Grand Illusion – 7

VII

Sovereignty of the individual is what made the American dream possible. So long as all men could know with a greater sense of certainty that their endeavors would not be stolen from them by a syndicate of bureaucratic sharks working for the Kings tax department, life had purpose and meaning. To remove the safeguards one square at a time, either by stealth or bold assertions, on behalf of a Creditor Class, while claiming otherwise, is to trespass on those very same sovereign rights which incidentally also serve as the foundation for the Law, whose principles cannot be false to their purpose. What is the Law when it cannot defend those whom it is sworn to protect?

The creditor class has wiped its ass with the Law for so long it seems to have no other purpose.    The banking syndicate needed an amendment to break the bonds between sovereign rights and the “money” so entrusted to the treasury for the use of the Nations people. That very same criminal syndicate stole three kings fortunes from the treasury of the People, and had the unmitigated gall to claim the people were broke! After, stealing outright the silver they went after the gold using the same old tricks but with new and improved Market swindles. People needed to believe they too could be rich and indeed many did in fact become very prosperous. A good con has to have some success or nobody is going to play along.

Part of the success of this con was the terminology being utilized to sell the idea and to promote the blurring of word meaning and lawful usage. Why do people believe income is money? Why is the word money not used correctly in all tax regulations? When the IRS sends out one of its “notices” the print is always about the “Income” they presume you have and the 1099 is the proof it was business net income to be taxed in full, minus only the standard deductions. Never mind the fact the presumption is wrong, the demand is nothing less than extortion, as the penalties on top of penalties”tax stacking” clearly attest. Pay us today or this amount will increase so fast rabbits look like snails by comparison.

This blurring of the difference between “incomes” which are derived of passive investments in contrast to wages which were never lawfully defined as a source of income is where most people try to fight the injustice. They lose the fight due to the fact the IRS does not need to define the word “Incomes” only claim your wages are income. Nifty trick to claim a horse is a pig because both are found in a barn. The barn is the “Incomes” and everything stuffed into that barn is the assets— if a single coin of money is gained by the use of those assets the farmer now has gross income. After, performing all of the operations to compute the net from the gross, what is left is his Taxable Income. But this is only true if the farmer is running a trade or business within the “meaning” of the regulations. Otherwise nothing in that barn is taxable period.

The question is did the federal government have any rights to his assets? No those assets are his to use has he see fits. His barn full of private property was never the subject of federal authority to tax, or the items falling under excise laws. To say otherwise removes the “sovereign rights” and makes that man a slave to whomever owns those assets. If the feds own your assets free and clear of your possession why call them yours? If the feds own the barn why claim the tax is based on a measure of your income? Absolute property rights exist for a reason. To remove the reasons is to remove the property from then man reducing his sovereign rights to wage-slave rights. Quite the difference and well worth paying attention to when examining those pesky details hidden in the fine print.

The single greatest defect of the 16th amendment is the salient fact, that the super-wealthy had already perfected the Foundation as an effective means of protecting their great wealth. They built a super-fortress chock full of wealth from being taxed, by the very amendment they championed. Gosh they are so very clever. They did indeed offer up the perfect wording to be the solution to the very ills they created in the first place.  Talk about sophistry to the ninth degree. While the pundits are singing the praise of the new taxing power the very wealthy knew they had not a dime to worry about.

The great bulk of their private fortunes was secured from any further trespass and they went right ahead and continued with their actual plans, which as always, was something along the lines of total world conquest.  To accomplish this greater goal required a strong arm called the U.S. military to ensure what they really wanted was to be kept no matter what the people back in the States had to say on such matters. The game was rigged and these robber barons were not about to allow a political conscience to interfere with their grandiose ambitions. There was not enough money outright to steal from any nations people, so they had to rig the banking system to create the credit by which the big debt wheel turns, and ever bigger profits come in… debt being the contract instrument of usury that it has always been.

Money is without question one of the most mis-used words in the human language. If the dollar in your hand is already a debt then it already obligated to another and you cannot receive a gain from any asset you do not own outright. If that dollar is not yours one-hundred percent then it is not money period. Money is not just a number on a 1099 or a 1040 piece of paper. A record is not money or the absurdity is numbers are money and records are its assets. Show me the money not its shadow on a piece of paper. This is the sublime truth of the difference between substance and fictions. You can eat an apple but not a picture of an apple. And if you are starving that difference is not so trivial at all. Survival depends on things that are real not the fictions which arise in the absence of them. Which is why the Law can only be true if the money and the coin is just as true. To remove the truth of one destroys the truth of the other. This truism is the litmus test of anything which society wants to call money. If the Law and the coin of the realm have no truth in each other then one or the other is defective. It really is that simple.

The problems with the 16 th amendment were not just about what it was supposed to mean or measure. Today, the 16th amendment as presently enforced, contains not one, but two false presumptions, which directly conflict with rational logic.  The first is that Congress has a more fundamental right then the People for what it wants (revenue) and the second is that Congress can simply ignore causing Harm to the People, as a justification of its own self-preservation. When the law itself becomes the very method of coercion, the tactics of enforcement always escalate, adversarial procedures will dominate proceedings and any challenge to the law itself will be denied by any and all means. The redress of grievances becomes a long list of dusty demands in a distant corner.

When a law ceases to be of the quality of good, then it is bad and it is void by Principle. Bad laws cannot rule over good laws or law itself becomes void of any requirement to uphold. Tyranny loves private law for the political demand of obedience not truth by principle. The 16th amendment was private law shoe-horned into the Constitution by lairs acting on behalf of the Lending class. Authoritarians love turning the law against people, to control them and to diminish the respect for the law. This can only be accomplished while using political “implied powers” to destroy the very thing the Constitution was meant to defend: The unalienable Right to own property in absolute terms. A tangible right forever removed from any over-reaching demands of Congress. Or the Constitution itself is dead to the ground.

Lawless federal servants are the lowest stripe of criminals and they are guilty of sedition against  the People, by the very action of their criminal intentions: To defraud the People out of their own lawful money.  That was the crime hidden by the actual intent of the 16th amendment. An act to do the very opposite of what they preached. Funny how that pattern is always right there in plain site. It is the pattern born from motives to actions.

“But by then very few Americans could even remember the original constitutional plan. The original plan was as Madison and Tocqueville described it: State government was to be the rule, federal government the exception. The states’ powers were to be “numerous and indefinite,” federal powers “few and defined.” This is a matter not only of history, but of iron logic: the Constitution doesn’t make sense when read any other way. As Madison asked, why bother listing particular federal powers unless unlisted powers are withheld?” Joseph Sobran

[On January 10, 2008, the Federal District Court in Chicago issued a permanent injunction against Bill Benson on the grounds that by offering information demonstrating that the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified, he was promoting an abusive tax shelter. The Court then refused to look at the government-certified documentary evidence, deciding instead that the facts necessary to prove his statements true were “irrelevant.” What has America come to when the government we created to protect our rights can accuse us of lying and then prohibit us from presenting a defense in a court of law?—- http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/%5D

The problem with words is that they can convey more then one meaning, especially when used in Law, where the term is defined for legal usage contrary to established norms. Here the phrase, “abusive tax shelter” must be defined as something else in the Judges little, black book. The Judge, fearful of the truth, banished it from his sight and then from the public as well. This fear of facts, as presented, lends even greater credibility to the claim itself. Mr. Benson was courageously speaking the plain truth, so the Judge resorted to cowardly, legal gimmicks to make himself deaf, dumb and blind. Since he cannot hear the evil he has no duty to rectify the harm as done. He chickened out and left Mr. Benson to swing in the wind.

