The Remorseless Money Power

March 23, 2016


Many eminent public men are of the opinion that his[Grant] administration of civil affairs did not tend to the enhancement of his fame. A summary of the war legislation, in so far as it relates to the finances of the Government, exhibits these remarkable facts as to the existence of a remorseless money power:

First, Congress at the demand of the bullion brokers and gold gamblers of New York City and Boston, purposely depreciated the currency issued by the government by striking out its legal tender qualities, by refusing to receive its own money in payment of its taxes. It was high priced gold for the bond holder, and depreciated greenbacks for the patriotic soldier who offered up his life for his country.

Second, the passage of the national banking law, by which the government delegated its highest sovereign power – that of issuing money – to private corporations for private gain, resulting in a privileged class of capitalists, whose interests were wholly antagonistic to the welfare of the United States, thereby making a permanent creditor and debtor class, one the master, the other the servant.

Third, an alliance, offensive and defensive, of the national banking money power and the manufacturers, whose combined interests have dominated the legislation of Congress, by which the banks have practically secured a monopoly of the medium of exchange, and by which the manufacturers have secured a high protective tariff for their immediate benefit, and at the same time flooded their mills and factories with cheap foreign labor.

Fourth, the passage of laws, the effect of which was to enormously increase the untaxed wealth of a privileged class, who extort heavy tribute from the productive energy of the American people.

Fifth, The creation of a money power, foretold by Andrew Jackson, whose unlimited greed has appropriated to its own use the greatest portion of the wealth of the United States.

Sixth, A matured plan to perpetuate the public debt of the United States for the purpose of holding the people in subjection to the money power.

Seventh, An enormously extravagant administration of the Federal Government, as a part of the plan to fix a permanent debt on the nation.

Eighth, Senator Sherman, during all this period, was the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate, and he was the influential agent of the money power who shaped and molded that legislation, upon which was reared that imperial combination of moneyed influence which, to a very large extent, rules the press, the pulpit, the legislative bodies, and the courts of the country.

In view of the various financial measures enacted by Congress from 1865, to the passage of the Resumption Act of 1875, all of which tended to greatly appreciate stocks and bonds, and to divest the Government of its undoubted power to issue full legal tender United States notes, or greenbacks, the following significant extract from the most influential journal of Great Britain, the London Times, is hereby subjoined.

In 1865 the Times editorially stated: –

If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American republic during the late war in that country should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its money without cost.

It will have all the money that is necessary to carry on its trade and commerce.

It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized nations of the world. The brain and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That Government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on this globe.”

—“Immediately following the visit of these bankers to Washington, a circular was issued by the London bankers, and distributed by one Mr. Hazard, who was their representative in this country at that time.

The contents of this famous circular are as follows: –

Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and chattel slavery destroyed. This I and my European friends are in favor of; for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is capital control of labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. The debt, that capitalists will see is to be made out of the war, most be used as a measure to control the volume of money. To accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make his recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback (as it is called) to circulate as money any length of time, for we cannot control it.”

—“The existence of this remarkable circular has been strenuously denied time and again by the national banking money power. Notwithstanding these denials, the line of action indicated in
that circular has been consistently pursued from that day to this.
The advice of said Hazard was at once acted upon by the organized banks, and they proceeded to make known their demands to Congress.

Therefore, a bill was speedily brought forward by Senator Sherman in the United States Senate, providing for the incorporation and organization of the present system of national banks as banks of issue – a bill whose passage meant the creation of moneyed institutions, whose interests would be, or could be made, antagonistic to the nation.

It is the small coins that most actively circulate in the channels of trade; it is gold that is hoarded by the miser and the capitalist.
The small coins that are in active circulation have always eluded every effort to hoard them in  large quantities. The rapid increase in the production of silver in the United States meant the financial liberation of the people from the money power of the East. The prospects for an enormous supply of silver from the western mines threatened the supremacy of New York City and London as the money markets of the world.

The owner of silver could take his bullion to the mint, have it coined into standard silver dollars of full legal tender debt, paying power, receive them after their mintage, and transact business by their means; he was not under the necessity, when in need of money, to make application to a national bank for a loan of its circulating notes, whose sole credit rested on the solvency of the  United States. He was not compelled to pay toll to the national banks for the use of their debts as money.

The national banking money power could not control the silver dollar, as long as the law authorized its free coinage, and consequently, a gigantic conspiracy was formed in London and
New York City to demonetize silver. This great money power whose almost absolute control of the currency was surely driving all
business to a credit basis, deliberately planned the destruction of that precious metal whose value has been far more stable than that of gold. The Coming Battle Copyright 1899 By M. W. Walbert

For well over a century these high priests of the remorseless Money Power have kept a clever secret. The secret behind the money power is held in the strictest confidence and anybody asking too many questions in the wrong circles, will soon hit a wall of silence, or worse. After all, giving away the secret to the golden goose of debt creation, would no doubt implode the entire operation, therefore, protecting that secret has evolved into a separate apparatus of ruthless academic and media control, just to keep out the naysayers,  investigators and just about anybody else, asking too many of the wrong questions, of the right people.

The secrecy surrounding the internal operations of the BIS is just the tip of the conspiracy iceberg:

—“But should we trust the Bank for International Settlements?

—Of course not.

—This is a very secretive organization that very few people know about but that possesses absolutely enormous power.  The following is a brief overview of the Bank for International Settlements from one of my previous articles entitled “Who Controls The Money? An Unelected, Unaccountable Central Bank Of The World Secretly Does“…

An immensely powerful international organization that most people have never even heard of secretly controls the money supply of the entire globe.  It is called the Bank for International Settlements, and it is the central bank of central banks.  It is located in Basel, Switzerland, but it also has branches in Hong Kong and Mexico City.  It is essentially an unelected, unaccountable central bank of the world that has complete immunity from taxation and from national laws.  Even Wikipedia admits that “it is not accountable to any single national government.”  The Bank for International Settlements was used to launder money for the Nazis during World War II, but these days the main purpose of the BIS is to guide and direct the centrally-planned global financial system.  Today, 58 global central banks belong to the BIS, and it has far more power over how the U.S. economy (or any other economy for that matter) will perform over the course of the next year than any politician does.  Every two months, the central bankers of the world gather in Basel for another “Global Economy Meeting”.  During those meetings, decisions are made which affect every man, woman and child on the planet, and yet none of us have any say in what goes on.  The Bank for International Settlements is an organization that was founded by the global elite and it operates for the benefit of the global elite, and it is intended to be one of the key cornerstones of the emerging one world economic system.

The role that the Bank for International Settlements is playing today was envisioned by the global elite long ago.  In another previous article, I quoted from a book that Georgetown University history professor Carroll Quigley wrote in 1975 entitled “Tragedy & Hope” in which he discussed how the BIS was to one day become “the apex” of the global financial system…

[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.

And it is interesting to note that Professor Quigley was not against the system that the elite were setting up.  He was just an academic that was trying to accurately convey what he had learned about how the global system works.”—The Head Of ‘The Central Bank of the World’

Knowing which central bank basically controls the “money powers” so used by most major nations of the world, either by coercion or sophistry(no doubt both), does very little to solve the actual problems people face today. People ask, why do the politicians never go after the arrogant crooks robbing the people at every turn? And the simple answer is that politicians will never bite the hand that feeds them.

Most of the modern system is a complex production of procedure over substance. How much cash is in that bank drawer, or the number of digits in every electronic account is just proof of system processes. Accounting rules do not prove that the Notes, tokens, digits are good or bad, or even a question of real money versus fake. All that really matters is the ‘actions to results’ can be measured mathematically, to the extant necessary to produce verification as needed. Essentially, a fantasy system is just as real by the processes involved, not any actual physics inside some lenders magic box.

Dollars of “paper” do not need to be materially valuable to work as intended by decree. The system could use monopoly money in the place of FRN’s without any differences to the physical actions. A piece of paper with a number can replace any fed note as physically exchanged, and so long as the accounting functions do not change, the inputs and outputs as used, are quite valid in all operations of the exchanges.

A dollar weight of silver or gold does not follow the same rules, as a paper dollar. After all, there is no such thing as a coin of paper. A plastic credit-token-card does not replace a Unit of Silver as a weighted dollar, but forced acceptance sure does negate the actual rules. What is naturally accepted as the exchange of “money value” is the golden rule of its use.

Typically, governments simply declare (fiat) this (X) will be accepted as a tax payment and people will now need to get (X) to satisfy that decree. Whatever can be exchanged for (X) creates supply and demand (The Market) and governments will generate revenue accordingly. No money value is technically created by the system rules only the underlying “Tension Function” to force economic actions otherwise idle. I came up with the term “Tension Function” to describe the emotional component of money as expressed by psychological tension. Economic decisions resolve emotional tension. Which is why “Irrational exuberance”  can exist at all.

Since the government demands tax payments (or else) people are forced to accept the fiat ‘medium of exchange’ regardless of how good, or bad, it may be as produced, or used. Bad money has long since replaced good money, because good money is way too expensive by sheer volume for public use.

[The Labor dollar by law needs to be the “Unit of Account dollar” which is silver, not paper.]

A simple thought experiment can verify the basic principles of acceptance. Lets say, Bob goes to the corner market where he is well known. He sets up an account with the store owner and funds it with a check for fifty dollars. He lets the owner in on his plan to help his kids learn about being responsible with their money. They agree to terms and he goes home. He tells his kids that every time they complete their chores on time he will pay them in monopoly script. Each day the kids receive their play money, and then at the end of the week, the family heads over to the market. The kids pay for their purchases with their play money and the manager updates the family account accordingly. So long as the “acceptance” is agreed upon in every step, all parties are satisfied with the exchanges as completed. On the macro-scale the federal is the Market Store and the Fed notes are no better, or worse than any other form of lets play money.

Monetary transactions can become as sophisticated as human ingenuity and needs demand and will evolve such exchanges of value accordingly. Computers have allowed nonphysical exchanges to advance to a level of complexity simple physical exchanges cannot emulate. A tractor-trailer full of cash cannot be instantly teleported around the world to satisfy complex deals with multiple parties.

Moving physical components of money is just not the same as sending electronic bits around the world at the speed of light, even while involving complex monetary time-equations, requiring indirect operations of abstract, fiscal policies. At the end of the day all that matters is that every party received what they agreed to accept. Why each party accepts the “deal as agreed” is as unique or ordinary, as the consideration of value between parties warrants.

When a bank simply enters numbers into an account a procedural record of activity masks primary functions of money for the actual consideration of value. How hard a man worked to receive that payroll check is never recorded, only the upward or downward movement of account numbers. Highly paid number-crunchers can stare at their screens, hours on end, analyzing every little detail of hundred of accounts, by dozens of metrics and theorems, and never once need to know what money is— more so than some bum drinking his life away on a filthy, street corner. Numbers are merely the digital shadows of the money dancing around inside the mind.

Most people can easily imagine what they would do with more money to spend. What they will not ordinarily do is imagine what they would do with more debt to pay. If someone were to say walk out to their mailbox and find an official letter stating they now owed fifty-thousand dollars, payable upon receipt of the letter, they would be furiously pissed. Especially, if that debt was just random, and not connected to anything they purchased or agreed upon by any contractual obligation.

Debt which is disconnected from personal choices has no element of personal reality, save for the negative demand itself [Tension]. Impersonal government debt is an economic abstraction which is rather disconnected from those tasked with its perpetual repayment. It is the emotional reactions people feel which gives force to monetary actions. This form of negative Tension across society drives negative expectations not positive ones.

Government debt is basically used to scare the crap out of the American people[a negative Tension Function]. Like a two-headed monster out of the darkest depths it rises, spreading fear and terror into the minds of the people, who must toil like peons in its ever growing shadow. Despair and depression does not galvanize, or inspire people to be happy, such negative tensions will only push people to artificially increase their happiness.That profitable black market for drugs is quite purposeful to that demand.

So while the talking heads sell the woeful shame of debt, the hard-heads threaten to inflict even more pain for anyone not paying that fair share of those wonderful services. And yet, the system runs on fiat-debt like a bloated, gas guzzler. In the monetary world fiat-debt runs like a river only up-hill, always going back to the source of that fiat-credit, from where it came. The fiat-system is quite unnatural, which causes extreme confusion about what it really does, or even why. It is a perverse game whose actual rules are well hidden by contextual complexity.

The secret of that bloody money-box is of course self-accreditation. (accreditation is an ‘abstract notion of a formal authorizing power’ and as used here the Sovereign right to issue money, and in what form.)  The one thing ordinary people are never allowed to do is the simplistic secret of the high priests of the remorseless money powers. People cannot create self-credit and therefore, pay themselves.

While the private institutions may have evolved the three-step procedure, to give official legitimacy to the usury function, the truth has always been right there in plain site. The reason why monetary self-accreditation had to be hidden, is due to the basic fact that no “consideration of value” actually comes from the modern Lender, who is only entering numbers on a screen. Money out of thin air is always a form of self-accreditation.{Keep in mind that the use of the term is not usually used to describe this specific function of money creation in economic theory.}

Therefore, in the really old days, no interest[usury] on fiat-money so lent(by principle) was legitimate. A fiat-paper dollar has no time value(or it would never be destroyed), or intrinsic material worth(it is always destroyed). A piece of paper is always just a piece of paper no matter how fancy the graphic-printing process becomes.

Consider this alternative explanation of government finance:

—“Now comes Warren Mosler with a small book, setting out
his reasoning on seven key issues. These relate to government
deficits and debt, to the relation between public deficits and private savings, to that between savings and investment, to Social Security and to the trade deficit. Warren calls them the “Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds” – taking up a phrase coined by my father as the title of his last book. Galbraith-the-elder would have been pleased.

—“The common thread tying these themes together is
simplicity itself. It’s that modern money is a spreadsheet! It
works by computer! When government spends or lends, it
does so by adding numbers to private bank accounts. When it
taxes, it marks those same accounts down. When it borrows, it
shifts funds from a demand deposit (called a reserve account)
to savings (called a securities account). And that for practical
purposes is all there is. The money government spends doesn’t
come from anywhere, and it doesn’t cost anything to produce.

—“The government therefore cannot run out.

—“Money is created by government spending (or by bank
loans, which create deposits). Taxes serve to make us want
that money – we need it in order to pay the taxes. And they
help regulate total spending, so that we don’t have more total
spending than we have goods available at current prices –
something that would force up prices and cause inflation. But
taxes aren’t needed in advance of spending – and could hardly
be, since before the government spends there is no money to

—“A government borrowing in its own currency need never
default on its debts; paying them is simply a matter of adding
the interest to the bank accounts of the bond holders. A
government can only decide to default – an act of financial
suicide – or (in the case of a government borrowing in a
currency it doesn’t control) be forced to default by its bankers.
But a U.S. bank will always cash a check issued by the US
Government, whatever happens.

—“Nor is the public debt a burden on the future. How could
it be? Everything produced in the future will be consumed
in the future. How much will be produced depends on how
productive the economy is at that time. This has nothing to
do with the public debt today; a higher public debt today
does not reduce future production – and if it motivates wise
use of resources today, it may increase the productivity of the
economy in the future.

—“Public deficits increase financial private savings – as a
matter of accounting, dollar for dollar. Imports are a benefit,
exports a cost. We do not borrow from China to finance our
consumption: the borrowing that finances an import from
China is done by a U.S. consumer at a U.S. bank. Social
Security privatization would just reshuffle the ownership of
stocks and bonds in the economy – transferring risky assets
to seniors and safer ones to the wealthy – without having any
other economic effects. The Federal Reserve sets interest rates
where it wants.

—“All these are among the simple principles set out in this
small book.

—“Also included here are an engaging account of the
education of a financier and an action program for saving the
American economy from the crisis of high unemployment.
Warren would do this by suspending the payroll tax – giving
every working American a raise of over 8 percent, after tax; by
a per capita grant to state and local governments, to cure their
fiscal crises; and by a public employment program offering a
job at a modest wage to anyone who wanted one. This would
eliminate the dangerous forms of unemployment and allow us
to put our young people, especially, to useful work.

—“Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy

1. The government must raise funds through taxation or
borrowing in order to spend. In other words, government
spending is limited by its ability to tax or borrow.
2. With government deficits, we are leaving our debt burden
to our children.
3. Government budget deficits take away savings.
4. Social Security is broken.
5. The trade deficit is an unsustainable imbalance that takes
away jobs and output.
6. We need savings to provide the funds for investment.
7. It’s a bad thing that higher deficits today mean higher
taxes tomorrow.

—“How does the Federal Government Tax?

Let’s start by looking at what happens if you pay your
taxes by writing a check. When the U.S. government gets your
check, and it’s deposited and “clears,” all the government does
is change the number in your checking account “downward”
as they subtract the amount of your check from your bank
balance. Does the government actually get anything real to
give to someone else? No, it’s not like there’s a gold coin to
spend. You can actually see this happen with online banking
– watch the balance in your bank account on your computer
screen. Suppose the balance in your account is $5,000 and you
write a check to the government for $2,000. When that checks
clears (gets processed), what happens? The 5 turns into a 3 and
your new balance is now down to $3,000. All before your very
eyes! The government didn’t actually “get” anything to give to
someone else. No gold coin dropped into a bucket at the Fed.
They just changed numbers in bank accounts – nothing “went”

—“And what happens if you were to go to your local IRS office
to pay your taxes with actual cash? First, you would hand over
your pile of currency to the person on duty as payment. Next,
he’d count it, give you a receipt and, hopefully, a thank you for
helping to pay for social security, interest on the national debt,
and the Iraq war. Then, after you, the tax payer, left the room,
he’d take that hard-earned cash you just forked over and throw
it in a shredder.

—“Yes, it gets thrown it away. Destroyed! Why? There’s no
further use for it. Just like a ticket to the Super Bowl. After
you enter the stadium and hand the attendant a ticket that was
worth maybe $1000, he tears it up and discards it. In fact, you
can actually buy shredded money in Washington, D.C. So if the government throws away your cash after collecting it, how does that cash pay for anything, like Social Security and the rest of the government’s spending? It doesn’t.

—“Can you now see why it makes no sense at all to think that
the government has to get money by taxing in order to spend?
In no case does it actually “get” anything that it subsequently
“uses.” So if the government doesn’t actually get anything
when it taxes, how and what does it spend?

—“How the Federal Government Spends

“Imagine you are expecting your $2,000 Social Security
payment to hit your bank account, which already has $3,000
in it. If you are watching your account on the computer
screen, you can see how government spends without having
anything to spend. Presto! Suddenly your account statement
that read $3,000 now reads $5,000. What did the government
do to give you that money?

—“It simply changed the number in your bank account from 3,000 to 5,000. It didn’t take a gold coin and hammer it into a computer. All it did was change a number in your bank account by making data entries on its own spreadsheet, which is linked to other spreadsheets in the banking system. Government spending is all done by  data entry on its own spreadsheet called “The U.S. dollar
monetary system.”

Here is a quote from the good Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, Ben Bernanke, on 60 Minutes for support:

SCOTT PELLEY: Is that tax money that the Fed  is spending?

CHAIRMAN BERNANKE: It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.

—“The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank is telling us in plain English that they give out money (spend and lend) simply by changing numbers in bank accounts. There is no such thing as having to “get” taxes (or borrow) to make a spreadsheet entry that we call “government spending.” Computer data doesn’t come from anywhere. Everyone knows that!

—“Where else do we see this happen?

—Your team kicks a field goal and on the scoreboard, the score changes from, say, 7 points to 10 points. Does anyone wonder where the stadium got those three points? Of course not! Or you knock down 5 pins at the bowling alley and your score goes from 10 to 15.
Do you worry about where the bowling alley got those points?
Do you think all bowling alleys and football stadiums should
have a ‘reserve of points’ in a “lock box” to make sure you
can get the points you have scored? Of course not! And if the
bowling alley discovers you “foot faulted” and lowers your
score back down by 5 points, does the bowling alley now have
more score to give out? Of course not!

—We all know how data entry works, but somehow this has gotten turned upside down and backwards by our politicians, media, and, most all, the prominent mainstream economists. Just keep this in mind as a starting point: The federal government doesn’t ever “have” or “not have” any dollars.

—It’s just like the stadium, which doesn’t “have” or “not have” a hoard of points to give out. When it comes to the dollar, our government, working through its Federal agencies, the Federal Reserve Bank and the U.S. Treasury Department, is the score keeper. (And it also makes the rules!)

—You now have the operational answer to the question:

—“How are we going to pay for it?” And the answer is: the same way government pays for anything, it changes the numbers in our bank accounts. The federal government isn’t going to “run out of money,” as our President has mistakenly repeated. There is no such thing. Nor is it dependent on “getting” dollars from China or anywhere else. All it takes for the government to spend is for it to change the numbers up in bank accounts at its own bank, the Federal Reserve Bank.

—There is no numerical limit to how much money our government can spend, whenever it wants to spend. (This includes making interest payments, as well as Social Security and Medicare payments.) It encompasses all government payments made in dollars to anyone. This is not to say that excess government spending won’t possibly cause prices to go up (which is inflation).
But it is to say that the government can’t go broke and can’t be
bankrupt. There is simply no such thing.

—So why does no one in government seem to get it?

—Why does the Ways and Means Committee in Congress worry about “how we are going to pay for it?” It could be that they believe the popular notion that the federal government, just like any household, must somehow first “get” money to be able to spend it. Yes, they have heard that it’s different for a government, but they don’t quite believe it, and there’s never a convincing explanation that makes sense to them.

