Grand Illusion – 6


The deeper malformation of mass-conscience due to slavery was already a part of the European mind-set. The English never really recovered from being turned into slaves under the Norman conquest of their country. This could have never happened to them at all if the rules of conquest were not already an ingrained aspect of territorial acquisitions. Knock down another nations aristocratic class and take over their lands and thus their people just the same. The inherent brutality was just a part of the over-all scheme and was nothing new in the history of blood-shed which mankind leaves in his every step. War was always a means to an end and the most profitable of such ventures if successful. The savage impulses of mankind know no boundaries when it comes to the purpose of conquest.

Thus, the dark ages is a kind way of describing what happened to Europe under the insanity, of a long line of sadistic tyrants pretending to be something not a one of them ever actually attained, or a dark age would have been impossible. With generations of leaders trying to emulate those of previous eras the resulting social orders encapsulated the grievances even as they enthroned the successful qualities. The resulting malformations became accepted as a way of life itself. Or why accept the claim of Divine Authority from men who never demonstrated for a second they even knew what that meant? Without this “claim” such purposeful declarations are just plain absurd. The Gods of old did not come down from the Heavens and place a crown on a Roman emperor’s head. So why pretend otherwise?

 A cult of personality revolves like a death march upon its subject. The Protestants knew the madness had to end. Or why try to escape its madness to a new frontier? The truth is ugly and it is ignored because it invites brutality to speak one word of it above a whisper. The ferocious blizzard of hatred which erupts from religious intolerance is only matched by its claim of superior importance. By placing God in a mans shoes the very intrinsic purpose of religion was turned inside out and vulgarized to promote the selling of redemption from sin. A money making scheme which was actually quite profitable. And does it not stand to reason that increasing the wages of  sin also increased the profits as well?

And to Whom is that Toll to be payed? The infamous god of money is indeed a notorious creature of capricious habits. To fulfill its predatory demands weak men must always be ready and able to forsake their moral conscience to reap the rewards of immoral obligations. The psychological manipulations of the un-learned masses has always been a large part of the game. Insiders have always enjoyed the ranks of privileges the peons could only dream about as they worked from dawn to dusk. The idle rich did not become idle by mistake or divine providence as many might want to believe. The turmoil of history is rife with the results of those in power seeking to remain in power by every deceit or method possible. This was the driving force to perfecting such means without giving away the truth to the secrets of the spoils.

America was ripe for the plucking, but those who had learned from the darker periods of history also knew quite well new methods had to be employed to reap the gains so desired. People were now able to read and write without constraint and were much wiser to the games afoot. So a much more sophisticated gambit had to be  introduced and used to further the goals without giving away the actual rules. But in all social contracts the players could not conceal the patterns inherent in their activities, but they could wield influence in a more productive manner without tipping their hands until long after the goals were reached.

A fine example of this more sophisticated approach to using “interests” enriching the few at the expense of the rest, was apparently perfected by Philander Knox:

 “Knox persuaded Roosevelt that the anti-trust laws should be accompanied by increased regulation of business. He advocated and drafted federal statutes that gave his rich and powerful friends even more power and control over interstate commerce – setting rates and eliminating competition in restraint of trade – all under federal authority and with agents of the conglomerates appointed to and sitting on the governmental boards and commissions. This plan derived from and implemented a strategy set by Morgan and the other robber barons at a meeting in 1889. Knox continued in this vein as a U. S. Senator from Pennsylvania, being appointed to a vacant seat by Pennsylvania’s governor in 1904 at the behest of several powerful capitalists, including Carnegie’s man, former client Frick (which showed they approved of Knox’s handling of anti-trust matters as Attorney General).

 Knox, by now a multimillionaire, was in the Senate when the Morgan-controlled financial Panic of 1907 hit, which led to a congressional inquiry into the monetary and banking systems. Senator Nelson Aldrich (father of the wife of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and namesake and god-father of Nelson A. Rockefeller) led the inquiry producing the 1912 report that recommended a national bank (controlled and owned by the robber barons) and ultimately resulted in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, co-authored by Aldrich and Robert Owens. Owens later testified to Congress that the banking industry conspired to create financial panics like the one in 1907 in order to rouse the people to demand reform – reform that would be directed by, and to the benefit of, the very financial experts who had caused the panic.

Knox resigned from the Senate and became Secretary of State under President Taft from Ohio in 1909. He was the most powerful figure in the Taft administration, and drew up the lists from which Taft appointed his other cabinet members, many of whom were intimately concerned with the giant corporations. He was Taft’s primary confidante.

At the international level, Knox has been criticized for oafish and heavy-handed diplomacy that caused ill will and damaged the reputation of the United States worldwide. His conduct was more that of a huckster than a diplomat. Domestically, Knox’s influence extended to the Supreme Court, where he succeeded in having Taft appoint three justices who were extremely sympathetic to the big business trusts: Devanter, Lamar, and Pitney. The first two of these had formerly had clients among the big corporate trusts, including the railroads.

The 16th Amendment itself was given its decisive shove through Congress in 1909 by Sen. Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island (co-author of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913), who spoke for the “community of interest’ of both Morgan and Rockefeller. This represented and led to an astonishing reversal of attitudes among the old-line big- business conservatives in the Senate, who had long staunchly opposed an income tax. Obviously, something was afoot to change their minds. It was that the robber barons had already figured out how to avoid the proposed income tax, especially through the establishment and use of foundations, the number of which grew from 18 in 1910 to 94 by 1920 and 267 by 1930.

The super-rich have avoided the income tax ever since, leaving it to be paid instead by the middle and lower classes.

Deceit and fraud were, for the robber barons, standard operating procedures – among the numerous underhanded methods they typically employed to achieve their objectives. Knox had protected them from fraud charges many times. His term as Attorney General was itself a big fraud in regard to enforcement of the anti- trust laws, especially against former clients to whom he owed so much of his own professional success.

Besides preying on the government with their fraudulent activities, the robber barons employed a strategy of locking in and stabilizing their advantageous positions by using government authority and regulations to reduce competition, keep prices at very profitable levels, control labor problems, minimize risk, and generally make themselves quite comfortable. They also expanded their scope of operations, including financing and extension of credit, to other countries and used government to aid them in these adventures. Knox, of course, was a key man, perhaps the key man, in the Administration in all of this, both as Attorney General and then as Secretary of State.

J. P. Morgan seems to have been the real genius and visionary behind much of this strategy. His background was more oriented to finance, and his financial acumen enabled him to make inroads against the other robber barons on their own turfs – a robber baron’s robber baron. He was regarded as more cultured and cosmopolitan than most of the others, and perhaps that is why he was able to envision and plan on such an international scale. His financial perspective helped him to see the benefits of making monetary loans to governments and securing them with strong and reliable methods of tax collection.

One might wonder why Knox seemed to be in such a hurry in 1913 to declare the 16th amendment ratified. We can see that it was because of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It was important to the banking interests that would be lending money to the U. S government that there be an assured flow of revenue, especially since the robber barons would be removing themselves from the income tax system. Just as an ordinary bank wants to know that a borrower who is given a mortgage has a cash flow adequate to meet the payments, so the banks comprising the Federal Reserve System wanted to be sure the federal government had a dependable method of tax collection in place to provide ample money to pay its debts to them. The income tax and the Federal Reserve are inextricably tied together; it was not mere coincidence that they happened in the same year. The robber barons, their bankers, and Knox had developed this concept and practiced it in Latin America, and in 1913 they were ready to apply it to the United States.” We The People Features – Taxes – Philander Knox

Thanks to researchers at give me liberty an important piece of the historical puzzle reveals how just one man acting on the “interests” of the privileged few was able to usher into American law those necessary economic instruments of power which aided the deeper plans of those so entrusted.