Truthfully, the 16th amendment was dead on arrival. The 16th amendment was void from day one because it was intentionally a fraud. Or no “Foundation”  or any other form of accumulated, aggregated or concentrated form of  wealth would have escaped the “incomes” taxing power. The very deceptive manner in which it was written concealed the ruse of its true purpose. To fulfill the mandate of the debt-money machine which was about to be set into motion, to remove the real money in circulation,  like a giant Hoover over America.

Truth does not need a false coat of paint to protect it from lies. If the truth was the opposite of which Mr. Benson, was presenting, then he has no reason to pursue the matter any further, nor can he construct a false finding without making himself into a fool. What he really discovered was facts make no difference when the federal government is protecting itself from the discovery of truth. The government is simply defending its own lies, by false accusation and then preventing the accusation itself from being proven false. This is not law, it is legal blustering in the most polite of terms and clearly only possible when the Court itself is nothing better then a star chamber.

How can any individual defend themselves in such circumstances? One can surmise they don’t have a chance in hell of winning any argument on facts, or evidence, since neither actually matters anymore. This absurdity of upholding a lie to void the truth, is going to destroy every federal court for the same reason. A lie cannot void the truth without destroying the very meaning of law itself. The Judge in question actually destroyed the Law to protect a lie. Contrary to authoritarian doctrines, No man has to obey any Law devoid of Principle, for that is the very meaning of tyranny: a political demand of obedience when the truth is against the law to protect the lies of evil men. Lying is not an enumerated power of Congress. So it is implied of course. But only a criminal would do so…

The 16th amendment was touted as the means to right a perceived wrong, but the wrong itself(high consumption taxes/tariffs) was never rectified and the amendment became a tool to do something else far worse. The debate concerning the passage of the 16th amendment is avoided, due to the simple fact, it has become a powerful tool of financial extraction, that Congress absolutely does not want to relinquish and the Lending class will not allow over their dead bodies.

Congress having harmed the People, by purposefully restricting the Peoples unalienable Rights, to enjoy the very prosperity of their chosen professions, labors or livelihoods, must conceal the root of the wrong, which is of course the Trespass of Sovereign property. The IRS has fulfilled that mission perhaps a bit too well. Hence, the reason the IRS acts with such arrogance, with legal-bully powers, which cannot arise from anything Constitutional, or even rational, much less founded on a single testable Principle. No wonder people cannot prove anything in their defense. Madness needs no principle. Clever half-truths circle around invisible lies while making a mockery of the very thing People are demanding: Show us the Law not the finger pointing at the Law. But they cannot show the Law, without admitting to breaking the very Principle of the Law itself. To Do no harm. Law cannot harm those it claims to protect. The law does not fear the truth and that which does is not law. Congress, is only defending the Lenders by defeating the People. The 16th amendment is a knife in the Peoples back. Right where Congress stuck it on purpose.

The Law these fascist sycophants of the Lending royalty are breaking is the Law of Sovereignty:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And if it is self-evident, that these unalienable Rights, are born manifest in every living being, no other living being can claim such authority to remove them, not by force or distraint, for they are immutable and beyond the contempt of fools pretending otherwise. And these Rights are not limited to only those as named, but encompass every such necessity to secure them as well. That would be free speech, free choice of religion, the right of self-defense, the right to sustain oneself by honest endeavors and a multitude of other rights so inferred by the freedom to choose by Freewill and a moral conscience. The mind does not belong to the federal authoritarians or their dead-beat lending masters. That credit hat has always been empty.

IN a slavery system, all men so purchased, are treated with no difference from that of an Infernal Object (that which possesses no substance of life: A WILL of its own–such as the state, the corporation, the thing named as a fictional person) for the expressed Purpose of federal taxing convenience(easy to administer), thus living men are simply reduced to mere Subjects of artificial citizenship. This arrangement granted Congress a benefit of powers it does not lawfully possess, nor had any right to sell to a lending class. Congress, had no right, implied or otherwise, to create a new class of slaves by the legislative Arts. Law making is not a Satanic gift. It just appears that way due to the graft of the law-breaking fools pretending to be Statesmen.

When living men are legally reduced to fictions of municipal law, thereby,  to an abstraction of inferior Symbolic meaning, as opposed to Real, the result is genuine outrage. Well, only to those who actually believe in the truth of law and freedom. Generational slavery is quite the problem when it has been touted as freedom with slogans and big shows with glitzy extravaganzas where everybody is whooping it up… parties sell the lie and greed does the rest. A political circus act is what replaced the genuine discourse of statesmanship. The big-top tent is run as a corporation and every clown is its employee no matter what hat they may be wearing.

 The purposeful elevation of the corporate class, of non-person citizens, over living men, also Defeats the very Purpose of the Constitution itself. To defend the People from the Tyranny of the Kings master. That would be his banker.

Those that lend money are the Creditors to those that are Debtors. When the Lender has an absolute Right to the Return of the loan of money, as duplicitous as this may be, this claim nonetheless supersedes Moral equality with a mere flick of the credit pen. Congress had no lawful Authority to place the People in such a morally defective Contract, as it did with the Federal Reserve Corporation. A corporation no more federal than federal express. The Debt contract born from this unholy union binds the Nation in a no-win position from which it cannot be extricated by ordinary means. This is a perfect legal cage only from the perspective of the criminals themselves. When people stop pretending it is right to steal money to make money the cage vanishes like the smoke thing that it is and has always been. The People did not steal their gold coin from the Treasury nor did their grandparents steal silver coin from the Nations Treasury. The money was stolen from the People period. Billions of dollars were swindled out of the Peoples Treasury by a concentrated action of liars, frauds and cheats using their federal authority to accomplish their crimes.

To keep this crime in operation the IRS had to be invented to do the dirty work… and so it has with disturbing efficiency. The arrogance of the IRS itself is found in its methods… always the presumption, no facts only assertions to impugn the character and to demean people as nothing but taxpayers. A term which is actually rather curious. Where did this term originate? I read many years ago it was from long island land owners extolling the virtues of their taxpayers… the buildings they owned which generated handsome profits over the summer.

Definitions for taxpayer(Noun):

A person who is subject to liable for or pays tax as opposed to a nontaxpayer who is neither the subject nor the object of revenue laws (Economy Heating vs United States 470F2nd 585(1972))

The IRS of course uses this meaning which asserts no person can be exempt from income taxation, without ever mentioning a domestic corporation is also a person, in the state in which it is chartered, which is also a citizen of the United States by that very relationship. Why the 14th amendment not only freed the slaves it freed the corporations from slavery as well. Why in America of those days corporations were worked 24/7 with no time for rest. Corporations were a suffering class with no rights just like slaves and unable to secure for themselves a proper standing in the eyes of the law. Why they had to be treated as people too or else poor little corporations would be beggars by the road-side. Oh the humanity…. this action of giving corporations legal standing as “persons” was absurd to the extreme. Unless, one also recalls the word person was originally referencing a mask, a persona used by an actor to hide hide his own true face. The word has always referenced a fiction, not the living man himself.