—(1-I know you’ve got this question on your mind right now. I answer it a bit later in this book, but let me state the question and give you a quick answer to tide you over:

Question: If the government doesn’t tax because it needs the money to spend, why tax at all?

Answer: The federal government taxes to regulate what economists call  “aggregate demand” which is a fancy word for “spending power.” In short, that means that if the economy is “too hot,” then raising taxes will cool it down, and if it’s “too cold,” likewise, cutting taxes will warm it up. Taxes aren’t about getting money to spend, they are about regulating our spending power to make sure we don’t have too much and cause inflation, or too little which causes unemployment and recessions.)

—What they all seem to miss is the difference between spending your own currency that only you create, and spending a currency someone else creates.“—WARREN MOSLER

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is, perhaps, the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate, mint and un-mint the modern ledger-entry currency.” – Major L L B Angus.

The following is a typical example of how the governments finances are publicly explained:

—“In most years, the federal government spends more money than it takes in from tax revenues. To make up the difference, the Treasury borrows money by issuing bonds. Anyone can buy Treasury bonds, and, in effect, lends money to the Treasury by doing so. In fiscal year 2015, the federal government is expected to borrow $583 billion to make up the difference between $3.18 billion in revenues and $3.8 trillion in spending. Borrowing constitutes a major source of revenue for the federal government. Down the road, however, the Treasury must pay back the money it has borrowed, and pay interest as well. In 2015, the federal government will pay $229 billion in interest on the national debt. For more on this topic, see Federal Budget 101: Borrowing and the Federal Debt.”

A sharp-eyed reader had to have noticed the subtle dance around the actual truth. The Treasury borrows money by issuing bonds? And in “effect” those who buy are lending the money? In whose currency are the bonds being purchased and in whose currency are they then repaid? And yet the borrowing is a major source of federal revenue? Is debt revenue to be lent again or merely spent as credit?

—“U.S. Government Debt Is THE Biggest Ponzi Scheme In History sums up accordingly,

“The reason this is a true Ponzi is because at every Treasury auction, held twice a month, the Government issues enough debt to repay the existing debt that is maturing and issues even more debt in order to fund Government overspending . . . In contrast, if the Chinese and Japanese decide they’d rather not keep putting an increasing amount of money into financing our Governmental spending juggernaut, the Fed can just print money under the orders of the President to keep the gerbil going on the wheel.”

—So when the Treasury raises the national debt level and authorizes additional borrowing, in essence they are going to the Fed for a new loan. Think about this process and ponder at length the absurdity of going to shysters at a privately owned central bank for credit, which requires payment of interest.

—This construct is not known or is dismissed by most of the public. Yet, it is the single most important element that explains the utter futility of establishing economic prosperity in the age of universal financial servitude.

—Regular readers of BATR articles are well schooled in the prurient nature of debt bondage that tortures and rapes every taxpayer and consumer on the planet. The phenomenon of facilitating the enslavement of mankind has been uninterrupted since the passage of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

Illustrating this fact, Mr. Jeffrey continues with quoting current Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.

“In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in October 2013, Lew explained why he wanted the Congress to agree to increase the federal debt limit—and why the Treasury has no choice but to constantly issue new debt.”

“Every week we roll over approximately $100 billion in U.S. bills,” Lew told the committee. “If U.S. bondholders decided that they wanted to be repaid rather than continuing to roll over their investments, we could unexpectedly dissipate our entire cash balance.” Ponzi roll over Treasury debt

“When people of this (banker) class are stricken by guilt feelings while plotting world wars and economic depressions which will bring misery, suffering and death to millions of the world’s inhabitants, they sometimes have qualms. These qualms are jeered at by their peers as “a failure of nerve”. After a bout with their psychiatrists, they return to their work with renewed gusto, with no further digressions of pity for “the little people” who are to be their victims.” Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, Macmillan 1966, New York, p. 326

—“Here’s the budget math. Between 1946 and 1974, debt-to-GDP fell from 121 to 32 percent, even though the government only ran surpluses in eight of those years (and the surpluses were generally much smaller than the deficits). That’s because nominal GDP — just the cash size of the economy — grew much faster than debt did. As Greg Ip of The Economist points out, fast nominal GDP growth, and the easy monetary policy that requires, is the only way governments have ever successfully reduced debt ratios in the past. Austerity alone will fail. (See Europe).

–Okay, so maybe endless debt and deficits aren’t a problem, but won’t bond markets go Galt on us if we don’t start to get our fiscal house in order? And even if the bond vigilantes turn out to be more like Godot, won’t ever-increasing debt lead to ever-decreasing growth?

—Well, as Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute points out, the oft-cited Rogoff-Reinhart 90 percent debt-to-GDP threshold, after which growth supposedly slows, hasn’t been proven. It’s just a correlation. If anything, it probably gets the causation backwards, with low growth driving deficits and debt, not vice versa. Now, high deficits during high growth could crowd out private investment, and raise interest rates — the fabled bond vigilantes — but it couldn’t bankrupt us a là Greece. We borrow in a currency we control, so we can never run out of it; we can always inflate as a last resort. This money-printing escape hatch protects us from the kind of self-fulfilling run –– where markets push up borrowing costs on fear of default, which, perversely, makes default more likely — that had plagued Europe before ECB chief Mario Draghi promised to do “whatever it takes” to save the euro. The worst we have to fear is some kind of replay of 1992, with rising interest payments forcing some combination of tax hikes and/or spending cuts. There’s a little bit more to fear than fear itself, but not too much more.”—Why the U.S. Government Never, Ever Has to Pay Back All Its Debt


Printing notes fiat style out-of-thin-air is self-accreditation, pure and simple.  And the Bond arrangement, so documented by Mr. Walbert in 1899 is still being used today for the exact same reasons. “The debt, that capitalists will see is to be made out of the war, most be used as a measure to control the volume of money. To accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis.”  Nothing has changed and people are still being forced to pay on that never-ending debt as if that was the only reason for their collective existence. No other economic model has ever been allowed, for the simple reason where there is no debt owed to a Foreign Power, people can live a life free of their damn evil, remorseless money control.

Speaking of control.

The next excerpt is from “Why You Can’t Trust the IRS” a report which is just as true today, as it was in 1995 :

—“On August 4, 1993, the General Accounting Office released its findings in the first audit of the IRS ever.[68] That the IRS was audited just once in its 80-year history is amazing, and the findings of the audit are an indication of the impending breakdown of our income tax system.

—The GAO found widespread evidence of financial malfeasance and nonfeasance and, perhaps, outright fraud. Just for starters, the GAO could not even ascertain the correctness of the agency’s financial statements because “critical supporting information for billions of dollars was either not available or was unreliable.”[69]

—The specific problems discovered by the GAO include the following:

  • The IRS significantly overstated its accounts receivable. The GAO found the IRS guilty of consistently overstating its accounts receivable ledger to Congress. Instead of the $105 billion in receivables alleged by the IRS, the GAO found the number to be closer to $65 billion. The IRS is using tax gap data, among other things, to win appropriations from Congress. The data are, however, unreliable.
  • Important revenue information was unavailable or unreliable. GAO auditors were able to ascertain how much money was collected, but they could not “audit the components of revenue because IRS systems could not provide the detailed transactions supporting the revenue balance, which is a serious limitation.”[70] As a result, the GAO could not determine the specific amounts of excise and Social Security taxes collected. Further, the GAO was unable to distribute excise tax collections to the various trust funds, or the general revenue fund, to which they are assigned by law.
  • The IRS failed to “control access authority given to computer support personnel or adequately monitor employee access to this information.”[71] As a result, it seems that any IRS employee who wishes it has unfettered computer access to sensitive data on the tax returns and information of any citizen. Some employees “used their access to monitor their own fraudulent returns, to issue fraudulent refunds, and to inappropriately browse taxpayer accounts.”[72]
  • There was inadequate management of operating funds. That is the most far-reaching aspect of the IRS’s financial reporting failures. Of the $6.7 billion spent on the entire agency during fiscal year 1992, the GAO was unable to audit 64 percent, or $4.3 billion. The IRS could not account for 64 percent of its total congressional appropriation.

—The list of the IRS’s failures, oversights, errors, omissions, and misstatements goes on and on.

—Although the IRS continues to demand them, it is clear that new computers cannot help the agency. The typical government approach of throwing money at a problem will not solve this one. The problem is not lack of money. The IRS has received all the money it has ever required from Congress. Its budget has roughly doubled in the past 10 years.

—While the government is quick to hold private enterprise liable for its errors, oversights, and occasional fraudulent conduct, it seems unwilling to hold its agencies to the same standards. As the GAO pointed out, “IRS’s lack of fundamental recordkeeping is inconsistent with recordkeeping requirements placed on taxpayers.[73] Unfortunately, the IRS is unwilling or unable to meet the same high standards of financial accountability it requires the average citizen to meet.”—

Now think about what is being revealed by the GOA— If the government was actually dependent on that revenue stream from the IRS hitting the right buckets, on time, the IRS would be routinely audited to ensure the “money” went to where it lawfully belonged. Think about your own checking account— why would anyone allow money owed to them to be lost routinely by the bank itself. If the banks accounting worked anything like the IRS your checking account would never be accurate, and the lost funds would cause you serious grief. No account holder would ever tolerate their money being taken by unknown parties operating on the banks own accounts.

The reason why Congress, does not seem to care about what the IRS does(eighty years is quite the astounding proof of that)  must be due to the fact the government already has what it needs to operate. What officials tell the public is never the whole of the truth. Clearly, what is actually occurring behind closed doors (all this time) was something the public was never intended to know.

Here is another more recent report which also provides support for the fact the entire taxing system costs the public more than it delivers in revenue benefits:

—“Executive Summary: To pay taxes, the costs taxpayers actually incur are far greater than the net sums the government collects. Individuals and businesses as taxpayers must pay substantially more than $1 in order for government beneficiaries to receive $1 of federal government services. Before individuals and businesses pay their tax liability (TB in Figure ES1), they must first spend time collecting records, organizing files, and wading through the tax code (B in Figure ES 1) to determine exactly what their tax liability is.
—In addition, individuals purchase products and services, such as
tax software or an accountant, to assist them in determining their tax liability. These are tax compliance outlays (C in Figure ES 1). Thirdly, in effect, taxpayers must also pay the administrative costs needed to run the IRS etc., solely for tax collection purposes (D in Figure ES 1).
—Still there is more.
—Businesses, large and small, hire teams of accountants, lawyers, and tax professionals to track, measure, and pay their taxes. This tax infrastructure is also used to optimize the tax liability of the business. Individuals and businesses change their behavior in response to tax policies, hiring tax experts to discover ways to minimize their tax liabilities.The efficiency costs from both legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion are difficult to quantify, but could be the highest costs of all (A in Figure ES 1).
—This study creates a comprehensive estimate of the total administrative costs, time costs, and direct tax compliance costs created by the complex U.S. federal income tax code. This paper deals only with Segments B, C, D and E from Figure ES 1. One can only imagine what the full burden of government on the well-being of society might be. In our analysis we estimate that U.S. taxpayers pay $431.1 billion annually, or 30 percent of total income taxes collected, just to comply with and administer the U.S. income tax system. This cost estimate includes:
• Approximately $31.5 billion in direct outlays (e.g. paying a professional tax preparer such as H&R Block or purchasing tax software) (2010 data).
• Total IRS administrative costs of $12.4 billion (2010 data).
• The Taxpayer Advocacy Service of the IRS estimates that individuals and businesses also spent 6.1 billion hours complying with the filing requirements of the U.S. income tax code. We estimate the dollar value or cost of these hours to be $377.9 billion as of 2008. The 6.1 billion hours number was estimated by multiplying the number of copies of each form filed in tax year 2008 by the average amount of time the IRS estimated it took to complete the form.
• Individuals spent 3.16 billion hours complying with the income tax code, which weighted by time spent by income group, costs the U.S. economy $216.2 billion annually.
• Businesses spent 2.94 billion complying with the business income tax code, which costs the U.S. economy $161.7 billion.
• Comprehensive audits also impose an additional taxpayer burden of at least $9.3 billion annually.
* According to the IRS, total gross individual income tax collections in 2008 were $1.4 trillion;   Although as of this writing total tax collections from 2010 are available, the detailed breakdown of income taxes paid by adjusted gross income are only available through 2008. For consistency, data on tax collections from 2008 are used throughout this study.
–(According to the Office of Management Budget, Historical Tables the “Gross Federal Debt” of the federal government in 2011 is estimated to be $15.5 trillion. $4.6 trillion of this debt is estimated to be held by the federal government itself. The total debt held by the public—or the net national debt—is estimated to be $10.9 trillion. Total debt held by the public represents the out-standing liability that the federal government must pay to someone else and represents the federal government’s actual financial iability.) See the Office of Management and Budget.

—Some criteria for judging the efficiency of a tax system were summarized by the 19th century American Economist Henry George: The best tax by which public revenues can be raised is evidently that which will closest conform to the following:

1. That it bear as lightly as possible upon production—so as least to check the increase of the general fund from which taxes must be paid and the community maintained.
2. That it be easily and cheaply collected, and fall as directly as may be upon the ultimate payers—so as to take from the people as little as possible in addition to what it yields the government.
3. That it be certain—so as to give the least opportunity for tyranny or corruption on the part of officials, and the least temptation to lawbreaking and evasion on the part of the taxpayers.
4. That it bear equally—so as to give no citizen an advantage or put any at a disadvantage, as compared with others. Complex tax systems violate all four of Henry George’s principles. Complex tax systems impose large burdens on taxpayers in excess of their tax liability, thus violating the first two principles. Complex tax codes also create opportunities for individuals to hide their taxable income in ways that may or may not be legal. As Krause (2000) illustrates, tax “complexity undermines the IRS’s ability to distinguish among intentional evasion, honest misinterpretation
of the tax code, and legitimate tax avoidance.”
—Therefore, tax complexity violates principle three. Complex tax codes contain provisions that favor one constituency over another. For instance, our current tax system offers a tax break to  homeowners but not to renters. As a consequence, a homeowner can pay less tax than a renter even if both individuals earn the exact same income and face the exact same expenses. Complex tax systems, therefore, violate principle four, which is also referred to as horizontal equity, or the notion that the tax system should treat similar taxpayers in a similar  manner.
The President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform found evidence that the complexity of the current U.S. tax code actually
hurts low-income individuals as opposed to helping them. For instance, low-income individuals must file tax returns in order to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) payments, but, nearly three-fourths of the families claiming an EITC had to hire a tax preparer in order to receive their payments because the EITC is one of the most complex parts of the tax code.”—The Economic Burden Caused by Tax Code Complexity


A rough total of federal receipts from here Tax Facts  starting from 1990 through 2016 gives a figure of fifty-four trillion dollars. The outlays for the most part are slightly greater, which creates the spending deficit, adding to the aggregate debt all Americans hear about continuously. The outstanding debt is a political tool to make Americans angry and fearful, thus easier to manipulate. But there is yet another side to the story that never receives any attention in the news  media. People really need to pay attention to details:

—“The Biggest Shell Game for Theft in World History!

—Organized Governments at all levels have been holding back their true Financial Statements, their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report from the people of America for over 50 years! Every city, county, state, and the federal government openly talks about the “budget” but keeps a virtually hidden, SECOND SET OF BOOKS which track the investments and Enterprise ventures worth TRILLIONS of dollars in tangible wealth they have built up and are spending from these virtually hidden portfolios as a result of investing YOUR skimmed money for over 50 years in everything from real estate to the stock market.

—When looking at the “big picture,” only 1/3 of government’s annual revenue comes from taxes, 2/3 comes from return on investments and enterprise / venture projects. To offset taxation, not $1 of that non-tax revenue is tied directly into the annual “budget” that is supported by taxation!

–Your city, county, state, and federal governments have played the Enron Creative Accounting Game; they LIED TO YOU for decades. With administrative restructuring of government, there would be NO NEED FOR TAXES. Our governments are not broke, they are rich beyond measure with OUR money, and they are hiding it from the American taxpayer, investing, AND SPENDING IT while pleading they are broke and need more taxes, bonds and levies to survive. This being done as they blindly justify their obscene growth. BS! There is enough aggregate wealth owned by our government agencies to abolish ALL property and income taxes TODAY. You are being conned, lied to, ripped off, and financially raped.

—Are You Ready For The Biggest Wake Up Call Of Your Life?

—Composite Revenue Totals:

—Total Annual Personal income in the USA, 1999, was 8.2 trillion dollars. All income – Wages, and investment return from Bill Gates, government employees, to the local Paper Boy.

—Federal tax Income: 1.8 trillion; Local Gov tax Income: 1.6 trillion (Composite CAFR Reports) TOTAL: Disclosed Government general purpose tax income: (Revenue from direct Taxation): 3.4Trillion

—TOTAL Personal INCOME: 8.2 – 3.4 (taxation) = 4.8 trillion dollars. THE NET Personal Income after all taxation from both Federal and Local governments.

—SOURCE: Federal 1999 Combined Financial Statement (CFS)

—Now for the revelation. (Estimated): Investment / enterprise income not disclosed in the general fund accounting, both Federal and local government, would bring Federal and Local governments annual TOTAL income up by another 5.1 trillion (GOVERNMENT’S NON-TAX income), or total income of 8.5 trillion, or for the real earth shaker of the mind’s comprehension, government income twice that of the total annual net personal income after taxation of the entire nation.

—Estimate of the standing liquid, fixed, and equity investments, both Federal and Local Governments is a conservative: 60 Trillion dollars  **PERSONAL NOTE: If you were making $100,000 per year, and you put 25% ($25,000) each year into an investment fund generating 14% annual return, how long would it be with compounded interest before your return was greater than your income?  A little over 8 years.   [14% is a conservative figure being that most state pension retirement funds have accomplished in most cases an average annual rate of return of 16 to 18% over the last 7 years. The 25 year average is 9 to 11%. Washington and Oregon State governments retirement funds did a 22 and 23% return last year]

—Composite government Pension Funds generated a return last year of about 4.3 trillion dollars. More revenue generated than all collected taxation in this country combined.

—PS: Government Employees realized only a fraction of that return in most cases being that their pension funds were strictly “Participatory.” The individuals investing or controlling the surpluses had a field day of personal empire building.

—Let’s look at the state of California, with approximately $12 trillion under management. Now, under the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report you’ll see about, oh, a total of maximum of about $3 trillion. But when you start tracking down the cities, the counties, all the revenue base, you’re up to about $12 trillion.

—Now, in California, say, for example, one of the investment managers who is handling, say, $400 billion in funds, and he had, say, $150 billion -with Shearson Lehman Hutton American Express institutional banking. That’s a very powerful position. If that individual contacts the director of the institutional banking, and said his brother in Argentina needed a $120 million loan in Argentina for a sugar cane energy development project, unsecured, do you think he’s going to say NO? I don’t think so. He’ll have one of his associates from another company that he deals with closely cut the loan. If it’s defaulted on he’ll just make up the difference on some business he’ll do with that firm.

—The power mongering and the elbow rubbing that takes place here is obscene! And it’s not just one group, one organization, doing it, it’s the principle of operation.

—Since we started our national disclosure 18 months ago I’ve had thousands of phone calls from people all over the country. I’ll get a call from New York, “Walter, I just got the New York through-way Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. They had $31 billion in liquid investment funds and -they’re still charging us.” I’ll say, “Don’t worry about it.”…I’ll get, a call from Anchorage, Alaska, “Walter, I just got our Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for our city. They’re making $100 million more a year than they’re showing on their budget report.” I’ll say, “Don’t worry about it.” I said, “Stop focusing in on a leaf, branch or tree in the forest. Start focusing in on the forest; understand the principle of operation of the forest.

—There are ten thousand of these operations going on all over the country.” I said, “If you’re going to apply your efforts, apply your efforts to change the principle of operation of the forest, which will affect every leaf, branch and tree in the forest. ” That’s the bottom line here, folks. We’re not talking any gray areas; there’s no speculation here.

—This is black and white.

—You know, the public has been complaining for the last 25 years. Every problem I’ve seen in this country to date has to do with extortion of revenue from the public. Period. It is the root of evil in this country – the wealth being taken from the populace. And one of the problems here is, a lot of people have been looking for the needle in the haystack, trying to find government corruption and wealth being stolen from us.

—Well, we’re not looking for the needle in the haystack here, folks. It’s the haystack sitting on top of the needle. All you have to do is look and start adding up the composite figures. Stop being distracted by one leaf or branch or tree in the forest. Start qualifying the forest. And when you do you’ll see the clear and unequivocal financial takeover of the wealth of this country by composite government, right from the city level to the state to the federal level.

—It’s power mongering it’s empire building. The boys that are in there on the inner circle; the wealth is absolute. Now, I’ll give you a few examples going back into New Jersey from ten years ago when I got New Jersey’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. It listed the state universities and colleges, and gave a composite total for all. I noticed right off the bat they had $8.5 billion in liquid investment funds – this is 1989. It also showed they made a $1.1 billion profit on their investment funds for the year.

—My next question to myself was, “I wonder what the total tuition’s are for all students attending colleges and universities in the state.” Total tuition base was $644 million. I said right off the bat, “Hey, they made a $1.1 billion profit and total tuitions are $644 million. They could have sent all students to school for free for the year and paid them to go to school.” In reality, what they did that year was sighting a shortfall of budgetary revenue, they had a 7% tuition increase.