[Senator Brown’s intent in drafting the 16th Amendment can be determined from congressional debates and from an article he wrote entitled:

     “Shall the Income Tax Amendment be Ratified (Senate Document No. 705, 61 Congress, 1910). This article also appeared in Editorial Review, April, 1910. Brown maintained that the Pollock Rule was unjust, inequitable, and politically impossible.

In his article, Senator Brown never referred to the taxation of people. He only referred to taxing incomes. In addition, he specifically stated what the Amendment intended to tax:

If the income arises from an investment in lands, it should be taxed; if it arises from investments in manufacturing enterprises, in railroads, in banks, in newspapers, in the mercantile business, or in steamship lines, it should be taxed. Why should an income arising from an investment in State or municipal bonds not be taxed? [For a discussion on the state and municipal bond issue see the book Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?] Why should the holder of these securities enjoy his income free from any contribution to assist this Government, which protects him and his property no less than it protects other people owning another class of property? Why should he escape and other people be compelled to pay?

Notice the actual vocabulary used as well as the theme of his writing. He does not suggest taxation on the working class, or its wages, but rather on the profits gained from proprietary investments such as property.

On April 28, 1909, Senator Brown stated on the Senate floor, “It is the theory of the friends of the income-tax proposition that property should be taxed and not individuals.” Congressional Record, pg. 1570. Senator Brown goes on to argue that the ratification of the 16th Amendment will act to sustain the nation and its sovereignty by reinvesting in its security. Senator Brown intended that the 16th Amendment protect the people’s property and promote prosperity for the entire nation.

The totality of Senator Brown’s argument focused on the very items that were at issue in the Pollock Case. The entire purpose of the Income Tax Amendment was to bring tax relief to those who earned wages and paid a greater proportion of their earnings in taxes under the tariff system (tax on consumption) and to place a greater tax burden on the accumulated wealth and investments of the country by way of an income tax. Tax relief for wage-earners was Brown’s Agenda

Now let us go straight to the horses mouth: the 16th Amendment was introduced by President William Howard Taft on June 16, 1909.

“I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.

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 corporations.

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.

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.” William Howard Taft – Propose 16th Amendment. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – SENATE – JUNE 16, 1909 [From Pages 3344 – 3345]

[In Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, the very first sentence of the Opinion of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice White: “…, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 9]

Let me guess: this proof of the 16th amendments actual purpose as an excise tax in conjunction with a new Tariff amendment would be a frivolous argument. Taft, specifically references this Court ruling, as well:

“[T]he well-settled rule … the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid… SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U. S. 397 (1904)”

However, Mr. Taft, weaves a duplicity here, that is asserting one purpose, while confusing the powers needed to accomplish the task. He proposes two amendments, one for the Constitution and one for the tariff bill. He knows that the need for apportionment in all Direct taxes, is balanced with the franchise voting clause, in addition, no capitation or Direct tax can be imposed without a census, UPON the States [not Individuals] to which a proportion of the direct tax is then allocated to the Union States.

He also states, to levy an income tax upon the National Government, not wealthy individuals or corporations in general. Just what kind of double-talking nonsense was he preaching? Well, if he was referring to National governments-plural, then he was speaking of the Union states as one and they were to be directly taxed without apportionment—so by removing the need for a census the federal government could then levy income taxes on those corporations operating within those states normally outside of congressional taxing authority. These are the persons as referenced in the code, as citizens with federal class status. He may have also been indirectly confirming that States were in fact already Corporations and thus citizens as seen from the federal perspective. 

{“Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U. S. 281 (1949).” (U. S. regulations apply only within the U. S. territories and the District of Columbia. “It is a well established principle of law that all federal regulation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears.”

“Caha v. US, 152 U. S. 211 (1894)” (U. S. regulations apply only within the U. S. territories and the District of Columbia. “The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”

“U. S. v. Spelar, 338 U. S. 217 at 222.” (U. S. regulations apply only within the U. S. territories and the District of Columbia. “There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

“Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 (1901).” (Purportedly decided if the constitution applies to U. S. territories. In actuality, unleashed the great fraud of unlimited statutory power misapplied throughout the continental united States of America. Dissenting opinion of Justice Marshall Harlan. “…two national governments, one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to…a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result…We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism…It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence.”

In other words, a genuine de jure united States of America congress is always bound to enact laws within the jurisdiction of the constitution. He held to the obvious truth that congress does not exist, let alone have powers, outside the constitution. Harlan said, “This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place.”}

[The fundamental principle of direct taxes is never mentioned: The Direct tax was only used in very specific circumstances to accomplish the task of swift payments of National debts. Congress, needed to take a Census, to establish the correct apportionment, before sending the correct share of the Debt to the States. The federal authority ended in that sequence. Congress, has no authority inside the sovereign states to tell them how the tax was to be collected.]

He does not address specifically, why this conferred power is going to improve tax fairness, or improve taxing incomes outside of consumption habits, thus, improve taxing intangible fortunes of the very wealthy, much less, how removing said proportions even addresses such problems of inequality. People were not demanding a new tax upon themselves. What they wanted was the great fortunes, made possible by such privileges, granted by the government, to be taxed.

Soaking the rich was the popular sentiment of the day due to the perceived judgment, that such riches, were purposely defined by such intangible instruments of wealth, to escape the taxing powers, which those less prosperous had no means to emulate. They were right of course, but only to a degree. The wealthy had successfully evolved such intangible instruments to ever greater sophistication’s and were very prosperous by such improvements. The wealthy had found a way to protect their great fortunes from tangible- property taxes that no wage-slaver had equal qualities of defense. However, the solution to the perceived problem, was not the one taken to produce real resolution. An actual solution to this specific aspect of gross wealth inequality was never offered or intended. The 16th amendment actually failed its perceived purpose, by intentionally fooling the people from day one, that it was the solution they were seeking.

A tariff is only possible on foreign imports or activity. Congress, has no authority to levy a tariff tax on domestic income, regardless of apportionment. The rule of apportionment was intended to keep the States, from over-stating and understating their respective populations, for the Voting requirements not just qualifying the amount of tax each State was to pay on behalf of those so counted. Thus, the rule was intended to maintain a fair and Just balanced role to each other and so by removing this constraint the actual result was to do just the very opposite.

Furthermore, if the intention was to relieve the people of excessive high tariff’s, why not repeal the tariffs on all imported goods not considered a luxury? Why ignore the root of the problem? Why not a reduction on tariffs on food items, in proportion to the difference in local prices? Or at least a graduation of tax to reduce un-fair advantages due to States not having ports?

 The tariffs were in fact,  protecting higher prices from national producers, thus these producers were benefiting from the tariffs, by the reduction of competition. If domestic prices were in fact, substantially inflated above actual costs of production, then people had a right to choose a different source of the product. If the federal governments tariff policies were protecting these domestic producers, then the tariff was an injustice of political privilege. The culprits were in congress, so why allow them to escape the truth of the blame? Was this just another scheme to keep tariffs high, in order to tax the excess, thus an increase of revenue using the indirect tax on consumption, as the means to an end, with a nod from the producers who understood the real game at hand?

The next section of Taft’s address, clearly stated the intention “to levy a tax on privilege [of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability—two criteria not just one] as an excise tax, NOT a direct tax on land or private labor property.

The actual test here for constitutional agreement is for Uniformity, not Apportionment. Mr. Taft, slyly claims,“…, is within the federal power without apportionment” which asserts one thing not true to infer one that is true. The tax is an Excise tax within the tariff class and needs to be Uniform, so there was no need to change apportionment at all. No change was necessary to the constitution to change an indirect tax. Taft, also purposely used the phrase, “within and without” to confuse the actual constitutional source of the taxing power. Since an excise tax requires no apportionment according to population, he mixed one power for another Congress does not have the “implied power” to confer at all.

He was actually inferring a new quality of global jurisdictional authority, which was clearly “outside” of congressional subject powers to be conferredwithin” federal jurisdiction. He was shoe-horning a new power into an old one without giving away the game such a new power would actually unleash upon people “outside” of congressional authority.