Living men are not persons, but the modern common usage of the word has blurred the distinctions and masked the importance of why such a word was chosen at all. Fictions control fictions as fictions have no authority over the Living. Ask any doll why that is so… maybe Micky the mouse will reveal the answer if you can find which one is the original as the copies no doubt have no idea at all. In the land of fictions this kind of nonsense is normal. On a state level it is so bizarre, so devoid of any rational conception it is laughable to claim something which has no will to speak on its own behalf is superior to one that can. The federal authority is double-speak at its finest and at its most evil at the same time. Marx was just an idiot. Replace the word taxpayer with the word communist in any publication…. especially tax regulations and read the result. It is quite entertaining to see how one word is inferior to another as communist is superior to the term taxpayer in every sentence as used. Much more insightful as well.

The word nontaxpayer is an oxymoron, unless you are not a communist and then it is clear who they are insulting. Really clear, however, even though a non-taxpayer is not the “artificial-person” or “masked-individual” as defined, good luck on proving the non-taxpayer exemption, as it is nearly impossible to escape the “artifice-cage” once entered.  As this legal cage is made of the real iron bars of Debt itself. To be in debt is in a real sense a loss of will. Always working for someone else. One might conclude, a debt-slave has no legal Will at all. Wage slaves paid by ever worth-diminishing, debt money paints a bleak future for those under the tyranny of the Credit Lender class. That would be the younger work-force competing for a scarcity of jobs as well. In the bigger picture it is the number of people receiving food stamps which proves something is seriously, wrong with the whole of the scam.

While the People at large may not have lost their absolute control of their own Will, many sure seem have lost the very sense of what it means to be Sovereign. The corporatized version of Congress, presiding over its artificial persons has deliberately taken wholesale advantage of this confusion, of what it means to be Sovereign, by diminishing its importance and ridiculing those that still have the courage to speak of it at all.

The dismal religion of federal authority has swelled false Pride and arrogance to a new art form. A foul form of Arrogance in the ritualistic, petty tyrannies its adherents impose on those the claim to be beneath them. All the while this ruthless, phony, ruling class of civil authoritarians preach the virtues of democracy while they continue the pleadings of their actual masters.

You will Obey the government is the false mantra issued from the media bullhorn in a never-ending propaganda stream to further the causes of fascism, while only giving superficial, commercial lip-service to a single Principle of what used to be freedom of speech. Slavery of the mind is every bit as insidious as slavery of the body and just as odious to natural expression of Will. Fictions of course have no such problems.

The purposeful entanglement of dual meanings, with more then one point of reference, is another deceptive tactic used by Congress, by classifying corporation ‘persons’ as fictional citizens under its municipal jurisdiction without any clarification in the big, giant book of stupid, irrational nonsense legally defined as code. A code so ambiguous in its declarations no rational mind can comprehend what the hell any of it really means beyond the threats so ingrained. Obey the code all you taxpayers drone the authoritarians but it is impossible to obey something that is incomprehensible on purpose. If the regulations cannot define the words upon which the demands revolve the code is defective and the demand is absurd.

 Another logical fallacy has arisen from this false proposition of the legal “fictional person” and it is not trivial. A mans Time does not belong to Congress and cannot be Subject of its inferior will. If Congress, wants to claim that as an official body, it has always held the Superior Right, to take labor Income from the Sovereign People, by any means necessary, for the sole Benefit of the Lending class, then the People cannot possibly be Delegating a power of Consent to an Inferior Body, by their own oath. That which gives the Consent has the superior standing.

Since this proposition is patently false, as a Republican form of government is based on Consent, the Constitution is the Compact of this Consent, therefore, the Congress is the inferior Body of the Peoples political authority, to carry out their “represented Will” on the international stage of diplomacy. The People passed down this Consent from their sovereign State, on the agreed Principles of its use. The People as sovereigns lawfully govern themselves. We the People were not artificial creatures swimming around in the Congressional pool of fictions. Unfortunately, a debt pool is not quite the same thing as oaths of obligations go. Unless, of course the money is a total fraud as well. Which it is by its very account. When debt and credit are but two sides of the same trick coin it is only a mirage of money. The real money is locked away in vaults beyond the reach of ordinary men. Those that are closer to the “magical Source” are far more powerful than those lessor mortals working for a wage of its shadow. If you cannot severe the debt-contract then the money was never yours to own. This had to be done to circumvent free-will and with it the expressions of its use. That would be the unalienable right to pursue a livelihood, profession, trade or business without federal or state impositions or financial manipulations to extract  by extortion or fee a tax for the privilege of merely living.

To be a Sovereign Individual is simply to be the “Sole Authority” of ones Will and thus to govern oneself. Congress has no authority to change the Constitutions Bill of sovereign Rights and has no authority to even challenge those Rights without destroying itself in the process. A concept now lost on the fools pretending to be Statesmen. The Lenders simply do not care.

In the modern era this perversion of Sovereign Rights has risen to a level of absurdity of epic distortions. The Citizens of the Union of States, are not and have never been, UNDER the Congress in a corporate, municipal fiefdom of Congressional creation. The 16th amendment did not change one iota of the Founding Principle, for the People cannot be the Subject of such an Absurdity no matter how clever such a claim may be written. Congress has no authority to lay a tax upon the mere exercising of any Sovereigns unalienable Rights, which includes the Sustenance of ones own Labors.

This crucial fact has been carefully circumvented by applying words to terms and then to meanings, whose lawful applications are contrary, both to common sense (frivolous perhaps?) and Declared Law itself. Thus the book of Code has become the very evidence of Psychotronic Warfare on the People. That is a war on the mind itself. A war using every media tool available to subvert and to diminish the real explicit meanings for meaningless clap-trap extolled as virtues of democracy.

 In reality, the phony as named, corporation in the business of making money aka the Federal Reserve Board, as a massive body of syndication well beyond just banking alone, exerts tremendous authority over every aspect and nuance of Credit and thus its legal use as debt money in every aspect of this Nations self-determination. A wholesale demand upon the American economy of which it has the Reserved rights of the Creditor to defeat the lessor rights of the debtors, named as PERSONS, in all applicable legal relationships. This too explains the contortionist quality of the IRS Codes to Manifest an absurd claim over every Source of Income, a possible taxpayer of Debt is to be found. Without debt payers no profit. Why are people never credit payers instead? Or how about credit investors? Well, if People are the Credit and bankers are the debt which is actually superior to the other? And people really wonder why the feds stole all of the silver and gold coin they could get their damn greedy hands on? Gosh, is that a motive or what? If people retained all gold ownership and used silver coin for wages then they are the creditors sovereign to the banking debt lenders. And not their debt-slaves either.

Therefore, this duality of meanings, comprised of persons and taxpayers is purposeful by intentions to deceive and is contrived to produce the Compelling Action, hence the Willful refusal to acquiesce to the Demand, might also be construed as a violation of refusing to PAY the Debt already incurred. The inability to pay the Debt does not excuse the debtor of its obligation so the law usually holds. It seems quite probable the pool of Federal Tax Judges know the real underlying issue at hand, but they are not required to Disclose the Principle, as concealed, to the pleading person.

