Gerald Celente "Your Watching WWIII Starting"

reply to post by ballsdeep


Gerald Celente is a blow hard. He sells his predictions and stirring up the fear is how that idiot makes his money. He has been preaching about a collapse for the past 3 years and nothing, thank God!

It's a shame that this fear monger get's to spread this pile of crappola!

He's right but the issue is...if just a few of us stop paying tax then we'll end up in one of those camps earlier hey! im on the top bunk

Kidding...but I do agree that something needs to be done and NOW.

Celente the man with steel balls, he is looking very serious this go around, wonder if he knows more than he lets on about

I guess serious times deserves serious talk

We're the joke of the world. And the general public here are worse because they don't even know what's going on. They're are probably more entranced in what's going on in american idol land than the government shut down or 3 wars or trillions of $ in debt. # em, they're all be dead soon. I've been studying japanese and a little chinese for a while now. I'm leaving this country when the bombings begin, #ers!

Gerald! Yeah! Hes the start of the backlash! ive been waiting!
Yes! This should go viral!
Now that Clente has put it so succinctly for those who dont get it yet, maybe there will be a few others who have keep mum step up to the plate as well.
We need more of this and you bet the MSM will NOT be eager to spread it.!
Its up to us to send this stuff to our contact list .
Just like the revolutions of the middle east have been fomented, we , too , can foment our own version of the same process!
Its time to take pour rights, our freedoms, and our country back from the uber rich elite cabal of bloodthirsty, profit hungry psychopaths.These people will destroy mankinds future with their incessant lust for wealth and power!
You GO Gerald! UP THE REVOLUTION!

he starts his rant with a homophobic slur followed by aggressive shouting...thus destroying his message. Just another redneck nutter posting a clip of themselves shouting at the camera and then posting it on youtube.

Originally posted by morder1
I love Gerald Celente, but wow is he serious on this video...

What do you guys think, time to grow up yet?

2 favorite quotes of his are

Listen, when people have nothing left to lose, and they've lost everything, they lose it.

When the money stops flowing down to the man in the street, the blood starts flowing in the streets.

edit on 7-4-2011 by morder1 because: (no reason given)

"Harvard, Princeton, Yale - Bullets, Bombs, & Banks"!!!

Then I better go assambling my laser.

It sure took you long enough to call on your audience to 'grow up.'

He has finally come around to acknowledging that we Americans no longer have the power to redress the grievances of our citizens via our representatives.

We know that many wish to express their dissent in the most satisfying personal way, but the system is built to remedy that by means of force.

We cannot face down the already established criminalization of dissent.... unless of course 100 million people simultaneously agree and act as one body to stop the construct in its tracks.... which would cause great inconvenience, danger, and even harm to those who disagree and resist by virtue of employment obligations, fear of consequences for their dependents, or simple incapacity to accept that the people of this planet are being used in a game that is rigged so only "we" can lose, while the players just get entertained.

What really has to happen - can't, because no one wants to be inconvenienced, or asked to sacrifice, as long as there are others who don't have to.

Our best bet in my opinion is something I cannot call for here, nor do I have the support of the people who could act as catalyst to effect the act. But there is a way.

There is a solution; and while it doesn't involve killing or harming any person... those protecting the status quo will ensure that it does involve dying, and suffering... because those are their tactics of convenience... it is the fear to which they have indoctrinated us to cling.

Sadly, our children are being 'fitted' for this social construct as we speak.

I'm sorry but I guess I must be one of the few here that does not think much of Gerald Celente and his predictions.
Everyone is always going on about how accurate his predictions are and how they have come true. So I have a list of some of his predictions and perhaps might show why I do not think much of his so called predicting power and accuracy.

1).People will organize water riots with the hopes that authorities will turn the hoses on them.

2).Alchemy will really take off; invest in lead, not gold.

3).Young couples will have children solely for the meat babies provide.

4).More elderly parents will turn to their children for housing and will take up residence in the backseat.

5).In entertainment, expect comebacks from Mel Gibson and the kid from “The Sixth Sense.”

6).Liberty is under attack, and she finally runs out of ammo – should have invested in lead…

7).America afflicted by crime wave caused by criminals wearing jet packs.

8).Someone will be killed by an alligator.

9).The revolution is coming, and it will be twated on MySpacebook and read through 3D glasses by people who I’m told know what 2.0 means… oh yes, I roll that way.

By the way these were predictions for 2010.

reply to post by CaptGizmo


I need a link to these predictions of Celente's, please.

reply to post by CaptGizmo


Don't remember any of those ones.

Although Mel Gibson's new movie 'The Beaver' looks awesome.

At first, Celente sounds like a guy who knows what he's talking about, especially his Trends research institute.

However, I heard him here and there over 3 years now, and interestingly, none of his predictions came true. He was predicting food shortages and riots in the US for 2010, just like in Haiti before the earthquake.

It's very similar to a boy who cries wolf too many times - after a while, you become desensitized.

He offers a lot of good advice - pay off your debt ASAP, don't spend money on things you don't need (such a brand new car or a used one), but like anything in the world, take it with a grain of salt and build your own conclusions.

Of course, food prices ARE going up this year (2011), so he may have been off by a year or two. We'll see what the future brings I suppose.

Bottom line: listen, but don't fall for every word.

reply to post by unityemissions

If a few tens of millions quit paying their taxes this year or next, then the system will be underfunded, and won't even be able to process all the people who don't pay their taxes.

In response to Boondock, you say it is not so black and white. I respectfully disagree. Boondock quoted Celente as suggesting to not pay "your taxes". You suggest that if a few tens of millions quit paying "their taxes" that the system will be underfunded. I agree that the system will indeed be underfunded, but both Celente, and yourself, semantically speaking are suggesting that taxpayers engage in a form of civil disobedience. This form of civil disobedience, when practiced en masse will, as you suggest, overwhelm the system to the point that the tax collectors cannot deal with the problem. Actually, that is the case today.

According to this report, 1 out of 6 Americans "evade" the so called "income tax", and that only 1% of individual returns are being audited:

According to an IRS spokesperson in an article about anti-war tax resistance, 16.3% of Americans are in non-compliance with their taxes according to the Associated Press. That isn't fudging the numbers or coming up with creative tax deductions; it's simply evading taxes outright. While the story about the anti-war movement calling on people to not pay taxes to protest the war is interesting, the fact that a growing number of Americans are simply evading taxes is startling.

According to IRS estimates, that means there is $345 billion in uncollected taxes per year or roughly 2.6% of the national GDP. As a result of collection efforts, the IRS has generated over $48 billion of that amount in 2006 (or about 15%) according to CNN. These estimates do not include corporations using tax shelters (which "legally" protect them from taxes) or the rich using similar tactics. In 2006, the IRS audited about 1.3 million tax returns out of 130 million filed or an audit rate of about 1% according to an IRS source quoted by CNN. With over 16% overtly flouting the IRS, at best only 1% of those will even be challenged.

However, semantically speaking, Boondocks question was in regards to "your taxes", and your answer is that if..."their taxes". This language implies an actual tax liability. While the article I linked suggest that 16% of the population is not paying "their taxes", this is a presumption of guilt with no substantial evidence to support the accusation.

The real question, given the language of the tax code, is how many people who have been filing valid tax returns were actually liable for the so called "income tax" before they assessed their own liability by filing a valid tax return?

When articles, such as the one I linked, discuss tax liability in an aggregate sense, the presumption is always that those who haven't filed are actually liable for the tax. Is that true? The IRS tends to operate on the assumption that whomever they are investigating is liable for the tax, and if they prosecute one of those investigated for "failure to file" or some other such infraction and it goes to trial, the prosecutor, and even the judge all operate on the assumption that the person being charged is actually liable, and the judge will actually render a directed verdict to the jury by instructing them that the accused "failed to file" or "did not pay their taxes", without anyone ever bothering to show how it was that person had been made liable for the tax to begin with.

Of course, and this is for the vast majority of people earning income, the accusers will point to Section 1 of Title 26 as evidence that the person is liable. Section 1, however, is incredibly vague in who has actually been made liable as the who is not named, and what has been declared by Section 1 is that a tax has been imposed upon taxable income. In order to know if one is liable under this imposition, one has to know whether or not that person has earned "taxable income". What is "taxable income"?

"Taxable income" is defined by the code in Section 63, as being either adjusted gross income, or gross income. So, if a person wants to know if they are actually earning "taxable income", they must know what "adjusted gross income", or "gross income" means. "Gross income" is defined by Section 61 of the code, and it is defined to mean, "all income from whatever source derived", but "gross income" is for people who file by itemizing deductions. "Adjusted gross income" is for people who do not itemize deduction. What as "adjusted gross income", and how would one determine whether or not they are going to itemize their deductions?

"Adjusted gross income" is defined by Chapter 62. In the case of an individual, this section lists several different forms of deductions, bringing up the matter of the "taxpayer". What, or who, is a "taxpayer"?

The term "taxpayer" is actually defined twice within the tax code. Both 7701, and 1313 define "taxpayer" as being any person subject to a tax under applicable revenue law. Who is subject to the tax? Well, that just takes us right back to the beginning, doesn't it?

The tautological nature of the tax code, in terms of black and white, makes the code impossible to understand just precisely how a person became subject to and/or liable for the tax to begin with.

No one I have ever met, including tax collectors, tax attorneys, tax accountants, and anyone else, has been able to effectively show that they truly understand the tax code. Sure, plenty will claim they understand it, but when asked valid questions, such as how it is precisely a person, who say is a shoe maker, has been made liable for a tax, and therefore a "taxpayer" as specifically defined by the code and as such, subject to the applicable revenue laws, the house of cards collapses.

In order to rely on Section 1 as a catch all "anyone who earns income" imposition, then it would have to be either a direct tax on income as property, or the act of earning income itself is being made taxable. The nature of the tax, and the way it is collected makes it clear it is an indirect tax and not a direct tax. It is a uniform tax across the several states as all indirect taxes are required to be. This means the so called "income tax" is some form of an excise tax, which means some sort of specific activity is being made liable for a tax. The act of earning income is not specific.

This is the rub. If the activity, such as making shoes, has not been specifically named, and not indirectly named as in under the definitions of "gross income" or "adjusted gross income", then why is is so clear a shoe maker is actually liable for the tax? What makes it so clear that a shoemaker is actually a "taxpayer" as specifically defined by the code? What makes it so clear that a shoemaker is actually subject to the applicable revenue laws.

Every tax has a subject. If the subject of the tax cannot be determined, this is strong evidence that there is no tax.

So, for those who pay "their taxes", they can choose to engage in civil disobedience and not pay "their taxes", but for those who have never clearly been made liable for a tax to begin with, then the issue of paying "their taxes" is rather moot. Those not liable for a tax can't evade paying a tax they do not owe.

I know it looks rather gray, but gray is a mixture of black and white. When we separate the black from the white of it, what becomes clear is that the code has relied so heavily upon tautology, and circumlocution of language that it has been rendered incomprehensible. Legislation must be comprehensible if legislatures expect to hold people subject to it, and liable for any tax it may seek to impose.

If a tax collector can't show they effectively understand the code, if a tax attorney can't show they effectively understand the tax code, if a prosecutor can't show they effectively understand the tax code, and a judge can't show they effectively understand the tax code, it is fairly assumed a jury will not understand the tax code, and if none of these people can understand the tax code, how would it be possible that they could actually find someone such as, say a shoemaker who claims he doesn't understand the tax code, liable for any tax? How could a jury, in good conscience, find someone guilty for not understanding what they themselves do not understand?

That's the black and the white of it.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Being from the UK I loved his Comments about Eton boy Cameron's only stance is bent over in the showers

I've always liked Gerald Celente, but that comment made him go up in my estimations, just a shame most brits cant see through the BS and actually like having posh boys in charge

edit on 8-4-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

I'm neither rich nor posh, in fact I'm on the lowest rung of the food chain but I prefer David Cameron over the other buffoons on both sides of the House.

WW3? Not sure about that, certainly seems like it could be, I wonder what the tipping point will be that makes us all realise that yes, we're in it?

Gerald Celente has plenty of bad predictions in the past, but no one seems to remember those. He predicted food riots in America for 2009, but that never happened. He never goes into to much detail and what he predicts could be predicted by anyone who follows the news closely. This guy is making money off of peoples fears. Fox News(A oxymoron in itself) loves him. Why? because he is exactly what they like ...fear mongering,means high ratings.

www.edrants.com...

He predicted a depression in 2010 that never happened. Then 2011...Now I believe he is saying it will be 2012. Sounds a lot like all those predictions people were claiming we were going to attack Iran that never happened. This guy is just another false prophet.



How many of these came true?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Too many details!!

KISS

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Too many details!!

KISS

No one, and I mean no one, can keep the tax code simple. It is not simple. The simplicity of tax liability is that if one is liable for a tax, then there must be a subject of the tax. What is the subject of the so called "personal income tax"?

If the subject cannot be determined, then what makes people think they are subject to it?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Too many details!!

KISS

No one, and I mean no one, can keep the tax code simple. It is not simple. The simplicity of tax liability is that if one is liable for a tax, then there must be a subject of the tax. What is the subject of the so called "personal income tax"?

You don't need to keep the tax code simple, you just have to realize the complexity of it is a means to obfuscate the truth...that's it's unjust, and criminal in activity. That it's issuance doesn't represent the will of the people, and it's very essence is a system designed to take away the energy of the people, and funnel it into a minority.

If the subject cannot be determined, then what makes people think they are subject to it?

Exactly.

reply to post by RadarMan


I briefly heard coworkers in the other room talk about voting today, got a little excited, and paused my mysterious universe.

...then I heard American Idol - to my shame, I hated them in my heart just a little bit.