—The game is absolute, and we’re talking there is so much money behind the game, and you have the participation of the syndicated media in the game, the public really has not stood a chance. The only way the public stands a chance is through full and open disclosure of the wealth – not being distracted, just sitting down crunching numbers. Not looking at one leaf, or branch or tree in the forest, start looking at the forest, adding up the totals, and it becomes evidently clear. Corrective action is needed and is needed immediately.

—With the scope of the financial takeover that is in existence today, they’re consolidating that ownership. Within several years you’ll have composite government owning 85% of the wealth in this country. And at that point in time the public may just become a liability – they don’t need them anymore. So, it’s very important that the public starts taking a serious look at what’s going on.”—Walter Burien narrativeHidden in plain site

The silence on how profitable the holdings of the government may be and to whom that money is known, is another indication that the real game has nothing to do with what is blabbed on the nightly news cycles. Knowledge is indeed power and keeping the general public in the dark is an effective barrier, especially when combined with social policies always emphasizing the wrong elements of the bigger economic picture. The high priests of the money power know fear and anger drives decisions [Tension Function] and they are never going to admit anything that decreases that procedural control away from themselves. How the insiders and major players are rewarded is the only real clue as to what is going on between the real power centers and those which are only there to fool the public.

—(Sidebar: Let me tell you where Bernie Sanders and I agree. He rails against the privileges of Wall Street, crony capitalists, corporate insiders, and lobbyists, and the political favors and laws they get passed that benefit them and not Main Street. The deck is stacked in their favor. In that he is right. But his and my solutions to the problem are not similar, as he wants to create even more regulation and taxation, and I would prefer to remove all of the tax preferences and greatly reduce the regulatory morass that favors large businesses over small. I don’t want the government involved in picking winners and losers; that’s the role of the marketplace.)

—So this is what it comes down to: The reigning academic theory/belief system is Keynesianism. The head Keynesians are signaling that they are going to give us negative rates. In fact, according to their theory, it would be irresponsible not to do so. They believe that if they sit back and allow the economy to sort itself out, the outcome would be far worse than anything that could be wrought by the intended and unintended consequences of negative interest rates.

—We can differ with those in charge, but the experiment with negative rates is going to happen, and we need to begin to adjust – to think through how to position our portfolios and our investment strategies, our businesses, and our lives.

—The Fed is run by True Believers. Just as Christianity or Islam or any other religion has believers that range across a spectrum of faith and beliefs, so does Keynesianism. At the Fed, these are deeply held beliefs: our central bankers are well convinced that the facts demonstrate the validity of their belief system.”—The Fed Prepares to Dive By John Mauldin February 22, 2016

 The potential to create an honest meaning of Money for the good of the society is unlimited. So long as the purpose, that such money must serve is real— so is the money as it is spent. When the social function of Money no longer serves the People, for which it is Created, the Equivalence of its Trust is broken. So what really is Money when separated from its transient use dependent upon its exchange?

Reduced to its most primal element: Money is simply [psychology] in Tension. Thus, money is a fiction of the Human mind and nothing else.Nature does not produce money and no law of nature validates economic theory by default. The manner in which money is used actually destroys its inherent potential to yield higher values. A fiat dollar is like a socket wrench that only turns in one direction: backwards. How dumb would it be to build cars with no forward gears? The system operates on a level of dumb and dumber, even as the math reaches new heights of dizzying complexity.

So as a rule do we really ever run out of our own imagination? No… Do we run low on thoughts and ideas while trying to solve difficult problems? Sure, but the science of money is lacking the appropriate measures of macro-human value on purpose, mostly to invalidate competing theories or models not based on entrenched monetary hierarchies. By simply pretending no other types of value-metrics can exist, the advancement and evolution of the system has been stopped for a very long time.

This insistence that officialized, mainline “economic theory” is the only way to do the job, even as the same mistakes are repeated over and over again, would be the equivalent of trying to put out a house fire with one bucket, filled with official water, while the entire crew argues about the book of procedures.

One only has to describe the psychological Tension between a husband and wife over money issues to know the truth of the power within that Tension. One is acting on the other at all times. Which is why people worry about [money] both by its gain and its loss. The need, the want, the desire, the love, or greed for money, all describe a psychological state, not an element dug out of the ground, much less, a credit entry on a screen, or a book. What good is money if it cannot fulfill even the most basic needs of those who earn its substitute?

Money is only an intangible potential without Mind to give it reason, structure and purpose. But it is the emotional tension bound in its expectations [good or bad] which makes it tangible and real. The functions of credit/debt/money equivalence is in the revolving, multidimensional quality of Money. A literal shifting from the in-material back to the material, to serve the diverse meanings of Money, which in turn places money purpose into productive results. Money needs resolution of its Tensions to balance the Equations of its multidimensional meanings in Reality.

This is the problem with money abstractions where only the Sign($) is defining a meaning of money. There is no physical money in these electronic, debit/credit systems, just account demands, predicated on timed-debt contracts. Interestingly enough, this credit time function never works on behalf of people, especially on large-scale, credit value-units. If such a Treasury value-unit{Share}  was in place [in the opposite sense of the asset-debt-pool-bundle-Bond/securities] from way back when, people today would not be privately borrowing, at interest, private money. There would be no need to pay any interest for the privilege of using public [national currency] already owned, on a national level of money assets. People do not need to borrow into creation what they collectively already possess as a positive asset. People only need to decide how money is to be best used to fulfill the lawful metrics of its creation.

When all forms of credit/debt, is simply a function of data-entry, there is no opposite interest-charge constraint to balance the powers of money between the Lending Class and those dependent [often only by political fiat] upon them for their own property of money. Thus, an abstraction of contractual based national money can be lent well beyond any physical ability to earn by the hour rate. This key defect is also what drives the debt function to produce compound-interest profits to those at the top of the fiat-money pie. The entire system is engineered to work against those who labor for a living one hour at a time.

People have to earn their debt-dollars by a time-value constraint, by most standards(hourly), and cannot compete against bank credit which is just instantly created [self-accreditation] out of a promise to pay, with paper/ink, or electrons on a screen. Practically speaking, if Bob cannot earn new debt money, three times faster next year then today, he cannot stay ahead of the machine-created, debt-service costs. The time-dollar-unit constraint puts Bob, like everyone else so trapped, at a serious time-value disadvantage to the artificial, fiat-debt system that can create unlimited, contract debt time-values with absolutely no regard to the physical constraints of reality.

The odd fact is when economic periods are bad, the federal macro-function of money is always wound-up tight producing the worst quality of high-level, Negative Tension Function. Specifically, people are scared, frustrated, angry, highly pessimistic about their economic future because they are suffering today from high-prices, high-interest rates on tight credit, their wages are stagnant, diminished from decades of relentless inflation, even as jobs become more scarce and hours worked have become drastically reduced.

Meanwhile, the federal/state taxing combination on payroll and wages reduces effective take-home pay, exacerbating the very dire conditions which accompany wide-scale, long term economic depressions. Money is now so artificially scarce that further belt-tightening only increases the negative, downward spiral. And the officials in Washington, wonder why so many people think they are incompetent, dishonest boot-lickers of that remorseless money power?

On the other end of the Tension spectrum the opposite required function is purposely missing in action. Debt free money absolutely has to circulate during periods of weak, economic activity. The solution to the problem has been removed from the table. This macro-function of government has been disabled for so long people have been conditioned to falsely believe it is not possible to use.  This bold-faced lie is the root of evil, which has been harming the American people for over a century. 

Debt free currancy(fiat or otherwise) when allowed to circulate properly carries the opposite charge of the interest of its time use. When people are forced to use private issued notes the charge is negative to them. When the issue is public it is the money lenders who pay the negative interest for its use, back to the public Treasury not the banking syndicate. The system was engineered to keep the money powers in control of issue and credit. A staggering amount of wealth has been bled off this Nation (and any other under the same diabolical control) which would have been otherwise available for all economic needs. This would be the Lost Potential of Money.

How convenient that after stealing the Nations non-interest money by every dirty, rotten trick in the pirates hand-book that gold and silver standards of money issue were declared to be no longer real. The banking syndicate stole the peoples honest money to force them to use their own private issued bad money, and this dirty secret while called conspiracy theory is indeed a fact of history.

When times are back to positive economic growth, private issued money, properly regulated by interest rates, can return to its rightful channels of use. Conversely, applying negative interest places a constraint upon too much easy Credit for consumers to spend. Credit issuers need to pay higher income taxes as well for that privilege. Finding the correct Tension balance is decided by market forces. But those forces need to be real not manufactured like a widget in some secret bank basement.

A proper wealth Share system is also missing from the macro-balance between government and people. During economic downturns(like we are experiencing today) the government funds public wealth Shares, using metrics based on earnings history, along with other factors to eliminate any false additions, to achieve economic equilibrium. By elevating Purchasing Power by allocation of wealth Shares, people can regain full Market participation for all goods and services so produced.

If needed sales taxes can be increased during flush cycles to add revenue to State/county local economies, and decrease when those economies cool down. Market cycles and Tension Functions can easily follow Natural Law when allowed, due to the fact people are bound to earth cycles. When money creation is so disconnected from the natural rhythms of life that it becomes inherently destructive, economic theory must be re-appraised, or any such theory [so out-of-touch with reality] simply becomes an absurdity of its own false principles.

The other major factors which require immediate changes are the wretched, personal income-tax laws and the payroll tax skims. Payroll taxes have become grossly unconstitutional by application. Why? Simply put, “Any tax imposed without lawful consideration of its excess to Harm, and without any Constitutional constraints is void of principle.” Subjecting people to any form of Indebtedness by Peonage, regardless of how technical, or blurred those qualifying distinctions of Code or regulations may have become, are still Null and Void by the principle of the Law.

The abuse of taxing powers destroys the Law from which it derives its only legitimate use. Harming the public is not an enumerated power of Congress and to do such evils eventually removes the fiat-Congress from having any further fiat-powers. The general Public has never been able to grasp their greatest power is to remove from office those who abuse their Trust. Replacing, re-called, disgraced officials, with new incumbents is not exactly easy, but when nothing else works it is the only power left on the table.

A true cycle of interest and non-interest bearing notes is required to achieve balance of forces between macro and micro economic Tension Functions. A fiat system is simply self-accreditation and Congress can no more run out of spread-sheet money than economists can run out of numbers of Pi… the aggregate of wealth is the key factor to be studied not the savings function of government debt. Bad economic policy is what is ruining this Nation, and rotten institutions of evil men intend to keep it that way. Just ask the living kin of Nathan Rothschild… he certainly had no fear of that puppet King, so long as his private money supply kept that king on a leash.

Unraveling the Golden Knot of Liberty

March 15, 2016


“If it were possible to take interest rates into negative territory, I would be voting for that.”

– Janet Yellen, February 2010

—“We do not exist in a physical world. Our “valuation system” exists in a fantasy world exempt from default (the death of fiat). In other words, political confidence in the system prevents systemic default because our most sacred contracts have an implied socialized guarantee. Confidence in this system depends upon “the favored” being bailed out by the “little people” at large. This system will get its “new name” years later in retrospect as the dust of its demise clears.

—Our “money” has no “time value”, therefore negative interest rates can be seen as either an outcome of that recognition or a necessary precursor to it. Confidence in the future utility of paper is the only real value that contracts hold, and all paper money is a futures contract.”—Trends and Events

What good is it to be free politically if the economic choices are deviously, only limited to the color of the debt ball-and-chain that you prefer? That digital-ball of National debt never shrinks and those chains of obligations only keep getting longer, with every hook of liability so attached. Compound interest on the aggregate of the debt is where the money swindle meets the road. If the system had been engineered to actually do Public Good, taxes in general would be unnecessary and rather redundant.

—[“Once you start to think of these numbers in family size numbers, it gives you a much better perspective of the magnitude of the irresponsibility in Washington,” he said.

“Every trillion dollars that we go deeper in debt is $8,000 of additional debt per family,” he explained. “And that is not a theoretical number. That is debt you owe just as surely as if it appeared on your credit card statement this month.”

The $19 trillion in debt translates to a $152,000 bill for the average family — and the national debt continues to increase.

The federal government is lucky that current interest rates are at historic lows — the official federal interest rate is 1.7 percent, according to the CBO. This translates to $250 billion in interest payments, which McClintock says costs each family $2,000.

“That means that $2,000 of the taxes that you paid to the IRS this year accomplished nothing more than renting the money we’ve already spent,” he told The DCNF.]—Each American family owes

The sum of all those federal and state induced, rented money-debts by “whatever source” upon the person is the modern day equivalent of forced, contractual indebtedness, only by new and improved, individually ranked and scored peonage. Technically, that debt-share needs to be the basis measure of the personal exemption amount for every U.S. citizen, in order for the feds not to be violating the Law. That would be the very Law they obviously have no intentions of enforcing, against themselves.

federal revenue

—“Payroll taxes are imposed by the federal and all state governments. These include Social Security and Medicare taxes imposed on both employers and employees, at a combined rate of 15.3% (13.3% for 2011 and 2012). Social Security tax applies only to the first $106,800 of wages in 2009 through 2011.[2] However, benefits are only accrued on the first $106,800 of wages. Employers must withhold income taxes on wages. An unemployment tax and certain other levies apply to employers. Payroll taxes have dramatically increased as a share of federal revenue since the 1950s, while corporate income taxes have fallen as a share of revenue. (Corporate profits have not fallen as a share of GDP).[2]”

The employee/employer is getting hammered on two major fronts— and the combination of these demands defines a specific quality of obedience. The do as we say or else—Master to serf–only now dressed as federal authority. This qualification of authority, to tax the U.S. citizen literally to death if need be, is the root of poverty itself. To whack the serfs into perpetual federal debt-peonage is easy when the rules are tilted to produce only that outcome. Working people who live on wages cannot sell “self-asset shares” to boost their self-incomes. Wage-slavery never went away the ‘cronies in charge’ just politically corrected the term so the truth didn’t sound nearly as bad as it really is by practice.

—[Apple CEO Tim Cook waved a magic wand in front of America on Tuesday, vanishing our outrage over how shamelessly companies avoid paying taxes, leaving the rest of us to foot the bill. As a public service to you, here is a chart that should enrage you about corporate tax rates all over again! (Story continues below chart of RAGE.)      The chart was produced for a September 2012 report (download-y PDF file) about corporate tax avoidance by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Walter Hickey of Business Insider helpfully republished the chart on Tuesday, in honor of Cook’s testimony before the same subcommittee. Update: The Senate lifted the chart directly from an earlier Tax Policy Center report about the sources of government revenue.

Cook was there to techsplain how Apple holding $102 billion of cash offshore isn’t really tax avoidance so much as good old fashioned ingenuity. Also, have you forgotten the shiny objects Apple makes (including the dreamy MacBook Air on which this here story was typed)? By the end of the hearing, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had demanded that Congress apologize to Apple for the inconvenience, and Sen. John McCain (R-My Lawn) was reduced to gently jibing Cook about how often he has to update his apps.]—Unfair tax system


The chart above illustrates perfectly how tax policy favors corporations rather substantially. This chart can also be called the chart of proof-positive, in your face superior influence. Not all corporations get the same preferential Rates, so it is wise not to judge them all the same or make any conclusions just yet. What this chart shows as well, is the glaring fact, this quality of advantage has been ongoing for decades on purpose. Nothing is ever by accident, especially whose pie is getting sliced and by what taxable proportion.

—“Ultimately, the only way to understand how much corporations are actually paying in taxes is to do the painstaking work that CTJ does in going through the financial reports filed by corporations, and uncovering the hidden tax breaks that go unnoticed in the large, error-prone databases that these other studies tend to rely on.

—The truth is that, by any measure, U.S. corporate income taxes are very low. And as a share of the economy, they are much lower than are corporate income taxes in almost every other developed country.”—Low corporate income taxes

When it comes to the Laws, which govern the Societies of Mankind, going back to the root of the Cause itself, illuminates the dark corners now forgotten. After all, who really decides what is Right and what is Good for the people so joined? These are not trivial questions to be ignored in the present time. If that which is Evil, has overtaken all that was once Good, then the Laws which govern society have failed. The measure of the failure is in the misery so suffered and those Natural Rights so capriciously swindled.

In the present, the greater body of people are treated as if those original Rights are nothing, but the remnants of meaningless, antiquated jargon. When the tyrants, standing upon their false claims of superior, soap-box authority, have nothing to fear, and nothing to lose when they “Hereby Impose” taxable obligations without end, no citizen aka peon is safe from their endless deprivations once uttered, this too shall be the Law.

By 1823, Thomas Jefferson among other Founders had already witnessed the destructive nature of an unbridled judiciary, stating as follows;

“At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.”

When the Supreme Court ceased upholding the inalienable Rights of the working man, no matter what Congress, or its inferior parties and agents may claim, America was no longer a Nation of just Laws. Corporations do not labor for their Incomes or shed any artificial sweat to stay alive. The value of Time for one is never the same as the other and all taxes are notoriously political not scientific. Justice requires the recognition that human value is always personal, messy and often quite illogical. Money makes people act irrational and the taxing laws aggravate that condition on purpose. The system needs people to be confused so that they will mistrust the convictions of others unlike themselves.

—“The Rules of Procedure “unconstitutionally” installed in the U.S. Justice system in 1946 made it possible for lawyers to alter or abolish Natural Rights in their Common Law by simply legislating against them, ruling them out of existence from the bench, or ordering them out of force from the Executive Branch.

—Since then, American Law Schools have not taught Natural Law of Constitutional Law. Instead, they have focused on how to infringe upon the Natural Rights of every American by using precedence and procedure found only in Common Law. They had granted themselves the power to change law, the Constitution and the Bill of Natural Rights, by merely “setting a new precedent” or blocking public access to the proper justice system via “procedures of the courts.

—As a result, very few if any lawyers alive today know any of the truths presented in this essay on the subject of Natural Law and natural born. Further, even fewer want to know these truths and almost none of them want the American people to know this historic truth.”— A Natural Born Citizen is a True Citizen

By removing Natural Law and the study of Constitutional law, from the educational “system” and blocking any attempt by True Citizens to defend themselves from the over-reach of civil-servants with bad intentions, the imposed result is always a financial peon by any name. The punitive impositions only antagonize an already over-stressed general population, ensuring that most people, will remain politically polarized on specific issues, which are already strategically mapped out for mass-cultural control.   A Nation can be disingenuously controlled more effectively, by what it hates, more so, than what it loves.

The IRS at its root cause, is a political spy agency to carry out financial espionage. The IRS rudely operates against individuals contrary to the spirit of American beliefs and their sense of personal accomplishments. Taft would claim—This is an agency that spies on American citizens, in order to better punish bad corporations for being evil.

Basically, the IRS is a diabolical form of monetary police— who are tasked with taking fiat “money” from “citizens” by any means possible, so provided by the asinine regulations written under the pen name of Congress incorporated. The enemy of the People, is using the apparatus to accomplish the economic goals– maximum extraction of internal revenue without giving itself away. Wherever, that black-hand rests its crony fingers, lies the trail of abuse of Natural Rights.

The deductive strategy rests on a simple observation: That black-hand wanted “its” money removed from the federal revenue streams by whatever means possible, therefore, the code reflects those demands, overtly disguised as needed, to accomplish that goal. The downward movement of the corporate revenue line (below 30%) is the glaring clue as to how much of this profit taking involved. Go have another look at those charts and ask the simple question: whose hand defeated the federal? Power is well demonstrated by the negative function. Whomever,  had the power to turn the law into its personal bitch, took that profit tax free.

—‘The impossibility of taxing people in proportion to their revenue, by any capitation, seems to have given occasion to the invention of taxes upon consumable commodities; the state not knowing how to tax directly and proportionably the revenue of its subjects, endeavors to tax it indirectly by taxing their expense, which it is supposed in most cases will be neatly in proportion to their revenue. Their expense is taxed by taxing the consumable commodities upon which it is laid out. 3 Vol. page 331.’—

The United States was formed on a radical principle, that the People were no longer to be the Subjects of anyone else. Funding a government without putting the people in the poor-house meant keeping the powers of government well defined in their proper channels of enumerated authority. The taxing powers had to find harmony with the principles so defended, or the power itself is a fraud against the very People so entrusted. Were the Founding Fathers lying to their fellow Citizens about their actual intentions? There is no virtue in a lie filled with plenary power. The bitter fact is no form of taxing power has virtue, as all forms are poisonous to the freedoms of individuals so taxed. The men of that period knew all too well the abuses of unregulated taxation. So unless, they were total hypocrites they intended for that power to be well leashed to the rules so proscribed.

To shed some light on this unique qualification of what it meant to be a True Citizen, a review of the key points of citizenship is required. Political correctness had not yet shielded from plain view, back then, what is now hidden behind a facade of bureaucratic indifference to the plights of millions, struggling under the oppressive weight of never-ending, federal debt.

UScompiledstatutes1916Harvard 7_15.13.22

The following excerpts shed some light on the situation people face today, when attempting to assert their inalienable Rights:

§ 3946. (R. S. § 1992.) Who are citizens.

All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

{Note the fact the citizen is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as a prerequisite for entry into the United States.}

Act April 9, 1866, c. 31, § 1, 14 Stat. 27

I. In general.—The status of persons as citizens or aliens depends entirely upon the Constitution of the United States and the acts of Congress pursuant thereto. Johnson v. U. S. (1893) 29 Ct. CI. 1; Mackenzie v. Hare (1913) 134 Pac. 713, 165 Cal. 776, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 201.