The uses of citizen and person coupled with private are found in many contexts:

….the government descended to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen . . . For the purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government.” Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheat. 22 U.S. 904, U.S. v. Erie Ry Co., 106 U.S. 327; Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363 (1943).

“When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation.” U.S. v. Burr. 309 U.S. 22; See 22 U.S.C.A. 286e. Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank of Georgia. 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et. Seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103.

The municipal corporation “The District of Columbia” was organized under the Act of Congress of Feb. 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419.

The first section of the act creates a municipal corporation by the name of “The District of Columbia,” with power to sue, be sued, contract, have a seal, and “exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation, not inconsistent with the laws and Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act.”

(b)   The appropriate definition of capital for Federal budgeting, including: use of capital for the Federal Government itself or the economy at large; ownership by the Federal Government or some other entity; defense and non defense capital; physical capital and intangible or human capital; distinctions among investments in and for current, future, and retired workers; distinctions between capital to increase productivity and capital to enhance the quality of life; and existing definitions of capital for budgeting;

“A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country only.” [19 Corpus Juris Secundum, Corporations, §886]

When will Congress stop pretending the Founders were a bunch of illiterate fools. They knew the difference between the words: “Wealth” “citizen” “Money” “Resident” “income” “Profit” “corporation” “wages” “States” and a MAN. Furthermore, they knew why any form or class of taxes, had to be specifically delegated and thus controlled:

[We the People, hereby give consent to] Congress, [who] shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Direct taxes were on land and slaves. Both of which were considered property. Where in this definition of ‘authority to lay a tax’ does Congress receive a Superior Right above that of the People themselves?

The Preamble to the United States Constitution states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.“

Limits on Congress: (No capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) This section in parentheses has been argued to have been changed by the 16th Amendment. But the changes went well beyond the methods previously followed to ensure payment of federal obligations.

T. Coleman Andrews served as commissioner of IRS for nearly 3 years during the early 1950s. Following his resignation, he made the following statement:

“Congress [in implementing the Sixteenth Amendment] went beyond merely enacting an income tax law and repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights, by empowering the tax collector to do the very things from which that article says we were to be secure. It opened up our homes, our papers and our effects to the prying eyes of government agents and set the stage for searches of our books and vaults and for inquiries into our private affairs whenever the tax men might decide, even though there might not be any justification beyond mere cynical suspicion.”

“The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds.”

“The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men.”

“The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die.”

Well, if a former IRS commissioner can see the operational Truth of the 16th amendment, then it stands to reason so can Congress, the Supreme Court and the People themselves. The vicious principle operating in the background of the income tax is repugnant to the very meaning of the Constitution itself. Was Congress established to be a communistic body? Congress was empowered to defend this Nation from such ‘vicious principles’ and clearly has failed to uphold not only the Spirit of the Law, but is very Substance as well. Is the 16th amendment like some kind of immutable law? Why is the Supreme Court acting like chickens in a communistic roost?

If a Sovereign People can be taxed, on every activity under the Sun, from which men derive their ‘Sustenance for Daily Living’ then such a man is every bit an indirect SLAVE, to the indirect Authority, from which the indirect TAX, is indirectly imposed. A new class of IN-Direct taxes from incomes requires lots of word games to hide the purpose: direct slavery. Some may argue the word slavery is too far-reaching that payment of taxes is a civil duty, a small price to pay for all of the services modern people duly expect. What seems to be brushed aside is the observation that sovereign people do not need to give up unalienable rights to have such services as rendered. The status of citizens is not dependent on services, nor upon whom directs those services by their collective authority. Or why call these people as employed civil servants? The president of the United States is a civil servant no more and no less, than any other appointed or elected civil servant. The Office holds the power not the man who enters into the Office.

Going back to the Constitution for an answer to why there was not a more perceptive accounting for the cultural bias function in social relationships leads back to the original defect itself. The defect revolves around the sovereign declaration itself:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Slavery by these words is impossible. Those “men” must include ALL men upon the Earth, or such a sweeping declaration is Hypocrisy of the worst kind. A slave is a man who has no rights to his own labors and no means to challenge said ownership. Were the black slaves not men? Were these slaves not of mankind? This defect in moral reasoning, and of empirical reasoning, that only the ‘preferred class of men’ had unalienable Rights set the stage for future conflict. And this conflict is still with us today. Only it is not the one most people might assume.

Those Founders certainly knew the difference between themselves and the slaves working in the fields, or the free-men working as wage-laborers. After all, common labor was BENEATH, the Noble Class, who did not PERFORM such labors except under extreme duress. There was a reason why the original 13th amendment banned men who had, Titles of Nobility, such as Esquire, from becoming an elected official. A King does not grant a Title just for the heck of it… the King expects something in Return… a Benefit of His Obedience perhaps?

Were the Founding guys well aware of the conflicts of Interest arising from having two Masters? Why bother writing a Declaration of Liberty if all they wanted was to be a new kind of financial Slave. What were those guys nuts or something? Did they not know the meaning of Income as opposed to coin? Were they confused about open-ended, taxing schemes that made every man a slave to the “Source” of the taxing power? How else to describe a role of subservient duty when the civil servant now crushes its master with tax demands no longer bound by any quality preserving the unalienable rights themselves?

Taxation without representation is the result of the 16th amendments absurd impact on the original power itself.  Any State which over-stated its true census count to gain representatives in the Congress, increased its apportionment share of a direct tax, any State under-counting its citizens to dodge the apportionment share would lose representation in the Congress. A proper check and balance is achieved by such restrictions, therefore to remove the census dissolved the balance and impaired the power itself. Congress, in removing the restriction unleashed an absurdity, the taxing power ceased to be constitutional due to the States no longer having an effective Sovereign relationship to their own citizens free of federal control.

The Direct tax was never on people, but was apportioned on the census of citizens of the many States. This tax “amount” was not a product of incomes or sources as neither had any function in the amount of the direct tax. The function of the direct tax was primarily emergencies or war related debts. How the individual states decided to levy the apportioned amount of the tax was a State decision and was never handed over to the Congress by Consent. The Congress cannot legislate away Sovereign property rights of States or the citizens of said State. The Congress had no authority to change the manner in which States voted for their federal representatives. Taft and his cohorts crafted an amendment which used ambiguous language to conceal a vexing twist on proper use of a limited taxing power.

The crucial problem was how to tax a class of citizens that did not exist. The un-ethical answer was to create that class from the 14th amendment and enjoin the language to describe such citizens as IF they were indeed not sheltered by their actual sovereign status within their respective States. This very sly deceptive act was hinged on the false claim free slaves were not being recognized and afforded the voting franchise. A veritable hot-bed of confusion due to the intractable problems of cultural bias and the fact land ownership was the key factor in deciding who was voting period. Are you a U.S. citizen reads the voting pamphlet— why of course — and the affirmation is complete .

The 16 th amendment closed the loop by placing these new class of citizens in a quasi-relationship to the District of Columbia, superseding the proper quality of domiciled State citizenship. Now state citizens are federal citizens within the zone where a direct tax did not need to be apportioned…. without apportionment among the several States…  and no need for a census…. Without regard for a census or enumeration… these very odd qualifiers are describing the federal zone by the negative of a positive statement.