This is the original source language for the “within and without” the federal zone cleverly miss-applied to create a foundation for the later “any source” doctrine. The inference is this new tax is going to be fair due its application on “success” derived from “net income” rather than gross receipts and of course, no foundation whatsoever, for the later Adjusted gross Income (or the notorious zero basis of labor) derived of domestic earnings. The very same earnings Congress has no authority to tax period.

The language intention was quite clear, thereby “imposes” at the “source” a burden on the CORPORATION… and yet the very first sentence [Title 26]:

“Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information..”

Clearly the language is using all of these semantic elements, as if referring to a living Person, NOT an artificial person/entity created by law and yet the very opposite is true— the term Person used in this sentence ONLY means an artificial entity aka the Corporate person, so the switch occurs here:

“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual…”

Which is A wholly different imposition aka Direct Capitation tax. This is where Language alone imposes a tax NOT found in the Law. To further muddy the clarity of WHO is Required to Obey the “imposition of the burden” now comes the diabolical co-mingling of citizen classes which are in the meaning of– and— or— included— or includes “individuals in the federal zone or foreign to the United States of America, in regards to resident national origination’s versus domestic Citizens of the Union States.

People who Derive Incomes from corporate activities are still “within” the “taxing power” even as they are “without” the Federal Zone of Jurisdictions so implied by apportionment rules necessary for Direct taxes. The reason is hooked to the Privilege of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock… which is quite the difference from taxing a man on the whole sum of his wages from his labors. The precise meaning of a Capitation Tax. The 16th amendment does not confer any Authority to Congress or a National Bank to tax Domestic wages which are not and have never been a class of INCOMES!

This is slavery of a different color of financial law. To get around this explicit fact the tax is called “ Voluntary” and is enforced with fines and imprisonment, hooked on the charge of not filing the infamous, 1040 tax form. A form whose OMB number was miss-applied to confuse its original purpose, to be used by the withholding agents who are made liable for the payment of the income taxes that they have withheld from subject persons-who are all foreign.[Section 1441 only authorizes the withholding of income tax from nonresident aliens, “to the extent that any of such items constitutes gross income from sources within the United States”.]

The 5th amendment is circumvented by the false claim of “Voluntary compliance” thus defeated by the imposition of the tax. If the “authority” to impose the tax is not found in the constitution then it has no foundation at all. The trick here is odious as all such tricks must be in order to get what is desired: Obedience to demands outside of the powers of Congress to impose a continuous Direct Capitation tax on all Citizens of the Union States. An action which is anti-constitutional to the letter and spirit of the Law.

Only in anti-America is it deemed a frivolous argument to speak the truth. So who is actually breaking the Law? The officials of the Political Offices granted by Consent are the actual lawbreakers, which is why the political power has to be raised above the actual enumerated authority as an implied power. However, a Republican form of government is the Law of the land period. Once again, is it frivolous to determine the truth of the law? If it is then the law is made frivolous by its understanding.

Now the astute will understand the convoluted manner in which the Code has to be written and subsequently enforced in order to circumvent the common level of intelligence. A mans labors are clearly not within the original intent of the tariff tax so implied. So incomes plural references two classes of sources of income, but is singular in the Coded(secrets) wording. This very same use of semantic generalizations also explains what is being dodged in plain sight: this was intended as an excise tax on net-income, levied on a privilege (franchise) of an artificial entity…of intangible and tangible Incomes, in order to bring the fuller sums of the wealth so generated into [within] the taxing powers of the federal jurisdiction, no matter where the source of the income was derived. Despite this purpose or rational as originally qualified the 16th amendment has spectacularly failed this seemingly simple task. What was successful was a very different kind of taxing power never intended or contemplated by the original proponents of the 16th amendment. Taft was the agent of its misdirection period.

In addition, the implied power here is quite sweeping in its claim that the federal government is going to solve the problem of such evils, as artificial persons have aroused, by direct supervision of their books. That is quite the power in itself. Why not simply revoke the charters of such evil corporations? Too simple perhaps? Is it now evil for people to earn money in a livelihood?  Were people doing evil things that required their books to be examined by federal agents, thereby, circumventing the 5th amendment? If not, then the crooks must have been laughing their collectives asses off for pulling off the con that made people tax-slaves by nothing more than a pen to paper.

Taft never mentioned any specifics of what these evils were, so his intentions are quite suspect. If the evils of artificial persons were violating the faculty itself, maybe enforcing the objectives of the faculty were primary in stopping such abuses? Here is another reason why artificial persons have no equality to the living as the corporation cannot be sent to prison for being evil, doing harm, or committing crimes against actual living persons. The corporation person having no living Will or Conscience cannot be punished for something it has never known. Taft has called for a power that never actually punishes the evil, while ignoring the one that does and is already the law. Another fine example of Cognitive Dissonance in action and thus Duplicity in purpose.

What sophistries Mr. Taft was weaving while ignoring the real cause of the Nations misery.

In April 1909, Senator Joseph Bailey, a wealthy Democrat from the South, introduced an income tax bill that he expected to be opposed by the Republicans. But the Republicans decided to steal the show by introducing a plan of their own. Under the leadership of Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, and with the help of President Taft himself, they proposed an amendment to the Constitution as a means of circumventing the Supreme Court. It is sometimes claimed that these men were secretly opposed to an income tax and resorted to this stratagem merely to appease populist sentiment, while hoping that the amendment would never be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

There is ample reason, however, to believe that they proposed the amendment because they truly wanted it. Aldrich, in particular, is highly suspect in this role. His daughter, Abbey, was married to John D. Rockefeller Jr., and Aldrich was the man who arranged the secret meeting on Jekyll Island in Georgia in November 1910 that led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System. He also played a pivotal role in making sure that the income tax law did not apply to foundations. This made it possible to shift the tax burden to the middle class by allowing tax-exempt status to the great fortunes of such families as Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, and Aldrich.

At the very least, it must be concluded that these men, sensing the unstoppable clamor for a soak-the-rich income tax, decided to run to the head of the parade, lead it away from Wall Street, and render the law harmless to themselves and their friends. It is not paranoia, however, to sense that there was more to it than that. It is quite possible that they represented a cabal of monetary and political scientists that planned the entire scenario and even helped create the public clamor that would serve as an excuse for their action. Their objective, in this more sinister view, would have been the creation of a modern serfdom with themselves as lords and masters. The serfs would be convinced of their self-importance by the delusions of representative government and the socialist tax that they honestly believed was to their benefit. The age-old dream of contented serfs would at last be realized.

The Senate approved the 16th Amendment by an astounding vote of 77 to zero! The House followed suit with a roll call of 318 to 14. The measure then went to the states for ratification. On February 12, 1913, the 42nd state voted for approval, and the following words became a part of the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” HTTP:// HTML

The IRS will never touch the subject of what ‘incomes’ means specifically because they cannot change a constitutional words meaning. What is interesting is the singular use of the plural meaning of incomes without clarification. What is also glaringly obvious is the complete omission of specific language regarding corporate activities, as in, this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, thereby fulfilling what Taft actually stated as to be the very purpose of the 16th amendment.

So he just basically lied, miss-led and concocted a direct miss-representation to win approval of one thing, while the actual worded amendment does something else. This is called blatant fraud. Also note how the wording connects an assumption about citizens by ambiguous reference to corporate ‘incomes’ and source with no plural, thus no clarity of the negative assertion by the Positive Statement. The domestic citizen is in the negative assertion due to the need for a census[no foreigner class exists for this purpose], but a class of global [federal]citizenship includes both the real, and unreal members, of unequal franchise obligations. It is a sly assertion that all ‘citizens’ are required to file, as IF both classes of citizens are exactly the same, thus the term “Citizen” can become a mere generalization for legalistic convenience. That is the art of cognitive dissonance. To confuse the actual truth with sly misrepresentations of the facts with bold-faced lies.

