man did you not see what UCMJ stood for or were you simply confused? uniform code of military justice. is just what it says it is the law for military personel no where does it cover an american civilien. it dictates how we must conduct ourselves on a daily basis and how we are to treat our pows( which is also covered under the geneva convention which i have a problem with being as our current foe does not follow those laws.

[ass*assassin]

UCMJ - Uniformed Code of Military Justice.. as previously said, covers the things on how our military people are to conduct themselves in time of peace and war.. when you sign the line and say, "I do", and enter the military, you are covered now by the ucmj.. i have no problem with the ucmj and i have no problem with the geneva convention, in which we signed and declared to obey, regardless of any action taken by our foes..

we are supposed to be above things in our handling of POWs and prisoners, regardless as to whether or not they signed the geneva convention.. so, i disagree with the above there..

i agree with military commissions to try the terrorists, much like the ones held after wwii.. it's time to put the people on trial that were/are responsible for much of the terrorism around the world.. it's time.. now..

i also fail to see where any of the new laws would be used other than for the reasons they said or were used for.. unlike many of you, i have faith in our court systems to overturn any laws that are likely to foment breach of public faith.

[N4P4LM]

nice job with the thread derail...hope some of you at least watched the movie.

[MidnightStalker]

nice job with the thread derail...hope some of you at least watched the movie.
Well he believes Americans don't/shouldn't have to pay taxes, and two, wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Understandably, no one wants to watch this ludicrous video.

[AntioK]

nice job with the thread derail...hope some of you at least watched the movie.


I watched it, and yeah holy thread derail, coulda actually had a nice discussion on some of the things in this documentary.


I found a lot of it to be very interesting, very creepy stuff.

[AntioK]

Well he believes Americans don't/shouldn't have to pay taxes, and two, wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Understandably, no one wants to watch this ludicrous video.


I wouldn't say no taxes, i'd just say he doesn't think we should pay federal income taxes seeing as how there is no actual law that states we have to.

The entire thing about the federal reserve, and NAFTA, etc i found to be very creepy.

[MidnightStalker]

I wouldn't say no taxes, i'd just say he doesn't think we should pay federal income taxes seeing as how there is no actual law that states we have to.

The entire thing about the federal reserve, and NAFTA, etc i found to be very creepy.
Please, please read:

Internal Revenue Code sections 1 (26 U.S.C. § 1 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html)) (relating to individuals, estates and trusts) and 11 (26 U.S.C. § 11 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000011----000-.html)) (relating to corporations) are examples of statutes that expressly impose an income tax on "taxable income" (with section 1(a), for example, expressly using the phrase "[t]here is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [ . . . ]"). The term "taxable income" is in turn defined in section 63 (26 U.S.C. § 63 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000063----000-.html)) with reference to "gross income" which in turn is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 61 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html).

For the duty to pay the tax at the time prescribed for filing the related tax return, see 26 U.S.C. § 6151 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006151----000-.html). In Holywell Corp. v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court (in a unanimous case) stated the legal significance of section 6151: "The Internal Revenue Code ties the duty to pay federal income taxes to the duty to make an income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. 6151(a) ('when a return of a tax is required . . . the person required to make such return shall . . . pay such tax')." For civil monetary penalties for failure to timely pay taxes, see 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(2) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006651----000-.html).

Te requirement to file Federal income tax returns is imposed at 26 U.S.C. § 6012 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006012----000-.html) (see also 26 U.S.C. § 6011 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006011----000-.html)). Civil monetary penalties for failure to timely file tax returns are imposed at 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006651----000-.html).

Criminal penalties for willful failure to timely file tax returns or pay taxes are prescribed at 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007203----000-.html). Criminal penalties for willfully filing false tax returns are imposed under 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007206----000-.html), 26 U.S.C. § 7207 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007207----000-.html) and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html). The general Federal tax evasion statute is 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007201----000-.html).

The official Internal Revenue Service web site contains references to selected specific code sections and case law, including 26 U.S.C. § 6011 (duty to file returns in general); 26 U.S.C. § 6012 (duty to file income tax returns in particular); and 26 U.S.C. § 6151 (duty to pay tax at time return is required to be filed)[3] and 26 U.S.C. § 61 (definition of gross income) and 26 U.S.C. § 6072 (timing of duty to file).[3] The year 2005 instruction book for Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, on page 78, contains references to 26 U.S.C. § 6001 (relating to record keeping); 26 U.S.C. § 6011 (general filing requirement); 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a) (specific income tax return filing requirement); and 26 U.S.C. § 6109 (duty to supply identification numbers). The IRS web site also includes a page with a link to the entire Internal Revenue Code as published by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School.

The IRS is legal. Evading taxes is not.