When this amendment was passed most people from historical accounts did not grasp the implications. The economic stratifications of society continued as the world at large headed back into the darkness of war.  The 16th amendment never made one poor man richer. The elite of the wealth class were never the real subject of the touted law. It protected them by false and mis-leading language which the taxing regulations soon buried in extra-fine print. Taxes like sin ushered into the Nations economy a new booming industry and laid the initial ground-work for a new bureaucracy as well. Taxing Americans was a corporate money making venture on many fronts.

 Today’s super-wealthy use stock buy-backs, stock-options, off-shore bank accounts, low capital gains taxes, and “prepaid forward” deals to help them keep their money in an intangible form not available to the wage earning labor class. People who earn over $1 million a year aren’t just paid a salary or weekly paycheck (if at all), but have stock-options and “variable prepaid forward contracts”

“The rich, observes former New York State Bar Association tax section chair David Miller, “can use complex transactions not available to most Americans to get cash from their appreciated stock without paying any taxes at all.”

If the founding Fathers thought it was insane and asinine, to give Congress, UN-limited powers of taxation over every Endeavor, known to mankind, both in the private venue and in the Public realm, why limit such Authority to only two classes? Why such a specific constraint must mean such powers were to be Restricted, held back, placed in a constructive purpose, with well established limitations to keep the People safe from encroachments, over-reaches, confiscation schemes of taxing private property and simply taxing people right off their lands. And yet, Congress holds it can tax ALL incomes even when such a tax violates every other Principle of its own inherent authority.

Justice Field concurring in the Supreme Court case of Butchers’ Union cited Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations:

Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U. S. 746 (1884) It has been well said that ‘the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.’ Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.

Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U. S. 1 (1915)

The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money.

Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U. S. 107 (1911)

Excises 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 revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to non taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor object of revenue laws. Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)

The term “taxpayer” in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A “non taxpayer” is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer. Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. U. S., 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A – income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

“And, however the operation shall be described, the transaction is indubitably ‘business’ within the fair meaning of the act of 1909; and the gains derived from it are properly and strictly the income from that business; for ‘income’ may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. STRATTON’S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v. HOWBERT, 231 U. S. 399 (1913)

“In the case at bar we have already discussed the limitations which the Constitution imposes upon the right to levy excise taxes, and it could not be said, even if the principles of the 14th Amendment were applicable to the present case, that there is no substantial difference between the carrying on of business by the corporations taxed, and the same business when conducted by a private firm or individual. The thing taxed is not the mere dealing in merchandise, in which the actual transactions may be the same, whether conducted by individuals or corporations, but the ‘tax is laid upon the privileges’ which exist in conducting business with the advantages which inhere in the corporate capacity of those taxed, and which are not enjoyed by private firms or individuals. These advantages are obvious, and have led to the formation of such companies in nearly all branches of trade. The continuity of the business, without interruption by death or dissolution, the transfer of property interests by the disposition of shares of stock, the advantages of business controlled and managed by corporate directors, the general absence of individual liability, these and other things inhere in the advantages of business thus conducted, which do not exist when the same business is conducted by private individuals or partnerships. It is this distinctive privilege which is the subject of taxation, not the mere buying or selling or handling of goods, which may be the same, whether done by corporations or individuals. FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U. S. 107 (1911)

“As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’- that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement- ‘that all men are endowed’-not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.’-that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime- ‘and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these’- not grant them, but secure them- ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.

The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that ‘the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.’ Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10. Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U. S. 746 (1884)

However, for the purpose of example lets follow this line of UN-limited taxing powers to the logical end:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Direct taxes on all Corporations(a liability for a specific tax payer, citizen class) on Incomes [generated Profits from Capital+Labors (intended target of liability)], from whatever source derived (privileged activity within or without the federal zone), without apportionment among the several States (no fairness of proportionate shares) and without regard to any census or enumeration(who cares about the actual numbers they do not matter anymore).

In this example, even specific wording makes ambiguous claims. Direct taxes were only on property(real-estate franchise) or slaves. The privilege is hooked on as an excise tax and requires Uniformity.  One might argue Rents, which when derived from land, are still a source to Profit, which would then satisfy the “liability” for the tax, but it is still in conflict with the Principle of intent. Specifically, why include language of not requiring —counting the number of People in each State, for an activity of a corporation?

A census has no bearing what-so-ever on taxing Capital at its source. A direct tax is non-viable, “unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken” so a switch of taxing powers has been inserted from Uniformity to the one no longer desired and note the conflict with ‘before directed’ to the ambiguous ‘without apportionment’ ‘without regard’  which abruptly changes the original intent and places a meaning where there was none to confuse representation of states and the constitutional balance of debt shares as allocated by census.

To be taken alludes that this is a process, of which each step rises to the next and completes the procedure. From whatever source derived puts the cart before the horse. The source is Capital—so the phrase itself ambiguously references a generalization “Whatever” about “sources” as if where such activity ‘might be’ is ALWAYS well under the Claim itself —Congress shall have power—as if Jurisdiction is always granted and Derived throws the whole chain of the claim itself into a circular whirl of inconclusive ambiguity. If the intent was to tax Capital, then why not specify exactly what type:

• Capital is the amount of cash and other assets owned by a business. These business assets include accounts receivable, equipment, and land/buildings of the business.

• Capital can also represent the accumulated wealth of a business, represented by its assets less liabilities.

• Capital can also mean stock or ownership in a company.

After specifically determining the exact Nature of Capital to be taxed, then specify the correct taxing authority and then conditions for its collection and accounting. Simplicity is apparently too complicated for written tax codes.

Another example:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Direct taxes on Incomes both intangible, or tangible, from whatever source derived,without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Right away we know “money” is to be taxed, from Stocks, Bonds, labors etc. or are we merely assuming the intention? Does Congress really have the power to lay a tax on money? Then why not say so? We presume the tax has to be paid in money, but taxes way back in the day were also paid in Hemp. If the money is only gold, then it must be paid in gold. If no gold is used as money then the substitution of paper, legal Tender Notes, actually defeats the principle of intent. Legal tender Notes are not money by Constitutional Coin standards, but rather a monopoly in direct conflict with such standards. Congress has no power over Sovereign property not its own. Does Congress have a Superior right to your home, furnishings… kids? How about your hands or feet? Money existed long before Congress came into being and since Congress is always crying a river about not having any, it seems rather dubious at this time to allow Congress any Authority over any kind of Money at all.

Then again, the trick is always about filling the Purse. Keep people fighting over money and soon enough they fail to grasp the real conflict at hand. The privileged class living off of the “return” from their “investments” either as interest payments, or dividend payments while not having to lift a finger to do manual labor, play a much different kind of game of life. This is the real kernel of the class conflict. Money exists on different tiers of defined value and thus purpose. The higher orders are really quite different then the lower orders. The lower is a dilution until it is drawn back up into a more concentrated form. A very clever operation on money on top of money and upwards it goes just like the pyramid.

This is an occult operation practiced in plain site. The rules really are different depending on sources. The source of currency to be used for wages is not the same source of the money per se. A man cashing a pay-roll check only receives another form of paper which has no claim on money as defined by constitutional law. A tender (offer) of exchange is clearly a substitute for money, not its source. The bank is not a source of money only a legalized exchange business. The payroll check is not money or why cash it out? A check is a very handy and efficient method of exchanging a claim of property, but cash is not money, it is a worthless Federal Reserve Note. Well, save for what it can purchase on the Market.