All persons found within the limits of the government, whether their residence be permanent or temporary, are to be deemed citizens for jurisdictional purposes. Molyneaux v. Seymour (1800) 30 Ga. 440, 76 Am. Dec. 662; Keerl v. Keerl (1870) 34 Aid. 21.

A person born in England before 1775, and who always resided there, and never was in the United States, is an alien. Dawson v. Godfrey (1808) 4 Cranch, 321, 322, 2 L. Ed. 634.

Children born in a country, and continuing, while under age, in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country. Shanks v. Dupont (1830) 3 Pet. 242, 245, 7 L. Ed. 000.

A person cannot be a resident of two states at the same time. Brent v. Armfield (C. C. 1835) Fed. Case. No. 1,833.

A man is not prevented from acquiring citizenship in a place to which he goes with the purpose of permanently residing there, and in which he votes, by the fact that his wife and children remained at his old home. Blair v. Western Female Seminary (C. C. 1864) Fed. Case. No. 1,486

Distinction between citizenship and electorship pervades the public law of the United States. (1857) 8 Op. Atty. Gen. 300.

In regard to the protection of our citizens in their rights at home and abroad, we have in the United States no law which divides them into classes or makes any difference whatever between them. (1859) 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 357.

A question as to status or citizenship arising in the United States is determinable by our own law; or, if it arose on the high seas, or anywhere out of the territorial jurisdiction of another country, it would be a question either under our own law or the public law, according to the circumstances under which the right was asserted or denied. (1867) 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 320.

A citizen is one who by birth, naturalization, or otherwise is a member of an independent political society called a “state” “kingdom,” or “empire,” subject to its laws, and entitled to its protection. Blank v. Pausch (1885) 113 111. 60.

An alien is one born without the allegiance of the commonwealth. Ainslie v. Martin (1813) 9 Mass. 456.

The noun “citizen” has been defined to be one who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises; an inhabitant of a city; a townsman; a person, native, or naturalized, of either sex, who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to reciprocal protection from it; one who is domiciled in a country, and who is a citizen, though neither native nor naturalized, in such a sense that he takes his legal status from such country.

In English law, the term (citizen) means an inhabitant of a city; the representative of a city, in Parliament. In American law, a citizen is one who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for Representatives in Congress and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people; one of the sovereign people; a constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with the people; a member of the civil state, entitled to all its privileges. A person may be a citizen for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes. Greenough v. Board of Police Com’rs of Town of Tiverton (R. I. 1909) 74 A. 785.

2. Citizenship of states and of United States.—One may be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state. Sharon v. Hill (C. C. 1885) 26 Fed. 337; Nichols v. Same (C. C. 1899) 92 Fed. 1; Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County (Ala. 1909) 48 South. 788; McDonel v. State (1883) 90 Ind. 320.

By the fourteenth amendment, citizenship in the United States is defined and is made independent of citizenship in a state, and the privileges and immunities secured by the constitution are such as belonging of rights to citizens of all free states, and those which in the constitution are secured to the people, either as against the action of the federal or of the state government. U. S. v. Hall (C. C. 1871) Fed. Case. No. 15.282.

An American citizen has two classes of privileges: (1) Those which he has as a citizen of the United States; and (2) those which he has as a citizen of the state where he resides. Ex parte Kinney (C. C. 1879) Fed. Cas. No. 7,825.

A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the state wherein he resides. Myers v. Murray, Nelson & Co. (C. C. 1890) 43 Fed. 695, 698, 11 L. R. A. 216.

Citizenship, state and national, defined and distinguished. Hammerstein v. Lyne (D. C. 1912 ) 200 Fed. 165.

SEC.1.  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: —

SEC. 2.  Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.”—

{Here it is much more clear that aliens, while within the geographic United States were under the jurisdiction of the U.S. as opposed to any other foreign power, and as they were not yet a citizen of any Union State they were not afforded any such immunities or privileges of a true citizen, of that state.}

–The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens. Cory v. Carter (1874) 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am. Rep. 738.

–The right of citizenship, as distinguished from alienage, is a national right or condition. It pertains to the confederated sovereignty, the United States, and not to the individual states. Lynch v. Clarke (N. Y. 1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

–3. Colonials.—Where a person born in New York before July 4, 1776, remained an infant with his father in the city of New York during the time it was occupied by the British troops, and the father, who was a Royalist and adhered to the British government, left New York with the British troops, taking his son with him, and the son never returned to the United States, he was born a British subject and continued an alien. Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor (1830) 3 Pet. 96, 99, 121, 7 L. Ed. 617.

–Where a person was born in New York after July 4, 1776, and before September 15, 1776, when the British troops took possession of the city of New York and adjacent places, his character during infancy followed that of his father, who adhered to the British government and left with the British troops, taking his son with him, subject to the right of disaffirmance after termination of infancy, and where he did not disaffirm he remained a British subject. Id.

–In revolutions like the American Revolution the right of election to remain British subjects or to acquire the character of American citizens exists, and one, by withdrawing from the country and adhering to the British government, never acquired the character of an American citizen. Id.

A person born in the colonies, but who left the country before the Declaration of Independence and never returned, is an alien. Id.

–The point of time at which the American ante-native ceased to be British subjects is the date of the Declaration of Independence. Id.

–All those, whether natives or otherwise, who adhered to the American states at the time of the treaty of peace of 1783, were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, while all those adhering to the British crown were subjects of that crown. Shanks v. Dupont (1830) 3 Pet. 242, 247, 7 L. Ed. 660.

The enabling act under which Nebraska came into the Union provided that the “inhabitants” of the territory were authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government, and that, when formed in compliance with the provisions of the act, the president should issue his proclamation declaring the state admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states.

The act further provided that the laws of the United States not locally inapplicable should have the same force in the state as elsewhere. The “organic act” under which the territory was governed and the laws of the territory itself provided that only those who should vote and hold office were citizens of the United States or had declared their intention to become such. Held, that alien inhabitants of the territory did not become citizens by virtue of its admission into the Union, although such aliens participated in the formation of the state and constitution. State v. Boyd (1891) 31 Neb. 082, 48 N. W. 73

8. Colored persons.—Prior to the fourteenth amendment it was generally held that free negroes and mulattoes were not citizens and could not become citizens under then existing laws. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856)

The Pueblo Indians of New Mexico became citizens of the United States under the treaty of Guadalupe Hilalgo. U. S. v. Sandoval (I). C. 1912) 198 Fed. 539.

Indians and half-breed Indians do not become citizens of the United States by being declared electors by any one of the states. (1856) 7 Op. Atty. Gen. 740.

Indians are not citizens of the United States, but domestic subjects. Id.

The uncontradicted testimony of a father that his children were born in California is sufficient proof that they are citizens of the United States. Thompson v. Spray (1887) 72 Cal. 528, 14 Puc. 182.

A witness was asked, “Of what country was your father a subject?” and he answered, “France—Paris.” Held, that this was too vague and unsatisfactory to prove the father, who lived many years in this country, and died here, was an alien. Torre v. .Teaman (1S99) 25 So. 800. 76 Miss. 898.

Though an American citizen was a minor when he removed to Canada, where his son was born, he had previously “resided” in the United States. State v. Jackson (1907) 65 A. 657, 79 Vt. 504.

Former statute.—The Act of 1802, providing that the children of persons who “now are” or “have been” citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the United States, be considered citizens of the United States, applied only to persons who were citizens

v. Shilling (1856) 9 Md. 74. It applied to children of naturalized citizens as well as to children of natural-born citizens and citizens who were original actors in our Revolution. Crane v. Recder (1872) 25 Mich. 303. It did not apply to children of one not born till after the passage of such act. Town of Albany v. Town of Derby (1S58) 30 Vt. 718; State v. Jackson (1907) 65 Atl. 657. 79 Vt. 504, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1245. Nor to illegitimate children. Giiyer v. Smith (1864) 22 Md. 239. 85 Am. Dec. 650. Nor to children of those who left the country before the Declaration of Independence. Manchester v. Boston (1819) 16 Mass. 230. Nor to children whose parents, at the time of their birth, were aliens. Crane v. Reeder (1872) 25 Mich. 303.

A child whose father was a citizen of the United States after the treaty of peace with Great Britain, by which the independence of the United States was acknowledged, and after the adoption of the constitution of the United States, was not an alien though born without the United States. Charles v. Monson & Brimfield Mfg. Co. (1835) 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 70.

An individual whose father appears to have been a resident in this country, and to have married and had children born here, is presumed to be a citizen, although he himself was born subsequent to his father’s removal to a foreign country, there being nothing else to show his father to have beer an alien. Campbell v. Wallace (1841) 12 N. H. 362, 37 Am. Dec. 219.


Children of citizens of the United States, although born in foreign countries, and not within the act of congress of 1802, are nevertheless citizens of the United States. Lynch v. Clarke, (N. Y. 1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

Common law.—By the common law, a subject traveling abroad on public or private business, with the express or implied license of his sovereign, is under that sovereign’s protection, and, consequently, both he, and his children born while so traveling or so journeying, owe allegiance to, and are citizens of, the native country of their father. Ludlam v. Ludlam (N. Y. 1860) 31 Barb. 486.

Under St. 1778, abrogating all statutes of England in this state, and under the Laws of the United States, the citizenship of all children of Americans born abroad between 1802 and 1855 depends exclusively upon the dormant principles of the common law. Id.

The universal maxim of the common law being “partus sequitur patrem,” it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject, lawfully and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother. Id.

In accordance with the above principles, it was held that the defendant, the son of an American citizen by an alien mother, born in a foreign country while his father was temporarily resident there, was a citizen of the United States, and entitled to inherit here. Id.

Held, also, that the greater or less duration of the father’s residence abroad was not material, so long as it was, in intention and in fact, temporary, and not perpetual. Id.

A citizen of the United States voluntarily, at the age of 18 years, went to Peru, with the intention of remaining there in trade an indefinite time, but was not naturalized there. Held, that by the common law^ in the absence of any law of the United States on the subject, his child born in Peru, of a wife a native of that country, was capable of inheriting property as a citizen of the United States. Ludlam v. Ludlam (1863) 26 N. Y. 356, 84 Am. Dec. 193.

Africans.—One who was born in Canada of parents of African blood born in Virginia, and held there as slaves until they emigrated to Canada, does not, by removing to the United States, become a citizen. Hedgiunn v. Board of Registration of Detroit (1872) 26 Mich. 51.

Double allegiance.—If by the laws of the country of their birth children of citizens born abroad are subjects of its government, it is not competent to the United States, by legislation, to interfere with that relation while they continue within the territory of that country, or to change the relation to other foreign nations which, by reason of their place of birth, may at any time exist. (1869) 13 Op. Atty. Gen. 90.

If he has voluntarily assumed the character of an Austrian citizen, however, and has resided in Austria five years (see article 1 of the convention of September 20, 1870, with the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy), it cannot be reasonably maintained by this government that his Austrian citizenship, or the political obligations appertaining thereto, may be cast aside by him at pleasure, so long as he continues to reside within the jurisdiction of that country. (1872) 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 154.


Treaty.—A person born in 1823, in the Oregon territory, whose father was a British subject, and whose mother was a member of the Chinook Indian tribe, is not a citizen of the United States. McKay v. Campbell (D. C. 1871) Fed. Cas. No. 8,840.

§ 3950. (R. S. § 2312.) Citizenship of certain Stockbridge Munsee Indians.

Whenever any of the chiefs, warriors, or heads of families of the tribes mentioned in section twenty-three hundred and ten, having filed with the clerk of the district court of the United States a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to dissolve all relations with any Indian tribe, two years previous thereto, appears in such court, and proves to the satisfaction thereof, by the testimony of two citizens, that for five years last past he has adopted the habits of civilized life; that he has maintained himself and family by his own industry; that he reads and speaks the English language; that he is well disposed to become a peaceable and orderly citizen; and that he has sufficient capacity to manage his own affairs; the court may enter a decree admitting him to all the rights of a citizen of the United States, and thenceforth he shall be no longer held or treated as a member of any Indian tribe, but shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges, and be subject to all the duties and liabilities to taxation of other citizens of the United States. But nothing herein contained shall be construed to deprive such chiefs, warriors, or heads of families of annuities to which they are or may be entitled.


Though an Indian has become a full fledged citizen of the United States, and resides on land patented to a prior grantor in fee simple absolute, yet so long as he remains within the limits of an Indian reservation he is subject to the constitutional control of the federal government. U. S. v. Gardner (D. C. 1911) 189 Fed. 690.

A native-born citizen of the United States who has been naturalized in a foreign country, and thus become a citizen or subject thereof, is to be regarded as an alien; and he cannot reacquire American nationality except In conformity to the laws of the United States providing for the admission of aliens to citizenship therein. Id.

While the government of the United States with jealous care will protect its humblest citizen wherever found, yet it is not our duty to aid a young man of 20 years to escape from military service in a government whose protection he has enjoyed since four years old, and where he has an acquired nationality which he does not propose to give up, and, when interrogated by the envoy of the American government, declines even to suggest that he ever intends to return to the United States and reclaim the nationality and assume the duties of an American citizen. Protection from a government involves the reciprocal duty of allegiance and service from the citizen when needed. (1875) 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 1



944. Peonage abolished.

3945. Foregoing section, how enforced.

§ 3925. (R. S. § 1977.) Equal rights under the law.

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right [in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property] as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

[Persons, as used here might well be only corporations.]

Act May 31, 1870, c. 114, § 16, 16 Stat. 144.

I. General scope of statute.—This and section 3931, post, partially enumerate the rights and immunities intended to be guaranteed by the constitution.

Straudcr v. West Virginia (1879) 100
U. S. 303, 311, 25 L. Ed. 664.

The object of this section and section 3931, post, was to place the colored race, in respect of civil rights, on a level with whites, and [these sections] make the rights and responsibilities, civil and criminal, of the two races, exactly the same. Virginia v. Rives (1879) 100 U. S. 313′ 317, 318. 25 L. Ed. 667.

[Note the fact–that no sovereign, or natural rights are alluded to specifically only civil privileges. Lawfully, the principles involved are never quite exactly the same, especially in regards to protecting personal wealth, and this is the key point now blurred in present times. Unalienable and Inalienable Rights were not granted by that “institution of men” they were recognized as self-evident truths among equal men, and preserved by the compact between themselves.

The false assumption that governments give or grant Natural Rights, defies the logic behind the formation of the United States. When people try to assert their positive “Natural Rights” they are typically, smacked down by judges, who only consider civil rights under that qualification of jurisdiction. This begs the question of how are people supposed to assert a Right if they have no Jurisdiction of their own? This exclusion is of course not by accident, but by design and the remedy of this defect is going to require some very stout redress of grievances across the States.]

This section, so far as it confers rights, is not limited to negroes and colored persons. It confers rights on white persons, and puts in the form of statute what has been substantially ordained by the constitution. Kentucky v. Powers (C. C. 1905) 139 Fed. 452.

[Natural rights preceded the Constitution, but civil rights are only after the fact. This difference, makes any rights granted by U.S. citizenship rather inferior, and begs the question, why a statute was needed to enforce a Right already ordained. The constitution restricts the federal powers not the citizens ethical obligations to defend their own Rights. However, those Natural-Rights are never spoken of by policy intentions, and apparently routinely dismissed, as a condition to be even heard under that federal tax jurisdiction.]

2. Effect on state laws-Where the effect of a state statute limiting the right of foreign corporations [Persons]to sue in its courts is to deprive a corporation of another state [which ones?] of the equitable right to set off against a judgment rendered against it in such courts a judgment in its favor against the plaintiff therein, rendered in another state, such corporation [person] is deprived of its constitutional right to have full faith and credit given to such judgment, and also of the right to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings given it by this section. Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co. (C. C. 1900) 10D Fed. 536.

Act Feb. 28, 1803, c. 10, prohibiting the importation of certain persons of color into certain states of the Union, is not repealed by the thirteenth amendment of the constitution, or by the civil rights act of April 9, 1866. (1808) 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 413.

The laws of Florida of November 22, 1829, and February 10. 1832, so far as they apply to colored British subjects, are not repugnant to the civil rights act Id.

3. Nature, purpose, and validity of civil rights bill of 1866.—This bill is not a penal statute, but a remedial one, and is to be liberally construed. U. S. v. Rhodes (C. C! 1866) Fed. Case. No. 16,151.

This act was within the power conferred upon congress by the thirteenth amendment, on the subject of slavery, under which it had full power to pass all laws deemed proper for its entire eradication in any form. U. S. v. Cruikshank (C. C. 1874) Fed. Case. No. 14,897. It was intended for the protection of citizens of the United States in enjoyment of certain rights without discrimination on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. U. S. v.’ Cruikshank (1875) 92 U. S. 542, 555, 23 L. Ed. 588. While not intended to enlarge the privileges and immunities of white citizens, it furnished additional guaranties and remedies to secure their enjoyment. Live-Stock Dealers’ & Butchers’ Ass’n v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing & SlaughterHouse Co. (C. C. 1870) Fed. Case. No. 8,408.

The civil rights act of April 9, 1866, was intended to protect against legal disabilities and legal impediments, and not private infringements of the rights secured, through prejudice or otherwise, when the laws are impartial and sufficient. Louisiana v. Dubuclet (C. C. 1877) Fed. Case. No. 8,538.

The first section of the civil rights bill of 1866, passed by congress under the thirteenth amendment and now covered in substance by this section, prescribes perfect equality of civil rights between the white and the colored races, and is a privilege given or secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Ex parte Riggins (C. C. 1904) 134 Fed. 404. order reversed Riggins v. U. S. (1905) 26 Sup. Ct. 147, 199 U. S. 547, 50 L. Ed. 303.

4. Validity.—The civil rights bill is constitutional. U. S. v. Rhodes (C. C. 1866) Fed. Case. No. 16.151: In re Turner (C. C. 1867) Fed. Case. No. 14,247; Kelley v. State (1869) 25 Ark. 392. It was enacted by virtue of Constitutional U. S. Amend. 13. Ex parte Virginia (1879) 100 U. S. 339, 344, 25 L. Ed. 676; U. S. v. Harris (1883) 1 Sup. Ct 601, 610, 106 U. S. 629, 27 L. Ed. 290; U. S. v. Morris (D. C. 1903) 125 Fed. 322. But see Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867) 65 Ky. (2 Bush) 5, 92 Am. Dec. 468, holding that Civil Rights Bill, § 1, providing that citizens of every race and color in every state, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, shall have the same right in every state to sue, be parties, and “give evidence,” etc., was unconstitutional, as invading the right reserved to the states of regulating their own domestic concerns, and it could not be sustained as an act for the enforcement of the thirteenth amendment, prohibiting slavery.

5. Social intercourse.—These laws were intended to secure political and legal equality of rights to all citizens, but were not intended to establish social equality, or to enforce social intercourse between different classes of citizens. Charge to Grand Jury, The Civil Rights Act (C. C. 1875) Fed. Case. No. 18,258.

7. Rights of negroes in general.—

The first section of Civil Rights Bill April 9, 1866, now codified in substance in this section, but first passed in the exercise of power under the thirteenth amendment, prescribed as the standard of the freedom the amendment gave the emancipated race perfect equality of civil rights with the white race. The enjoyment of this civil equality with the white race constitutes, in its constitutional sense, the freedom intended to be bestowed, and is a right, privilege, or immunity given or secured by the constitution and laws of the United States to members of the emancipated race. Ex parte Riggins (O. C. 1904) 134 Fed. 404, reversed (1905) 26 Sup. Ct. 147, 199 U. S. 547, 50 L. Ed. 303.

The negro is invested with precisely the same rights that are possessed by the white race, and subject to the same duties, obligations, and liabilities. U. S. v. Buntin (C. C. 1882) 10 Fed. 730, 735.

14. Rights of laborers.—To deprive a man of the right to select and follow any lawful occupation—that is, to labor or contract to labor, if he so desires and can find employment—is to deprive him of both liberty and property within the meaning of this law. In re Parrott (C. C. 1880) 1 Fed. 481, 510.

Sections 1 and 2 of this act were held unconstitutional, at least so far as their operation in the several States was concerned, but without deciding whether the law was operative in the Territories and District of Columbia, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3.

Depriving citizens of their civil rights, under color of any law, etc., was made punishable by R. S. § 5510, which was incorporated in Criminal. Code, | 20, post, § 10184.

Notes of Decisions

Operation of statute.—The civil rights act of 1875 applies only to such rights as are granted by, and dependent on, the constitution and laws of the United States. U. S. v. Sanges (C. C. 1891) 48 Fed. 78, 87, writ of error dismissed (1892) 12 Sup. Ct. 609, 144 U. S. 310, 36 L. Ed. 445.

Invalidity of statute.—Scope and purpose of the thirteenth amendment, considered as warranting this act. Ex parte Virginia (1879) 100 U. S. 339, 344, 25 L. Ed. 676.

The first and second sections of the civil rights act, passed March 1, 1875, in effect declaring that in all inns, public conveyances, and places of amusement [that] colored citizens, whether slaves or not, and citizens of other races, shall have the same accommodations and privileges as are enjoyed by white citizens, and making it a penal offense in any person to deny to any citizen of any race or color, regardless of previous servitude, any of the said accommodations or privileges, are unconstitutional enactments as applied to the several states, not being authorized by either the thirteenth or fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States.

