Christian Party

 

Search

Forum

Donate

LAST Pope

Subscribe

jews/911

Damn MAD

Beerhouse

Blog

Feedback

dna

Bye RCC

AIDS

Home

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

TRAITORS

Health?

 

 

The Illegal Sixteenth Amendment

bullet

Project Toto

bullet

Bill Benson: The Law That Never Was http://www.dxmarket.com/worldnetdaily/products/B0078.html

bulletGeorge Metcalf on The Law That Never Was.


Now You Know The Rest Of The Story

The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen. Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and grandfather and namesake of Nelson A. Rockefeller.

At this time during the Taft administration, Philander Knox served as the Secretary of State from 1909 to 1913. Knox was for many years the primary attorney for the richest men in America, including Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan and the Vanderbilt's. Just a few days before he left office in 1913, to make way for the Wilson administration, Knox proclaimed the 16th Amendment to be ratified, even though he knew it had not been legally ratified. The 16th Amendment was not ratified as Knox had fraudulently proclaimed.

Ratified or not, the United States Supreme Court has ruled:

"...[the 16th Amendment] conferred no new power of taxation...[and]...prohibited the...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...".

– United States Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining (1916)

Article V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which requires that three-fourths of the states ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. In 1913, there were 48 States in the American union, so to adopt any amendment required the affirmative act of 36 states.

The federal government claimed Kentucky was the second state to ratify the 16th Amendment, on Feb. 8, 1910. However, the records of the State of Kentucky show that after the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and sent it to the Senate, on Feb. 8, 1910 the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. Apparently, the Kentucky Senate never did ratify that amendment. Federal officials, who had possession of documents showing this rejection, nevertheless claimed Kentucky had ratified the amendment.

In Oklahoma, the proposed amendment was passed by the language of the 16th Amendment in such a fashion as to have a precisely opposite meaning. The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the 16th Amendment. And whatever California did adopt bore no resemblance to what Congress had proposed. Several states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by Congress, a power that these states did not possess.

Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington, but this did not stop Philander Knox from claiming that Minnesota ratified the amendment, regardless of the absence of any documentation from the State of Minnesota.

In February 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment – including Kentucky, California, and Oklahoma. But since Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it, and Oklahoma wanted something entirely different, the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of ratifying States being only 35, which Knox said included Kentucky, California and Oklahoma. Then a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, plus Minnesota sent in nothing. That would only leave 33 states, less the states that took it upon themselves to change the amendment. In the final analysis, if the process of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny, the amendment was never adopted. Knox told a boldface lie. Thus, Knox had created his clients’ the largest cartel in the world. Nevertheless, the people were not buying into the tax scheme, ever so cognizant that a 1894 income-tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895.

During World War I, the secretary of the Treasury explicitly suggested use of "widespread propaganda" to convince the public to forgo their "needless pleasures". The Treasury Department implemented what it called a "campaign of education" regarding the income tax. Its "essential features" included government-supplied news stories and editorials as well as encouragement of special cartoons and films. Perhaps the most intriguing feature was its use of the clergy. The commissioner of Internal Revenue reported that "Thousands of clergymen, at the suggestion of the Bureau, made taxation the subject of at least one sermon." As a result of the "patriotic response" aroused "dissatisfaction and complaint over the burden imposed by taxation were minimized." Government officials commented that "the groundwork was laid for securing in ensuing years of prompt and regular response to revenue demands." To perpetuate its success, the Bureau of Internal Revenue advocated "the most intensive cultivation of intelligent public opinion" (U.S. Treasury Department 1919: 964-65, 974).

The citizens of America still didn’t buy into the scheme of income tax allowing politicians to coerce them out of their hard earned money. But the greedy politicians would not give up. To increase public awareness and acceptance of the income tax, the government used volunteer public speakers to persuade the American people that paying taxes was their patriotic duty to support the war effort. One-third of the cost of World War I was paid for by income taxes. Additional funds needed for the war effort were provided through war bonds, liberty loans and other government borrowing.

At the beginning of World War II, in 1939 about 15 % of the people paid income tax. That’s all! The government called on Walt Disney to produce a cartoon to support the war effort. Disney agreed and made a cartoon with Donald Duck. The cartoon urged the average American to save, not spend, their money...but to pay income tax to support the war. (Cartoon): You don’t wanna forget our fighting men, do you laddy? Donald: "No, Sir!!!" Then you’ll have to meet your tax payments... Donald also informed, "that it is ‘your privilege, not just your duty, but your privilege to help your government by paying your tax and paying it promptly’." More than 32 million people saw the film in the first few months of 1942, and a Gallup poll reported that "37 percent felt the film had affected their willingness to pay taxes." Without doubt, such government propaganda manipulated political information in ways that raised the expected marginal cost of income tax resistance. Revenues increased dramatically. In 1941 the government collected $7.4 billion in taxes. By 1945, the tax total had increased to $43 billion. At the end of the war the government had 80% of American families paying income tax. The willingness to pay income taxes and to buy more bonds demonstrated the deep involvement of the civilians caring and support to the military. Politicians had at last found the key to the unyielding pocket books of America. As the president and Congress imposed ever higher income taxes, tax payment was wrapped in patriotism and remains so today: the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, wars fought on behalf of the United Nations, Defense systems, supporting foreign governments in the name of freedom, etc.

Sixty years later nothing has changed; Americans are still paying taxes and being dumbed down by propaganda provided by the governments and the controlled media. Docile as we may be, with fluoride in our drinking water, we are entertained with sports, recreation, movies, and just about anything else you can name all for sanctioning taxation. Public education being controlled by governments has also played a key role in developing a subservient citizen towards taxation and government. To prove this point we need only to look at what we are being told today. The government says "Budget Surplus," a normal person would say, "No, Excessive Taxation", or "Abusive Taxation". The government says it’s "their money", a normal person would say, "No, it’s my money!" The government doesn’t trust you with "your money", and therefore must decide on how it will be spent. And being a people fearful of the tyrants in government, we say nothing.

The truth is there is no Constitutional law for income tax as it is applied to the masses today.

 

 

From: "rodgercclapp" <rodgercclapp@email.msn.com>

To: "SENATE JUDICIARY" <Judiciary@mail.senate.gov>; "HOUSE JUDICIARY" <Judiciary@mail.house.gov>; "AK SEN STEVENS" <senator_stevens@stevens.senate.gov>; "AZ SEN. MCCAIN" <JOHN_McCAIN@McCAIN.senate.gov>; "DE SEN. BIDEN" <senator@biden.senate.gov>; "FL A.VILLALOBOS" <villalobos.alex@leg.state.fl.us>; "FL HSE SPR T. FEENEY" <feeney.tom@leg.state.fl.us>; "FL RUDY GARCIA" <garcia.rudy@leg.state.fl.us>; "FL SEN J. MCKAY" <mckay.john.web@leg.state.fl.us>; "FL* RANDY JOHNSON" <johnson.randy@leg.state.fl.us>; "FL* SEN BUDDY DYER" <dyer.buddy.web@leg.state.fl.us>; "FL** REP BILLIRAKIS" <billirakis@mail.house.gov>; "FL** REP. John.Mica" <John.Mica@mail.house.gov>; "FL** REP. Rick Keller" <ric.keller@mail.house.gov>; "FL** REP. STEARNS" <cstearns@mail.house.gov>; "FL** SCARBOROUGH" <fl01@mail.house.gov>; "FL**DAVE WELDON" <weldon.dave@mail.house.gov>; "GA REP BOB BARR" <Press.Barr@mail.house.gov>; "HI** SEN. INOUYE" <senator@inouye.senate.gov>; "IL REP HENRY HYDE" <hyde.henry@mail.house.gov>; "IL SPKR DENNIS HAST" <dhastert@mail.house.gov>; "MO REP. GEPHARDT" <gephardt@mail.house.gov>; "MS Senator Trent Lott" <senatorlott@lott.senate.gov>; "NC SEN.JESSE HELMS" <jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov>; "NH Senator Bob Smith" <OPINION@smith.senate.gov>; "OH REP KASICH" <kasich@mail.house.gov>; "OH REP TRAFICANT" <telljim@mail.house.gov>; "PA Senator Arlen Specter" <senator_specter@specter.senate.gov>; "SD SEN. DASCHLE" <tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov>; "TN SENATOR BAKER" <senator_baker@baker.senate.gov>; "TN SEN. THOMPSON" <senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov>; "TX REP DICK ARMEY" <armey_dick@mail.house.gov>; "TX REP TOM DELAY" <t.delay@mail.house.gov>; "TX Rep. Ron Paul" <Rep.Paul@mail.house.gov>; "TX SEN. GRAMM" <phil_gramm@gramm.senate.gov>; "US SEN BOB GRAHAM" <Senator@graham.senate.gov>; "US SEN. Bill Nelson,FL" <senator@nelson.senate.gov>; "VICE PRESIDENT OF U.S." <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>; "PRESIDENT OF THE U.S." <president@whitehouse.gov>; "ATTNYGENASHCROFT" <web@usdoj.gov>; "LAURABUSH,1STLADY" <first.lady@whitehouse.gov>

Cc: "LARRY KLAYMAN,JW" <info@JudicialWatch.org>; "L. HOGUE,S.E.LEGAL" <lhogue@southeasternlegal.org>; "A.TURBE'/LEONARD T." <aturbe@msn.com>; "DEBBIE N. CLAPP" <debbienclapp@email.msn.com>; "DEEZERIE@ MSN.COM" <DEEZERIE@MSN.COM>; "LJTURBE@AOL. COM" <LJTURBE@AOL.COM>; "PAUL TURBE'" <mrpt1@hotmail.com>; "SANDY/MIKE WINSTON" <MWIN253@INTELLISYS.NET>; "STEPHEN TURBE'" <turboguy18@yahoo.com>; "TERESA/ROY WIDMAN" <tlwidman@juno.com>; "TOM SOKOLOWSKI" <RMVTOM2000@AOL.COM>; "MATT DRUDGE" <DRUDGE@DRUDGEREPORT.COM>; "NEAL KNOX" <neal@nealknox.com>; "RUSH LIMBAUGH" <rush@eibnet.com>; "SALON. EDITOR" <dtalbot@salon.com>; "SEAN HANNITY" <hannity@foxnews.com>; "TRUTH SQUAD" <guntalk@guntalk.com>

2/11/01
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH; LEADERS OF CONGRESS,MEDIA, irs?,
IN 1913,AS YOU SO OFTEN HAVE HEARD ME SAY, THE 16TH AMEND-
MENT WAS DECLARED TO BE RATIFIED AND THUS BECAME LAW.
THIS ALLOWED THE CONGRESS TO NOT ONLY COLLECT LEVIES
AND TARIFFS, BUT ALSO NOW GAVE THEM "AUTHORITY" TO
TAX ALL STATE(S) RESIDENTS' INCOMES, NO MATTER HOW DERIVED.
THUS CAME AUTHORITY FOR THE IRS, THE TAX CODE, AND NUMEROUS STATUTES AND
MORE TAXES, FEES, ETC. THAT CONGRESS WANTED TO PASS LIKE THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TAX, THE "GORE" TAX, SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES, MEDICARE,
ESTATE, MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX, ETC.; HOWEVER AFTER 30
YEARS RESEARCH IT HAS BEEN FOUND OUT THAT (AND 17,000
CERTIFIED DOCUMENT FROM CONGRESS AND ALL REQUIRED 36
STATES TO RATIFY THE 16TH) THAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS
NEVER RATIFIED BY A SINGLE STATE. IT IS NULL AND VOID AS
AN AMENDMENT AND AS "BASE AUTHORITY" FOR THE CONGRESS
TO COLLECT STATE(S) RESIDENTS' INCOMES IS ALSO NULL AND
VOID. THIS MEANS THE TAX LAWS PASSED FROM 1913 TO NOW ARE
NULL AND VOID, SO IS THE IRS AND THE TAX CODES AND ALL TAX
LAWS AND FORFEITURES UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE IRS OR ANY OTHER AGENCIES OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, LIKE ATF,
FORESTRY, MARITIME AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE TAXES. ANYTHING COLLECTED OR
THERE WAS A FEE OR TAX FOR,WAS
DONE ILLEGALLY. IT IS THUS REFUNDABLE.
TIME TO CHANGE THE TAXES TO A FLAT TAX OR NATIONAL SALES
TAX, NO IRS OR AT LEAST NOT THE ROBBING MONSTER OF TODAY.
JUST A FEW COMPUTERIZED REGIONAL OFFICES WITH JUST ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MAKE
THEM RUN EFFICIENTLY. HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES. THE GOOD GUYS, THE
PEOPLE, SOMETIMES DO WIN.
WE'VE BEEN AFTER YOU FOR TAX REFORM FOR OVER 50 YEARS.
LET'S SEE GOVERNMENT, HOW MUCH DO YOU OWE ME OR THAT IS
US. I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT TAX CUT AND MORE. I WANT
MY TOTAL MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY MONIES I PUT IN. I
WANT THE $8,000.00 401K IRS TAX BACK YOU TOOK FROM MY 401K
WHEN I HAD TO WITHDRAW IT DUE TO MY TERMINAL HEART ATTACK.
I WANT ALL OF MY WITHHOLDING AND ADDITIONAL TAXES PAID SINCE I STARTED WORK
IN 1966. SO FAR JUST FOR ME THAT'S $3 TO
$5 MILLION DOLLARS I DON'T HAVE NOW. I'LL ASK MY WIFE WHAT SHE GETS BACK,
THAT IS, HOW MUCH BACK. MR. PRESIDENT BUSH,
CLINTON AND ALL HIS CONGRESS' JUST DIDN'T WANT TO LISTEN TO
ME AND A FEW OTHERS SO THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION LIES WITH YOU AND THE
107TH OR 108TH CONGRESS. ASK SENATOR ORIN HATCH'S ATTORNEY, MR. RICHARDSON
WHY HE TRIED TO HAVE THE
RESEARCHER/WRITER, NOT TO PUBLISH HIS BOOK, THEN CAME BACK LATER TO SAY HE'D
BUY THE WHOLE FIRST PRINTING, THE
MANUSCRIPT AND SOME HUSH MONEY ALL ABOUT THE 16TH
AMENDMENT NOT BEING RATIFIED AT ALL. GO AHEAD ASK UTAH'S
SENATOR HATCH WHY HIS ATTORNEY DID THAT? HATCH KNOWS WHAT PANDEMONIUM THERE
IS GOING TO BE. SORRY SIR, BUT THEY
IN THE KNOW , ON THE HILL, LEFT THIS MESS TO YOU. IMAGINE,
TAX(S) REFUNDS OF ALL TYPES ENACTED ILLEGALLY SINCE 1913?
READ BILL BENSON'S BOOK "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS". GO TO
WE THE PEOPLE.COM, OR DEVVY KIDD'S, OR IRS AGENT, JOE BANNISTER'S SITE, OR
BILL CONKLIN'S WEB SITE OR THE BENSON
SITE: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/ .
SINCERELY,
RODGER C. CLAPP,
4138 YELLOW PINE LANE,
ORLANDO, FL  32811-2929
407-296-3108; SORRY CAPS USED,
1-FINGER TYPIST DUE TO
PARALYSIS FROM 2- BRAIN STROKES
AND 2- HEART ATTACKS-TERMINAL/
HEART INOPERABLE; NO TRANSPLANT.
BUT STILL FIGHTING FOR THE CONSTITUTION
PLEASE VISIT OUR WEB SITES:
 http://www.rodgercclapp.com   ;   GOVT.WATCH
 http://www.rodger121.com   ;   WATCH DOG
WAKE UP AMERICA, BY DEBRA  N. CLAPP:
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/lumpy/445/index.htm 
(GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL SITE)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Roland" jon.roland@constitution.org 
To: mail2news-20010210-alt.politics.reform@anon.lcs.mit.edu 
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:22 PM 
Subject: [piml] Fw: Declaratory judgement acts as a tool for reform
>
>
> ------------------------
> FYI    extracted from:
>
>             http://home.HiWAAY.net/~becraft/BillsExplained.htm 
>
>
> From Larry Becrafts web page in ref: to Bill Benson's suit.  The power of
> declaratory judgments is laid out here.  One ex parte is even more
difficult
> for a judge to get around.  Most state statutes contain such common law
> provision.
>
>      This suit is based upon what is typically called a declaratory
judgment
> statute, which allows suits to be filed to determine the rights of parties
> and even to obtain the construction and meaning of statutes; declaratory
> judgment actions can even be filed to challenge a statute as
> unconstitutional. The declaratory judgment act may be used to determine
the
> rights, duties or obligations of parties to a contract without any party
> being compelled to breach the contract. It may be used whenever anyone
seeks
> a declaration of rights or obligations under any circumstance.
>
>      But most importantly, one of the purposes of the declaratory judgment
> act was to allow people to sue government to determine their rights under
a
> state law (barring, of course, exceptions like the anti-injunction act in
> federal law). An example of such a case is the Ben Mauldin case in Texas,
> which is a pending declaratory judgment case. Ben objects to providing his
> social insecurity number to the plumbers' board just to get a license. In
> the past, he has even provided his SSN to that state agency, thus it
> currently has his number. But the board was sued to secure a determination
> that the law requiring Ben's SSN was unconstitutional because it violates
> equal protection. The board has not offered a defense that this suit falls
> outside the scope of the declaratory judgment statute, and the reason that
> "defense" has not been made is because a wealth of cases declare that such
a
> suit can be filed. See, for example, State ex rel Board of Examiners in
> Optometry v. Lawton, 523 P.2d 1064 (Okla. 1974).
>
>      Oklahoma also has a declaratory judgment statute. In 12 O.S. �1651,