What does a dollar actually measure, as a unit of political debt-money, when it is now the ghost of what was once measured? This is like writing milk on a gallon jug and claiming the container is now the fluid, it once measured. A dismal absurdity no mom would put up with for a second in a supermarket, but with money the trick is in the mind not the hand.

“Back in 70s I asked the dollar question to the Internal Revenue Service. After all, you must swear to the value of your income in “dollars,” testifying that your evaluation is “true, correct, and complete,” under penalty of perjury, although, having taken no oath, you couldn’t have committed that crime. Surely, therefore, the IRS would know what a dollar is. How else could it determine the accuracy of the return? The reply from the IRS was remarkably straightforward: “The term “dollar” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.” I wrote back, requesting a definition from any portion of the United States Code, and am still awaiting the reply.

In the days of tangible money, or sound money, or even just plain money, as opposed to “credit,” the dollar was easy to define: 412.5 grains of standard ( 90% pure ) silver in coin form. The 412.5 grain figure was an average; the coin weighed 416 when minted. When, through wear and tear, its weight fell below 409 grains, it was no longer a dollar, but could be used in trade for a value in proportion to its weight. In general, banks culled out the worn coins and returned them to the mint to be recast. What a simple system! A bank official, asked to define “dollar,” could do so in a sentence, without reference to the Comptroller of the Currency, or bank regulations, or “authority over actual ( sic! ) currency.” Moreover, he could do so without making a fool of himself by attempts to mislead, confuse, or deceive. He wouldn’t even have to piously reiterate “Thank you for your inquiry” every time he gave a long-winded response that had nothing to do with the inquiry.” Dr. Paul Hein. November 14, 2002 HTTP://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_02/hein111302. HTML

The fraud of so-called modern money is in its issuance as Credit and thereby defeating the Lawful weights and measures, of a former dollar. Paper currency defeats the weights and measures of substance, as a condition of Worth and thus defeats the uniformity of Credit issuance as a result. If Bob’s debt money costs more then John’s credit money, both from the same source —FR Board bank—- which does not deal in Constitutional standards of Coin; then is this monopoly of Credit simply a racketeering scam of money itself? Sure looks that way. To set up a scam and then reap the windfall profits from the Monopoly of the Source, is Larceny of the worst and most vile kind. If the 16th amendment is just the linchpin of this “Money Racket” then what we have is a criminal syndicate run right out of Congress. Contrary to federal Judges saying otherwise Congress, has no power to enrich itself at the Sovereign Peoples expense, much less cheat the People out of their lawful Coin. The destruction of paper currency by inflation then deflation also calls attention to the fact when the 16th amendment was written gold Coin was the standard. Sadly, silver Coin had been effectively removed from lawful circulation by the Treasury, under Sherman, in bold collusion with the banking syndicate whose rallying cry was, ‘only gold(Coin) money is good’ and thus demanded silver Coin cease general circulation*.

Money speculators had purposely destroyed the consistent value of silver coin, which was then held up as proof it was no good as money. Current speculators will no doubt declare legal tenders are no good as legal tenders and will advance the DE-evolution of money to mere electronic bits. Thus the People will be taxed on the number of electronic bits, declared as a Source of Income, wherever such E-bits may be derived. The pit just gets deeper, as this of course also means, interest on exponential bits of debts. Debt is a source of tremendous income when Profit is Derived from Compound-Interest, but strangely enough Congress, after creating this disturbing circle of monopoly-money Credit fiction, must destroy the value of Labor money to save itself. Which might be the reason why “a dollar” cannot be defined by the IRS, much less, any banking official, by any standard of law at all. A Monetary Realist might very well be the last person the IRS will ever want to face off in court. If the dollar has no meaning in the tax code, what was measured as Income? All of this intangibility, is a direct result of the actions of FDR outlawing gold coin and gold ownership. How was this even possible from a strict Rule of Law? There was no amendment changing the very cornerstone of how money was treated by Constitutional law. The federal government went off the cliff of sanity and nose-dived into the pit of stupid.

If paper currency is as good as gold or silver Coin, why has paper lost 96% of its purchasing power? What has been the effect of this loss of Purchasing power? If a man is paid in debased money, where the FRN dollar is the means of debasement, who is held responsible for the crime itself?

{SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, That if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be debased or made worse as to the proportion of fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same ought to be pursuant to the directions of this act, through the default or with the connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent, * * * every such officer or person who shall be guilty of any * * * of the said offenses, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death.}

The debasing of silver and gold Coin was indeed a serious offense. Changing a dollar from a tangible Coin to intangible units of dubious political value was and still is a felony as well.

Thus, the United States Code simply presents another unanswered question: “Why has the Secretary of the Treasury failed ‘to maintain the equal purchasing power of each kind of United States currency’?”

{“The Coinage Act of 1792 explicitly defined the “dollar” as a fixed weight of silver, and “regulate[d] the Value” of gold coins according to this standard unit (or money of account) and the market exchange-ratio between the two metals.}

When Congress ceased the free coinage of silver, it defied the Constitution. The Constitution perceived the dollar to be the same as the Spanish milled dollar. The dollar contained the weight of silver of the average Spanish milled dollar. Abandoning the silver standard with a bimetallic gold-silver system for a mono-metallic gold standard made the concentration and centralization of metallic money into the hands of the government and banks easier. This goal was fully achieved when President Franklin Roosevelt stole the people’s gold in 1933.” Thomas Allen HTTP://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2011/09/silver-dollar-18731900-part-1 .HTML

In sum, the present monetary statutes of the United States do not define the noun “dollar” in an unique way. Instead of monetary law – which, by hypothesis, requires clearly defined terms and rational relationships among those terms – the country’s present monetary code smacks of political psychosis – in which completely different things have the same name, things unequal to each other are treated as equivalent, and things that should have the same characteristics (e. g., “equal purchasing power[s]”) are quite different.

In the light of this history, the present monetary provisions of the United States Code demonstrate that official Washington, D. C., has no conception of what a “dollar” really is. The reason for this self-imposed ignorance is obvious. By reducing the “dollar” to a political abstraction, the national government has empowered itself to engage in limitless debasement (depreciation in purchasing power) of the currency. A “dollar” that contains – and must perforce of the Constitution contain – 371.25 grains of fine silver cannot be reduced in value below the market exchange value of silver for other commodities. A pseudo-“dollar” that contains no fixed amount of any particular substance per “dollar” can be reduced in value infinitely. As debasement of currency amounts to a hidden tax, Congress’ silent refusal to recognize the constitutional “dollar” amounts to the usurpation of an unlimited power to tax through manipulation of the monetary system.

Thus, modern “money” has become a means for the total confiscation of private property by the government. More ominously, this scheme of surreptitious confiscation remains hidden from the vast majority of Americans, who seem blissfully unconcerned about the issue most important to the soundness of the country’s monetary system: namely, the character of the monetary unit. One need not be overly pessimistic to predict that misuse by politicians of the fictional, constantly depreciating pseudo-“dollar” to expropriate unsuspecting citizens will continue until an economic crisis finally shocks an increasingly impoverished American people out of its slumber, and forces the people to ask the simple question: “What is a ‘dollar’?” At that time, the answer will be no different from what it is today, and has been since 1704 – but the opportunity to use that knowledge to prevent a catastrophe may be long gone.” Edwin Vieira, Jr. HTTP://www.fame.org/HTM/Vieira_Edwin_What_is_a_Dollar_EV-002. HTML

[Question: Do you mean that banks, in buying Government securities, do not lend out their customers’ deposits? That they create the money they use to buy the securities?

Answer: (by Secretary Anderson): That is correct. Banks are different from other lending institutions. When a savings and loan association, an insurance company, or a credit union makes a loan, it lends the very dollar that its customers have previously paid in. But when a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.

“We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied soon.” (Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga.)]

A Confidence scam is also a harbor for all things criminal. The only reason profitable criminal activity exists in the underground economy is strictly due to the Prohibitions, which drive up the illicit values of the commodities far above their normal value when legal. (Another fine fact outright denied by Congress, which created the very Market it prohibits, especially in regards to Hemp. )

Two items of Roosevelt-era legislation markedly affected the U. S. banking and monetary system. The first was the so-called Gold Reserve Act of 1934. This legislation gave the president the unconstitutional power to call in all privately owned gold for deposit in the U. S. Treasury. It also gave him the unconstitutional power by his fiat to revalue the price of gold (devalue the dollar) by as much as 60 percent.

Congress’s constitutional power to “regulate the value of money” was a power that could not be delegated to the executive. Furthermore, “regulate” did not mean a massive change in the monetary values of either gold or silver. Its sole purpose was to provide a means for congressional housekeeping control over the coinage system. Properly used, it allowed Congress to make incremental changes in the legal tender value of either gold or silver so that both metals would stay in circulation. It was put into the Constitution to counteract Gresham’s Law. Otherwise, changes in the market value of one or the other metal would result in what had now become the cheaper metal going to the mint and the other, dearer, metal going into the markets as a commodity.[2] President Roosevelt rationalized this usurpation of private property rights in gold in one of his notorious fireside chats.

Since there was not enough gold to pay all holders of gold obligations,” he claimed, “the Government should in the interest of justice allow none to be paid in gold.”[5]

Under a true rule-of-law gold standard, the Treasury would not have had a “gold policy.” The gold standard itself would have been the gold policy and would have been self-regulating through the concerted actions of thousands of households and businesses that bought and sold goods and services in hundreds of markets. The gold, more important, would not have been stockpiled in Treasury vaults unavailable and illegal for human use, like some dangerous drug or weapon. It would have been in commercial banks primarily, serving its conventional function of securing bank-issued money.

The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 was the final divorce decree between gold and the monetary system. After January 31, 1934, no private household, bank, or business was allowed to own or hold more than a trivial amount of gold. Gold coin was forbidden for monetary purposes. This Act also authorized the president, Franklin Roosevelt, to raise the price of gold by 60 percent. Roosevelt, however, did not use all the power given him—only 98 percent of it. In early 1934, he increased the official mint price of gold, which had been $20.67 per ounce for 100 years, to $35 per ounce. The Treasury gold stock, valued at $4,033 million in January 1934, became $7,348 million in February 1934, an increase of $3,405 million by the decree of one man.[3] The federal government had also, unconstitutionally, repudiated all gold clauses in its contracts and debts, so it did not have to share any of its new-found wealth with the private sector. In one month Congress and Roosevelt, by their legislative and administrative fiats, created seignior-age revenue from gold equal to one year’s ordinary tax revenues.” Richard H. Timberlake HTTP://www.thefreemanonline. org/featured/gold-policy-in-the-1930s/

The arrogant rationalization of FDR that it was “Justice” which made his actions right in fixing the problem of ‘obligations’ is in direct contradiction to the astounding claim to his Proclamation itself that “hoarders” were the problem. So this cunning, duplicitous, anti-constitutional tyrant, just walked over the Law with impunity, while the Courts, sat on their hands doing nothing. Congress, rolled over and played dead while FDR made the Constitution look like toilet paper. The authority of the federal government died an immoral death. The bullet came from the gun of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917. FDR was fixing the economy alright, by strangling it to death. The holders of the “primary obligations’ were the people themselves, so the double-talking dictator was giving America the finger.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared a banking “holiday” and issued the order to confiscate gold:

Executive order: By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(B) of the Act of Oct. 6, 1917, as amended by section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, in which Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, I as President, do declare that the national emergency still exists; that the continued private hoarding of gold by subjects of the Untied Sates poses a grave threat to the peace, equal justice, and well-being of the United States; and that appropriate measures must be taken immediately to protect the interests of our people.

Therefore, pursuant to the above authority, I hereby proclaim that such gold and silver holdings are prohibited, and that all such coin, bullion or other possessions of gold and silver be tendered within fourteen days to agents of the Government of the United States for compensation at the official price, in the legal tender of the Government. All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed, pending action in the due course of the law. All sales, or purchases, or movements of such gold, within the borders of the United Sates and its territories, and all foreign exchange transactions or movements of such metals across the border are hereby prohibited.

Your possession of these proscribed metals and/or your maintenance of a safe deposit box to store them is known to the government from bank and insurance records. Therefore, be advised that your vault box must remain sealed, and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the Internal Revenue Service.

By lawful Order given this day, the President of the United States

On August 9, 1934, another Presidential proclamation ordered all silver bullion surrendered to the treasury within 90 days and a 50 percent tax was levied on profits from the sale of silver. The sellers were paid all of 50.1 cents per ounce.

“Progressives who dominated the Roosevelt administration held that the principal cause of the economic downturn was falling prices, along with falling wages. Furthermore, they believed that the cause of falling prices was “overproduction,” so the “cure” was to find ways to limit the production of goods. Thus, in the minds of the New Dealers, the government needed to restrict production and force up prices. As prices rose, so would wages, and high wages would bring the country out of the Depression. For inspiration and direction, they used the economic programs of Italy’s fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, as their model.” William L. Anderson, The New Deal and Roosevelt’s Seizure of Gold: A Legacy of Theft and Inflation, Part 1

Now let us look at what Congressman Mcfadden had to say about these events:

Roosevelt did what the International Bankers ordered him to do! Do not deceive yourself, Mr. Chairman, or permit yourself to be deceived by others into the belief that Roosevelt’s dictatorship is in any way intended to benefit the people of the United States: he is preparing to sign on the dotted line! “He is preparing to cancel the war debts by fraud!

He is preparing to internationalize this Country and to destroy our Constitution itself in order to keep the Fed intact as a money institution for foreigners. “Mr. Chairman, I see no reason why citizens of the United States should be terrorized into surrendering their property to the International Bankers who own and control the Fed. The statement that gold would be taken from its lawful owners if they did not voluntarily surrender it, to private interests, show that there is an anarchist in our Government.

The statement that it is necessary for the people to give their gold- the only real money- to the banks in order to protect the currency, is a statement of calculated dishonesty! By his unlawful usurpation of power on the night of March 5, 1933, and by his proclamation, which in my opinion was in violation of the Constitution of the United States, Roosevelt divorced the currency of the United States from gold, and the United States currency is no longer protected by gold. It is therefore sheer dishonesty to say that the people’s gold is needed to protect the currency.