The provisions of the fourteenth amendment prohibiting state laws abridging the privileges of the [U.S.] citizen, or depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying any person equal protection of the law, apply exclusively to state legislation, and have no reference to illegal acts of individuals. The power granted congress to enforce it, with appropriate legislation, applies to corrective legislation only, such as may be necessary to counteract and redress the effect of such forbidden state laws, and will not authorize direct legislation, such as (__) March 1, 1875, known as the “Civil Rights Act.” U. S. v. Civil Rights Cases (1883) 3 Sup. Ct 18, 109 U. S. 3, 27 L. Ed. 835.

The invalidity, as applied to the states, of the provisions of this and the next section, (also) invalidates the law as applied to other places within the jurisdiction of the United States, such as an American vessel on the high seas [more than a marine league from land] and the District of Columbia and the territories. Butts v. Merchants’ & Miners’ Transp. Co. (1913) 33 Sup. Ct. 964, 230 U. S. 126, 57 L, Ed. 1422; U. S. v. Washington (C. C. 1883) 20 Fed. 630; Cully v.

Baltimore & O. R. Co. (D. C. 1876) Fed. Case. No. 3,466.



This section and the four sections next following constituted the Civil Rights Act of March 1, 1875, c. 114, entitled’ “An act to protect all [U.S.] citizens in their civil and legal rights. The preamble of the act was: “Whereas, it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity.”

Jurisdiction.—The United States circuit court could not take jurisdiction of a trial for murder merely because a witness is a negro [U.S. citizen], and incompetent by the laws of the state to testify, under the provisions of the civil rights act of April 9, 1866, which gave jurisdiction to the circuit court of all causes, civil and criminal, affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce, in the courts of the state or locality where they may be, any of the rights given by the act, among which is the right to give evidence. A criminal prosecution is not to be considered as “affecting” mere witnesses in the case. Blyew v. U. S. (1871) 80 U. S. (13 Wall.) 581, 20 L. Ed. 638.

The federal court has jurisdiction of a prosecution for burglary, where the owner of the building entered is, on account of color, incompetent by the law of the state to testify in support of the indictment as a white person might, though the indictment does not aver the statute denying the right. U. S. v. Rhodes (C. C. 1806) Fed. Case. No. 16,151.

Whether jurisdiction of a civil action for damages arising out of a violation of the equality guaranteed by the first section of the civil rights act of March 1, 1875, is conferred upon the United States courts by that act, quipre; but held that, if that act is constitutional jurisdiction is conferred by the act of March 3, 1875, as being a case “arising under the constitution or laws of the United States.” Smoot v. Kentucky Cent. Ry. Co. (C. C. 1882) 13 Fed. 337.

Where an action was brought to recover a penalty under the civil rights act of March 1, 1875. and the same is discontinued, upon the recent decision of the supreme court holding the act unconstitutional, held, that the defendant was entitled to costs under R. S. § 975, ante, § 1616. Held, also, that, independent of that section, costs could not be denied through any want of jurisdiction, since this court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and the determination of the question of the validity of the act. Cooper v. New Havea Steamboat Co. (D. C. 1883) 18 Fed. 5S8.

Indictment.—An indictment (under this act) is insufficient which does not allege the citizenship of the person injured by the violation of such statute. U. S. v. Taylor (C. C. 1S80) 3 Fed. 563.


§ 3931. (R. S. § 1978.) Rights of citizens in respect to real and personal property.

All U. S. *citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Act April 9, 1866, c. 31, § 1, 14 Stat. 27.

[This citizen definition may also include corporations.]

§ 3932. (R. S. § 1979.) Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

Act April 20, l871, c. 22, § 1, 17 Stat. 13.

Before persons can be held to answer in the federal courts for conspiracy, they must be charged with conspiring to effect a purpose forbidden by some statute of the United States, or with doing some act in furthering the conspiracy, forbidden by a law of the United States; and where a petition claims damages for an alleged conspiracy to disbar plaintiff from practicing law in the state courts because he has filed a bill in a federal court charging defendants with misconduct and corruption in certain litigation pending in a state court, no cause of action is made out. Green v. Rogers (C. C. 1893) 56 Fed. 220.

The rights, privileges, and immunities which this section was designed to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state. Wadleigh v. Newhall (C. C. 1905) 136 Fed. 941. *They do not include the right of an individual to life, liberty, or property, which were primary rights within the protection of the state. Brawner v. Irvin (C. C. 1909) 169 Fed. 964.

{*This is a very revealing admission and confirms the underlying reason why U.S. citizens can be swindled by political policies into perpetual, federal indebtedness. There are some deep, ugly truths here which cannot be ignored. A U.S. citizens property is always 100% at risk of confiscation. Any nonwhite citizen has another qualification— they only have those equal rights by privilege, therefore, their allegiance to the federal is based and enforced upon, by only having those same civil rights as white citizens. They forfeit one for the abuse of the other. To control the freed slaves by their citizenship, also meant ensnaring white citizens, but only those excluded from the higher rungs of the social ladder. This is political entrapment pure and simple.]

Persons of African descent have the same, but no greater rights, than other [U.S.] citizens in the state where they make their home; the rights and privileges protected from infringement by this section, and the infringement of which creates a cause of action for damages, being common to all citizens. Brawner v. Irvin (C. C. 1909) 169 Fed. 964.


2. Jurisdiction of federal courts.—The rights for the deprivation of which suits may be brought in a circuit court of the United States under R. S. § 629, cl. 16, ante, § 991 (14), for the protection of rights secured by the constitution of the United States, or for any law providing for equal rights of citizens, include civil rights only, and the provisions of that section were brought forward from Act April 20, 1871, to enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment. Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co. (1900) 20 .Sup. Ct. 272, 273, 176 U. S. 68. 44 L. Ed. 374.

The scope of the equitable jurisdiction of the federal courts was not extended beyond what was an appropriate subject-matter for equitable relief according to existing standards, by this section. Giles v. Harris (1903) 23 Sup. Ct. 639, 189 U. S. 475, 47 L. Ed. 909.

The liability declared in this section for depriving a person of rights, privileges and immunities manifestly depends on the fact that such deprivation be under color of some statute, ordinance, etc., of a state or territory; and hence to constitute a cause of action under such section, plaintiff must show, as part of his case, that defendant claims to act under color of a statute, ordinance, etc., of a state or territory. California Oil & Gas Co. v. Miller (C. C. 1899 ) 96 Fed. 12, 22.

8. Corporations.—A corporation is included within the word “person.” Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde [‘ark (C. C. 1873) Fed. Case. No. 10,336.

The following section specifically outlines the subject of Peonage. Due to the debt of the federal being tied directly to the “creditor” on one end and the U.S. citizen on the other, which thereby, establishes a “condition of peonage” whereby the forced extraction of money from the debtor, is by force of legal coercion— the million dollar question becomes, at what point do those very same laws, regulations and codes become Null and Void? And if so, what are the immediate consequences? Ponder these questions carefully.

§ 3944. (R. S. § 1990.) Peonage abolished.

The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in the Territory of New Mexico, or in any other Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of the Territory of New Mexico, or of any other Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void. Act March 2, 1867, c. 187. § 1, 14 Stat. 540.

9. Proof.

10. Defense.

1. Operation of statute.—Though the system of peonage in New Mexico was the moving cause for the enactment of this and the following section, and its title and the senate debates showing that to be the fact, the act does more than merely abolish an existing system, and makes criminal certain acts which would tend to sustain or re-establish such a system; said section 5520 providing for the punishment of any person who holds, arrests, returns, or causes to be returned, any person “to a condition of peonage.In re [___] (C. C. 1902) 114 Fed. 903.

This section has no application to the state of Georgia, in which the system of peonage never existed. V. S. v. Eberhart (C. C. 1899) 127 Fed. 252.

Pen. Code Ga. 1910. S§ 715. 716, making it an offense for a person to obtain money on contract for services with intent not to perform, does not violate this section. Wilson v. State (1912) 75 S. B. 619, 138 Ga. 489.

2. Construction.—This statute is not construed with the same strictness or on the same footing as those that regulate or restrain the exercise of a natural right or forbid the doing of things not intrinsically wrong. Peonage Cases (D. C. 1903) 123 Fed. 671, 673.

3. Validity.—This section is a valid exercise of power granted to Congress by Const. U. S. Amend. 13. Clvntt v. U. S. (1905) 25 Sup. Ct. 429, 430. 197 U. S. 207, 49 L. Ed. 726; U. S. v. McClellan (D. C. 1904) 127 Fed. 971, 973, 979.

Cr. Code S. C. 1902, § 357, declaring a laborer under contract to labor on farm lands, who shall receive advances and thereafter willfully and without just cause fail to perform the reasonable service required by the contract, guilty of a misdemeanor, is in violation

of this section. Ex parte Hollman (1908) 60 S. E. 19, 79 S. C. 9.

4. “Peonage” defined.—Peonage is a status or condition of compulsory service based on the indebtedness of the peon to the master. Clyatt v. U. S. (1905) 25 Sup. Ct. 429, 430, 197 U. S. 207, 49 L. Ed. 726.

Peonage is a term descriptive of a condition which has existed in Spanish America and especially in Mexico. The essence of the thing is compulsory service in payment of a debt. A peon is one who is compelled to work for his creditor until his debt is paid. In this enactment congress was not concerned with mere names or manner of description or with a particular place or section of the country. It was concerned with the fact wherever it might exist; with a condition however named and wherever it might be established, maintained, or enforced. That a debtor contracted to perform the labor which is sought to be compelled does not withdraw the attempted enforcement from the condemnation of the statute. It is the compulsion of the service that the statute inhibits, for when that occurs the condition of servitude is created, which would be not less involuntary because of the original agreement to work out the indebtedness. The contract exposes the debtor to liability for the loss due to the breach but not to enforce labor.

The act of Congress, nullifying all state laws by which it should be attempted to enforce the service or labor of any persons as peons in liquidation of any debt or obligation or otherwise, necessarily embraces all legislation which seeks to compel the service or labor by making it a crime to refuse or fail to perform it. Such laws would furnish the readiest laws of compulsion. The thirteenth amendment of the constitution prohibits involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime. But the exception in such amendment, allowing full latitude for the enforcement of penal laws, does not destroy the prohibition. It does not permit slavery or involuntary servitude to be established or maintained through the operation of the criminal law, by making it a crime to refuse to submit to the one or render the service which would constitute the other. The state may impose involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, but it may not compel one man to labor for another for a debt by punishing him as a criminal if he does not perform the service or pay the debt.

What the state may not do directly it may not do indirectly. It cannot punish the servant as a criminal for the mere failure or refusal to serve without paying his debt, and it is not permitted to accomplish the same result by creating a statutory presumption, which, upon proof of no other fact, exposes him to conviction and punishment. Bailey v. Alabama (1911) 31 Sup. Ct. 145, 151, 219 U. S. 219, 55 L. Ed. 191.


Peonage is a form of slavery, and was abolished and prohibited by this section. It may be defined as a condition of compulsory service based upon the indebtedness of the peon to the master. The principal fact is the indebtedness. This indebtedness of the peon to the master is the criminal cord by which they are held bound to the master’s service. Upon this is based a condition of compulsory service. Peonage is sometimes classified as voluntary or involuntary, but this applies only to a difference in the origin, but none in the character of the servitude. The one exists where the debtor voluntarily contracts to enter the service of his creditor to work out a debt. The other is forced upon the debtor by some apparent, but void, provision of law, or by the exercise of criminal force, that is sometimes the perfection of cruelty. But peonage, however created, is compulsory involuntary servitude. The peon can release himself therefrom, it is true, by the payment of the debt; but otherwise the servitude is enforced. A clear distinction exists between peonage and the voluntary performance of labor in payment of debt. In the latter case the debtor, though contracting to pay his debt in labor, can elect at any time to break it, and no law compels a continuance of the service. That which is contemplated to be prohibited by this section is compulsory service to secure the payment of a debt. In re Peonage Charge (C. C. 1905) 138 Fed. 686, 687.

The word “peonage,” as used in the statute, includes cases of involuntary servitude to work out a debt. But every case of such servitude may not be within the statute. A “peon” is defined as a “species of serf, compelled to work for his creditor until his debts are paid,” and the statute, in referring to the service or labor of persons as “peons in liquidation of any debt or obligation,” points to this definition. In re Lewis (C. C. 1902) 114 Fed. 963, 966, 967.

“Peonage,” within the meaning of this section and R. S. § 5526, post, §10442, is the holding of persons in unwilling servitude in payment of debts, by means either of force or intimidation. U. S. v. Clement (D. C. 1909) 171 Fed. 974.Peonage, within the meaning of this section, is the holding of any person to service or labor to pay a debt due from the laborer to the employer, when such employee desires to leave the employment before his debt is paid off; and it is immaterial whether the contract of employment was voluntarily made by the laborer or not, and whether it was made for a present or preexisting consideration. Peonage Cases (D. C. 1905) 136 Fed. 707, 708.

5. Condition of peonage.—The “condition of peonage,” to hold a person to which is made a crime, is a condition of forced servitude by which the servitor is restrained of his liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of some debt or obligation, either real or pretended, against his will; and any agreement giving another the right to exact such servitude is invalid under the law, and treated as though made involuntarily, and affords the creditor or master no protection. Peonage Cases (D. C. 1903) 123 Fed. 671, 679, 680.

If one person carries another before a magistrate, informing him that he is accused of crime, and the magistrate induces the accused, who is of weak mind, or little intelligence, or confiding, to believe that he has been sentenced to hard labor for a fine when in fact no offense was charged, no warrant issued, and no judgment entered, and such person is induced by such fraudulent means to submit to restraint of his liberty, the persons so concerned are guilty of causing the accused to be held to a condition of peonage. Id.

What influence, force, or threats to compel a person to render service to another in liquidation of an obligation amounts to coercion, such as, if effective, will render the service involuntary and create a condition of peonage, must be determined by taking into consideration in each case the relative inferiority of the person contracting to perform the service to the person exercising the force or influence to compel its performance. Id.

A person who hires another or induces him to sign a contract by which he agrees during the term to be imprisoned or kept under guard, and under cover of such agreement afterward holds the party to the performance of the contract by threats or punishment or undue influence, subduing his free will, when he desire’s to abandon the service, is guilty of holding such person to “a condition of peonage.” Id.

A condition of peonage, within the denunciation of this section, is the illegal holding of a person to involuntary servitude, to work out a debt or contract claimed to be due by the person so held to the person so holding.


6. Violation of statute—What constitutes.—The holding of another in a state of peonage, whether sanctioned or not by municipal or state law, is included in the prohibition in this section against peonage in any state or territory. Clyatt v. U. S. (1905) 25 Sup. Ct. 429, 431, 197 U. S. 207, 49 L. Ed. 726.

A person who falsely pretends to another that he is accused of crime, and offers his good offices to prevent his conviction if he will pay a sum of money, thereby to satisfy the prosecutor, and thus induces such party to sign a contract obligating himself to work to reimburse the amount paid out or pretended to be paid out for this purpose, and to submit to restraint and deprivation of his liberty while he is performing the contract, is guilty of holding such person, or causing him to be held, to a condition of peonage, whenever such person, having so entered on performance of the contract, desires to leave it, but is compelled to remain and perform it by threats or punishment, subduing his freedom of will; and any third person, for whose benefit such a contract is made, who, knowing such facts, becomes the custodian of the person so held to servitude and enforces performance of the contract, is also guilty of the offense. Peonage Cases (D. C. 1903) 123 Fed. 671, 682.

Inducing a person to labor in payment of debts by threats of prosecution may constitute intimidation and amount to peonage, if by reason of the different character of the parties such threats overcame the will of the servant and the service was involuntary. U. S. v. Clement (D. C. 1909) 171 Fed. 974, 976.

The fact that persons were induced to work for another in payment of debts through fear of prosecution if they refused did not render the master guilty of peonage, unless such fear was caused by threats of prosecution made by him at the time. Id.

To constitute the crime of holding another person in peonage, defendant need not have acted corruptly. Id.

7. State laws.—So far as the refusal without just cause to perform the labor called for in a written contract under which the employee obtained money not refunded or property not paid for was made prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud by Code Ala. 1896, § 4730, as amended by Gen. Acts 1903, p. 345, and Gen. Acts 1907, p. 636, and therefore punishable as a criminal offense, such statute offends against this section, especially since, under the local practice accused may not, to rebut the statutory presumption, testify to his uncommunicated motives, purposes, or intentions. Bailey v. Alabama (1911) 31 Sup. Ct. 145, 219 U. S. 219, 55 L. Ed. 191, reversing judgment (1909) 49 South. 886, 161 Ala. 75.

A condition of peonage results from Code Ala. § 6846, under which a person fined for a misdemeanor may confess judgment with a surety in the amount of the fine and agreeing with the surety on payment of the judgment to reimburse him by working for him on terms approved by the court. U. S. v. Reynolds (1914) 35 Sup. Ct 86, 235 U. S. 133, 59 L. Ed. 162, reversing judgments (D. C. 1914) 213 Fed. 352, and Same v. Broughton (D. C. 1914) 213 Fed. 345.

Act Ala. March 1, 1901 (Acts 190001, p. 1208, § 1), making it a penal offense to abandon a contract for services, violates this section. In re Peonage Charge (C. C. 1905) 138 Fed. 686.

8. Federal Jurisdiction.—A federal court may entertain a prosecution for violation of this section, though prosecution of the same acts under the name of kidnapping and false imprisonment might be held in the state courts. U. S. v. McClellan (D. C. 1903) 127 Fed. 971.

9. Proof.—Evidence of a prior condition of peonage to which the persons so held were returned by the acts of the defendant, is essential to support a conviction under an indictment charging him with returning certain designated persons to a condition of peonage. Clyatt v. U. S. (1905) 25 Sup. Ct, 429, 432, 197 U. S. 207. 49 L. F.H. 720.

10. Defense.—A magistrate or other judicial officer, who corruptly exercises his functions in order that a citizen may be unlawfully convicted of crime and sold into involuntary servitude for the benefit of another, with whom he has an understanding, cannot escape liability for the conspiracy, and its natural and designed results in holding the accused to a condition of peonage, because of the official character of his acts. Peonage Cases (D. C. 1903) 123 Fed. 671, 083, 684

section 5. definitions–B. The term “United States” means the United States and any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and the term “continental United States” means the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Territory of Alaska: Provided, however, That for the purposes of this Order the term “United States” shall not be deemed to include any territory included within the term “foreign country” as defined in paragraph D of this section.—U.S. CodeTitle 50Chapter 53 › § 4305

Whenever the term”United States” is used it is not a good idea to assume anything unless the defined term means what it specifically implies.


Now who exactly is the Master?

Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933,
48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. [House Joint Resolution]
192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 -Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause
dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices,
Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only. The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States.

“In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.
The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a “Canon Law Trust” as their model, adding stock and naming it a “Joint Stock Trust.” The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal “person” to duplicate a “Joint Stock Trust” in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870) [to make the Federal Reserve Bank exempt from the “Joint Stock Trust” law of 1873], although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]

The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.

Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.

[Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)]

“Hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.”— United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303—James Traficant’s Speech


—“My history lessons in high school and college briefly covered the Great Depression and the New Deal proposals. Nowhere in any of those classes or in the text books did I find any discussion about The Emergency Act of 1933, or the implications of that Act.
Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 & Executive Order 6260 and the Trading with the Enemy Act started the process of changing the United States from a sovereign nation to a bankrupt entity under the control of the international bankers as original creditors.
At first glance, this might seem preposterous; however, excerpts from the Congressional Record bear out the condition of bankruptcy, at least for the United States.
“That is the equity of what we are about to do. Yes; you are going to close us down. Yes; you have already closed us down, and have been doing it long before this year. Our President says that for 3 years we have been on the way to bankruptcy. We have been on the way to bankruptcy longer than 3 years. We have been on the way to bankruptcy ever since we began to allow the financial mastery of this country gradually to get into the hands of a little clique that has held it right up until they would send us to the grave.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Long, March 11, 1933
It appears that Congressman Long is referring to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that gave complete and unregulated control of our money system to a cabal of private bankers.
“I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation–they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation–to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected from the Government.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Patman, March 13, 1933

The confabulated path so required to understand the magnitude of the problem, is also why so many just say, ‘screw it all’ and go about their daily lives no doubt hoping, somebody else will figure it all out. The legalized, yet odious obligations which bind the American people to the chains of everlasting debt, have also perfected that invisible cage around the U.S. citizen, which is without question the modern day version of indebtedness by peonage.

That’s the funny thing— nobody considered themselves a peon by natural choice, hell, some may be quite offended by even implying such a wretched state, and yet, it is the one action [so abolished] that would set all State Citizens free from that fake mountain of perpetual, debt obligations. Where did that Consideration of Value go when the fiat dollar became the only game in town?

Why The IRS Deserves To Be Hated

March 3, 2016

The following should only be read at your own risk. 


Typically, when the right questions are never answered, the wrong ones are always in the spotlight. But, why are those frivolous questions always wrong? There is nothing difficult about searching the net for the atypical, strategic avoidance methods thereby, resulting in all that conspiracy derived “frivolous” tax answers, however, what is obvious, is actually not that obvious.  Of course, people come up with ridiculous theories, to explain why, they cannot possibly believe, they can owe that vanilla-box stamped “treasury dept.” (via the IRS) a chunk of their gross receipts as taxable income. That’s perfectly natural. Who can blame the millions of people, who find dealing with the unethical IRS to be a miserable exercise in futile irrationality, and may indeed desperately cling to the small hope something will free them from that infamous death grip, thereby Imposed.

One can argue that hating the very idea of the IRS is the patriotic duty of every freedom loving, American Union Citizen, not to be confused with that flim-flam impostor called the U.S. citizen, who simply does everything that it is told. Why that miserable peon has to ask permission just to wipe his “under that jurisdiction” nose. Uncle Sam is one mean SOB when you owe his fat bastards some of that INCOMES money, and he don’t care about none of those silly details acting like pins under the fingernails. The sad fact is jury nullification would have stopped this illegal gravy-train a long time ago, were it not for the fact those very same U.S. citizens are bunch of yellow-bellied, chickens. Well, that and the fact they are not allowed a jury trial in a Tax Court.

Typically, only American Union Citizens have the stones to tell those bean-pinching, confiscation agents to go pound sand. Sadly, the government forces a false representation of the actual facts to trick people into claiming the wrong thing for the right reason. Thus, those brave souls go to prison not becuase they are wrong, or morally challenged, but because they failed to understand a U.S. citizen never wins a round with his Master.  Never— the U.S. citizen is in the pod.When you tell a judge you are not under the jurisdiction thereof, and you are still in that pod… well he thinks your an idiot.

Oh, the irony.

Constitutionally fortified Union Citizens know damn good and well, this is a Nation of Public Laws not private law masquerading as an insult to our collective prosperity. Those men in black-hats know the Achilles heel of any political body is determined by that old adage, “who benefits”— which is also synonymous with He who stands to lose the most money had better gain control of the House Rules. The ultra-filthy rich have played the game so well, with such fabulous results, how can any one possibly accuse them of cheating? Why such paragons of virtue surely regard the peon-masses as whiny, little bitches who should have found a better job, or two as the case may be. The Normative Question as always is treated as the ugly, step-child of grand economic theory. The silence is surely deafening when those wretched questions so posed cannot be answered.

If the 16th went bye-bye tomorrow, the super-ultra rich would still be exactly the same wealth wise— and if there is no difference in that asset minus liability equation, why pretend the 16th made any difference. The give away was the damn thing passed. If it had really posed any danger to the filthy rich it would have never made it out on the floor to even be debated. Now why would the arch-villains of Income agree to their own demise? For the exact same reason a wolf agrees to guard the hen house. It was their only way in…. yeah, and the American people fell for it hook-line-and-sinker.

More proof of that deeper insult: America’s Secret Multi-Trillion Black Op’s Fund

According to another recent article, concerning income taxes:

“Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

The top 1 percent of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1 million, pay 43.6 percent of all the federal individual income tax in the US; the top 0.1 percent — just 115,000 households, whose average income is more than $9.4 million — pay more than 20 percent of it.”

It’s a no-brainer that those who have the  most taxable income, do indeed pay that skin-flint, Uncle Sam accordingly. The next graphic/statistic, that always needs to be displayed with such articles, is the one which shows how much of the that total wealth is owned… by those very same taxpayers.

Say like this one from a few years back:

How Rich Are the Super rich?

A huge share of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.

The richest controls 2/3 of America's net worth

Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn’t reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the super rich. ” It’s the Inequality, Stupid

There is a multitude of studies/articles, examining the causes for the “Inequality Gap” all over the net, and I am proof positive the filthy wealthy know, we know, what they pretend not to know, is indeed known. The comedy routine of that Rumsfeld guy always comes to mind when the house crooks realize that they need to lose 2.3 trillion dollars, like yesterday. Whose pocket needs a new lining is the real question never asked. It really is too simply to just pretend it never existed as claimed. As if it really was just that easy to lose trillions without a trace. That would mean it never arrived and was already a ghost on the big books, when it was diverted somewhere else.

—“Over the last decade, a huge share of America’s income and wealth gains has flowed to the top one-tenth of the richest 1 percent, the wealthiest one out of a thousand households.

Within this group, our richest 400 individuals command a dizzying amount of wealth, defined here as total assets minus liabilities. The annual Forbes 400 ranking provides a unique insight into the extreme wealth concentration at America’s economic summit. Forbes began publishing its top 400 ranking in 1982. The total wealth of the latest 400 adds up to $2.34 trillion, a new all-time record and more than the GDP of India, a country with a population of over a billion.

Many members of the Forbes 400 have amassed wealth in their lifetime through successful companies and innovation. But all of the Forbes 400 have also benefited enormously from a system of tax, trade, and regulatory rules tipped in favor of wealth holders at the expense of wage earners. Tax policies, for instance, routinely favor capital income over wage income, and these policies disproportionately benefit the Forbes 400, especially those working in finance.

The United States is becoming, as the French economist Thomas Piketty warns, a hereditary aristocracy of wealth and power. As a society, we must intervene. We need focused public policies to slow and reverse these trends and protect our democracy and social stability.” Peak Inequality

Take an extra look at the bold text “Tax policies, for instance, routinely favor capital income over wage income and ask the simple question, is that by accident or design that these two very unlike “incomes” are now claimed to be the same? Did those super-rich labor for every one of those billion-dollars one lousy, menial hour at a time? Gosh, what a miracle of sweat shopping that is… not.

Unlike comparisons of wealth are useless as base metrics. How do you compare two guys economically where one receives millions per minute and the other a minimum wage per hour, resulting in a huge cultural privilege. What an insult to common intelligence it is to suggest that million-dollar a minute guy is earning his wages like a commoner. Co-mingling economic terms has not improved understanding of the critical cultural issues impairing inequality. When it comes to money, one income is never culturally just like any other, like two peas in a pod.

When the tax system becomes an immutable object, societies deform [often violently] under the increasing disparity of unequal Income meanings. The gross income disparity proves the tax system is a total failure due to policies, which cannot solve the very problems they intentionally create. Taxes are actually really bad at solving government revenue problems in a good way. Policy always follows the stink of money and the hyper-concentrations of power, manipulate outcomes, to serve the highest bidder of prestigious influence.

Therefore, the smart money is on good old political sin which demands the question– If tax policy, is unethically favoring the ultra-wealthy to protect their never-ending advantages of super-sized, all powerful Incomes of fabulous Wealth, the proof is in the shiny gold cup not the pudding. Perpetual national Indebtedness by Peonage, served up with a slightly left-political twist, is the ugly truth never to be spoken. Why were those slave-wagers just re-classified as wage earners by sheer accident? Not likely. So why doesn’t the IRS recognize Slave Income as earned by Peons? Oops wrong cultural question.

—§ 3944. (R. S. § 1990.) Peonage abolished.

The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in the Territory of New Mexico, or in any other Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of the Territory of New Mexico, or of any other Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void. Act March 2, 1867, c. 187. § 1, 14 Stat. 540.— 4. “Peonage” defined.—Peonage is a status or condition of compulsory service based on the indebtedness of the peon to the master. Clyatt v. U. S. (1905) 25 Sup. Ct. 429, 430, 197 U. S. 207, 49 L. Ed. 726.—The essence of the thing is compulsory service in payment of a debt. A peon is one who is compelled to work for his creditor until his debt is paid.”—If the reader gets what I am pointing to —- you too may be a Neo.

Never-ending debt requires an endless supply of hopeful, pie-in-the-sky peons. And why was the economic Mercantile system engineered directly for this devious purpose? Ever wonder why the government not only tolerates excessive illegal immigration, but actually encourages such exuberance by every means possible? It’s a numbers game after all. Every newly minted U.S. citizen is just another unwitting peon paying on that endless compounding debt. Yeah, it really is just that simple.

* As of December 30, 2015, the official debt of the United States government is $18.8 trillion ($18,825,061,664,536).[1] This amounts to:

  • $58,361 for every person living in the U.S.[2]
  • $151,100 for every household in the U.S.[3]
  • 104% of the U.S. gross domestic product.[4]
  • 539% of annual federal revenues.[5]

If you are one of those individuals that can pay off your “share” of the federal debt, which would be anyone in the top Income brackets, you are officially not a peon. Since every peon is liable for the National and by extension State debts, and those debts are more than any peon can earn in any taxable year (even if their entire wage was sent to that treasure dept.) the evidence of Indebtedness by Peonage is a provable fact for most U. S. citizens so born.

—“The former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, testifying before Congress, was quite open about the role of debt peonage in keeping workers passive. Greenspan pointed out that since 1980 labor productivity has increased by about 83 percent. Yet real wages have stagnated. Greenspan said this was because workers were too burdened with mortgage debts, college loans, auto payments and credit-card debt to risk losing a job. Household debt in the United States is around $13 trillion. This is only $2 trillion less than the country’s total yearly economic output.”— Maybe that old shark might have mentioned personal debts plus National Debt equals financial slavery by legalized tax imprisonment.

Under the Code the U.S. citizen is the simple-minded, politically manipulated peon and the Congress is its abrasive “exclusive legislating Master” who expects that very same peon to obey its every whim and demand, especially in regards to those Debts never to be questioned again.

In general, personal liability for only the U.S. citizen is exclusively due to the 14th amendment, not the 16th as assumed, or implied by IRS propaganda scams. Remember there is no enabling clause for the 16th for a reason! The revealing liability statement is tucked up front in the CFR 1998 version, where apparently even those IRS goons never think to look. I also traced it back to previous versions of the CFR. This liability clause is why that little check box labeled U.S. citizen is found on every document so required, dealing with the fed, or state contractual agreements. In 1954, the “Codes” had to be re-arranged to hide the deeper tricks, only possible by confusing the true relationships of peons, Individuals, persons, citizens and eight varieties of aliens under that U. S. jurisdiction thereof.

The Supreme Court, not Congress defined “Incomes” so stated in the 16th. This is a provable fact according to the actual Congressional records preceding the passage of 16th. So the major trick, used after 1954, is to confuse the meanings of “public and private Terms of Art” as used, to deflect attention away from the glaring absurdities in plain site. The common right to work is not an excise event, but commoner income from wages became taxable by fiat. The exemption was simply lowered until anyone earning a penny of wage was now liable for the entire income tax.

“An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax.”

“The legislature may declare as “privilege” and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a “privilege” and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right”   Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925)

“The 16th Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes the occasion for apportioning taxes on income among the states. Neither can the tax be sustained as a tax on the person, measured by income. Such a tax would be by nature a capitation rather than an excise.” PECK v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 165(1918).

—“According to tax historian John Witte, “In 1939, about 15% of the people paid income tax. That’s all, period. At the end of the war, we had 80% of our families paying income tax.”

In 1944, the Victory Tax was repealed by section 6 of the Income Tax Act of 1944 after it had been renewed. But, for some strange and unknown reason, Congress decided to keep it on the down low. Because most people didn’t know about it, they just kept paying taxes.”—

—“The Revenue Bill of 1942 further reduced the exemption, added a Victory Tax on “gross income” of $624 or more and instituted the withholding provisions; all in the name of preventing inflation while creating inflation through deficit spending and increased taxes.“—

—{However, in addition to the Revenue Bill of 1943 Congress enacted a separate piece of legislation requiring the payment of taxes in the year the income is earned, instead of the following year in which the taxes were normally paid. Basically the “Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 (H.R. 2570), deals with the “pay-as-you-go” concept of tax collection. In order to accomplish the transition, without collecting two years taxes in the same year, Congress had to come up with a workable plan. Part of that “plan” was the “withholding” provisions similar to that used by the Social Security Act. This is the beginning of our current “Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages” (26USC3401) requirement. In addition, this is where the “estimated tax payment” requirement comes from. The Committee Reports provide a detailed explanation.

“Some, no doubt, have heard of the “Ruml” plan and the proposal to forgive one year’s taxes in order to facilitate the move to a “pay-as-you-go” collection system. It did not happen. Instead Congress lowered the taxes due from 1942 income, based upon the 1941 schedules, and implemented the “withholding at the source on wages and salaries” provisions for the collection of taxes on current income (based upon gross receipts, or income under the new terminology). In addition, the provision for filing and paying estimated taxes was developed to facilitate the collection of current taxes from those acquiring their income through the operation of business and financial transactions (based upon net-income, or income under the old terminology). In other words, the tax would be taken from the paycheck of the employee on a scheduled basis as it was earned, whereas the sole-proprietor would file a quarterly statement and pay an estimated tax amount.”

—It is interesting to note that the “withholding” provision applicable to “wages”, in relation to the Victory Tax, was based upon the “personal exemption” of $624 single, $1,248 married, and $312 in the case of a dependent. Whereas, for the net-income tax provisions the exemptions were $500, $1200, and $350, respectively.  The reasoning used was that the “Victory” tax was based upon the gross income of wages and salaries, and temporary in nature. Therefore, the personal exemption allowance was based upon the statistical cost of “food and a little more”, whereas under the net-income tax provisions the personal exemption was based upon an arbitrary amount. In other words, the Victory tax is where the value of the “personal exemption” changed from an amount adequate to cover the “personal living and family expenses” of the majority of the population, to an amount that barely covered the yearly cost of food. It remains that way today.}—943: The Current Tax Payment Act

The greater the mental-voodoo involved , the more incomprehensible the demands in writing must become, which is why no diagrams, color charts, or any other VISUAL presentations to clarify said demands, or obligations, as required, are apparently allowed. Think about this deliberate method of obfuscation very carefully— what has to be hidden still has to be in plain site…. or the whole shebang goes down in flames.

Case in point, ever check out the code sections for say… Trusts? Where there is no financial Uniformity— lies the tapeworm of Direct taxes—- on a U.S. citizen not protected by a Union State constitution. So ask the obvious question… why was a “liability” via a non-tax amendment, artificially created for only the lowly U. S. citizen? Let me guess… ’cause that’s the only  one that can’t fight back against the injustice where it festers like a puss, riddled sore on the body politic. Sure beat up on that defenseless U.S. peon, conveniently shackled to that inexhaustible debt, so he knows Congress can kick his ass at any time and apparently anyplace as well.

This lack of any lawful defense begs the unpopular question, was this state of citizen control produced only by sadistic design? Why that would mean low-down conspiracy by legalized, scheming policy, as if a slimy, political conspiracy was just atypical, bureaucratic ineptness by over-worked, duplicitous civil servants. That pompous golden crown sure does look like it needs a fresh coat of moral paint. The apologetic polishers might want wipe the bloody stain off their noses.

Did the feds start specifically taxing the “U.S. citizen” prior to the 16th?  Curiously, if those attempts were not successful, why not? The 16th is clearly an indirect reach-around, excise tax on corporate incomes— read the address of President Taft to Congress— there is no doubt it is an excise on privileges, plural, and not one word about wages, however earned by peons at large.The balance was supposed to be found in the exemption. Clearly, that was a lie. The  exemption was never sacred, or even dedicated by lawful measure. The exemption clause was too weak to be taken seriously, and lawmakers continuously reneged on the deal as if it was never there at all. That’s the lie which needs to be rectified.

Hence, no Cultural Uniformity is even possible between the peons and the owners of that Capital, by lawful application of unequal political rules. So why is that cultural distinction so important in solving the bigger economic puzzle? Easy— the super-ultra- rich already had a fix on both sides of that Golden Coin long before that 16th ruse was passed. They were never actually at risk. They also had nothing to fear when they lend their money for your money which is really their money so returned with compound interest.

A living person has Natural Rights —basic logic stipulates— that which has no mind of its own has no authority over that which does— that which has no conscience cannot Speak for one that does, that which sheds no blood to defend others, has no right to demand of others, that which it cannot do for itself and that which has no force of Will is forever bound to that which does—Hence, living People so endowed by their Creator with Natural Rights, have inherent Unalienable Rights, Constitutionally protected Inalienable Rights and civil alienable citizen rights all at the same Time. Our Founders did not Crown the federal in the Name of the King. Or themselves. And who came first? We the People….  who also created those treasonous civil servants now chanting superior authority, but only for themselves. Apparently the law has become an ass of itself.

A corporation is a State created fictional person/citizen and all of its rights are permanently alienable. All States are also fictions and have enumerated rights, all of which are alienable. Disagree… then go ask that State to Speak for itself. Nature does NOT create fictions called States— which is why atheists claiming supreme state authority are collective idiots.

The sordid truths of the economic system as Imposed are found in the dark, cultural absurdities never properly questioned.

Thus, proving why the typical wage worker has been royally screwed is easy. Unfortunately, the average Joe has been tricked into believing by way of assumptions and dire threats to agree to the public game of voluntary self assessment— by the tyrants,  private Creditor RULES of course. If you agree to those pirate credit terms that’s the whole of the private law game.

So this amazing legal creditor trick of “debt income’ predicated upon taxing culturally free Union state persons as politically imprisoned  “fed citizens” is based upon using an amendment only meant to Lawfully apply to corporations, those that own them in whatever capacity and foreigners in general. So the real question is: why did the 16th do the exact opposite as claimed? And if you think about it… that is one hell of a trick. The proof is in that wealth disparity unchanged culturally from then till now.

If the jurisdiction of the federal was so all encompassing, that just any old citizen was liable for the tax so imposed, why make any distinctions where none are needed? The liability clause for U.S. citizens is found in previous versions of the CFR:

“(c) [Who?] is a *citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction [thereof] is a *citizen.”

–“The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.”

—“The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens (primarily who were slaves).  The most commonly used — and frequently litigated — phrase in the amendment is  “equal protection of the laws“, which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights),  Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination),  and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education).”

Also take notice of the proper reference, “State of the United States” and why the proper form is not used when required which will become very clear further on.

14th — Section 1. [Green additions to show  missing logical elements/conflicts]

—“All persons [but not any individual] born or naturalized in [not any State ] the United States (not of America), and subject to the jurisdiction thereof(false for Union Citizens), are citizens of the United States  (not of America) and of the state (lower case) wherein they reside(not domiciled). No state (Not a Union State) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of **citizens of the United States(sounds quite foreign as compared to the several States); nor shall any (foreign) *state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

*How very odd that this form was not used: State of the United States and their jurisdictions not its. And the switch to persons, not citizens, or even individuals. From this reading it actually makes more sense if the section in question was addressing foreign states, not Union ones. This is worded exactly as one would expect to warn foreign states your class of protected citizens are to be left alone. A citizen grab requires better “privileges and immunities” then the next booth over. Re-read that section as if you were some poor, non-U.S. non-English speaking/writing peon looking for a better deal of “citizenship” in dangerous revolutionary times. What a sweet deal until you finally understand all that fine print.

—“The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”—This clause proves not only was there NO such thing as a U.S. citizen, there was no need to make any class of citizens different from any other and no ‘under jurisdiction thereof’ as a condition for any Citizen to be a Citizen of the several States. Any inferior fed citizen would be very jealous of those other Citizens for the inequality alone. Once again who came first— The Union State Citizen or that impostor who took its place.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1

**Note the subtle changes of Citizens, States, several States to lower case in any description were duplicity is the means to an end.

     —Immunity — n. exemption from penalties, payments or legal requirements, granted by authorities or statutes. Generally there are three types of immunity at law: a) a promise not to prosecute for a crime in exchange for information or testimony in a criminal matter, granted by the prosecutors, a judge, a grand jury or an investigating legislative committee; b) public officials’ protection from liability for their decisions (like a city manager or member of a public hospital board); c) governmental (or sovereign) immunity, which protects government agencies from lawsuits unless the government agreed to be sued; d) diplomatic immunity which excuses foreign ambassadors from most U.S. criminal laws.

So once again, the question is WHY not state the obvious in regards to laws or regulations tying together assets of wealth not just liability and taxable incomes? Wealth is the cultural disparity and measuring that wealth only by the economic term “Incomes” is how the ultra-wealthy dodged the real intent of that public tax soaking, while laughing at the uninformed peons, who had no idea how they were culturally fooled simply by empty, meaningless economic terms alone.

Any sentence, using the political term “citizen”by the 14th amendment wording, is not addressing a cultural Citizen of the several States. Any cultural law by definition, that fails to specify why a U.S. citizen by economic default is in a defective person-class (by omission of genuine cultural Citizen Rights) is a purposeful deception upon those persons so born.

That each cultural class of “citizens/Citizens” is lawfully exactly the same is the false economic assumption the reader is intended to infer. So do not assume that intended similarity to be true. When a textual description only says one thing and nothing else, Inclusion and Exclusion are the only rules providing cultural clarity.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

The really interesting question: is the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” actually the wrong assertion for entry into a State of the United States? And when did they become culturally equal?

—“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” If the intention was to elevate freed slaves to equal cultural status of whites why not just say so? Why is state citizenship secondary (weak) if State citizenship equality was the actual goal? And once the freed slaves were elevated to whole Citizen status the federal demand of jurisdiction is Constitutionally untenable, in any of those several States. Why is “state” a sneaky political distinction not a geographical cultural one?

“All persons born or naturalized in any State of the United States, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States thereof, cannot be citizens of the United States, or of any state wherein they reside.” In this example the negation of U.S. jurisdiction, a State Citizen cannot be a United States (federal) citizen, or reside in any other state under its jurisdiction.

Since Union persons are already Citizens of the State where they are Domiciled, Congress never had jurisdiction to change State  citizenship by any legislative act, and they did not. Typically, only foreign persons who can be “Subjects to” the jurisdiction of Congress, and only after the prescribed specific conditions—born or naturalized—especially if in foreign lands and on the high seas, may become U.S. citizens.  So many researchers have noted again and again, that most of the IRS Code, aside from corporations, primarily deals with foreign persons under that jurisdiction and to a much lessor extant, Union Citizens doing business in foreign jurisdictions.