Only one class of artificial citizens is presumably Liable for taxes on ‘net incomes’ and no other. But the real dodge is on the difference between intangible and tangible money. A coin of gold is tangible. A FRN dollar is intangible, contractual debt-money.

More to the point: Intangible in order to become tangible has to severed from the Source in order to be Income at all! The IRS claims a man sells his labors and thus earns a pure profit. Well, if he was paid in silver or gold coin that assertion may hold some air, but nobody earns real money, only its intangible substitution and thus, such a “dollar as a FRN note” is never severed into real income at all. How can there be a gain of profit on something that is a debt ghost and nothing else?

The deeper issue is this: Congress has no authority to levy a Capitation tax without apportionment, much less, use this device of semantics, to measure “a cost basis value” as expressed by labor, as traded for tangible money. All working people are actually being taxed on the false-obligation of “debt-interest time” as measured by the dollar received, as if tangible GAIN was severed into wages as real Coin money. Nobody is paid in real money hence inflation robbing every working stiff just the same. Congress never had the authority to tax a working persons very “time” as “debt-money” period, but a Lender of Credit is another dog altogether.

There is income exempt from federal tax on INCOMES: “gross income means all income from whatever source…unless excluded” Note the subtle circular reasoning of income from income, not Incomes, so strike both out.. a source is excluded of an UN-named kind of income… that would be tangible wages which is not from corporate income activities and is constitutionally protected from federal taxation. In-tangible income means stocks, bonds etc and is taxable Income from corporate source activities and is not exempt.

A dollar used to be tangible-gold or silver coin and now it is in-tangible–as a political contrived unit of debt. This is the nature of the evil in the taxing schemes. To omit the truth is to admit the lie. There is no money at all being paid to the working classes. A piece of debt paper chasing itself through operations of compounding-interest is the actual truth of its movements. If not why charge interest at all? This is the whole of the game and it is ugly, foul and quite evil.

To create from nothing and to charge a time function upon the paper as used equals a time tax on the hand which receives the “burden of its use” as created, explicitly for no other purpose: financial slavery where debt is the Master of every Credit it creates. The IRS does not tax credit directly, but it is moving in this direction by claiming the forgiveness of Debt is an increase in Income. I call this the Doctrine of the absence of a thing is a gain of the UN-thing. The absurdity of claiming people can spend a negative-check of debt is so obnoxious, so devoid of a single principle of truth it is actually even more evil then taxing time itself. The IRS cannot forgive that which it has no authority to give. Is receiving income a gift from the IRS? Is receiving time a gift from Congress? This is Tyranny laid bare and yet the Courts are silent, even as the Law is violated by such odious evils emanating from implied powers. Congress, never had absolute taxing authority, therefore there is indeed Exempt income, from a large class of Exempt activities outside of its limited jurisdiction. Much larger than any tax code regulation dares to reveal.

[CFR Sec. 61] In addition: “more common items …are …excluded …entirely … To the extent that another section (…is more) specific…such other provision shall apply not-with-standing section 61” [CFR Sec. 61] then over to: “determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources” [CFR Sec. 861-8] and then: the rules [of Sec. 861] for determining taxable income”

[CFR Sec. 863] still not there yet: “the sources of income for purposes of the income tax… See Secs. 1.861-8 and 1.863-1.”

[CFR Sec. 861-1] more weaving: Taxable income is the “Income that is not considered tax exempt.” – CFR Sec. 861-8T(d)(2)(iii)

and finally: Determination of taxable income. The taxpayer’s TAXABLE income from Sources within or without the United States, will be Determined under the rules of SECS. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T.” [26 CFR § 1.863-1(c)]

…and around we go in a circle of dumb-founding ambiguity revolving on ‘within and without’ proving Taft’s original wording. So what does this really mean: “gross income means all income from whatever source…unless excluded” as an order of operations?

[Not until 1918 did income tax regulations indicate that the Constitution still prevents Congress from taxing of citizens of the Union]

Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempted by the statute and also certain other kinds of income by statute or fundamental law free from tax.” — Art. 71, 1918 US income tax regulations

The general term “income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Section 61 of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 61, defines “gross income” to mean all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items (Under the Canadian Tax Treaty no less):

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items;

(2) Gross income derived from business

So if a working person was looking to determine what is EXCLUDED from gross income they need to look at a reg. from 1918 to see WHY the term ‘unless excluded’ refers to a much more complete instruction and explanation of the rule. The ever changing Code just makes a mockery of the very law it is said to rest upon. Why does the IRS leave out the important details? Let me think about that…. oh to contrive a legal duty otherwise not applicable to  the entire working class!

The 16th amendment changed the constitutions primary balance between the power of Direct taxes upon the States and those powers of citizens who were most able to demand redress of grievance, for such trespass upon their sovereign rights. The funny thing is when this balance vanished the very men who were to suffer the greatest loss spoke the least. Where was the fury of the rich? For a class that was about to be soaked by this amendment, which was also substantially short of genuine passage, thus needing very little effort to knock it down…. and yet not a word. How uncanny.

In fact, it is the words that are missing which define the wrong itself. Why is money from corporate sources not mentioned or identified? What after all is the purpose of this specific tax, but on measures of the money as gained, as declared by Profit, by corporations?

Is incomes about apples or bugs… why that is a silly comparison. So why not state explicitly the tax is on the intangible incomes as earned by corporations as measured by tangible profits? Well, tangible forms of Income would be quite different from intangible forms of Income, even though both are being measured by dollars. But the dollar is no longer made of gold or silver. A “synthetic dollar” has no virtues or value as debt money as it cannot conserve over time the very thing it does not possess: the value of Money itself or Intrinsic Worth. So why are corporations not screaming about worthless crap money?

So if the dollar was transformed into an “Intangible asset” without telling the American people why this distinction is so important, what is being hidden in this arrangement? In addition, the sly change of “source” contrived the very meaning of incomes into one co-mingled, which was once quite separate. Hence, incomes is the reference, to something that is gained as money but today the distinction has been purposely avoided and denied as if there never was any distinction of these classes [Tangible:Intangible] at all.

Who is that Secretary as referenced in the reg.* (below) for the ‘individual’ and why is this mysterious authority telling anyone in a union state what is and is not appropriate for them to own, or earn, or keep for themselves?

One man determines what several hundred millions can do with their debt dollars, by inference that it is ‘incomes’ which is really being taxed. No, due to the change of tangible to intangible the FRN debt-dollars, being borrowed into existence are being taxed, specifically for this reason. Since the debt is the source of the incomes, of which the dollar is exchanged for labor, the IRS construes this to mean it is pure profit. Nice lie and approved of by the Courts. That would be collusion with Congress as well. Since all debt dollars are borrowed into existence and all people earn the debt then their now singular income is sourced from capital debt and the interest on that corporate capital debt consumes every dollar returned as tax. Thus, the logic behind the debt-dollars movements defines the truth of its purpose. Since there is no way the amount of earned debt dollars can ever exhaust the ever rising exponential debt, by compound-interest, the people can never be free of the resulting economic death grip about their collective economic throats.

Inflation is also not truthfully reflected in the tax-tables, thanks to the bizarre contradiction that volatile consumer goods are not to be included in the “basket” determining inflation. Why bother making such a determination if the exclusion of the greatest harm is left out on purpose? Unless, of course inflation is just a cover for debt servicing.

The “costs” of servicing the debt has eliminated 96 cents of every synthetic dollars worth. To intentionally leave out the greatest harm of the cost of the debt itself, is absurd, but that is the actual pattern of abuse. People having been substantially reduced to financial slavery are castigated, for knowing, thus speaking, about said financial slavery in their own defense.

The Lenders of the precious Debt, are absolute dictators, who have a giant pool of authoritarians, using every law Congress can stamp with authority, to keep the people subservient to their demands, thus in their place as humble citizens. People are told they are paying for the protections and services of their all powerful government, but they are really only paying the interest on the Debt. People are forced to pay for their own slavery just as prophetically asserted so long ago: “and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money, and control credit.” Sir Josiah Stamp.

