Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

America: Freedom to Fascism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I like that documentary. It is a nice little way of explaining the problems that we are facing with the Federal Reserve and the IRS. The two things that I do not like about this movie is that it 1.) Does not explain the contract law that taxpayer was fooled into and what makes him or her liable (the real reason why the government can send taxpayers to prison) and 2.) That Russo believes that money should be in the hands of government, when it really should be in the private sector in the economy.

Nevertheless I would recommend this movie

Link to post
Share on other sites
I like that documentary. It is a nice little way of explaining the problems that we are facing with the Federal Reserve and the IRS. The two things that I do not like about this movie is that it 1.) Does not explain the contract law that taxpayer was fooled into and what makes him or her liable (the real reason why the government can send taxpayers to prison) and 2.) That Russo believes that money should be in the hands of government, when it really should be in the private sector in the economy.

Nevertheless I would recommend this movie

I have only seen the first part of it, so I won't make a judgment on the full video. But I agree with Jimbean on the second point about money. Ideally, it is in a fixed form that could not be tinkered with, such as pegging a currency to gold. But given a choice, it's better to have the value of money in the hands of banks versus government. Government can create inflation (the monetary, not the price kind - though that does result sometimes from the former), where it's not in the interest of a bank to do that because it curbs profit. A banker has to make rational decisions in his best interest as to the value of money, and that includes a necessity to keep an economy healthy so folks borrow and put money in his bank. Government is not restrained by the logic of the free market in either spending or money creation. Plus, most banks are publicly traded, which means we either own shares directly, or through our pension funds or 401(k). In these cases the people own the means of production.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimbean, do you think you could elaborate further on that?

There is no law that requires an American that lives and works in the private sector to file a 1040. Many people point out that it was the 16th amendment that requires one to pay a direct unapportioned tax on one's wages or salary. The 16th amendment does not give government this power because the framers of the 16th amendment did not give the word "income" a new definition. So instead of being honest about it, the government along with the central bankers with their newly established Federal Reserve tricked the masses into paying anyway by controlling public opinion. Today, the IRS has built a web of subjective laws and gets every person to subject themselves to something that would normally be unconstitutional by having every American unknowingly undergo a contract with them. Getting into that contract consists of signing a W2 or using a social security number; so when the IRS goes after you, they actually do so technically by contract law, not tort law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That video is amazing if true. Basically the congress tried to pass a law, it was rejected by the Supreme Court, and they just went ahead anyway.

Sooo... who is supposed to enforce Supreme Court verdict? I guess there was no one in this case.

Edited by ian
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still watching it but so far it looks pretty good.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...freedom+fascism

I have been studying this for some 25 years. About 8 years ago, I met a guy, a former DARPA systems architect, who got too close to some government secrets. He's a young man, but with an IQ that I would dare say approaches 300. His intellect is among the greatest of all time. We shared a common interest, being both political dissidents, and one October in 1998, he was in my part of the country and paid me a visit that resulted in a 38 hour conversation of a level of intellectual intensity that I have not experienced before or since.

He has amassed a huge quantity of information and written up a lengthy document which he calls The Architecture of Modern Political Power. It is divided into chapters and there is a huge one on the banking scam and how the government tricked us into illegal income taxation.

The site is here: http://www.mega.nu/ampp/

The http://www.mega.nu homepage links to his overall philosophical ideas, which Objectivists will find quite intriguing, because of the many parallels. But it is not identical. Months of good reading there and way beyond the scope of any video.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify, I'm not talking about "You can see why presently nobody should be able to get a deviation IQ higher than 195 (or 201 on the 16 SD scale). There are not enough people in the world to 'beat'" here, because this reasoning is flawed, but rather that given the rarity of a 300, it is HIGHLY unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To clarify, I'm not talking about "You can see why presently nobody should be able to get a deviation IQ higher than 195 (or 201 on the 16 SD scale). There are not enough people in the world to 'beat'" here, because this reasoning is flawed, but rather that given the rarity of a 300, it is HIGHLY unlikely.

Well I'm no expert on IQ rating methods, but I said that to illustrate that this guy's at the rarified upper end of the scale of intelligence. I mean, beyond genius. For a brief period, during our talk, I got the eerie sense that maybe he was not of this world, but that notion seems rather far-fetched. Suffice it to say, his writings alone will demonstrate that his intellect is one among few. Not that I agree with everything he writes, but that his thought processes are like none I've ever encountered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That video is amazing if true. Basically the congress tried to pass a law, it was rejected by the Supreme Court, and they just went ahead anyway.

Sooo... who is supposed to enforce Supreme Court verdict? I guess there was no one in this case.

I reached one conclusion about this whole matter: it reminds me of the statement: "Might makes Right."

In this context, as long as the ATF, FBI, SWAT and police are willing to obey the orders of the courts, then it does not matter whether there are laws, or a constitution existing as the basis for decisions. The faith of these paramilitary organizations is all it takes to enforce the perogative of the courts.

Quoting Judge Dawson in Irwin Schiff's trial, as he instructed the jury: "I will not allow the law in my court!"

People who uncover cracks in the legal foundation of certain policies and procedures of government are unable to get a fair trial. The judges no longer act upon law, but upon presumption that they must preserve the status quo at any price.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... this guy's at the rarified upper end of the scale of intelligence. I mean, beyond genius. For a brief period, during our talk, I got the eerie sense that maybe he was not of this world, but that notion seems rather far-fetched.
I think you should have gone with your gut, he seems like a nut job to me. Standard "Rockfeller conspiracy" type stuff with lots of big words all over the page. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you should have gone with your gut, he seems like a nut job to me. Standard "Rockfeller conspiracy" type stuff with lots of big words all over the page.

You may be right, but I still think that there's a lot of good information, gleaned from a gamut of 'credible' sources. The guy is young and perhaps a bit over enthusiastic, but I was talking about his intelligence level, not his political affiliation, right-wing or otherwise. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no law that requires an American that lives and works in the private sector to file a 1040. Many people point out that it was the 16th amendment that requires one to pay a direct unapportioned tax on one's wages or salary. The 16th amendment does not give government this power because the framers of the 16th amendment did not give the word "income" a new definition. So instead of being honest about it, the government along with the central bankers with their newly established Federal Reserve tricked the masses into paying anyway by controlling public opinion. Today, the IRS has built a web of subjective laws and gets every person to subject themselves to something that would normally be unconstitutional by having every American unknowingly undergo a contract with them. Getting into that contract consists of signing a W2 or using a social security number; so when the IRS goes after you, they actually do so technically by contract law, not tort law.

So I wonder if this is what happens: The government has a law requiring businesses to have all employees sign W2 forms, which constitutes a contract to pay federal income taxes. The only way to dodge the form is to be unemployed and hence have negligible or no income; or to be a proprietor, and hence be subject to business taxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So I wonder if this is what happens: The government has a law requiring businesses to have all employees sign W2 forms, which constitutes a contract to pay federal income taxes. The only way to dodge the form is to be unemployed and hence have negligible or no income; or to be a proprietor, and hence be subject to business taxes.

And by extention, if you live in a house that you own, you have to pay property taxes, regardless of your income. That requirement forces you to work (slavery) and therefore have a taxable income. Quite a scam they've got going, eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this?

US code TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 7201

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What about this?

Well the paragraph you quoted, would seem to be easy enough for the IRS to quote in the various

We the People Foundation inquiries. There is a $50,000 reward available to any person who can show them the law requiring Americans to file a tax return. Why hasn't the IRS cited this law?

BTW, the penalties mentioned in the law seem to have gone out the window. Irwin Schiff is serving 43 years and must pay a $3.25M fine: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=47027

The government refuses to answer that question though:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29748

Why could that be? If they had nothing to hide, why not come out and state the statute, chapter and verse?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps because the law requires wage-earners to pay, rather than just American citizens. Dunno. How is the law cited not sufficient to demonstrate a law requiring private wage-earners to pay federal income tax?

Well the text of the 16th Amendment seems clear enough to me, but why doesn't the IRS cite it when asked to show the law requiring citizens to file? That's the part I find odd. The evasive behavior on the part of the government is suspect here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards the 16th Amendment, then the case would not be that there is no law, but that the law is unconstitutional.

In regards to why the IRS doesn't cite it, like I said, it answers the wrong question. There is no law requiring citizens to pay federal income tax--there is a law requiring wage-earning citizens to pay federal income tax.

The evasive behavior is odd, if true (rather than the possibility that the behavior is simply mis-represented by tactical editting and cleverly-phrased questions), but that is no evidence that this code given is not a law.

One question I would have for those arguing that it is a law is: Isn't this out of the IRS code? But aren't we asking for a law that justifies the existence of the IRS? I could pull out a sheet of paper, say that citizens must do X and that they will be punished by federal authorities if they do not. That doesn't make it American law.

The whole thing, from every angle, seems questionable.

[Edit: clarified the third paragraph]

Edited by aleph_0
Link to post
Share on other sites
In regards the 16th Amendment, then the case would not be that there is no law, but that the law is unconstitutional.

In regards to why the IRS doesn't cite it, like I said, it answers the wrong question. There is no law requiring citizens to pay federal income tax--there is a law requiring wage-earning citizens to pay federal income tax.

The evasive behavior is odd, if true (rather than the possibility that the behavior is simply mis-represented by tactical editting and cleverly-phrased questions), but that is no evidence that this code given is not a law.

One question I would have for those arguing that it is a law is: Isn't this out of the IRS code? But aren't we asking for a law that justifies the existence of the IRS? I could pull out a sheet of paper, say that citizens must do X and that they will be punished by federal authorities if they do not. That doesn't make it American law.

The whole thing, from every angle, seems questionable.

[Edit: clarified the third paragraph]

Well now that's what it may boil down to, a case of "might makes right"--since the IRS has guns, they can say the law is whatever they want and since they seem to have the power to audit judges, they control the courts' opinions as well, and when one controls the court system, then one can pretty much make up the law at will and have the courts enforce it.

My conclusion is that somewhere in Title 26 is the law, however obfuscated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...