the
> following is provided:
>
> "�1651. Determination of Rights, Status or Other Legal Relations -
> Exceptions.
> "District courts may, in cases of actual controversy, determine rights,
> status, or other legal relations, including but not limited to a
> determination of the construction or validity of any foreign judgment or
> decree, deed, contract, trust, or other instrument or agreement or of any
> statute, municipal ordinance, or other governmental regulation, whether or
> not other relief is or could be claimed, except that no such declaration
> shall be made concerning liability or nonliability for damages on account
of
> alleged tortious injuries to persons or to property either before or after
> judgment or for compensation alleged to be due under workers' compensation
> laws for injuries to persons or concerning obligations alleged to arise
> under policies of insurance covering liability or indemnity against
> liability for such injuries. The determination may be made either before
or
> after there has been a breach of any legal duty or obligation, and it may
be
> either affirmative or negative in form and effect; provided however, that
a
> court may refuse to make such determination where the judgment, if
rendered,
> would not terminate the controversy, or some part thereof, giving rise to
> the proceeding."
>
> This statute is cited and quoted in Bill's complaint. Pursuant to this
> Oklahoma statute, anyone may sue the State to determine rights under a
> legislative act. Oklahomans may do this as well as people who do not live
in
> Oklahoma.
>      The Oklahoma declaratory judgment statute does not contain any
> limitation that only state citizens may sue the State; non-residents may
> also do it and they frequently do use the declaratory judgment act to sue
> the State. The reason that the State cannot limit the declaratory judgment
> statute to only state citizens is because such would violate the
"privileges
> and immunities" clause of Art. IV, section 2, cl. 1 of the U.S.
Constitution
> as well as the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. See Ward v.
> Maryland, 12 Wall. (79 U.S.) 418 1871) (discriminatory state tax on
> non-residents was void via "privileges and immunities" clause); Travis v.
> Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co., 252 U.S. 60, 40 S.Ct. 228
(1920)(exemptions
> in state income tax law not available to non-residents violated
"privileges
> and immunities" clause); Iowa-Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Bennett, 284 U.S.
239,
> 52 S.Ct. 133 (1931)(discriminatory tax on national banks violated equal
> protection); Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656, 95 S.Ct. 1191
> (1975)(Maine residents challenged New Hampshire's commuters' income tax,
> which was held a violation of "privileges and immunities" clause); Zobel
v.
> Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 102 S.Ct. 2309 (1982)(Alaska's tax refund arising
> from large oil revenues distinguished between those living in state before
> 1959 and those not; held violative of equal protection); Hooper v.
> Bernalillo County Assessor, 472 U.S. 612, 105 S.Ct. 2862 (1985)(exemption
> allowed to Viet Nam vets living in state before 1976 but denied to others
> violated equal protection); and Haman v. County of Humboldt, 106 Cal.Rptr.
> 617, 506 P.2d 993 (1973)(discrimination between residents having in-state
> boats and those having them outside of the State violated equal
protection).
>