The curious factor here has been lost to history— sending freed slaves to “states” clearly exterior to the geographic United States of America— for slightly, unethical cultural reasons. The language of the 14th hid the real cultural intent, plus the forcing of passage by military intervention, the denial of suffrage, all point to a rotten cultural purpose made nice by false intentions of political good.

—-“During the next few decades, thousands of freed slaves came from Canada, the West Indies, and other parts of West Africa to the Sierra Leone Colony, and in 1820 the first freed slaves from the United States arrived at Sierra Leone. In 1821, the American Colonization Society founded the colony of Liberia south of Sierra Leone as a homeland for freed U.S. slaves outside of British jurisdiction.—- Gosh, what a surprise.

——“”So many people in the North said we will not accept emancipation unless it is accompanied by colonization,” said Mr. Burlingame, adding that Lincoln himself had always made clear colonization would be voluntary and nobody would be forced out of the United States.

—The newly released documents underscore just how hot a topic colonization was in the 1800s, when prominent statesmen debated whether blacks and whites could ever live together in a functioning society.

—Earlier in the century, the American Colonization Society already had organized efforts to ship thousands of black Americans to Africa to the colony of Liberia, and the debate over colonization raged even within the black community.

Frederick Douglass, one of the country’s most prominent free blacks, generally opposed colonization, though Mr. Burlingame said on a couple of occasions he showed signs he might embrace it — including appearing open to a venture in Haiti during the Civil War.

—Still, Douglass also rejected the argument that blacks and whites couldn’t live together, and he pointed to places in the North as examples of where it already was happening.

—Mr. Burlingame said some abolitionists viewed colonization as a plot to preserve slavery by getting rid of free blacks in the North, while others saw it as a way to undermine slavery by fundamentally questioning the principles slavery was based on.

—Mr. Magness, a researcher at the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, said he first got wind of Lincoln’s efforts while researching a meeting between the 16th president and Union Gen. Benjamin Butler in the waning days of the war, at which colonization had been discussed.

—-Most of the U.S. documents about the Belize and Guyana deals have gone missing, but Mr. Magness and his co-author tracked down what he called an “almost untapped treasure cache of Civil War-era records” from the British side that showed Lincoln’s deep involvement in the planning and authorization. With 4 million blacks in the U.S. at the time of the war, colonization would have been a tricky and pricey move.”—

The language of the 14th section 1  clearly anticipated a much greater colonization effort, under federal jurisdiction, due to freed slaves migrating, in addition to all those other valuable economic possibilities needing U.S. citizens. Only the political goals intended never fully materialized culturally as planned for freed black slaves. Also colonizing foreign territories where slavery existed with newly minted localized U.S. citizens may well have been part of a more ambitious plan to take control of such persons previously under “Other” jurisdictions. An army of civil citizens under U.S. jurisdictions, in foreign lands would have had quite the advantage to gain access to raw materials, plus other forms of wealth by diverse property acquisitions. Political control of new geographic zones occurred after defeating the Spanish and taking their booty.

Citizen protection equals exuberant empire building in foreign lands and those ambitions provide a viable explanation for the confusing language and awkward claims of jurisdiction. The manipulations of lawful intent is much easier when dealing with sole jurisdictional matters, especially when citizenship cultural liability, was twisted once again, for a different economic purpose; to take in yet more revenue for world war number two.

A foreign person who is not yet a subject to Congress, clearly has not been born in any State of the United States, but may well be from a possession or territory so conquered and therefore, would be under the jurisdiction thereof as a direct result.

A person who is not under the jurisdiction thereof is not a subject–American people are also Union Citizens, who are not subjects of congress, as they are impersonal sovereigns as a class group, “We the People” — so perhaps the exchange of Foreign subjects is merely a condition, which had to change in International Law, thus required persons to become a U.S. little (c) citizen, thereby financially severed from a previously foreign political jurisdiction.

—“The next major surge in debt coincided with the US Civil War. The federal government was nearly debt-free before the war. The public debt surged from about $65 million in 1860 to $2.76 billion in 1866. (The Lincoln administration also signed into law the first income tax in the country’s history in 1862, which was repealed 10 years later.) The debt would never get below $900 million again. But a surge of late-19th-century economic growth, with a bit of inflation, helped the US gradually reduce the the Civil War debt as a percentage of economic output.


The debt-to-GDP ratio hit its all-time record of 113% by war’s end. Debt was at $241.86 billion in 1946, about $2.87 trillion in current dollars. Unlike after World War I, the US never really tried to pay down much of the debt it incurred during World War II. Still the debt shrank in significance as the US economy grew. It would take the debt-to-GDP ratio until 1962 just to get back to where the US was before the war. And with some fits and starts the debt load declined until hitting its recent low in 1974 at 24%, when the debt outstanding held by the public was $343.7 billion ($1.61 trillion, in current dollars.)”  The long story of U.S. debt

Most people, unless so required, do not spend a whole lot of time unraveling a knot of seemingly no real concern. But tax laws are expertly written to dodge a basic truth, and that deeper truth concerns constitutionally protected property of State Citizens. The 14th amendment is not what it pretends to be and the language as used causes more confusion than clarity precisely because it was never honest to its claims. The above chart shows how public debt and war go hand in hand— and with that debt is the need for U.S. citizens paying on the debt-war racket, by any means possible even IF that requires tossing all of those Cultural Rights into the toilet. Or at least the appearance— which is why it is all wrapped around the taxpayer like a Gordian Knot, so identified as a US. citizen.

By example lets use a red apple to represent Union State Citizens  and a picture of any other apple to represent a U.S. citizen. One is Natural and the other is a photocopy/fiction — now lets say there is a table with a dozen boxes marked Items and Sources of “taxable” income from a grouping of Incomes. The game is to place  apples in the correct boxes. The Rules determine which form of apple goes where, and emphasize over and over, the penalty for choosing the wrong boxes. You, the person playing the game, pore over the instructions which are quite convoluted, not unlike a maze for the mind with no visual clues, that specific words as used, do not mean what they imply by common usage.

You are of course never told there is no box for the real apple and you mistake one form of apple for another due to the context of the demands. Since the game is based on psychological terms and phrases, mixed with difficult, conflicting math statements, interspersed with spaghetti tossed regulations, you choose the easy, well marked place-holders, indicating the best box answer, just to preserve your sanity. People are fooled by the well-marked boxes which only seem to be in harmony with the incomprehensible instructions. One is easy to find… the other overtly complex to determine. Is it any surprise that fake complexity is the proof of the trick hereby imposed?

Even more proof of these “tricks” in action is found in the following sections, see how many you can spot:—

[§1.1-1   Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual. For optional tax in the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income of less than $10,000 (less than $5,000 for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1970) see section 3. The tax imposed is upon taxable income (determined by subtracting the allowable deductions from gross income). The tax is determined in accordance with the table contained in section 1. See sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph for reference guides to the appropriate table for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1964, and before January 1, 1965, taxable years beginning after December 31, 1964, and before January 1, 1971, and taxable years beginning after December 31, 1970.

—In certain cases credits are allowed against the amount of the tax. See part IV (section 31 and following), sub-chapter A, chapter 1 of the Code. In general, the tax is payable upon the basis of returns rendered by persons liable therefor (sub-chapter A (sections 6001 and following), chapter 61 of the Code) or at the source of the income by withholding.

(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, [and all resident alien individuals] are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

—Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of a section 931 possession (as defined in §1.931-1(c)(1) of this chapter) or Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 931 or 933 with respect to income from sources within such possessions, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.

(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1.

—For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.
(d) Effective/applicability date. The second sentence of paragraph (b) of this section applies to taxable years ending after April 9, 2008. {Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of a section 931 possession (as defined in §1.931-1(c)(1) of this chapter) or Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 931 or 933 with respect to income from sources within such possessions, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual.}
(di) [T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7332, 39 FR 44216, Dec. 23, 1974; T.D. 9391, 73 FR 19358, Apr. 9, 2008] —

The absurdity is that by extending inferior rights to a fiction of the real, those real Rights for real people somehow no longer apply. The Federal Constitution cannot be invalidated by any Legislative Act, no matter how pious the reasons may be— therefore, giving inferior, implied municipal rights to freed slaves, simply cannot remove the BILL of Rights from everyone else. A picture cannot replace the real thing, or no one would need the real thing. However, dense confusing written codes can fool people into accepting conditions without realizing, when or which citizen/Citizen is being literally referenced.

The issue buried in the background is this: Culturally whites and blacks have different values— this clash in cultures was not addressed by the 14th,  nor did the 14th resolve the economic antagonism’s so suffered and of course, was never intended too either. The freed slaves were always culturally inferior Citizens of the States where they lived. White Citizens considered them inferior by belief alone not law. The freed slaves found themselves still under an oppressive cultural bias which a U.S. citizenship did not change.To accommodate another alien culture, which had no foundations in the prevalent culture, is like throwing meat balls into chicken soup. The correct principle was never addressed by the wrong political demands. Both sides were set up to fail. Miserably so with prejudice. To exploit the Capital Labor Market in foreign jurisdictions was no easy feat.

The 14th was a naked power grab based on politically adverse economic adjectives not morally based ones. The goal was to strip away the fundamental protections of all American Citizens, while pretending to defend the civil equality between two different cultures. Human slavery was not just a bad idea, it was an evil idea and a fatal defect to every Rule of law depending on equal Rights for all Citizens of the United States. Federal citizenship is an inferior solution to a cultural bias that cannot be solved by political gimmicks at the voting booth. The pain is from the thorn so Imposed from a foreign Master getting on its revenge the old-fashioned way—- destroying both cultural and economic domestic harmony.

The 14th is not a taxing law and sure in the hell did not give the federal bosses a new  TAXING power never before contemplated. But for a foreign banking Syndicate, it absolutely was necessary. And yet, the reference to the 14th amendment is very specific and tied directly to the infamous clause “And under the jurisdiction thereof” translated Exclusive Legislation. This begs a deeper question never answered: Why is an inferior form of political citizenship the only operational hook for the 16th amendment as applied culturally to “We the People” of the several States? Why not state the obvious? What is keeping Congress from simply applying the tax they really want IF they already had that specific taxing power as claimed? Easy— the 16th purposely has no enabling clause and is dependent on the 14th by regulation fiat. That fake dependency is the fatal defect which has to be downplayed or the economic gig is up.

—“Now, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution, of course, plainly and clearly provides the enforcement authority for these indirect Article I taxing powers:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”

This Article I clause of the Constitution of course, is the enabling enforcement clause that allows the federal government to enforce by written law, as appropriate legislation, the indirect taxing powers of the federal government that are granted in Article I, Section 8, clause 1, i.e.: the power to tax indirectly by impost, duty or excise.

       However, if this is the empowering enforcement clause that serves as the enabling enforcement clause that gives the government (IRS) the enforcement authority to lawfully operate under to enforce the collection and payment of the federal personal income tax as an indirect tax, then, of course, and obviously, it then becomes absolutely necessary to identify how the IRS has determined that any specific individual person is subject to one of these indirect taxing forms, i.e.: an impost, duty, or excise.

The problem here of course is that American citizens are not normally subject to any impost, duty, or excise tax, simply as a result of exercising their Right to Work.

Maybe this explains why the federal personal income tax was not paid on work (generally) or employment (specifically) by any American citizens until after World War II.”—

If the only authority as needed was the 16th, then the question of  jurisdiction is actually totally unnecessary. However, since both are being used I call this the “Pinch Effect” as neither power does the trick all by their lonesome. The consequence of this Gordian knot is what drives rational people to the deep-end of the pool. One of these “powers” doesn’t belong there, the other has no enabling clause and the feds know this confuses people to their advantage. The challenge will be in convincing people to stop reading into the language what they have been taught, and instead see how clever another purpose entirely was laid down in the 14th in anticipation of future conquests.

—The Supreme Court has definitively settled the legal issue of the constitutional scope of the legal authority of the Congress to tax by excise.   It was specifically held in the Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)[1] ruling, that excise taxes are:

taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable…it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods. ” Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.” Flint, supra, at 151″—-

Now for the other evil twin:

“The Congress shall[may] have power to lay and collect taxes on income(s), from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Note the lack of an enabling clause… how odd? And oddly still, by this example the feds do not need to share the bounty of foreign revenue with those several States. The negative carries a whole other meaning if purposely excluding tax revenues from States. Think about that very carefully until the aha light comes on or in.

Also left out was of course the main contention —corporate privileges which can in fact be taxed under excise rules. This omission is easily proven.

—“I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporationsThis is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock. [Emphasis added] I am informed that a 2 per cent tax of this character would bring into the Treasury of the United States not less than $25,000,000.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar Refining Company against McClain (192 U.S., 397), seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power without apportionment according to population.  The tax on net income is preferable to one proportionate to a percentage of the gross receipts, because it is a tax upon success and not failure.  It imposes a burden at the source of the income at a time when the corporation is well able to pay and when collection is easy.

Another merit of this tax is the federal supervision, which must be exercised in order to make the law effective over the annual accounts and business transactions of all corporations.  While the faculty of assuming a corporate form has been of the utmost utility in the business world, it is also true that substantially all of the abuses and all of the evils which have aroused the public to the necessity of reform were made possible by the use of this very faculty.  If now, by a perfectly legitimate and effective system of taxation, we are incidentally able to possess the Government and the stockholders and the public of the knowledge of the real business transactions and the gains and profits of every corporation in the country, we have made a long step toward that supervisory control of corporations which may prevent a further abuse of power.

I recommend, then, first, the adoption of a joint resolution by two-thirds of both Houses, proposing to the States an amendment to the Constitution granting to the Federal Government the right to levy and collect an income tax without apportionment among the several States according to population; and, second, the enactment, as part of the pending revenue measure, either as a substitute for, or in addition to, the inheritance tax, of an excise tax upon all corporations, measured by 2 percent of their net income.

Wm.  H.  Taft

—“Twice during the debates on the 16th Amendment (S.J.R. No. 25 and S.J.R. No. 39), Congress rejected the idea of bringing direct taxes within the authority of the 16th Amendment.  Then twice more, on July 5, 1909, Congress rejected the idea by direct vote of the Senate.  Despite this congressional hostility to the idea, the IRS and the lower courts admit they are collecting a direct tax.  At a minimum this is scandalous.  In reality it is probably criminal.

“Acts of Congress are to be construed and applied in Harmony with and not to thwart the purpose of the Constitution.”  [Phelps v. U.S., 274 U.S. 341, 344 (1927)]”— Nor does the 16th Amendment have an enforcement clause, as it does not convey a new power to Congress, but only clarifies a theory of taxation.”

The popular theme of that time was “soak the rich” and the 16th was a clever “Trojan horse” that did the EXACT opposite as any Trust baby can affirm. The very wording of the 16th is purposely vague to convey an assumption that is easily refuted. Any indirect tax following the rule of Uniformity does not require a census, much less, apportionment. The language dances around both rules without actually saying anything of substance about either “Incomes” which is plural(tangible wealth versus intangible wealth) or sources unknown. The extreme wealth of that period, which was held in intangible forms, thus escaped States taxing powers and federal indirect taxing powers, was still untouchable by Trusts.

Since this was an excise tax on corporations this logical version is what counts for clarity: “The Congress shall[may] have power(exclusive legislation) to lay and collect [excise}taxes on income(s), from whatever source derived, from the gains and profits of every corporation in the country. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock.”

Is there any confusion as to whom the tax is laid, or why? Is there any theory involved here at all? No— intent meets language meets law— Q. E. D.

So why is there any controversy— oh, that’s right, Congress and the IRS disregard the facts, in favor of a Policy that actually Defeats the Law. So while the code as written does not implicitly violate the law, the inferences as enforced, by policy alone, are downright criminal. Legal extortion is not a new power under the authority of Congress.

A simple test of basic logic— If the U.S. citizen tag is removed from the Code– why does the 16th amendment claim immediately fail? Easy— where in the 16th does it state or specify a condition upon a U.S. citizen period? Do you see any mention of that U.S. Individual? How about that U.S. Person? The language also  avoids any mention of a Citizen of the Several States. Now how hard would it have been to have expressed the intent using the correct form of language? When is simplicity too hard to understand?

Why is clarity omitted where it is essential to the goal?

The 16th was specifically about including corporate {incomes} under the established excise taxing power, which incidentally does NOT need a test of citizen status, or the 16th would be predicated upon that specific necessity. An excise can fall on any person (Natural or artificial) engaged in the taxable event or activity. Easy example: buying a pack of cigarettes does not require a U.S. citizen test. The tax is uniform on any purchase by any person, regardless of where they are from or even why period. A test for “U.S. citizen Liability” easily proves an excise of this form cannot be Uniform, specifically, due to being too directly exclusive upon political citizenship.  This is a Direct citizenship tax and would be quite unconstitutional as currently enforced.

This begs the next major question, why is a phantom political membership the object of an excise tax? A common right does not require federal membership to exercise. To deny this fact is an absurdity.

Interestingly enough, a federal class of political citizens not under the restrictions of a Direct tax, are by the same rules, also not under the rules of a Uniform tax either. Those Congress critters can make up any damn rule they want under their fictions of limited authority. But just because Donald Duck sends you a tax form from the District of Columbia, does not mean it’s real.

Another absurdity arises as a direct result of claiming a Union State Citizen is liable for a tax under two separate Amendments which do not actually apply. Is the trick as used now clear? If the authority to tax “U.S. citizens” was enabled by the 14th the FEDS did not need the 16th period. Vise versa if the 16th was sufficient the 14th would be redundant. People argue against the wrong things for the right reasons but the Courts are silent on the wrong. Did they ask for proof of a US. citizen membership? Not exactly. Do any of us have a card that states specifically “This person is a U.S. citizen?” I have never seen one. So what makes it official?

What people need is a State card that says [name] _______ is a Sovereign State Citizen of ___________ . It really is that simple if done officially of course. And that is where the fight has to be laid and won. And what is being defended is not trivial in the least.

A superfluous absurdity is also the basis for overkill. How many amendments does it take to KILL the Bill of Rights? Answer none— the Unalienable and Inalienable Rights cannot be questioned therefore any amendment which  causes the Constitution to void itself  cannot be allowed. So how can the 14th VOID the rest of the constitution— short answer— can’t happen. But people are weak, easily confused and stop caring.

Another question is why is only one part of the 16th repeated—  as if this phrase was made out of magic words to be liberally sprinkled over any regulation as needed, and presto, the Fed’s get what they want and those U.S. citizens aka Peons can go pound sand. How very one-sided all things considered and purposely anti-democratic as a result. Conditioning is so obvious it stopped being obvious.

An obvious absolute trap is tyranny by any name. And the greater absurdity is the 16th amendment over the last one-hundred years is a colossal, stupendous failure on purpose. Why is that not obvious?

“And while corporations such as Citibank and General Electric loot the Treasury they exact more pounds of flesh in the name of austerity. General Electric, as Nader points out, is a net job exporter. Over the past decade, as Citizens for Tax Justice has documented, GE’s effective federal income tax rate on its $81.2 billion in pretax U.S. profits has been at most 1.8 percent.

Because of the way General Electric’s accountants play with tax liabilities the company actually receives money from the Treasury. They have several billion dollars paid to them from the federal government into company bank accounts—and these are not tax refunds. The company, as Nader argues, is a net drain on the Treasury and a net drain on jobs. It violates a host of environmental and criminal laws. And yet Jeffery Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, was appointed to be the chairman of Obama’s Jobs Council. Immelt’s only major contribution to the jobs initiative was to get rid of 37,000 of his employees since 2001.

Jim McNerney, president and CEO of Boeing, who also sat on the Jobs Council, has cut over 14,000 jobs since 2008, according to Public Campaign. The only jobs the CEOs on the Jobs Council were concerned with were the ones these CEOs eradicated. The Jobs Council, which Obama disbanded this week, is a microcosm of what is happening within the corridors of power. Corporations increasingly terminate jobs here to hire grossly underpaid workers in India or China while at the same time stealing as much as fast as they can on the way out the door.” Breaking the Chains of Debt Peonage.

What obtuse rule is silently working in favor of such a tiny minority, and furthermore, why has the Congress allowed this imbalance to increase for so long while only pretending the 16th solved the problem? How does reducing the working classes to Peons— literally, fulfill or promote the General Welfare of the Nation?

A power to tax when ABUSED causes the very ills so suffered, and yet, the Courts and Congress do nothing, and say nothing as the People are treated as Perpetual Debt-citizens/slaves. As the share of debt always rises so too must the taxes to feed the debt-beast.

Most people fail to understand that the Direct tax was sent to the STATES, not any individual — the States were free to choose how the tax would be funded/collected upon the citizens of each respective state. This arrangement proved the Direct tax did not encompass anything within the “jurisdiction” of the several States and in fact never pretended to do so. The Taft address to Congress, where he specifically outlined in exact detail what the 16th was explicitly intended to accomplish, was ONLY about corporations and the Incomes so generated by their ownership and whatever source that income might encompass, both within the domestic sources, and without international, aka foreign sources. The privilege of being Under the “international jurisdiction” of the federal authority is protection— therefore, doing business anywhere in the world allowed those seeking this advantage, to enjoy the Profits and the protections so provided, and are naturally expected to Return, from their Profits and Gains, the “Excise Tax,” so attached.

While the tax code is expertly written to give an illusion of Uniformity, in fact, it does no such thing. Corporations have tremendous advantages over natural persons, especially in regards to how that FINAL product, the widget called taxable (income) is Produced… as shown in that GE example,  just like any other  widget on an assembly line. A perfected ruse to fool the ever gullible public is still always wrong and using sleight-of-hand semantic tricks, is the proof the dark,  over-lords know exactly what they are doing.

The classic question is why wages can be classified as pure profit BEFORE any expense is even allowed to be deducted. Since every business is allowed by Law to REMOVE from gross, all expenses, BEFORE a net can be called gain, or profit— the Rule of Uniformity is twisted like a pretzel, when applied to personal expenses. Naturally, the working stiff is just supposed to buy this lame assertion and never question the principle — so expressed as the Zero Cost basis.

It has long been held, as recognized by Justice Fields in his supporting opinion in the Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), decision, at pg. 599, that under the Constitution:

“There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in congress. There are limitations, as he justly observes, of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free governments; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations. Citizens’ Savings Loan Ass’n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, and Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487, 1 Sup. Ct. 442.”

“The inherent and fundamental nature and character of a tax is that of a contribution to the support of the government, levied upon the principle of equal and uniform apportionment among the persons taxed, and any other exaction does not come within the legal definition of a ‘tax.’”

“Hamilton says in one of his papers (the Continentalist): ‘The genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the state demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue.’” 1 Hamilton’s Works (Ed. 1885) 270. Pollock, supra, at 596

“The Justices, here in the Pollock case, are simply making note of the well known and long-established fact that the income tax, like any other tax under the Constitution, must be either a uniform indirect tax, or an apportioned direct tax. It cannot be both. Under the Constitution, no tax can be both a direct tax – where it is apportioned to the State governments for collection, and an indirect tax – where it is uniformly collected from subject parties involved in activities subject to indirect taxes laid as duties, imposts and excises. The income tax must, and can only, be one or the other, never both.”

“The Federal Regulations governing I.R.S. conduct acknowledge these limits on the federal taxing power, and preserve the Fifth Amendment protections of the individuals. At 26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1) it clearly specifically and states:

(1) Rule 1. An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law, statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, an Appeals representative in his or her conclusions of fact or application of the law, shall hew to the law and the recognized standards of legal construction. It shall be his or her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the Government, and without favoritism or discrimination as between taxpayers.

In Botta v. Scanlon, 228 F. 2nd 304 (1961), the court recognizes in its decision the very real limits of the statutory powers of the federal employees to make arbitrary determinations of liability for federal income tax, without relying upon statutory provisions to serve as the legal foundation for the determination, invoking both a recognition of the limits of power of the federal employees to create liability for tax through their own actions, and to provide fundamental due process in the form of judicial review.

“The reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of “taxpayer” is bestowed upon them and their property seized.”

“How Did Income Taxes Spring Up in One Generation?

—Phil Hart’s book outlining the history of Congress’ IRS scam    explains it. The 16th Amendment was passed in 1913, yet it took a generation for most Americans to be snookered into believing it was their civic duty to fund a RICO scam. Also see the Donald Duck article at the bottom of this blog, to see that Amity Schlaes concluded the same thing in her book The Greedy Hand.

—It seemed odd to me: although the tax industry apologists and gurus love to claim that the 16th Amendment made everyone *liable, the history of tax revenue numbers don’t support that assertion. What happened? An entire generation passed before Congress, the tax industry, and government schooling could flummox the whole productive population. If you read Phil Hart’s book you’ll be blood-spittingly furious at the U.S. Congress…and at every tax accountant and attorney you know.

—In her sworn testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1997, Shelley L. Davis, the only official IRS Historian in the history of that agency, said the IRS is systemically lawless and corrupt.

—Former IRS employees have learned the truth about Congress’ IRS scam, left the agency and are now spokesmen for Tax Honesty including Treasury and CID agent Joe Banister, IRS agents Clifton Beale and John Turner, IRS fraud examiner Sherry Jackson, IRS attorney Paul Chappell, and IRS auditor Matthew McErlean.

—In the same 1956 interview for U.S. News & World Report, IRS Commissioner Andrews said, “I don’t like the income tax…every time we talk about these taxes we get the idea of ‘from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs.’ That’s socialism! It’s written into the Communist Manifesto…  Maybe we ought to see that everybody who gets a tax return receives…  a Communist Manifesto with it, so he can see what’s happening to him.”

— “The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. . . . The individual’s rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.” Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)

In 1939, “only 3.9% of the population” of the United States were covered by the income tax . . . only a small portion of the population” (Treasury Department’s Division of Tax Research 23 ).
How can that be when far more than 3.9% of Americans in 1939 provided labor or services for wages? That is because wages were not then, and are not today, lawful “income,” and only 3.9% of the population in 1939 were wealthy enough to actually have true “income” (unearned wealth, or a corporate profit) or income “derived from” their principal, or savings).—

Here is the quote used as an example for the Zero Basis:

Wages to be taxable must pass the same type of examination. For example, if John Doe works 5 hours for $5.00 per hour, is the $25.00 he receives taxable income to him? As we have seen in the above analysis, we must determine if there has been a gain which is realized and recognized.

To see if there was a gain we do not look only to the fair market value of the labor, but rather we determine the difference between the fair market value and his basis (cost) in the labor. Generally one has a zero basis in one’s own labor. Therefore, Doe’s gain is $25.00(fmv) minus 0, or $25.00. This gain is realized when Doe is paid or has right to receive payment.

The gain is recognized specifically in IRC § 61(a)(1) (compensation for services) and there is no [non-recognition] section which is generally applicable to wages. Therefore, John Doe has $25.00 of taxable income.


This is a very clever truism indeed– Generally one has a zero basis(cost) in one’s own labor. Stated another way– Generally, one does not purchase ones own labor. Bob cannot pay his costs to himself– which is to say, the cost of his own chores, washing his own car,  or working in a family garden are all personal costs. Gosh, if a man did pay himself for his own costs (basis)— WHY would he ever need to work for anyone else ever again! The IRS  uses an absurd example to convince people to argue the wrong principle. Personal and business liabilities operate on separate principles of operation. To untwist the false assumptions reveals two very different forms of that cost basis at work.

If an employee refuses to work, or is not performing as required his personal liability results in personal loss. If Bob gets fired for not doing what he was told,  or expected, or required during the work period his personal basis is measured by his loss of money not gain. So his work-hour as employed is the time-liability every employee must suffer. Bob has a constant hourly-liability while on the job, which is his personal basis. Jim has a business basis not personal therefore, Bob and his boss Jim who share a contract relationship have a Co-Joined Basis as a result.

A Co-joined basis recognizes— That without one there cannot be the other— as in reciprocal functions which define costs. If Bob was not an employee of Jim, he has no job and has no wage—and  his gain basis is indeed zero. Jim needs an employee to help run his business. Both are in fact Co-Dependent, on the same revenue leading to gross receipts. Bob as the IRS cynically points out, cannot pay himself for his own labors and Jim cannot force Bob to work for nothing. Bob’s pay comes from the business gross receipts of Jim’s business.  Funny how that IRS example leaves out the actual relationship of why any money is earned at all.

In a factory Bob builds widgets and Jim owns the factory. Bob is a production worker for a skilled wage[labor] and Jim derives a profit from his companies total revenue stream. Bob is being taxed on his full wage-labor and Jim whittles down his business tax liability, while enjoying the personal wealth he has amassed from passive sources of intangible income.   As an owner he is not paying the employee out of “gains and profits” earned, but out of actual “labor” costs added to the price of materials or services, for which he also added overhead costs and profit.

Did Bob add his personal costs and profit to his wage? Not likely… and there is the key difference the tax laws ignore on purpose.

Funnier yet, is how the tax lords use the wrong tools of measure also on purpose to hide that key factor. Where is the method by which Congress converts the annual receipts  (wages) to “gains”, so that the tax is levied upon “the gain derived from labor”, not the “labor” itself?  When real estate is rented or leased the renter or lessor is not the source of the person’s “income”, the property is.  Since a man cannot separate himself from the ownership of his own property, the cynical application of the 16th perverts the very protection of that property as labor! 

Do we use a tape measure to determine the temperature? Do we use a cup to measure the pressure in a tire? No that would be stupid. Is it stupid to measure the [personal cost] by the opposite principle? Indeed, and it sure is wrong to do so. Does a stock buy itself for a profit? Does a car run around the city trying to sell itself for a quick gain? No asset owns itself therefore, by that same principle every non-owned asset also has a zero basis. If an asset did own itself, it is no longer an asset of anyone else, and therefore, cannot be used as a measure of gain, as the material quality of its possession specifically rests in its ownership.

Bob who owns himself, in general, has no allowed Right to measure his personal labor Costs,  by a business basis to determine his personal gain. Nifty trick on him.

  —IRS/Topic 703 – Basis of Assets —Basis is generally the amount of your capital investment in property for tax purposes. Use your basis to figure depreciation, amortization, depletion, casualty losses, and any gain or loss on the sale, exchange, or other disposition of the property.  In most situations, the basis of an asset is its cost to you.

Yes, in most situations except for when the rules are reversed to accomplish which would otherwise be unconstitutional as applied. 

If money is a personal asset and a tax a personal liability– is Income so derived, also an asset or a liability of only employee business? So do we subtract the basis of personal  income from business incomes? If we expend income to make income does it matter which source is in play? Why is source yet another trick word that means nothing and yet is used as if it included the whole of the universe? Does source rules violate the Laws governing Direct and Indirect tax powers by design?  Of course, or the truth would have never been blurred as a result. Now we know why Items had to be used to distinguish where that line is drawn.

A human being is more than the sum of property assets. All factors that are personal cannot be measured by a business basis. And to sever the personal from business for an employee may be just as difficult as to include the personal costs. Life does not lend itself well to fake metrics based on Marxist or other ideological isms completely divorced from daily reality. The personal exemption was meant to keep wages from being taxed as income, which proves the intent of exclusion has been broken by reducing the exemption and ignoring the true costs of inflation on hourly wages.

The federal nuts trying to obtain as much revenue as possible, went down the road of fiscal insanity and never looked back. Who cares about the personal so long as bad policy gains more revenue. Principles of law— why care about them when the needs justify the ends, or the political means to the end. The Federal government had no authority whatsoever to dictate the sole terms of what people need or deserve. Unless, that crown really means dictatorship.Is a federal dictatorship really one of the enumerated powers or just the last implied power now that all the other powers of the Universe have been used up.

The social dictates did not solve the critical issues posed by the Normative Questions, they just ignored them altogether. The Congress, along with their pea-brained, pet bean-counters, just ignored the long term ramifications of running these coded programs on living people and damn anyone who disagreed with the rotten results. The federal social engineering program is also a colossal failure. Too much authoritarianism spoils the freedom pie.

When an employer hires an employee the government has joined their once private contract. By muddying the factual relationship in order to collect as much tax from both sides of this imposed contract as possible, the feds overstepped their authority. They know damn well what they are doing is wrong, or they wouldn’t lie like morons when asked to explain themselves. The personal basis and the business basis form reciprocal relationships, derived from mutual benefit. To determine one is to determine the other. Bob OWES Jim: time to be worked; and Jim OWES Bob: for time as worked.   The rate of ten per hour can also be stated: EACH is owed ten dollars OF Time,  as it is a cost to both. This is a Reciprocal Relationship of two forms of basis: personal owed versus business owed as each is an expense, but operating from a different principle determining parallel Co-joined basis.

The part that angers people is the issue of gain. Because the IRS is following the black-finger method it ignores that “personal gain” has to be measured by the same terms of “personal liability” therefore, all of the personal costs are indeed personal liabilities to derive the personal basis. The example is defective for measuring those living expenses to avoid having to confront the truth. All of Bob’s living expenses are personal and cannot be measured by the same tool used by Jim. Wages are not business incomes and Bob is not paid ten Incomes per hour. Bob does not pay 500 incomes a month in rent, or monthly 325 incomes for his car payment. Is coin a form of mini-incomes? Maybe we should label everything “incomes” and call each other pet-incomes-names as well.

In order to take in as much money as possible the Feds have labeled everything that is not incomes as income. How many fish are there in the seas kind of deal. But wait— we do not name everything in an ocean fish and call it a day. Look at the forest of trees.., yeah they are trees, I see no maples— no furs– just trees.Why how simple the world would be if we just named everything income.

And yet the word “income” is not defined in the code.

Liabilities minus assets determines gain as measured. An income producing venture sounds like a profit margin. Maybe it is money, exchanged maybe something else. Income is an abstract term— do we weigh income like sugar? Do we slice it like a pizza? Do we wring it from a rag? Do we walk along the river and say look there goes some incomes like a fish? How many particles of income does it take to fill a gold coin? Each example is an absurdity of reason. Income has become an absurdity of itself due to its gross misuse and ambiguous usage of net-terms. Since it is not just one thing and distinct by a metric, it has become anything the Feds declare it to be and thus, has become in practice a measure of nothing real.

By leaving out the real costs of personal living an extreme injustice is being perpetuated on anyone who works for a living—personal. The real costs of distorting the truth are born by misery not success. The defect in describing by legal terms different species of liabilities, as exactly the same produces absurdities of proper relationships as a result. If the Feds built a car by the same rules as the Codes, you couldn’t build it in the first place, much less drive it in the second. The paperwork alone would require another car.

So when people look at their paycheck, and see all of those taxes so removed, before the check is even cashed, they know what they already lost was not called net-income. They also know what they buy is not called income-food, or incomes fuel, or some other asinine use of the abstract, undefined word income, or its lumpy cousin called gain. If one cannot measure the personal costs correctly, which diminish the gains, the illusion of yearly income is strictly a fiction of numbers.

When the trick is revealed it is obvious— Bob may have received $20,000 in more wages, but as compared to the year before is what counts. If he started with no savings and ended up with $500 in savings, after all personal expenses, and his business expenses are properly accounted for by the Basis rules on both sides— does he have taxable income? NO — Bob is a Citizen of a Union State and his wages are not an excise event to be taxed. If he takes that savings and invests in corporate bonds and then makes a profit his tax position might very well result in a real Taxable Income liability. There are too many instances where a State citizen is liable for lawful taxes (federal or state) and that is not in dispute or contention.

—“The Internal Revenue Code states that “gross income means all income from whatever source derived,” and gives specific examples.[2] The examples are not all inclusive. The term “income” is not defined in the law or regulations. However, a very early Supreme Court case stated, “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it is understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.”[3] The Court also held that the amount of gross income on disposition of property is the proceeds less the capital value (cost basis) of the property.[4]”—

What is earned per year is rather meaningless, when that fiat debt-note itself, continues to lose more purchasing power, thereby, increasing the numbers so received is actually proof of theft, not gain. If income is not defined, much less a dollar, the action of yearly measure is more along the lines of a stupid, magic trick.That is the crazy truth of a system operating by conflicting rules and destructive policies. The system is defective and either it changes or the Nation will continue sliding into the abyss of income dysfunctionalism. That would be no matter how much incomes of ones and zero’s on your Ipod screen you are still dead-ass broke.


In part two —decoding the infamous, yet frivolous CFR 861 section and the notorious section 61.







The Irony of Flat Earth Theory

February 11, 2016

Deja Vue

The very idea that the Earth is flat presumes that our senses can be fooled by illusions distinct from Reality itself. By this I mean that IF we were simply cartoon characters, and we were attempting to see our exterior reality— the TV set— we would be facing the daunting task of becoming something that we are not to see what we are in fact. Just as a cartoon is not created by the device itself, but is merely viewed as a transmission from another source, which conversely is also not the origination of its creation. A cartoon is produced from cells upon which the skills of artists are made permanent, in addition to the production of the product into a film which can then be viewed with yet another piece of equipment and a screen. Thus, the bewildered cartoon character trying to understand the true Nature of its Reality is forever trapped in an tripled-layered illusion bound by rules beyond its toon-brained comprehension.

A human being trying to understand its ultimate reality, or at least the connections thereof, is also faced with a similar quality of the impossible. The mind is the screen upon which the whole of reality is played out therefore, to remove the mind is to remove the screen, but what of the viewer? If one is looking into a mirror with the light on, merely switching off the light does not cancel out the viewer as well.   A change of perception may well allow additional information to be realized, but the core of perceptions so referenced by Awareness is the kernel of fact upon which a deeper truth can be realized… one is more then mind alone.

So what does any of this have to so with a “theory” in complete contradiction to established norms of science? Those who are swearing flat-earth theory is the truth of the world are making a claim which incorporates elements of logic the adherents themselves apparently do not understand. Which is why no amount of reasonable, or even basic examples of common-sense knowledge,  will change their minds. If the world is an Illusion, it is the mind that is the source not the world itself. [Unless the world is acting as the TV set, but that is not the claim being made…]

One of the common claims of the flat-earth theory is a ring of ice around the circumference to hold back the oceans from falling off. Since flat-earthers also do not believe in gravity it never occurs to them NO ice is needed to hold back waters which are under no force to move in any particular direction. Removing gravity from the conditions of reality actually makes a flat-earth more impossible.   I seriously doubt any die-hard adherent will take the time and effort to understand the critical reasons why. The irony is a flat-world needs  gravity just as a round one does for stability. Without gravity to induce criticality and its opposite force of least resistance— a world either round or flat, becomes substantially unstable as there is no coherence to preserve any order.[Another strong possibility is that water mass would actually flow towards the center and collapse into a frozen tear-drop on the underside.]

Flat-earth theory is so defective at the micro-scales it is devoid of any attempt to explain anything of substance. Every cell and muscle is what it is today due to the forces of gravity upon a body. Every species of Life upon the Earth is an amazing solution to the forces of gravity. But of course if it all is just an illusion of digital synapses then a “NEO” must surely soon arise to shatter the false reality.

However, the presumptions underlying that it is just all a simulation, are themselves still subject to observation. To simulate a comprehensive reality requires a reality from which a false one can be factually derived. To wake up in a pod aka the Matrix, still requires gravity and energy or the need for placing humans in pods is completely unnecessary. If keeping humans alive in a pod costs more energy then can be gained the entire Matrix scheme collapses. If a simulation produces no excess energy, then all that energy so consumed is itself a reality… cartoons do not power TV sets no matter how amazing those graphics may become such as in the film Avatar.  Flat-Earth theory is just another Matrix fantasy without the entertainment factor.

Another major theme of flat-earth theory is that we cannot see the curvature of the Earth. Those who devise all the more clever reasons why a flat-perspective of the horizon proves their contentions never realize the irony of what they proclaim, actually proves the very opposite. In order to see the curvature of the Earth, one would need to be able to see both poles simultaneously. Take a basketball for example and hold it up. Your hands easily define opposite points (poles) on the sphere. A flat-earth model has no need for poles. The size of the Earth, coupled with the dynamics of the human eye determine the horizon. This horizon will always be flat regardless of curvature— the distance to the horizon will always be the same just like a mirage or a rainbows end. Only in orbit can a spherical boundary become obvious. Naturally, flat-earth adherents disavow any image from space as computer generated. Since no proof is good enough it becomes the lack of proof, or the negative assertions which flat-earth believers cling to for the wrong reasons, which drives their unique form of madness.

As much as flat-earthers would like to escape this Reality, by contrarian beliefs, they are barking up the wrong tree. Trading one illusion for another does little to change the actual challenge to free one’s mind. The atypical tactics of flat-earthers is to get under the skin of the globalists and mock whatever argument is offered along with a heavy dose of sarcasm. There is nothing wrong about questioning the dogma of science or religion, but to take the extreme viewpoint is to ignore the basic tenants of common sense and the lessons learned from experience coupled with hardship.

While it may be fun to mock accepted beliefs is is quite another to accept the nonsensical, ravings of fools as accepted fact. Flat-earth theory fails becuase those that propose the theory never bothered to really delve deep into how a genuine flat-world would actually have to behave in any quality of real physics. Apples fall from trees when criticality is reached… if there was no gravity to place tension upon the stem apples would remain attached. Leaves need sunlight as roots transfer nutrients from the soils. Without gravity trees do not require the same internal structures to maintain upward growth. Why trees might well grow up into space where one could look down upon a flat-earth, while eating slices of apples as big as flying whales.

That’s the funny thing about flat-earthers, they claim so much and yet have no imaginations. On a flat-world of very little gravity every form of life would be evolving perfectly to those laws of ecological conditions. On the other hand, if everything is just an illusion why would there be any global rules governing life? The Earth is the sum of all of its parts and systems, and as such, is a cell of a larger solar-system. If a theory cannot explain the mundane facts which are readily observed then it is of no use in advancing knowledge beyond the primitive mud-hole of superstitions and fear. Flat-earth theory is a major step backwards into apathy and ignorance.

Challenging lies and secrecy is always preferable to simply accepting authoritarian demands. Proving NASA keeps secrets is one thing, but to claim this is a reason to believe the world is flat is quite silly. If all physical laws are simply lies of science the Earth could be any shape period. There is no physical law or reason for the Earth to be flat specifically, as there is no gravitational Up or Down for a flat-worlder to worry about, thus, an icy physical-edge would be the last thing one would need to prove. A flat world has qualities a round one cannot simulate. By observation alone one could never mistake one for the other. I seriously doubt a flat-earth believer would care anyway. Too much thinking spoils the fun.



%d bloggers like this: