It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I am not at all "feigning ignorance". Hell Einstein couldn't understand it. Einstein!
“The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.”
Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
Nice layout SKL.
I just wanted to interject what the Founders of this nation saw as the problems in their time and their purpose of creating the form of government they did.
They knew of all types of intrigue and power. They may not have known all the ways of the corrupt and scheming but they knew of only one way to try and subvert these machinations before they even began.
Libertarianism and individual rights. To limit the power of those governing over those governed. Also to place as little power in the government as possible, while at the same time leaving the power of self determination in the individual.
I refer to the true meanings behind their words and meanings as ORIGINAL INTENT. Anytime I try and argue the merits or components of the Constitution, I try and frame my thoughts and reflections on this one tenet of Original Intent.
They trusted no one with power, no one. Even themselves. It did not take long for them to realize that the Constitution as written did not deter the power hungry and corrupt and it took only a few years for them to realize that they HAD TO create the Bill of Rights to further protect their intentions.
We see it today, our courts including the Supreme Court completely subvert the true meaning of this great Libertarian document. You could say the courts of this past century and a half, were one of the greatest fifth column victories, to ever be devised.
We now have the "priest class" of lawyers and academicians furthering the demise of this country and it's founding documents. I have argued with many a lawyer and others that the Original Intent is the ONLY way to interpret the Constitution. We now have people and lawyers stating that the "elastic clause" emboldens our government to pass any and all legislation to further the government's position of it's interpretation of the document.
They even go so far as to state that the rights of the government, if they have substantial interests, will outweigh the rights of the citizenry. Even if those rights take away the very rights of the citizenry.
Oh this raises my ire. The Original Intent of the Constitution in no way shape or form places the rights of government above the rights of the citizenry. It is such a grievous position and argument that I am amazed the Constitution does not burst into flames when asshats state such drivel.
A video explaining exactly what I am saying-
Rule of Law and indefinite detention.
This is one of those times that the Constitution, WRITTEN ON HEMP by the way, should have burst into flames. Look at it this way, if the Founders would want 20 guilty people to go free so that no one innocent person would go to jail, what would you say was their Original Intent would be.
I would argue that they respected the fact that society at large would have had to deal with those 20 guilty at a later time, so that the one innocent would not be subjected to tyranny.
I am slightly going off on a tangent here so back on track. I think Beck gave me the idea that TRUST is the current problematic component in our country today. When politicians have a worse favorability rating than say terrorists, I would say he is right. Take a gander at the favorability of Congress, the last poll was at what, 7%? I wonder if they did a poll on terrorists? Do you think maybe it would be higher than 7%?
I could list a huge number of politicians that BALD FACE lie, and people give them a pass! I am just going to post this video to prove my point-
Now we have this piece of #, forming the legislation to "supposedly" regulate the financial industry. They are not passing this legislation for actual regulation. It is the same thing day in and day out, they are creating controls to keep those in power, in power. Period. Next up, or is it part of it, Cap and Tax.
If anyone would like to look into "WHO" has the Carbon Credits components all set up and ready to go, it may open your eyes to what the hell is going on. Goldman Sachs and a bunch of politicians and other corporations are all set up to implement the largest TAX SCAM ever to rear its bloody head in the history of mankind.
Let me reiterate the Original Intent of the founders. They did not trust big government. They did not trust power in anyone's hands. They did not want the people to give up their God given right of self determination for the "supposed" security our government now uses, to define it's very existence and power.
I would say one more thing SKL, at what point in time do we say the 5th column is the very government, that rules over us in the name of the tyrants our founders warned us about?
To end my spiel, one more video-
edit to add, S&F and a little editing for gramma
[edit on 4/29/2010 by endisnighe]
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If I am one who has been made liable for this tax, then there should be some section of the code that explains to me how I became liable for that tax. Where is that section? What is so hard to understand about that?
True, I cannot personally point you to chapter and verse any closer that Title 26 USC 1 which I have already done and you have ignored.
Check that. Caught myself just before I posted. I just looked it up, a quick google on Title 26 and a couple of clicks on index links and didn't have any trouble whatsoever finding TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
The actual law uses language like:
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
...every married individual...
...every surviving spouse...
...every head of a household...
...So give the fact that I am human being and not a person or individual according to legal definition...
Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Bottom line to the so-called Sovereign Citizens: You are criminals, even though you reject it, you are hold to the social contract, and you have violated it.
Originally posted by seataka
A brief History Lesson re the use of the word "Sovereign"
In England, the KING was Sovereign.
There was only ONE Sovereign = THE KING
In 1766 an english activist/publisher/politician fellow named John Wilkes... (yes the same John Wilkes that Wilkebarre PA is named after) published an IDEA that occurred to him..in his newletter called "The North Briton"
John Wilkes introduced the idea that, and I quote:
"A MAN IS A Sovereign unto himself and may only be ruled by his own consent"
This idea, was published in the 45th issue of his newsletter "The North Briton"
One guy, STILL living in England at that time, who read it, and was deeply affected by it, and other ideas by John Wilkes was a man named Thomas Paine.
John Wilkes was also, Lord Mayor of London.
When the KING found out what John Wilkes said, he arrested John, and placed him in the Tower - because THE KING was the only Sovereign. Are you guys getting this?
This is important, to place this in proper perspective.
John Wilkes is also called by some the first Populist in England.
The citizens of London, marched around and around the Tower of london by Torchlight at night and by day... until the KING had to release him to restore "order".
a decade later, Thomas Paine moved to the colonies and started propagating the ideas of POPULIST John Wilkes. The "Sons of Liberty" adopted the message and imagery, and would dedicate trees as "liberty Trees" on those trees they would place paper, upon which was written the number
They would also hang a boot... as a reference to evil Lord Bute, a member of the house of Lords who was the head of the party supporting taxation and military repression in the colonies.
They would also hang an 'effigy' of the tax collector, and then set the effigy on fire...while 'marching around the tree of liberty'
So... the number "45" was a reference to the original IDEA that
"A MAN IS A Sovereign unto himself and may only be ruled by his own consent"
KINGS and Totalitarian ilk intensely dislike this idea, and considering what happened the last time this idea spread, please pass it on..
During pre-revolutionary 'riots' in Boston about taxation, (organized by the sons of liberty, the people would get a bit liquored up and then march through the streets, hauling an effigy of The Pope ( as a demonstration against Popery ) while chanting Liberty and Property! ON one of these events they ransacked the home of the tax collector, throwing his furniture out the windows...
The number 45 was written on doors and walls of houses THAT WERE NOT TO BE TOUCHED BY THE RIOTERS, signifying that occupant was a supporter of "The Sons of Liberty"
They don't teach THIS STUFF in school anymore, do they?
if you liked this post, please save it and pass it on...
Originally posted by endisnighe
Please be more specific with your terminology and terms.
Do you mean a citizen of the UNITED STATES? A corporation.
Or do you mean a sovereign citizen of the United States of America? A country.
Cannot just go throwing any old words out there and infer something. You must be more articulate or the Priests of the "color of law" will call you a heretic and burn you at the stake!
[edit on 4/30/2010 by endisnighe]
No read the definition I just posted on what a legal person is.... A CORPORATION. By law the definition of a person is not the same as Websters definition of a person. So no ACCORDING TO LAW I am not a person because I am not a corporation. You must be straight government dis-info thats the only explanation of why your still fighting this battle that you are obviously losing.
“individual, adj. 1. Existing as an indivisible entity. 2. Of or relating to a single person or thing, as opposed to a group”
Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Edition p.642
Notice that Einstein wasn't saying that he didn't understand the income tax. He just stated the truism that it can appear to be complicated to the casual observer.
Oh yeah, are you a married individual, a surviving spouse individual, a head of household individual, or simply an individual? Or do you claim to be none of the those?
So tell me, are you a person, corporation, resident, citizen, or a HUMAN BEING?
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by mothershipzeta
Eh. Everything is connected to McVeigh. He's like Hitler. Dont like something? Draw 6 degrees to McVeigh. Instant demonization.
Conspiracies aside McVeighs actions were his own. Nobody elses.
That other "paper terrorism" crap is just that. Boo-hoo if the fed doesnt like putting itself out because somebody isnt cooperating the way they want them to. The only thing being hurt is the system they set up. The credit card fraud bit is absolutely wrong though. If he entered into a contract with the credit issuer he's responsible for his end of the contract. Whether the money is bunk or the system corrupt he still had a contract within that corrupt system. You cant use sovereign citizenship as an excuse to default on your debts if they are true debts. Which is one the problems with the movement. Too many involved are simply deadbeats who want to rationalize their bad behavior. Gives the real sovereigns a bad name.