From Gordon Phillips to Friends of INFORM AMERICA!

I just received the following remarkable post from an unknown source.
Has anyone else received this? Does anyone know the author? No doubt
this will cause the proverbial fur to fly in certain quarters. Very
interesting and, IMHO, dead on the money.

  UNWITTING TOOLS OR ERRANT FOOLS?:
  Misguided Patriots Furthering The Bankers' Original
  Agenda - by Publius

  4 July, 2000

  A PETITION TITLED a "Remonstrance" has been widely
  circulated of late on the Internet, urged to be signed
  by good Americans everywhere, and to be presented
  ceremoniously to the Congress, demanding that the
  16th Amendment to the Constitution -- provably never
  properly ratified -- now be repealed forthwith, the
  objective being the ostensible "relief" of the People
  from the allegedly onerous income tax.

  THE 16TH AMENDMENT, a superb bit of sophistry intended
  to affix the approbation of the supreme Court on the
  newly introduced tax on incomes (Tax Act of 1913)
  -� as well as a clever tool of mass mind-engineering
  designed to seduce the public into acceptance of a tax
  meant only to "soak the rich" -- actually changed
  NOTHING, as stated by the high Court itself in the
  Stanton v. Baltic Mining decision wherein the 16th
  is explicitly confirmed to have conferred "no new power
  of taxation".

  SEE ALSO THE 1979 Congressional Research Service report
  titled "Some Constitutional Questions On The Federal
  Income Tax" in which the Congress confirms that the
  income tax is NOT a direct tax but an indirect tax,
  prohibited by the 16th Amendment from being taken OUT
  of the category of indirect taxes to which it inherently
  belonged from the beginning and placed INTO the category
  of direct taxation, thereby subject to the rule of
  apportionment.

  THIS CALL FOR "repeal" is but a fool's errand. Cannot
  today's patriots read English? Direct taxes must still
  be apportioned to the States under Article 1, Section 2,
  Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4. Never has
  there been any constitutional authority whatsoever given
  to Congress to directly tax the property -- including the
  labors -- of the citizen living and working within the
  union States. This was true as of the very moment the ink
  had dried on the 16th, and remains true to this day.
  Could it be that the advocates of this "Remonstrance"
  were all government-schooled?

  THE INCOME TAX imposed under subtitle A of the Internal
  Revenue Code is an exaction which does not touch
  Americans living and working with the union States for it
  taxes FOREIGN and NOT domestic sources of taxable income.
  No amendment to the Constitution was required to tax
  aliens. Here's your sign!

  NOR IS IT "voluntary" as these addlepated missionaries
  also assert, but is limited in its application (as is all
  law, making the assertion of a "voluntary" law entirely
  ludicrous on its face) solely to those who are made
  liable for the tax, i.e., the domestic withholding agents
  of foreigners doing business within the union States (see
  26 USC section 1461).

  THIS FEDERAL TAXING scheme, whereby foreigners were (and
  are) to be taxed (via excise tariffs, duties and imposts
  on imports) on the privilege of selling into America's
  vast markets while leaving the citizen free of all
  internal taxation, was envisioned by the Framers of the
  Constitution and can be summarized in the simple phrase:
  "citizens abroad and foreigners here at home". This same
  constitutional scheme has been in place since Washington
  first took office.

  NO CITIZEN WHO has never withheld from foreigners nor
  ever enjoyed foreign source income has ever paid so much
  as a dime in federal income tax. He has paid employment
  taxes with have nothing whatsoever to do with income tax.
  So much for "freeing" "tax-burdened" Americans. Ah, the
  price of ignorance!

  INDEED, A READING of the tax laws proves the Framers'
  principles to still ring true as evidenced by the fact
  that the tax code remains one-hundred percent
  constitutional in its application, with or without the
  16th Amendment.

  BANQUETS ARE HELD and eloquent luminaries in the "tax
  movement" brought forth to stir up the anger of an
  ignorant public and to foment support for this specious
  non-issue. "Repeal the 16th!" "Abolish the IRS!" "Rip the
  code out by the roots and throw it away!" Many noble
  trees are sacrificed in their youth to paper the nation
  with this tripe. Why repeal a nullity?

  WHY ABOLISH A perfectly lawful agency, charged with the
  duty of collecting internal revenue from the proper
  subjects of taxation? Why throw out subtitle A when it
  taxes no citizen on domestic source income? Why not slay
  Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy while we're at it?

  FAILED ATTEMPTS AT C-SPAN coverage are railed against.
  Full page ads are run in national publications,
  guaranteed to awaken and arouse -- and eventually
  perplex and mislead (some over the cliff) -- entire
  legions of still dozing Americans. Who will go back and
  correct the egregious error introduced into these
  millions of dazzled minds? The irresponsibility of it
  all.

  ALL OF WHICH efforts, ostensibly intended to beg a
  whoring and seditious legislature to "please give us
  back our labors", disgust the mind of serious
  constitutionalists everywhere. Have our would-be
  saviors of the working class never read the Internal
  Revenue Code? Or the Constitution?

  IN 1913, THE ancient occult monarchies of Europe who
  continue to back and control the bankers to the present
  day, after failing to conquer the colonies through
  martial force, achieved their dream of installing
  permanent central banking in America.

  IN THE EARLY 1900's, their puppet anglophile shills on
  Wall Street (J.P. Morgan, etc.) had conveyed their vast
  holdings into trusts and foundations, all the while
  methodically buying up controlling interest in the major
  newspapers of the day, which propaganda vehicles they
  then used to argue incessantly for an income tax to
  "soak the rich" -- i.e., themselves.

  IN 1909, THE Congress, thoroughly bought and controlled
  by the bankers, proposed the 16th Amendment to the states
  for ratification. For four years, a naive and trusting
  American People were told repeatedly in the banker's own
  newspapers -- the only media of the day -- that "the
  income tax is coming", but that "no one will pay it but
  the very rich". Let us "soak the rich!"

  THE RICH SUCCEEDED. In 1913, the game was won. The 16th
  Amendment was declared "ratified", although later
  investigation in the 1980's proved the fraud behind the
  scheme. The banker's 1913 trifecta was achieved: 1) the
  16th was "ratified"; 2) the Tax Act of 1913 (which taxed
  imports of foreign investment income) was passed, and;
  3) the Federal Reserve Act was passed.

  THIS SCHEME, LONG since perfected in European central
  banks (all owned by the elite money power), whereby
  monies levied on the incomes of working Americans
  through the deliberate misapplication of tax laws
  aimed at foreigners would be continuously removed from
  circulation, has now achieved the necessary regulatory
  recapture mechanism �- the protection of the buying
  power of an eternally depreciating, fiat, paper "money".

  BEARDSLEY RUML, FORMER Chairman of the Federal Reserve
  Bank of New York and the Alan Redspan of his day,
  confirmed these facts in his 1942 paper titled "Taxes
  For Revenue Are Obsolete" which he read before an amazed
  American Bar Association.

  THE CURRENT MISGUIDED agitation to repeal the 16th
  Amendment will, if successful, validate increased
  pressures being placed on Congress to "do something,
  anything!" by a Treasury Department now reeling under the
  growing mass of non-filers as "voluntary compliance"
  continues to plummet.

  THE BANKERS DREAM of a new and alternative form of
  taxation, one which will placate an awakening public and
  allow them to go harmlessly back to sleep; a new and
  "convenient" taxing scheme that will march America sharply
  forward towards the National Sales Tax (NST) the bankers
  so badly want, mirroring as it would the same mechanism
  by which proprietors in those states which levy state
  sales tax collect and pass the withheld tax in to the
  state treasuries, reporting the collections on the
  equivalent of a simple postcard.

  THESE MONOPOLY BANKERS and their European handlers drool
  and rub their hands over the prospects of a totally
  cashless society, one in which all monetary transactions
  down to the smallest retail purchase will be known to
  them while actually occurring, in so-called "real-time"
  (rent the video "THX1138").

  THEY DREAM OF this "postcard payment" scheme operating on
  the national level, knowing that the businesses which
  would withhold the NST would be mandated to pay it via
  electronic transmission, the "e-filing" mechanism the
  elite so eagerly seek and which has yet to be adopted by
  a wary public.

  MEANWHILE, OUR FOOLISH present-day petitioners in effect
  do nothing more than further the bankers' original
  campaign of mass manipulation of the public mind, thereby
  enabling the elite's original program of psychopolitical
  engineering designed, not to liberate, but to further
  enslave the People with their own money.

  LET THE NAIVE take note: The withholding of Social
  Security employment (wage) tax under subtitle C of the
  Internal Revenue Code will NEVER be relinquished by
  Congress for it is the very river of milk which flows
  weekly from the labors of the People straight into the
  national Treasury.

  THE BANKERS, THROUGH the introduction of a NST to replace
  the present subtitle A income tax, would achieve a
  perfected bilevel system of regulated recapture of and
  control over the engineered emission and velocity of
  credit and paper -- namely, an employment tax ceiling
  above and a NST floor below, the rates of each to be
  adjusted over time to perfect and fine-tune the ploy,
  with the People trapped and suffocated in between.

  MEANWHILE, TAX COMPLIANCE enforcement efforts directed
  against just a few million businesses as opposed to
  one-hundred million potential citizen non-filers will
  allow truly draconian enforcement measures to proliferate
  and succeed.

  A PUBLIC CONDITIONED to "think" in such short bursts of
  non-rational, emotional mentation as to avoid a drain on
  its limited attention span always gravitates to the most
  simply digested arguments, all fodder for tyranny.

  THE FACT THAT so much accurate and substantive education
  is now available as to the true nature of the lawful,
constitutional scheme of federal taxation, as well as
  its deliberate and willful misapplication by the IRS,
  makes the misguided efforts of our "tax saviours" all
  the more reprehensible.

  INDEED, THESE ARE the times that try educated men's souls.
  The tyrants in government stand before us and the flag
  bearers of a fool's army behind. Of the two, the army to
  our rear presents the greater danger.

  THE SUMMER SOLDIER and the sunshine patriot will, in this
  crisis, shrink from the service of their country and
  continue to tithe income taxes to the tyranny that
  overtakes them; but s/he that stands now and supports the
  truth, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

  TAX TYRANNY, LIKE Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we
  have this consolation with us, that the harder the
  conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain
  too cheap in meretricious "relief", we esteem too lightly:
  it is dearness only that gives security its appearance of
  value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon liberty;
  and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article
  as true tax freedom should not be highly rated.

  THIS IS OUR situation, and who will may know it. By
  perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a
  glorious issue; by cowardice, submission and foolish
  ignorance, the sad choice of a variety of evils ... Look
  on this picture and weep over it! And if there yet remains
  one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer
  it unlamented.

  With all due regards and apologies to Jay, Hamilton and
  Madison.

 

 

Candice Lightner

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition


























Modified Thursday, May 23, 2013

Copyright @ 2010 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party