Aaron Russo is misinformed, ignorant, or blatantly lying. Perhaps a combination... He is no different from Mr. Moore in that he using fear and public gullibility to get rich... and then not pay the taxes.

[N4P4LM]

MidnightStalker, i dont care about the IRS code. The income tax is a direct tax and it is not apportioned as the constitution demands. keep the IRS code out of this, because that was written long after the founding laws of our country were written.

PS. thank you antiok for actually watching the video...
and for everyone else, this video goes much more deep than just discussing the federal income tax being a fraud. consider things like the national ID card, and how similar that is to jews being marked with serial codes by the nazis. the US is not turning into a nice place to live, and if things keep up the way they are, it isnt a place i want to raise my childeren, thats for sure.

[stas]

MidnightStalker, i dont care about the IRS code. The income tax is a direct tax and it is not apportioned as the constitution demands. keep the IRS code out of this, because that was written long after the founding laws of our country were written.

PS. thank you antiok for actually watching the video...
and for everyone else, this video goes much more deep than just discussing the federal income tax being a fraud. consider things like the national ID card, and how similar that is to jews being marked with serial codes by the nazis. the US is not turning into a nice place to live, and if things keep up the way they are, it isnt a place i want to raise my childeren, thats for sure.

if id cards, the tax code, and getting rid of the federal reserve (lol!) are the ideas presented, forgive me for laughing and not watching the video. ive talked to enough people with tinfoil hats on already today.

[AntioK]

if id cards, the tax code, and getting rid of the federal reserve (lol!) are the ideas presented, forgive me for laughing and not watching the video. ive talked to enough people with tinfoil hats on already today.


The ID cards don't bother me all so much because if you refuse one then the only disadvantages you'll have is transportation, not allowed in fed buildings, and the only big one is opening a bank account with a large bank.


I'm going to consider them to be very inconvenient seeing as how im forgetful and lose things often.

The federal reserve part i found interesting because of it being owned by private bankers (according to the documentary), i don't like that at all.

Other points in the video that stick out, are the implant technology they are developing and the North American Union which is something i definately could do without.

[MidnightStalker]

Here, N4P4L, if you don't want to look like a fool arguing that we don't have to pay income tax, I really suggest you read this: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf [PDF].

Or you can choose to keep arguing for something that has simply been lied to you...



And why do you tell me not to tell you about IRS laws? That's basically the premise of Aaron's movie. As you may have noticed in my post above, there are links to the specific codes called Internal Revenue Codes (IRC). The Internal Revenue Code is published as title 26 of the United States Code (USC), and is also known as the internal revenue title. Therefore, they are legal.

The IRS is a bureau within the Treasury Department. Therefore, they have authority. (Please, refer to Revenue Act of 1862.)

The official U.S. Treasury regulations provide (in part):

The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed.


From a different article: (referring to the constitution)
------------------------------
The earliest reported court case where this argument was raised appears to be United States v. House, about seventy-two years after the ratification. The best-known proponent of the non-ratification claim is William J. Benson, co-author of the book The Law That Never Was (1985), who testified in the House case to no avail. The Benson contention was comprehensively addressed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Thomas:
Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "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." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and — taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems — advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.
Similar "Sixteenth Amendment arguments" have been uniformly rejected by the courts in other cases including Ficalora v. Commissioner; Sisk v. Commissioner; United States v. Sitka; and United States v. Stahl. The non-ratification argument has been specifically deemed legally frivolous in Brown v. Commissioner; Lysiak v. Commissioner; and Miller v. United States.

William J. Benson, the co-author of the book mentioned in the Thomas case above, was unsuccessful with his Sixteenth Amendment argument when he had his own legal problems. He was prosecuted for tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns. The court rejected his Sixteenth Amendment "non-ratification" argument in United States v. Benson. William J. Benson was convicted of tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns in connection with over $100,000 of unreported income, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. He was sentenced to four years in prison and five years of probation. See United States v. Benson.

Another argument made by some tax protesters is that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's year 1803 admission to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 and therefore the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. The earliest reported court case where this argument was raised appears to be Ivey v. United States, some sixty-three years after the ratification. This argument also has been uniformly rejected by the courts. See, for example, Knoblauch v. Commissioner.

Some protesters have argued that because the Sixteenth Amendment does not contain the words "repeal" or "repealed," the Amendment is ineffective to change the law forming the basis of cases decided prior to the ratification of the amendment. This argument has never succeeded in the courts, in part for the simple reason that under the American legal system there is no requirement that an amendment include the words "repeal" or "repealed" to be Constitutionally valid. Instead, U.S. constitutional law with respect to constitutional amendments includes a form of the legal doctrine known as the "doctrine of implied repeal". See also Constitutional amendment. Indeed, the vast majority of U.S. Constitutional amendments do not contain the words "repeal" or "repealed." Section One of the Twenty-first Amendment contains a notable exception.
------------------------------


Also, AntioK, the Federal Reserve is not owned by private bankers:

The Federal Reserve System is a quasi-governmental banking system composed of (1) a presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation; and (4) numerous private member banks, which own varying amounts of stock in the regional Federal Reserve Banks. Ben Bernanke serves as the current Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

[ass*assassin]

see above post...

the income tax laws are implemented by the 'admiralty laws' many years ago to raise funds for the federal government to wage war.. since the origin of the tax laws comes from admiralty law, it's almost impossible to change it in a manner that is needed.. technically, the united states has been on a war-footing, economics-wise, since these laws were enacted about a century ago..

you really need to check into your history and tax law N4P4L... every case that has gone to the supreme court has either been ruled against, or wasn't even under consideration, thus being thrown out and ruling in favor of the lower courts.. yes, you *DO* have to pay your taxes, yes, it is a requirement unless you come under some very specific circumstances that is/are exempt.. and there ain't many bud..

[Moniker]

Seeing how I would prefer to 1) keep my job, 2) not have my assets frozen, 3) buy a house someday, I'd much rather pay the "fraud" of an income tax.

[AntioK]

Also, AntioK, the Federal Reserve is not owned by private bankers:

The Federal Reserve System is a quasi-governmental banking system composed of (1) a presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation; and (4) numerous private member banks, which own varying amounts of stock in the regional Federal Reserve Banks. Ben Bernanke serves as the current Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.


interesting stuff...




Well i certainly feel as though i've wasted my time with the first hour of that movie, i still found the things towards the end interesting though.

[munks]

Also, AntioK, the Federal Reserve is not owned by private bankers:

The Federal Reserve System is a quasi-governmental banking system composed of (1) a presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation; and (4) numerous private member banks, which own varying amounts of stock in the regional Federal Reserve Banks. Ben Bernanke serves as the current Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7762302/


By John W. Schoen
Senior Producer
MSNBC

May 2, 2005 - With the sages at the Federal Reserve set to meet Tuesday to decide how much all of us are going to have to pay to borrow money, Gary in Delaware got to wondering: just who owns the Fed anyway?

Is the Federal Reserve Bank owned by the United States government or is it owned by private individual stock holders? — Gary S., Millsboro, Del.


Actually, neither of the above. Technically, the Federal Reserve System is -- more or less -- owned by itself. This has given rise to numerous rumors, urban myths and conspiracy theories about how and where the Fed derives its unique powers.

Since it was set up by the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913, the system has been made up of 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which are structured like corporations –- but with a few very important differences. The Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to “member banks” that are part of the larger banking system that the Fed is charged with regulating. But that stock can’t be sold or traded, and dividends are set by law at 6 percent a year.

And unlike most corporations, the Federal Reserve System is not set up to generate profits. Its main job to keep the financial system humming along nicely (and step in to put out fires when they flare up.) Still, the Fed does generate income -– mainly from interest on Treasury debt that it buys and sells in the open market. (That's what the Open Market Committee is in charge of.) The Fed also makes money on interest paid on foreign debt it holds, and from money it lends out to your bank (at the so-called “discount rate.”) And from time to time it makes some pretty big foreign currency trades -- some of them winners and some losers.

Even though the Fed is the 800-pound gorilla in the bond and currency markets, it’s not making trades for the same reason as the folks over at Merrill Lynch. The Fed's main goal –- at the moment -– is to fight inflation. By using its huge pools of debt securities, U.S. and foreign currencies, the Fed tries to manage the supply of money out there. Selling bonds soaks up cash, buying them pushes more cash back into the system. Buying dollars helps support its value, selling them tends to cool things off. But if, after all this buying and selling, there’s some money left over it gets deposited in the U.S. Treasury.

Though Congress set it up, the Fed is not managed like other government agencies. Since it makes a nice living without having to ask Congress for money, the Fed enjoys a level of independence not found anywhere else in our government. Sure, the seven members of the Fed’s Board of Governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But their terms run for 14 years -- which means they don’t have to take a call from the White House if they don’t want to. About all the Fed has to do is to send the Chairman up to Capitol Hill twice a year to answer a lot of annoying questions by members of Congress looking to score points with the dozen or so people who actually watch this testimony.

But there’s a good reason for giving the Fed so much independence. Decisions about the stability of the financial system often require quick decisions in times of crisis. And the Fed is the biggest piggy bank we’ve got. Given the track record of Congress and the White House in managing the federal budget, it’s a good thing they can’t get their hands on it.

so, yeah, the Fed is part of the government, but the executive and legislative branches really have little say over what goes on with it, so in reality, those 12 private banks are probably doing most of the work.