Gold is money and nothing else.” J. P. Morgan (1913)

He who creates the money, controls its debt, by the extension of its credit. Debt is money by no other definition. A printing press refutes scarcity, just as it refutes honesty by the same measure. The centralized control of money issuance mocks natural time-values right along with tangible money, as a substance of intrinsic worth. A central bank cannot control real money only its “Artificial Entity” simply due to the jurisdiction of its Source. This underlying fact explains the why behind the confiscation of gold money from the American people. Fort Knox is a Military base under the authority of the President, or so it is claimed.

The financial establishment fully understands the value of gold as money (despite Ben Bernanke’s recent protests to the contrary in congressional testimony). It knows that gold is the most trusted and reliable means of saving wealth. That’s why the establishment wants to own it and doesn’t want you to have it. Gold is the one currency that can’t be devalued or destroyed by politicians and bankers. It is the protector of the common man, as it represents ownership with no liability. Gold will always be linked to economic freedom.

That’s why totalitarian governments — and despotic bankers — have always opposed the private ownership of gold. In fact, Roosevelt wasn’t alone. Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler also banned the private ownership of gold at the outsets of their dictatorships. But Roosevelt didn’t stop at confiscating the people’s gold. To expunge the evidence of his crime from history, the coins were melted down, turned into bars and transferred to… The U. S. Bullion Depository at Fort Knox:

What powers gold is not a fad investment, such as the dot-coms. What drives gold is the basic human desire to protect the purchasing power of one’s savings… “The rise in gold’s price has coincided with the explosion of the total of U. S. government debt and the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet assets.” John Doody Gold Stock Analyst.

The dismal absurdity of claiming gold is not good as money, is a political contrivance to excuse the criminal actions leading to the confiscation itself. If gold was no longer good as money then its value would have dropped, in regards to what was GOOD as Money, first and then the results might have proven the assertion as true.

If gold was only worth 35 cents of a Synthetic Dollar, as a fact, means a paper dollar BUYS more confidence in the game of money. The resulting absurdity would be that Today, the more valuable “dollars” would be stored in bank vaults and near worthless gold and silver coins would be exchanged as bad money[Gresham’s law] driving out the good money.

The only way to keep the bad debt-money in the game was to outlaw the good money which was free from usury.

The political lie that gold was no longer good as money is demonstratively false by simple operations of money itself. By removing gold from circulation, just as silver was for almost the same reasons, the market cannot be operating in freedom of choice or even in open competition. Money is also a fact of decisions in conflict. People have different ideas of worth in their own sense of relationships and when people cannot solve the “pricing” for themselves they are slaves to those that do. Such are the consequences of such lost decisions, that the results are always going to be far worse for people, usually in the form of an extortion upon them.

The value of debt is by extortion only, as no other faculty except coercion can give value to the absence of real substance. A picture of a gold bar is a debt of money. The picture is then reduced to a number. Count the number of pictures, to gain the Sum value of its Debt. This is the game being played. It is quite the confidence scam, wrapped in a numbers racket and used to fund never-ending Ponzi schemes. That would be the bubbles which earn only the higher-order insiders huge gains of profit, at the expense of the rest. Taxes simply remove dollars from circulation to pay interest, as a negative time function, of Credit lent. This is the only reason prices can rise even as fewer earn dollars to spend into the economy. Job scarcity also props up dollar value as less people earn a claim on the Nations incomes. Incomes was expressed as an aggregate not a singular meaning.

What is even more absurd is the simple fact the U. S. government is used like tissue paper by the very same Lords of Lending whenever needed. (Even Bush Jr. recognized this fact of his own impotence, only people assumed he was referencing himself in a superior quality.)

If the tables were based on truthful measures of a synthetic, intangible debt-dollar, the actual worth of a dollar as a result of inflation pegs it to be around four cents. No measure of taxation of inflated synthetic dollars can be allowed unless the “inflation” is removed first by direct exclusion. This alone reduces rather substantially the phony worth of said fiat-debt dollars now taxed essentially twice[tax stacking].

How many economists have stated again and again that inflation is a hidden tax— and yet never hold up the phony tax tables which tax the same “INFLATED” debt-dollars, as measured in debt-dollars? Is the table referencing some magic dollar UN-affected by the ravages of inflation since 1913? Where is the justice in using a phony measurement, violating the standards of weights and measures quite thoroughly, to enforce a racket on money itself? Income is not money. In fact incomes, as it used is a oxymoron, since it measures only a political demand, divorced from the rule of law. Gold is not money we are told, well neither is a debt dollar. But for anyone who wants to argue the point go buy some gold with debt dollars and tell me why the gold today costs so much more then back in 1933 when that amazing synthetic dollar was touted as being as good as gold. No earnings in real money equals fraudulent taxation of phony money. More to the point a sly change of source incomes from tangible into intangibles and thus taxed on one side as if it was indeed the same as the other side.

*[In lieu of the tax imposed by section 1, there is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every individual—

(A) who does not itemize his deductions for the taxable year, and

(B) whose taxable income for such taxable year does not exceed the ceiling amount, a tax determined under tables, applicable to such taxable year, which shall be prescribed by the Secretary and which shall be in such form as he determines appropriate. In the table so prescribed, the amounts of the tax shall be computed on the basis of the rates prescribed by section 1.]

Note the single use of the word “income” referencing “income” without the distinction of source of Incomes tangible, versus Source of Incomes intangible. An allowable deduction? Here again is a dead hand making a claim with no visible authority. People just gloss over the repulsive anti-constitutional demand of this “implied power” to decide for the Individual WHAT amount of his earned allowable money can be kept. All personal expenses are deductions while measured as tangible, but on the intangible side deductions are privileges of political choice. Congress, decides what the fictions of citizens can deduct from its demands of revenue, the PEOPLE have no such restrictions period! All working class people  are outside of congressional subject jurisdiction period. The blurring of this all important sovereign versus federal enumeration of taxing power was whacked by the 16th amendment but sold as a Corporational reform, which had no controlling virtues upon living people.

Has Congress decided living people are now simple fictions? Not in plain view, but the IRS acts as if even that undeniable distinction doesn’t matter at all. Then again, the IRS is acting as a collections agent on behalf of a private lender—federal reserve— which is about as federal as mickey mouse. The co-mingling of intangible and tangible money produced a grotesque deformation of genuine federal authority as well. Thus, in the regulations the twisting and turning of co-mingled constitutional Law and civil aka municipal law with Private law has produced an UN-intelligible, contorted quality of all three mixed together like oil, sand and milk.

The IRS refuses to explain, much less clarify WHY sections of the 861 regulations are not the sections of the Code used for the determination of liability despite the specific wording of the section itself: 26 CFR § 1.861-8 are entitled “Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities,” instead any tax arguments referencing these sections are derided as frivolous.

Much has been said about what a frivolous argument is construed to mean, when in a court, but the logic points to a far uglier truth, the Code is just a smokescreen necessary for the operations of the extraction. An extraction which is political both in purpose and in practice, but for Private law intentions. People are dealing with a criminal operation, whose depths of evil, are masked by a false assertion of federal authority, enforced by admiralty cohesion contracts upon the franchise itself. This is bait and switch routines to confuse people and especially juries unfamiliar with the complexity of mixing code regulations with hidden elements of admiralty jurisdictions.

Which Crown is reaching into the pockets of the people of the Union states, is not clear, but that explicit truth is masked by layers of bull heaped on high, with loads of political rhetoric to make it stick— all citizens owe a fair share of their governments expenses and services. Shame on any person who refuses to pay the “incomes” tax of individual income flouting the laws. Not that the IRS really gives a damn one way or the other. With Private law in one hand and a big, shiny badge in the other the IRS invades the property shouting pay your fair share as if that was the law period. So the even bigger, bold faced lie laid bare is this: the incomes tax as collected, actually pays for the services and expenses of running the government.

