Lindsey here and Ladies and Gentleman, boys and girls, the problems you and I face are not about wars, rumors of wars, famine across the earth and disease. No, your and my problem is the tax imposed on income. An income which has no actual value until you spend it.
Lets look at what maintaining a tax on labor accomplishes. I will start with the "United States National Debt." Million times Million times Million equals Trillion. Ten Trillion Dollars of Debt. How was this possible? Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 enumerated to Congress the limited power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 enumerated Congress with limited power to "coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures." Article I, Section 8, Clause 6, enumerates Congress with limited power to "provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States."
As you can see regulating the value of "securities" was not contained within Article I, Section 8, Clause 5. Only the power to "coin money," regulate its value, and fixing the "Standards of Weights and Measures." Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, prohibits any "State" to "coin money" or "emit Bills of Credit" or "make anything but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts."
Where did Congress get the Power to "emit Bills of Credit"? You are correct, not there! All of Congress’ powers applicable to the 50 States United are found at Article I, Section 8 and certain Constitutional Amendments. For instance, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, does not provide the "power" to impose a "direct tax" but rather only provides the rule by which "direct tax" are to be levied. Here, it is to be "apportioned among the several States." Interesting, the phrase "free persons" is referenced in explaining the formula for determining what each "State" would proportionally be liable for which led to the 16th Amendment leaving no person free. Also appealing is the fact this clause explains the number of "Representatives" to be "apportioned." Congress could not do a direct tax without knowing how much they intended to spend.
Can you imagine: Congress shall have power to determine the number of Representatives each State shall have in the Congress of the United States without the rule of apportionment? Exactly! In Price v. U.S., 269 U.S. 492, 501 (1926) the Supreme Court of the United States was dealing with an issue related to a State’s obligation regarding receipt of notes violating Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. The Supreme Court compared its decision in Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, and Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U.S. 472, to show that taxes are not debts under the general terms of the Constitution of both the States and the United States.
The question in Lane County v. Oregon was whether under the Acts of Congress making United States notes "legal tender in payment of all debts," the State was bound to accept such notes in payment of taxes required by its own laws to be paid in gold and silver coin. The court held that the Acts had no reference to taxes imposed by state authority. There were two clauses which were intended to give currency to the notes. In one of them, taxes were plainly distinguished from debts; and it was held that the word "debts" in the other was not intended to include taxes. Price at 502
In Home Bldg & L. Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 429 (1934) the Supreme Court said "The obligation of a contract is ‘the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement.’ Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 197; Story, op. cit., § 1378." This Court has said that "the laws which subsist at the time and place of the making of a contract, and where it is to be performed, enter into and form a part of it, as if they were expressly referred to or incorporated in its terms. This principle embraces alike those which affect its validity, construction, discharge and enforcement. . . . Nothing can be more material to the obligation than the means of enforcement. . . . The ideas of validity and remedy are inseparable, and both are parts of the obligation, which is guaranteed by the Constitution against invasion." Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 4 Wall. 535, 550, 552. See also, Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314, 317. All Constitutions are Contracts.
So, the Supreme Court, to help States get around Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, because of currency notes and the prohibitions on the States, decided owing taxes was not owing "debts" under Clause 1. This is a "now you see me now you don’t."
The income tax caused States to violate Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. Caused Congress to violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 6 counterfeiting its own "Securities" by emitting Bills of Credit and then taking the proceeds from those debts and fractionalizing them at some points into over 30 times the amount borrowed. This is hardly borrowing money on their credit. Next, Social Security and the box with no lock on it measured by income but not qualified as an "income tax." The 16th Amendment directs Congress was given power to lay and collect a tax on income, from whatever source derived, so what is the "withholding tax" deducted from everyone’s pay on a weekly, by-weekly, or periodic basis? It is not a tax on income. It is merely a stimulus check. Instead of them stimulating you, as they have done twice in the last few years, you stimulate them daily.
What is the credit the United States borrows money on you ask that leads to a fiction $ 10 Trillion Debt of the United States? Your labor and the currency circulation it generates parading as income. Who is liable for this debt? Congress and the media tell you and me we are the one liable. Where did Congress get the power to borrow money and placing you and me as collateral for that debt? Not there!
Why is it you buy a car and it falls 25% the second you sign borrowing the money for it? You guessed it, the income tax. Lets take houses and cars for instance on borrowing. What is the one thing you need to borrow money for these items? Not credit, but a job earning, you guessed it, income. Homes with a 30 year fixed rate. The first 20 years you use the home you hardly pay down the debt but the last 10 years your payments really begin to pay off the debt. Why not put the last 10 years where the first 10 years are currently? Because, your home would be paid off 10 years before you needed to update it instead of the update competing with the last 10 years of the 30 year note to pay off the debt. Here comes home equity financing. Yep, if you had anything left after Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Medicare Taxes, State Taxes, Sales Taxes, Fuel Taxes, State and Federal, Taxes on Groceries, Cloths, Tires and Toothbrushes, it would show up in the equity in your home.
Inflation causes homes to increase in value while cars drop at two times the pace of making payments. You get warranty of lets say 12,000 miles for 3 years or 36,000 miles while you borrow money for 60 to 72 months. To pay off the car in 3 years would be genius because at least you are staying even between your expense for the car and the warranty, unless of course, you drive more than 1000 miles a month.
So, you add to this that houses are cheaper in the Country, and voila, you have 2500 miles a month, a warranty expired in 15 months with payments continuing for an additional 45 to 60 months. What causes this you ask? Income Taxes.
Oh, the "do you owe more than your car is worth, we can help" pitch is sitting there waiting for you to dig the hole deeper. Home equity loans to pay off credit cards is waiting for the call. You know, the "we can loan you up to 125% of your home’s value to pay off your credit cards. As soon as you pay them off the credit card company likes you so much they double your credit line.
Then there is Jury Trials and juries who sit in tax paying judgment of a fellow taxpayer. Oh, I know, they were not on trial for paying all those taxes one cannot breath without owing, but rather, a selection of a certain tax you chose not to pay because of one reason or another. You see that "chose" in the previous sentence. If you did not have any choice what do you call that? Yep, a tax on income. I think it better to refer to it as an "attack on income." Sounds the same but with greater emphasis on the lack of choice.
Jurors are chosen based upon their tax paying status. Having future welfare beneficiaries deciding you were a threat to there future does not bode well with having a jury free of conflict. Everyone knows what a 401K is but what section of the tax code proclaims every State Citizen is liable for a 16th Amendment Tax on Income to the United States? You are getting good at this. No such section like 401K. And why could this be you ask? Well, putting it in the words of U.S. Senator Grassley, "We" just cannot write a law that covers every possible way to tax income. Guess why that is? Income tax.
Grand Jurors are no different. They stay in secret and are used by the United States to commit treason and tyranny on a continual basis. Have you heard the commercials "Do you know what the number 1 fear of every American is" and the answer is the "IRS." Guess what the IRS is most notably associated with? The income tax. Guess what those Grand Jurors and Jurors are. Americans whose number 1 fear is the IRS.
I am certain Judges at the Federal Level are afraid of the IRS because before they are sworn to their oath of treason and tyranny, they must endure a rigid investigation by the FBI and IRS.
Now, Socialism has stuck its head out of the black income tax hole recenlty to see what State Citizens will say in hearing this word. Income Taxes are now being sold to the welfare recipients of the future as a way to take from a person who is working hard and give some of what they received for that hard work to some one who, for whatever reason, cannot or did not work so hard. The tool used to accomplish this "spread the wealth" in the name of Government is the tax on income.
News flash. People by the thousands are in Federal Prison, Probation, Supervised Release, previously convicted, and tax lien-ed to the tune of trillions of U.S. Obligations, because they chose, for whatever reason, to oppose spreading the wealth in the name of income taxes. These people who wish to spread the wealth wish to accomplish this spreading by threatening you if you do not pay the spread they will see to it you are deprived of several things, including your property and liberty.
Are you for spreading the wealth by threat of imprisonment if you choose not support the spread? The only way this could happen is with an income tax. It is a group of words with no legal meaning and to which are allowed to accomplish both the escape of some, in the name of loopholes, and the bondage of others, in the name of a tax protestor.
How about Socialism Protestor? How about a Treason Protestor? How about a Tyranny Protestor? How about a Protestor of Slavery? How about a Protestor of fractionalizing book entries at a rate of more than 30 to 1?
Neither Blacks Law, 6th Edition or Noah Webster 1828, define the term "Socialism." Maybe because the word was covered by the words Treason and Tyranny instead. What should be shocking to most of you is when the income tax is used as a political tool to get you to vote for a Presidential hopeful. Can you imagine, "vote for me" and "I’ll give 95% of you a break from increasing the amount of time you are enslaved? A slave is a slave. Do you remember the average person works till sometime in mid June to pay off their tax obligations?
I am glad most of America is having to throw away its religion in the name of Government and the income tax. For the longest time, I would ask thousands around the country which comes first God or the IRS. You know, there is only two sure things, death and income taxes. Most would say God but, in actuality, put the IRS first. Diversity is fine in any culture but when "spreading the wealth" is your public policy then religion has taken center stage in the income tax policy of the United States.
At a time when the IRS is challenging the code section 501(c)(3) or 508 status of many religious organizations for making comparisons between "the end times" and current status of what people outside of Saturday, Sunday, or whatever day you choose to keep without holes in it, about world events, it seems to me it is not that the IRS should have any claim to challenge the religion of any person or group associated freely, but rather, it is that person or group of freely associated persons that should be challenging the IRS.
The only way I have found is to take what the IRS does and show how an income tax done the way the IRS does it is unequivocally a declaration of war upon you and me. You think the middle east wars have been going for some time? What about the war on earning income? I have only given you some of the things tax on income and earning the undefined term "income" has caused.
Myself, the IRS made up statistics and used those to impose a tax on me. Had I not chose to fight, such would have certainly became a standard to which all slavers production would be measured. Oops, you did not produce as much as the statistics say so you owe us even though we know you did not actually earn what the statistics are based upon. A tax just because is a declaration of war. Guess what? Yep, only the income tax could produce such a absurd result.
When those needed to be cared for become the ones who say what those not needing to be cared for say and do, it is a sign that those not needing cared for are too busy to care about the things those cared for are doing to them.
When the Constitution was enacted, voting was contingent on owning land. Today, owing land inside any State is the enemy of the United States. When the Constitution was enacted, being free was also a criteria of voting. Today, being free is an enemy of the United States. Washington D.C. is not a Republic and it has no Constitution to govern its affairs. It simply has a group of people elected that changes every two, four and six years, telling D.C. residents what to do. Washington D.C. is a plantation and the States are its owners.
Then there is Judicial Districts of the United States hidden and laid over each State like a clear sheet of clear wrapping paper. If you are not compelled to ask, or look close enough, treason will pass by your eyes without any alarm whatsoever being sounded.
Imagine a place where in the United States Judicial District of Oklahoma, housing both Federal Judges and U.S. Attorneys, not one elected person holds any of those offices. Not one! Yet, they are the place the IRS does all its tyranny. The place America fears the most is the place America has not one elected official doing anything. Congress, don’t get me started on that one. The House Ways and Means Committee is supposed to be policy and watch dog over the IRS yet the chairman was unclear his rental income was to be reported on his tax return? Really!
In late 2007, the 7th Circus United States Court of Appeals published a decision that said no one has to use any Form issued by the IRS, the word "return" is not defined, and all that is "required" is a "candid report of income." I did a word search and could not find the phrase "candid report of income" in any code provision of the IRS. Not there. Regulations, not there. No other judicial decision every said that before this case in the 7th Circus. USA v. Patridge is the case. Yet a man sits in prison based upon this revelation by the Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit, the infamous appointed for life Judge Easterbrook. Income tax plus appointed for life Judges equals end to rule of law. I am certain Easterbrook would be voted out of office at the next election and replaced by someone who 7th Circus Citizens thought better prepared to see to it the laws were correctly applied and faithfully executed.
There is this long standing notion cited by the Supreme Court that "ignorance of the law is no excuse for a violation of the law so long as the law is definite and knowable." This is so because everyone is presumed to know the law. In the same decision, Easterbrook said no person need know the law regarding taxes anymore than they need to know the frequency they are watching on TV. Really, this is what he said. And the 8th Circus has recently jumped on that ship to the bottom of the sea.
The Supreme Court said in 1991 that the there was one exception to the ignorance of the law notion and that was in tax cases because in tax cases the law is not definite and certainly not knowable. Cheek, 1991, page 201. Do loopholes come to mind anybody? What about regulations, publications and procedures?
So, the Supreme Court said there is ignorance of the law that can justify not being penalized regarding the complex tax code and regulations. Easterbrook said he disagrees with the Supreme Court. What could cause a lower inferior Court judge to disagree with the Supreme Court and defy its proclamations? Nothing but the tax on income.
I have even seen where the income tax has caused Divorce, Suicide, Sickness, and having one spouse forced to testify against the other spouse. When an appointed for life attorney for the United States sits down with a spouse and says you will either say what we want you to say or we will charge you next, what is a good slave to do? Right again. The wife comes in and tells a Jury what she never said to her own husband. Truth does not matter. The law does not matter. Constitution does not matter. It is just one person against the creature created by the Constitution of the United States. You know why States are losing jobs at an alarming rate? Income tax.
Let's say the United States wished to pay off its 10 Trillion debt and it sent a bill to every State, based upon its population, and said, here is how much direct tax you would owe. 10 Trillion divided by 300 million equals $3,300 for every person. Imagine you getting a bill in the mail from your State Governor saying we need your $3,300 to pay off our direct tax debt to the United States.
It would take $9.00 per day and we could call it the national debt tax ("NDT"). We could even proportion it according to how much you make. If you make 12k a year, your tax would be $100.00 per month for 12 months and if you make 120k a year your NDT would be $1,000.00 per month for 12 months. If you make $1.2 million, your tax would be 10k a month for 12 months. If you make $12 million a year, your NDT would be 100k per month for 1 year.
As long as this money went to pay down the national debt and for no other purpose, including borrowing off of it or fractionalizing it out, the debt would be paid off in no time. But that is not what would be to the benefit of the United States. Because people out of debt is a free people. I realize some of you economist would find holes in my proposal but the example is given to show you paying off the debt is not the objective. Being in debt and always at the line of broke is where the appointed for lifers wish us all to be. Here is my check Government and how much of it can I keep.
The reason why it took so long for all people to come on board is that income tax had several layers of bribery and corruption. Most needed to have it made personal to them before they would fall to their knees and ask the same questions some of us began asking years ago. The great thing is that those who knock on that door now will have a much easier time arriving at the place some of us took years to learn.
Why would people with a job to go register people to vote commit crimes in voter registration? Income Tax. Why would politicians be the greatest new comer to the millionaires club? Income Tax. Run for office, write a book, retire and leave this mess to the rest of us. Not the U.S. but us! Why would men and women agree to uphold the Constitution to get their lawyer license and then spend the rest of their life trying to defeat it? Income tax.
When a people stand up and say we chose not to pay into the socialism or sharing the wealth and are told that such choice is a crime against the laws of the United States, if you were on a jury, what would you do? Would you place your decision with the likes of Santa Clause or would you stand up and defend your countrymen?
"The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives." P. Devlin, Trial by Jury 164 (1956). See "Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155-156 (fn. 23) Trial by jury was not insisted because of murder like what is seen on forensic files, but rather, trial by jury, charged by Grand Jury, was the vehicle by which people oppressed by Government action could defend their actions against such Government.
"Other safeguards designed to protect defendants against oppressive governmental practices were included. One of these was considered so important to liberty of the individual that it appears in two parts of the Constitution. Article III, § 2, commands that the "Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 15 (1955)
The only way anyone could ever say "spread the wealth" is their policy in the United States is when there is an income tax without specific meaning, persons subject to an internal revenue tax to which no such tax exists (26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14), and whereby the Constitutions of each State, and certain provisions of the Constitution of the United States, are treated as if they were never written whatsoever. Add to this the presumption all things not given specifically to the United States are decided in the United States favor (opposite of the 10th Amendment) by appointed for lifers, and voila, you have the Socialist Country United States.
If you wish to do something about this when you vote on November 4, 2008, whether you are a Republican or Democrat, make certain whoever occupies the office is fired. If you are independent, keep doing what you are doing because that is what makes you an independent. But fire them all. Even if computers already know the winners and losers, someone will look to see what each of you actually did say. Oh, did I leave off that the United States is buying up banks with borrowed money through the bail out. How did they get the money to do that? Income Tax futures. I am certain you have heard of futures trading correct? Income Tax futures, Social Security Collection futures, the list goes on and on.
Only in a country governed by debt to the tune of trillions could we be told we are the wealthiest nation in the world. The only word left off that phrase is "wealthiest indebted nation." Only in the United States are millionaires people who owe more than a million to someone.
And this could only happen because of a tax on income with its origin in voodoo and emphasis on doo!