Roosevelt ordered the people to give their gold to private interests- that is, to banks, and he took control of the banks so that all the gold and gold values in them, or given into them, might be handed over to the predatory International Bankers who own and control the Fed. Roosevelt cast his lot with the usurers. He agreed to save the corrupt and dishonest at the expense of the people of the United States. He took advantage of the people’s confusion and weariness and spread the dragnet over the United States to capture everything of value that was left in it. He made a great haul for the International Bankers.

The Prime Minister of England came here for money! He came here to collect cash! He came here with Fed Currency and other claims against the Fed which England had bought up in all parts of the world. And he has presented them for redemption in gold.

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of compelling the Fed to pay their own debts. I see no reason why the general public should be forced to pay the gambling debts of the International Bankers. By his action in closing the banks of the United States, Roosevelt seized the gold value of forty billions or more of bank deposits in the United States banks. Those deposits were deposits of gold values.

By his action he has rendered them payable to the depositors in paper only, if payable at all, and the paper money he proposes to pay out to bank depositors and to the people generally in lieu of their hard earned gold values in itself, and being based on nothing into which the people can convert it the said paper money is of negligible value altogether.

It is the money of slaves, not of free men. If the people of the United States permit it to be imposed upon them at the will of their credit masters, the next step in their downward progress will be their acceptance of orders on company stores for what they eat and wear. Their case will be similar to that of starving coal miners. They, too, will be paid with orders on Company stores for food and clothing, both of indifferent quality and be forced to live in Company-owned houses from which they may be evicted at the drop of a hat. More of them will be forced into conscript labor camps under supervision.

At noon on the 4th of March, 1933, FDR with his hand on the Bible, took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the U. S. At midnight on the 5th of March, 1933, he confiscated the property of American citizens. He took the currency of the United States standard of value. He repudiated the internal debt of the Government to its own citizens. He destroyed the value of the American dollar. He released, or endeavored to release, the Fed from their contractual liability to redeem Fed currency in gold or lawful money on a parity with gold. He depreciated the value of the national currency.

The people of the U. S. are now using nonredeemable paper slips for money. The Treasury cannot redeem that paper in gold or silver. The gold and silver of the Treasury has unlawfully been given to the corrupt and dishonest Fed. And the Administration has since had the effrontery to raid the country for more gold for the private interests by telling our patriotic citizens that their gold is needed to protect the currency. It is not being used to protect the currency! It is being used to protect the corrupt and dishonest Fed. “The directors of these institutions have committed criminal offense against the United States Government, including the offense of making false entries on their books, and the still more serious offense of unlawfully abstracting funds from the United States Treasury! Roosevelt’s gold raid is intended to help them out of the pit they dug for themselves when they gambled away the wealth and savings of the American people.

The International Bankers set up a dictatorship here because they wanted a dictator who would protect them. They wanted a dictator who would issue a proclamation giving the Fed an absolute and unconditional release from their special currency in gold, or lawful money of any Fed Bank. Has Roosevelt relieved any other class of debtors in this country from the necessity of paying their debts? Has he made a proclamation telling the farmers that they need not pay their mortgages? Has he made a proclamation to the effect that mothers of starving children need not pay their milk bills? Has he made a proclamation relieving householders from the necessity of paying rent?

Not he! He has issued one kind of proclamation only, and that is a proclamation to relieve international bankers and the foreign debtors of the United States Government. Mr. Chairman, the gold in the banks of this country belongs to the American people who have paper money contracts for it in the form of national currency. If the Fed cannot keep their contracts with United States citizens to redeem their paper money in gold, or lawful money, then the Fed must be taken over by the United States Government and their officers must be put on trial. There must be a day of reckoning. If the Fed has looted the Treasury so that the Treasury cannot redeem the United States currency for which it is liable in gold, then the Fed must be driven out of the Treasury.

Mr. Chairman, a gold certificate is a warehouse receipt for gold in the Treasury, and the man who has a gold certificate is the actual owner of a corresponding amount of gold stacked in the Treasury subject to his order. Now comes Roosevelt who seeks to render the money of the United States worthless by unlawfully declaring that it may No Longer be converted into gold at the will of the holder.

Roosevelt’s next haul for the International Bankers was the reduction in the pay of all Federal employees.

Next in order are the veterans of all wars, many of whom are aged and inform, and other sick and disabled. These men had their lives adjusted for them by acts of Congress determining the amounts of the pensions, and, while it is meant that every citizen should sacrifice himself for the good of the United States, I see no reason why those poor people, these aged Civil War Veterans and war widows and half-starved veterans of the World War, should be compelled to give up their pensions for the financial benefit of the International vultures who have looted the Treasury, bankrupted the country and traitorously delivered the United States to a foreign foe. There are many ways of raising revenue that are better than that barbaric act of injustice.

Why not collect from the Fed the amount they owe the U. S. Treasury in interest on all the Fed currency they have taken from the Government? That would put billions of dollars into the U. S. Treasury. If FDR is as honest as he pretends to be, he will have that done immediately. And in addition, why not compel the Fed to disclose their profits and to pay the Government its share?

Until this is done, it is rank dishonesty to talk of maintaining the credit of the U. S. Government. “My own salary as a member of Congress has been reduced, and while I am willing to give my part of it that has been taken away from me to the U. S. Government, I regret that the U. S. has suffered itself to be brought so low by the vultures and crooks who are operating the roulette wheels and faro tables in the Fed, that is now obliged to throw itself on the mercy of its legislators and chairwomen, its clerks, and it poor pensioners and to take money out of our pockets to make good the defalcations of the International Bankers who were placed in control of the Treasury and given the monopoly of U. S. Currency by the misbegotten Fed. I am well aware that the International Bankers who drive up to the door of the United States Treasury in their limousines, look down with scorn upon members of Congress because we work for so little, while they draw millions a year. The difference is that we earn, or try to earn, what we get- and they steal the greater part of their takings.

Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having concealed the insolvency of the Fed and with having failed to report the insolvency of the Fed to the Congress and with having conspired to have the said insolvent institutions continue in operation, and with having permitted the said insolvent institutions to receive U. S. Government funds and other deposits, and with having permitted them to exercise control over the gold reserves of the U. S. and with having permitted them to transfer upward of $100,000,000,000 of their debts and losses to the general public and the Government of the U. S., and with having permitted foreign debts of the Fed to be paid with the property, the savings, the wages, and the salaries of the people of the U. S. and with the farms and the homes of the American people, and whereas I charge them with forcing the bad debts of the Fed upon the general public covertly and dishonestly and and with taking the general wealth and savings of the people of the U. S. under false pretenses, to pay the debts of the Fed to foreigners.”

If gold was no good as money these crooks sure did spend a whole lot of effort to remove it from the People who owned their money clear of usury. If gold had no value the government could not have given it away… hence the absurdity it had to be locked up in a military fortress due to its being so barbaric and worthless…. worthless metals are always locked up in giant vaults to be never seen or used again…. no sir-re… nothing absurd about this solution to hoarding…. nothing at all.

 

Page – 8 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-5D

Back to page – 6 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-4F

Back to page – 5 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-4B

Back to page – 4  http://wp.me/P3eWa2-4m

Back to page – 3 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-49

Back to page – 2 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-3X2

Back to page – 1 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-3u

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: