I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by sp00n1
mecheng,
I hope you realize that not filing, and or not paying taxes is a very serious crime and that you if you are charged there is a high likelyhood that you will get convicted.

Originally posted by sp00n1
Where do you get the idea that your efforts are failing? The media? AND YOU BELIEVE IT?!?!?!

Originally posted by sp00n1
I'm telling you that it is not hopeless, not yet anyway. Even if it is, i will keep fighting till the jackboots start marching. I will die fighting. I will not give up. I will not surrender! They can pry my keyboard from my cold dead hands!!!

Originally posted by Infoholic
The Federal Reserve is no more "federal" than Federal Express. The Fed is not an arm/branch/agency/brother/or whatever the crud you wanna call it, of the U.S. Government. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation (private bank) made up of members of international bankers, appointed by none other than our fearless leader, the President.

And get this... they don't pay taxes on their income! Why not?

Originally posted by Undutchable
Doesn't that say that income tax is not illegal?

Very observant... but...

U.S. Constitution

Income Subject to Taxation

Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, the Court initially described income as the “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” inclusive of the “profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets”; in the following array of factual situations it subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy.

Read it for yourself here -> www.law.cornell.edu...

The argument in regards to your statement that I can see, is the term "gain" used with labor... I'm sorry, but I don't gain anything from my labor. It is an even trade. I give you my hours, you give me the money!

The provisions in the Constitution have not been changed/amended/nor altered to construe differently the definitions of the terms used to describe "wages", "labor", "gain", "direct", "indirect", "apportioned", "unapportioned", and "income". The terms have simply been construed to fit the wishes of those that interprit the law. And visa versa.

Read the Constitution.

There are actually court proceedings going on about the Federal Income Taxes and against the IRS... check out the updates here -> www.givemeliberty.org...

US Constitution
Income Subject to Taxation

Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909,14 the Court initially described income as the “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” inclusive of the “profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets”;15 in the following array of factual situations it[p.1955]subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy.

US Constitution
Gains: When Taxable.

When through forfeiture of a lease in 1933, a landlord became possessed of a new building erected on his land by the outgoing tenant, the resulting gain to the former was taxable to him in that year. Although “economic gain is not always taxable as income, it is settled that the realization of gain need not be in cash derived from the sale of an asset. . . . The fact that the gain is a portion of the value of the property received by the . . . [landlord] does not negative its realization. . . . [Nor is it necessary] to recognition of taxable gain that . . . [the landlord] should be able to sever the improvement begetting the gain from his original capital.” Hence, the taxpayer was incorrect in contending that the Amendment “does not permit the taxation of such [a] gain without apportionment amongst the states.36 Consistent with this holding the Court has also ruled that when an apartment house was acquired by bequest subject to an unassumed mortgage and several years thereafter was sold for a price slightly in excess of the mortgage, the basis for determining the gain from that sale was the difference between the selling price, undiminished by the amount of the mortgage, and the value of the property at the time of the acquisition, less deductions for depreciation during the years the building was held by the taxpayer. The latter’s contention that the Revenue Act, as thus applied, taxed something which was not revenue was declared to be unfounded.37

As against the argument of a donee that a gift of stock became a capital asset when received and that therefore, when disposed of, no part of that value could be treated as taxable income to said donee, the Court has declared that it was within the power of Congress to require a donee of stock, who sells it at a profit, to pay income tax on the difference between the selling price and the value when the donor acquired it.38 Moreover, “the receipt in cash or property . . . not [being] the only characteristic of realization of[p.1961]income to a taxpayer on the cash receipt basis,” it follows that one who is normally taxable only on the receipt of interest payments cannot escape taxation thereon by giving away his right to such income in advance of payment. When “the taxpayer does not receive payment of income in money or property, realization may occur when the last step is taken by which he obtains the fruition of the economic gain which has already accrued to him.” Hence an owner of bonds, reporting on the cash receipts basis, who clipped interest coupons therefrom before their due date and gave them to his son, was held to have realized taxable income in the amount of said coupons, notwithstanding that his son had collected them upon maturity later in the year.39