An excerpt from The Grace commission Report:

Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken. With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

Judging by the lack of any effective changes to the findings themselves, the Report has clearly never been given any serious consideration, much less contested. The IRS collections to this day still only pay, the interest on the credit money as rented debt-dollars period. Hiding from the conclusion only aids the deeper lie: the debt-dollars collected is used as asserted. When the truth is all about controlling inflation be removing the dollars themselves back out of circulation. Thus, this financial merry-go-round is asserted as being the best we can do, is the superior model for extraction of profit from deluded peons and affords a military force to do the job it true Masters expect.

The legal fiction is likened to swamp-lands and vipers. It has to be in order to hide the truth where few dare to tread. The amount of money that has been lost, as a direct consequence of it always being in the form of a negative-loan, is beyond the numbers themselves. This is a staggering lost potential of money. Since the debt-dollar was, and is, always being removed by the negative-force of loan re-payment, to an exponential Debt, whose aggregate is defined by ALL MONIES, in circulation, and in ledgers, by such removal, no positive-cycle of debt free, species-monies can exist in circulation. People can never earn real “Interest” on the artificial concept creature called ‘debt money’ from which no species money can be derived.

The illusion to the contrary permits only a shallow dimension of money to be legally defined, thus it is so defined as legal tender. Legal FRN tender is no more Money, then Micky mouse is Money. The tenders printed graphic imparts no worth to the subject of money, the paper possesses no substance of money and the very act of borrowing it into existence destroys the very thing it offers: the promise of something it never delivers: that would be the Money. The Word of the Contract is thus broken. The Credit which rides the Word, like a man rides a horse, is nothing but a ghost. Fraud has no defense of the Law and that includes the 16th Amendment. People have been systematically robbed of more then just personal wealth alone. This Nation has been bled dry on purpose, with systematic brutality only authoritarians of fascism can perform while keeping a straight face..

The deeper truth is even worse.

“Preceding the de facto transition, a number of other things had occurred. Pursuant to 22 USC 286, the President was authorized to accept membership for the United States in the International Monetary Fund (“The Fund”), and in the International Bank For Reconstruction and Development (“The Bank”), provided for by the “Articles of Agreement of the Fund” and the “Articles of Agreement of the Bank”, as set forth in the “Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference” dated July 22, 1944, which are deposited in the archives of the Department of State. These Acts are commonly known as the Bretton Woods Agreements. They are international agreements.

The Articles of Agreement assert that those holding public office could do not only what the delegated powers under the Constitution did not authorize, but what they forbid. In other words, Congress created these two entities and granted them the capacity to do what they were prohibited from doing directly. The complete debasement of the Constitutional Coin was effected and accomplished under the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Articles of Agreement.

Pursuant to 22 USC 286a, the President appoints the alien, corporate “Governor” to oversee the United States membership in “The Fund” apnd “The Bank”. He is today commonly referred to as the “Secretary of Treasury.” The Office of Secretary of Treasury was formerly, that is, prior to May 20, 1920, a cabinet level position in the Executive Branch. That is not now the case because the “Treasury” was abolished in 1920-21. This occurred following the unconstitutional and unlawful re-delegation of authorized powers of Congress under the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, out of which there was created an “independent treasury” on May 20, 1920, in which the People’s money was commingled. Thereafter the gold was systematically, and criminally, removed and transferred out of the country, eventually causing a “run” on the banks, and ultimately, the Emergency Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1. War and Emergency Powers had worked in 1862, and again in 1933, to expand unauthorized power beyond Constitutional and statutory limitations and prohibitions. Like the economic emergency itself, the emergency executive power is still active and available to further the “systematic scheme”.

On March 18, 1968, Congress passed “An Act to Eliminate the reserve requirements for Federal Reserve Notes and for United States Notes and Treasury Notes of 1890”, Public Law 90-269, 82 Stat. 50. This Act was designed to remove the remaining reserve requirements on circulating notes and obligations. $1.3 billion in gold was “pledged” against “gold certificates” and held as reserves against circulating notes and obligations. Under this Act the gold certificates would be withdrawn and retired, then the gold would be considered as “free gold” and paid out to foreign interests at $35 per ounce. The monetary reserves of gold and gold certificates would be supplemented and then replaced “by the mechanism of special drawing rights (SDR’s) within the framework of the IMF” [See: House Report 1095, pg. 1763] It was also known, at that time, that the continued expansion of circulating Federal Reserve Notes would use up the “free gold” in two years, however, the “new standards of international reserves and exchange” was right around the corner [See: House Report 1095, pg. 1780] The Federal Reserve Note, thereafter, met all of the qualifications of a worthless security under 26 I. R. C. 165(g). The action of disavowing and repudiating obligations in 1968, like those that occurred in 1933 and 1934, were given effect and compulsion. The system had become nothing more nor less than a “confidence game” devised to psychologically dupe the public who were left generally ignorant of the activities and known affects.

On June 19, 1968, only three months later, Congress passed the “Special Drawing Rights Act”, Public Law 90-349, 82 Stat. 188. This Act amended the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Under Section 2 of the Special Drawing Rights Act, the SDR’s are “administered as part of the Exchange Stabilization Fund established by section 10 of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, as amended (31 USC 822a).” The operations of the Exchange Stabilization Fund and now the SDR’s are under the “exclusive control of the Secretary of Treasury” and “are not reviewable by any other officer of the United States”. Anything in the ESF remains in the Fund, for the use of the Fund. This new program is subject to the Articles of Agreement of the IMF in accordance with Section 3 of the SDR Act of 1968. Of course, the “Secretary of Treasury” is, in reality, the “Governor” of the IMF, and is not an officer of the United States. [See: Public Law 94-564, 90 Stat. 2660, Senate Report 94-1148, pg. 5942; 22 USC 286a] Section 4 of the Special Drawing Rights Act sets forth the general protocols. The “Secretary of Treasury” [Governor-IMF] issues an international letter of credit called a “Special Drawing Rights Certificate” to the Federal Reserve Banks “in such form and in such denomination as he may determine”. The SDR is deposited in the Federal Reserve Banks which in turn credits the account of the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) with Federal Reserve Notes in an amount equal to the value of the SDR certificate.

SDR’s became the “collateral security for Federal Reserve Notes”. The term “dollar” was thereafter valued in direct and inseparable proportion to Special Drawing Rights, not to “dollars”, gold and silver Coin. The “dollar” became mere “book entries in special accounts of the International Monetary Fund” under the United Nations. [See: Senate Report 1164, pg. 2105] In effect, the International Agreements had taken precedent over domestic limitations and obligations pursuant to the authority delegated by “We the People” in the ordained and established Constitution for the United States of America. The international organizations had gained economic control of the domestic monetary system, and would now make political decisions for the members. In common parlance, the Nation has been economically “overthrown” and bankrupted. Under “rule of instrumentality” the “United States” exists in pretense of name only, being the altered of the true principal and parties of interest, The Fund and The Bank. With the enactment by Congress of Public Law 95-147 on October 28, 1977, all financial institutions, banks and credit unions alike, were placed on the exclusive direction and control of the “Governor” of “The Fund” and “The Bank”, i. e., the United Nations, which is the World Communist Movement. A foreign power now roosts and rules exclusively over each and every American.

Recall that the operations of the Exchange Stabilization Fund and now the SDR’s are under the “exclusive control of the Secretary of Treasury” and “are not reviewable by any other officer of the United States.” HTTP:// HTML

“The Internal Revenue Service entered into a “service agreement” with the U. S. Treasury Department [See: Public Law 94-564; Legislative History, pg. 5967; Reorganization Plan No. 26] and the Agency for International Development, pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91. The Agency For International Development is an International paramilitary operation [See: Department Of The Army Field Manual, (1969) FM 41-10, pgs. 1-4, Sec. 1-7(b) & 1-6, Section 1-10(7)(c)(1), 22 U. S. C .A. 284], and includes such activities as “Assumption of full or partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country or area.” [See: FM 41-10, pg. 1-7, Section 110(7)(c)(4)] also see, Agreement Between The United Nations And The United States Of America Regarding The Headquarters Of The United Nations, Section 7(d) & (8), 22 U. S. C. A. 287 (1979 Ed.) at pg. 241. It is to be further observed that the “Agreement” regarding the Headquarters District of the United Nations was NOT agreed to [See: Congressional Record – Senate, December 13, 1967, Mr. Thurmond], and is illegally in the Country in the first instant.” HTTP://USA-the-republic. com/emergency%20powers/United%20States%20Bankrupt.html

The ruthless nature of the IRS stems from the real nature of their purpose, which is financial extortion by any means as needed to fulfill the mandate of their service agreement with a foreign agent which occupies the U. S. Treasury Department, which has no factual relationship to the Peoples republican constitutional government. This game of naming conventions allows a farcical representation to satisfy the identification of the ‘treasury’ as noticed in the IRS forms and instructions while evading the specific truth of why this Country no longer has a real Officer of a lawful federal treasury. The federal government has become nothing but a facade, an empty promise long since divorced from any substance of truth.

—In the late nineteenth century there was a significant increase in wealth held in intangible forms, such as stocks and bonds. This wealth escaped both the federal tariff (because it was not consumed) and the state property tax because it was intangible rather than “real”—

There are significant differences in “Wealth” as a result of intangible forms and tangible forms of source Incomes. For example: top 1% makes most of their (intangible) earnings from capital gains, interest, rents, dividends, and royalties, etc. — today known as “passive” income. People who labor for a wage are trading one form of tangible property for another(money) by mutual consent, or by contract of specific terms. However, this arrangement has not benefited the wage work force.

The poor in America, like the poor everywhere, still believe you can rob Peter to pay Paul. They still believe their “leaders” are trying to serve their best interests. It is a sad hoax. What has really happened is clear: Bamboozling the poor has become a way of life for American politicians.

And the poor’s willingness – even eagerness – to embrace the resulting economic slavery is the linchpin of our system.

But it’s not only the poor who have become addicted to the system. Businessmen like Warren Buffett embrace it, too – despite its limitations and taxes. Buffett calls it the “American System.” He says it’s the greatest system for creating wealth the world has ever seen.

We’re not so sure.

Yes, it certainly makes it easy for big businessmen like Buffett to become wealthy. But those same benefits don’t accrue to the society at large. For example… even though the value of America’s production has soared over the last 40 years and asset prices have risen considerably, our debts have grown even more.

When you adjust for debt and inflation, you discover America hasn’t gotten richer at all. Yes, we have become more affluent. And yes, some individuals have gotten vastly richer. But as a whole, when you add back the debts we’ve racked up, the country hasn’t gotten richer at all.

Since the end of the gold standard in 1971, real after-tax wages, per capita, stagnated. On average, we haven’t gotten any richer at all in 40 years. Those wealth and power increases with inflation? Whose stature in society grows alongside the government? Who profits from increased spending on wars, prisons, and social programs that are doomed to fail? And most of all… who profits from an explosion in debt?

A certain class of people has the power to not only protect itself from these policies but to profit as well. These people have used the last 40 years to produce massive amounts of paper wealth. And they are now desperately trying to convert those paper accounts into real wealth, which explains the exploding price of farmland and precious metals.

This explosion of wealth at the top of the “food chain” is the main feature of what I call New American Socialism. It’s a system fueled by paper money, the constant expansion of debt, and a kind of corruption that’s hard to police because it occurs within the boundaries of the law.

Like the European and totalitarian socialism of the last 100 years, New American Socialism harnesses the power of the State to grow and maintain production. Like in traditional socialism, the poor pay the costs of New American Socialism. But unlike socialist systems of the past, this new American version has one critical improvement…

In the New American Socialism, the power of the system produces private profits.Porter Stansberry, 29 Jun ’11

A trading of labor is work performed for a tangible activity for a tangible equal value of what was once money. However, when the very measure ‘dollar’ is a fraud of the money, an absurdity results. A working wage is measured by an intangible(dollar) value while taxed as a tangible as IF the Coin still existed! In fact, the money itself has been outlawed. But wait the IRS no longer has to hear any argument counter to its duplicitous claims. If Congress is up to its municipal butt in debt intangible, then it is the Creditor, who is really behind the collectors. No wonder Congress, always plays dead on the real question: WHY is it in such a stupid contract at all?

The purpose of government is to Defend the Rights of the People, and their Property, not make money for elite Temple bankers of the Pope. Or is it? Controlling people with never-ending unpayable debt is easy, just demand more money, paid by debt-money, leading to more debts to print more debt money… in a downward-spiral into the black-hole, of super-sized debts, with super-duper sized “mass” taxing demands, needing of course more debt dollars yet to pay the interest alone. Which is the way out of this time-value of perpetual Debt-money constriction?

A tax needs a dollar. If the debt grows by compound-interest where is the equal action of Credit? Oh, that’s right, in the creditor/debtor relationship profit only goes one way. To the bank. Why does compound interest only apply in favor of banks? An exponential factor when used in debt creation is exceptionally dangerous. This is the main reason for why Usury is a weapon of mass destruction on a Nations wealth accumulation. The debt grows faster then the people can produce the “money” to pay the exponential growth of the debt. To make matters even more absurd the very dollar created by the debt must be used to re-pay the same debt. Why is this ridiculous arrangement the mainstay of our economic system?

By which magical law of immutable force does the compound-interest spring? And only in a bankers favor? How wonderful it must be to have a monopoly of issuing an artificial credit, whose debt is an asset and the waste product is payed as cash. Usury was banned for a reason. Too bad our Congress has forsaken any claim of conscience, honor or decency. Compound-interest is a game of fictional mathematics played with real people, as if they were the tokens on the playing field.

When money has no physical constraints, except for arbitrary rules legislated to only benefit the banking syndicate, the game is rigged and is no longer real. Money cannot behave like taffy, then ice and then split into convergent forms which none are equal or even similar. Banks have systematically destroyed the very thing they claim to keep safe. Take out a dollar bill and find where it states this is money. Keep searching. Break out a microscope and see if it is in the super-fine print.

Well, if it only says, good for all Debts, why is it not simply good for all Credits? If farmer Brown has a credit in Bobs store for one-hundred dollars, Bob does not gain interest payments for the credit surplus. Brown is owed a credit, but he does not gain interest from Bob. If Brown borrows the credit then he is a debtor to Bob, who can then demand interest on the time-value on the contract. Contract money is notoriously defective when the money property itself, is but an illusion of convenience. Where there is no consideration of value there is no money.

A credit dollar (non-interest bearing) does not exist for the simple reason that it does not generate interest-income to the Bank. Money is a concept, of which a piece of paper only gives notice of its exchange thus, it is not the instrument of money, but only its symbolic transfer. Which is why there is no standard of value. Money when intangible is communicated thus transferred from one mind to another, as realized by the medium of its exchange in some form. People could use anything including dirt for money, if they chose to do so. Money is defined by its use, of which certain forms are indeed much more practical, thus exchangeable then others. The political game is to force only one kind of political, fiat unit of money into circulation by special rules, as dictated by the Lender, thus generating interest at all times by its Rent. Congress, rents the money the same way the King of England rents his crown. Who owns who? Does the Renter own the rentee? Not in our dimension.

The better question: why is Congress renting money at all? Why is Congress on the wrong side of a bad Credit deal? Why is Congress a lap-dog for foreign bankers? Where there is no gain from selling debt money there is no profit from its Interest Income. Why did congress make itself a sucker in a bad deal? And why does it not change this bad deal? Somebody is making endless profit from that mountain of perpetual debt and funny enough these very same Lenders are exempt from taxation period. Why is their special private money superior to the crap they print for everybody else? Why is this bank corporation, so special? Is printing worthless, paper dollars really that special?

The stink of old money authority permeates the air like rotten fish under a hot sun. Why does evil money rule America? Because bad money chases out good money and evil money destroys them both. So what is a man really receiving as the “exchange” aka the trade of his labors? The debt money of his own labors? Maybe the paychecks need to be printed in negative numbers to match the negative value of the dollar itself. After all, what is an empty promise of a substance never gained, thus devoid of profit? A legal Tender Note of course. The FR-note is absurd proof that no gain was made, or even measured. The note has become nothing but a spoof of real Coin, much less true money. The time of a man is tangible, thus so are his labors in exchange for its equal trade of tangible money. A fake dollar for real work defeats the very tax as imposed. To say otherwise places real labors in the same class of fictions reserved for cartoons. The bankers turned a tangible dollar into a political unit of intangible fake-value which is theft by any definition.

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson.

“Paper is poverty,…it is only the ghost of money and not money itself.” Thomas Jefferson.

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars.”Thomas Jefferson.

[In 1803, instead of borrowing from the bank, Napoleon sold territory west of the Mississippi to the 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson for 3 million dollars in gold; a deal known as the Louisiana Purchase. *]

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.” James Madison.

“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.” James Garfield (stated in 1881 two weeks before his assassination).

“Let me issue and control a nations money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

[The 19th century became known as the age of the Rothschild’s when it was estimated they controlled half of the world’s wealth. While their wealth continues to increase today, they have managed to blend into the background, giving an impression that their power has waned. They only apply the Rothschild name to a small fraction of the companies they actually control. Some authors claim that the Rothschild’s had not only taken over the Bank of England but they had also in 1816 backed a new privately owned Central Bank in America called The Second Bank of The United States, causing huge problems to the American president.] *HTTP://

“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.” Nathan Mayer Rothschild.

“I am the most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” Woodrow Wilson.

“A world banking system was being set up here…A super-state controlled by international bankers…Acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. The Fed has usurped the government.” Louis McFadden.

“The [Federal Reserve] Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this Bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized…….The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.” Charles Lindbergh.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it.” Tommy Cryer.

The working class, has been under attack by the noble class for so long, some may well argue it is very nature of the Law itself. The 16th amendment was born of the fury of class hatred, but was this anger of the working class UN-justified? The banking syndicates had been ripping off the ‘common man’ with impunity, thanks to Congress always favoring the hand it feeds from, while pretending to be impartial. The amendment was turned into an instrument of confounding purpose and today, is without question, a method of economic oppression.

Congress, cannot legislate away any Fundamental Principle, nor construct such an adversarial subject of Law, and yet the People must contort themselves, both to obey its demands and relinquish their unalienable Rights, as a pre-requisite to such demands. The tax demands individuals to voluntarily “surrender” those very Rights, which defend them from taxations unlawful demands. No wonder the IRS refuses to answer the real question… because it’s a hornets nest ready to burst wide open. Economic suppression is no laughing manner, especially when it involves systemic financial extortion of the working class.

The IRS demeans the arguments of honest people, with the standard retort of “frivolous” while avoiding the reason such questions are raised. Working class people know damn good and well they are being screwed and ridiculed for not being able to prove something is false, when the legal deck is stacked against them. Tax inquisition operates on threats, fear and intimidation. These aspects of typical enforcement measures are not lawful uses of constitutional authority, yet such actions are justified by its abusers, as if, the law existed for no other reason, then to drive a boot into a tax protesters head. Without a law how does a tyrant know how to behave?

“In 1913 during the debate on the first income tax act under the 16th Amendment, Senator Elihu Root commented about the complexity of that first law:

“I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.”

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities.” U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U. S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.”

“The first 10 amendments to the constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights.” Monongahela Nav. Co v US, 48 US 312, 324 (1893).

“This amendment(16th) did not confer any new power of taxation on Congress and did not extend the power of taxation to subjects previously exempted. Its whole purpose was to ‘exclude the source from which income tax’ is a direct tax which must be apportioned among the states, and thus remove the occasion which might otherwise exist for an apportionment. [27th American Jurisprudence, Section 17, pages 317, 318.] “The source of the taxing power is not the 16th Amendment, it is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.” [Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 T. C. 1959, CCH at pg. 659]

I think the Founding Signers, knew damn good and well, giving any government the authority to destroy sovereign Rights, when it pleases them to do so, was absolutely, unequivocally, quantitatively, in direct conflict with securing their liberty, thus they purposely abolished such powers, from ever being given to Congress, to destroy such freedoms. The Bill of rights affirmed these Principles of free men and thus became the Law for People and their government. The Congress, which has no standing in the Peoples Sovereignty, cannot justify, nor contemplate to Tax, a Fundamental Right. To do so, Congress must Trespass upon those Rights which were forever removed from its subject authority.

U. S. Constitution: Article I Section 8. Powers of Congress Clause 1. Power to Tax and Spend

Kinds of Taxes Permitted:

By the terms of the Constitution, the power of Congress to levy taxes is subject to but one exception and two qualifications. Articles exported from any State may not be taxed at all. Direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. The Court has emphasized the sweeping character of this power by saying from time to time that it ‘’reaches every subject,’’ 469 that it is ‘’exhaustive’’ 470 or that it ‘’embraces every conceivable power of taxation.’’ 471 Despite these generalizations, the power has been at times substantially curtailed by judicial decision with respect to the subject matter of taxation, the manner in which taxes are imposed, and the objects for which they may be levied.

Decline of the Forbidden Subject Matter Test .–In recent years the Supreme Court has restored to Congress the power to tax most of the subject matter which had previously been withdrawn from its reach by judicial decision. The holding of Evans v. Gore 472 and Miles v. Graham 473 that the inclusion of the salaries received by federal judges in measuring the liability for a nondiscriminatory income tax violated the constitutional mandate that the compensation of such judges should not be diminished during their continuance in office was repudiated in O’Malley v. Woodrough. 474 The specific ruling of Collector v. Day 475 that the salary of a state officer is immune to federal income taxation also has been overruled. 476 But the principle underlying that decision–that Congress may not lay a tax which would impair the sovereignty of the States–is still recognized as retaining some vitality


Regulation by Taxation

The discretion of Congress in selecting the objectives of taxation has also been held at times to be subject to limitations implied from the nature of the Federal System. Apart from matters that Congress is authorized to regulate, the national taxing power, it has been said, “reaches only existing subjects.’’

To bring all of this back into a more simple view: In those distant times most people still derived their primary sustenance from their own lands. A farmer raising crops or livestock  for example might retain a percentage for his own family needs while selling the surplus to market. The source of his income is of course his lands productivity. Land use is the source and what gains he might make from such use does not qualify as corporate activities. If he purchases stocks and bonds with this surplus wealth then he would need to compute the net profits from said ventures and that would fall under the criteria as expressed. But this is a far cry from the stupendous wealth already accumulated by the nations wealthiest of men.

A man working in a factory as a wage-slave does not fall under the criteria unless he too expends his surplus wealth into the arena of corporate activities and only then does he need to compute such gains to determine if an income tax is due to the feds.

In both examples state required taxes are also computed and paid according to the rules where each man lives. The question is what has improved in the new system that was not already there in the old? The abuses of the faculties is never really explained, but it seems unlikely small time investors were the cause of such evils as mentioned in Taft’s address. Even so it is clear even after the passing of the 16th amendment only a small percentage of the general population made enough gains of profit to be required to send in a Return for the privilege of making excess money from the investment of surplus money. And of course the roaring twenties was a suckers boat-ride to the contrived stock-market crash. There is no question the planners of these artificial monetary manipulations were gaming the system they brought into existence. The people never knew what hit them until the party was over. By the time the next round was over the income taxing regulations turned into another animal altogether. And the super wealthy were never nicked for a second.


Page – 7




Back to page – 5

Back to page – 4

Back to page – 3

Back to page – 2

Back to page – 1


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: