Kucinich Ready To Go After The Federal Reserve!

[sealybobo]

You and I are on the same page here for once sealy, the Income tax and the Fed need to go.

However, the Income tax is not unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the Income tax constitutional.

"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." - 16th Amendment

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment

Yes it is unconstitutional. Congress does a lot of stuff that is unconstitutional. Correct?

Watch Freedom to Fascism and it will explain it all.

Something about direct taxes vs indirect taxes.

Something about the founding fathers leaving England because of taxes like this. They NEVER wanted a man's labor taxed.

The rich bankers had been pushing for over 100 years to pass the Federal Reserve Act. They got it done over a Xmas break, when there weren't enough senators in Washington to even pass such an act. And the states never radified it.

Not to mention the Supreme Court in the 1800's said it was unconstitutional. So Congress passed it in 1913. Again, it wouldn't be the first time they did something unconstitutional.

Don't argue with me on this again until you have done the research. You will SHIT YOUR PANTS when you see all the facts in Freedom to Fascism.

The host Aaron Russo interviewed people from the IRS, who would not answer his questions. One of them said in latin, "e plurabus unom". Now thats not what he said, but I don't speak latin. But what he said translated into, "you may be right aaron but there is nothing you can do about it".

The IRS is above the law. They can take your home and freeze your assets without due process.

PS. Many many many people have taken this argument to court and won. The IRS couldn't show the jury the law that says you are required to pay income tax, so they were found not guilty.

But more times than not, the judge is in on it and he brainwashes the jury into believing the defendant is a liar and a tax evader, when in reality, they are doing the right thing.

So why do the lower courts go against what the Supreme court ruled in the 1800's?

You need to watch the dvd.

 

[sealybobo]

You and I are on the same page here for once sealy, the Income tax and the Fed need to go.

However, the Income tax is not unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the Income tax constitutional.

"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." - 16th Amendment

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment

People want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Congress could pass that and then the Supreme Court could rule it unconstitutional later.

But if what I am saying is true, the Supreme Court is even in on the income tax scam. The DVD says Dems and GOP are all in on it. And anyone who speaks out gets blackballed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes it is unconstitutional. Congress does a lot of stuff that is unconstitutional. Correct?

Watch Freedom to Fascism and it will explain it all.

Something about direct taxes vs indirect taxes.

Something about the founding fathers leaving England because of taxes like this. They NEVER wanted a man's labor taxed.

The rich bankers had been pushing for over 100 years to pass the Federal Reserve Act. They got it done over a Xmas break, when there weren't enough senators in Washington to even pass such an act. And the states never radified it.

Not to mention the Supreme Court in the 1800's said it was unconstitutional. So Congress passed it in 1913. Again, it wouldn't be the first time they did something unconstitutional.

Don't argue with me on this again until you have done the research.

Congress does do many things that are unconstitutional, but imposing an income tax is not unconstitutional. The amendment process is done to add things to the Constitution that were not in it originally. The 16th Amendment makes an income tax Constitutional. The founding fathers would never have stood for an income tax, that's correct. But like I said, the amendment process is done to add things to the Constitution. Therefore, under the 16th Amendment, the income tax is legal and Constitutional.

The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, you are correct about that.

Do not tell me not to argue with you when you are wrong, sealy.

People want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Congress could pass that and then the Supreme Court could rule it unconstitutional later.

But if what I am saying is true, the Supreme Court is even in on the income tax scam. The DVD says Dems and GOP are all in on it. And anyone who speaks out gets blackballed.

An amendment to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional, that's the point of the amendment process.

 

[sealybobo]

Congress does do many things that are unconstitutional, but imposing an income tax is not unconstitutional. The amendment process is done to add things to the Constitution that were not in it originally. The 16th Amendment makes an income tax Constitutional. The founding fathers would never have stood for an income tax, that's correct. But like I said, the amendment process is done to add things to the Constitution. Therefore, under the 16th Amendment, the income tax is legal and Constitutional.

The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, you are correct about that.

Do not tell me not to argue with you when you are wrong, sealy.



An amendment to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional, that's the point of the amendment process.

I'm saying don't argue with me because I can not answer all your questions, but Freed to Fascism will. I wish I had a way to get you a copy.

For example, the direct vs indirect tax thing. The income tax is one of the two, and the constitution says something to the effect about those kinds of taxes being unconstitutional.

And the dvd will explain about how it actually says, "those who are required to pay state taxes are required to pay fed.....And no one is "required" to pay state taxes.

And they talk about not enough Senators being in Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act.

Or the states never ratified it.

And there is this group that has been demanding that the IRS be audited and answer their questions and the IRS won't. Please watch this dvd. I think you know on this subject that you'll get it. Or you'll be able to tell me why it is wrong.

If you look at who Rockafellor, Carnege & JP Morgan were, it makes no sense that our government would have turned over our gold in fort knox to these three men. They were ruthless criminals. Murderers even.

And why isn't our money backed by gold anymore? I've been hearing a lot of news programs lately explaining to people how our money is really only worth what we think it is worth. It's not backed by anything. In Freedom to Fascism, the group is asking the IRS to audit Fort Knox and prove there is gold in there still. As citizens they have the right, but keep getting turned down or ignored.

They ran an add calling the IRS out in the USA Today. Full page add. Paid lots of money for it. The paper called them one day and told them that they could no longer run the add, but could not give a reason why. It's because this group is getting too close.

Anyways, at least you admit/undestand the system is fucked up. And at least you understand it is rich private bankers that own the Federal Reserve. That's fucked up. Remember they bailed AIG out without even asking Congress? Now that's power. They loaned AIG our tax dollars without even asking us.

 

[sealybobo]

An amendment to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional, that's the point of the amendment process.

When the proper court determines that the act in question conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. This is called judicial review. The portion of the law that is declared void is considered to be struck down, or the entire statute is considered to be struck from the statute books.

Depending on the type of legal system, a statute may be declared unconstitutional by any court or only by special Constitutional courts which have the authority to rule on the validity of a statute.

Ok, so the Supreme Court in the 1800's said income tax was unconstitutional. Then in the 1900's Congress passed the income tax. Correct? Ok, so the Supreme Court never ruled on the income tax again again. So we must assume what they said in the 1800's still stands. Correct?

But they won't review it. Neither Republicans nor democrats will make a stink about this because then their careers are ruined. Look at what they did to Dr. Paul.

 

[AmericaFirst]

If you spend the money into the economy with no debt or interest why would you need Federal Income Tax?

When the proper court determines that the act in question conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. This is called judicial review. The portion of the law that is declared void is considered to be struck down, or the entire statute is considered to be struck from the statute books.

Depending on the type of legal system, a statute may be declared unconstitutional by any court or only by special Constitutional courts which have the authority to rule on the validity of a statute.

Ok, so the Supreme Court in the 1800's said income tax was unconstitutional. Then in the 1900's Congress passed the income tax. Correct? Ok, so the Supreme Court never ruled on the income tax again again. So we must assume what they said in the 1800's still stands. Correct?

But they won't review it. Neither Republicans nor democrats will make a stink about this because then their careers are ruined. Look at what they did to Dr. Paul.

 

[sealybobo]

If you spend the money into the economy with no debt or interest why would you need Federal Income Tax?

Did you see my post #16?

“...100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt...all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.” 1984 Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Regan


I tell people this and it is like I'm talking to a brick wall.

OR, most people end up defending the income tax. They say, "how are we gonna pay for things" or "you gotta pay your taxes".

Keep in mind these are the same people who voted for Bush to get a tax break.

They hate taxes but yet defend the one tax that is unconstitutional.

 

[AmericaFirst]

Did you see my post #16?

“...100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt...all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.” 1984 Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Regan


I tell people this and it is like I'm talking to a brick wall.

OR, most people end up defending the income tax. They say, "how are we gonna pay for things" or "you gotta pay your taxes".

Keep in mind these are the same people who voted for Bush to get a tax break.

They hate taxes but yet defend the one tax that is unconstitutional.

Yes, I was just making a point. Get rid of the FED first and the rest will follow.

Why are people blind to this? It's because the same group of criminals that own the charter banks also own most of the media and Washington. That's why I salute Kucinch. Paul or anyone else that stands up to the crooks.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, I was just making a point. Get rid of the FED first and the rest will follow.

Why are people blind to this? It's because the same group of criminals that own the charter banks also own most of the media and Washington. That's why I salute Kucinch. Paul or anyone else that stands up to the crooks.

I hope guys like Kevin Kennedy figure this out. Right now, too many people think the income tax & federal Reserve are legit and there is nothing that can be done.

PS. Today Thom Hartmann was talking about history and who writes it. Look as far back in history as far back as you want. Who is history talking about? Kings, Emperors, Pharohs, Rulers, Cesars, etc. The rich.

Kind of hard to defeat them when they write history.

You know the saying, "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"? It is so true.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, I was just making a point. Get rid of the FED first and the rest will follow.

Why are people blind to this? It's because the same group of criminals that own the charter banks also own most of the media and Washington. That's why I salute Kucinch. Paul or anyone else that stands up to the crooks.

Just look at this quote: "The Great Depression was not accidental; it was a carefully contrived occurrence. The international Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all." - Louis McFadden

That's funny, because I say the same thing about the last 8 years. The Robber Baron's are back!

Maybe me and this Louis MfFadden guy are both nuts.

 

[AmericaFirst]

Just look at this quote: "The Great Depression was not accidental; it was a carefully contrived occurrence. The international Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all." - Louis McFadden

That's funny, because I say the same thing about the last 8 years. The Robber Baron's are back!

Maybe me and this Louis MfFadden guy are both nuts.

Well maybe you're not nuts. This last FED bubble with the help of the BIS and the derivatives (over three hundred TRILLION dollars of junk waiting to implode) was an intentional act that when looked at by any real economist will say it was purely intentional. And worldwide..

Did you listen to the Michael Hudson interviews?

 

[sealybobo]

Well maybe you're not nuts. This last FED bubble with the help of the BIS and the derivatives (over three hundred TRILLION dollars of junk waiting to implode) was an intentional act that when looked at by any real economist will say it was purely intentional. And worldwide..

Did you listen to the Michael Hudson interviews?

No. If you have a link, I'll go check the interviews out. Or I'll google him and see what I can find.


Anyways, I find it funny that people understand that the system is corrupt, but when you try to tell them exactly how it is screwed up, they call you a conspiracy theorist.

I heard one reason people instinctively deny these facts about the income tax is because once they know, they'll have to do something about it. And most people don't want to draw attention to themselves. So they just fall in line like good little sheeple.

 

[AmericaFirst]

Guns and Butter - October 8, 2008 at 1:00pm | KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley: Listener Sponsored Free Speech Radio

Guns and Butter - October 15, 2008 at 1:00pm | KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley: Listener Sponsored Free Speech Radio

Michael Hudson - financial economist and historian

 

[sealybobo]

Guns and Butter - October 8, 2008 at 1:00pm | KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley: Listener Sponsored Free Speech Radio

Guns and Butter - October 15, 2008 at 1:00pm | KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley: Listener Sponsored Free Speech Radio

Michael Hudson - financial economist and historian

Good stuff.

I'm surprised people don't just naturally figure out that there is something wrong. Instead they call us conspiracy theorists when we speculate.

When you see the Federal Reserve decided on their own to bail out AIG with our tax dollars. How can anyone justify/explain that away?

Or when you realize that our dollar used to be backed by gold but now it is only really worth the paper it is printed on.

Why did we turn over the treasury to the 3 richest/most corrupt/most powerful corporate men in America? No way that was on the up and up!

And of course they have an excuse for almost every argument you make. If it was too obvious, they wouldn't have gotten away with it.

I wonder how many people rolled/bent over and took it when they first introduced the income tax? Of course it was to pay for the war, so just like Iraq, I bet it was "unpatriotic" to question it.

 

[sealybobo]

Guns and Butter - October 8, 2008 at 1:00pm | KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley: Listener Sponsored Free Speech Radio

Guns and Butter - October 15, 2008 at 1:00pm | KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley: Listener Sponsored Free Speech Radio

Michael Hudson - financial economist and historian

Hey, can you reply to Kevin Kennedy? He said to me:

Congress does do many things that are unconstitutional, but imposing an income tax is not unconstitutional. The amendment process is done to add things to the Constitution that were not in it originally. The 16th Amendment makes an income tax Constitutional. The founding fathers would never have stood for an income tax, that's correct. But like I said, the amendment process is done to add things to the Constitution. Therefore, under the 16th Amendment, the income tax is legal and Constitutional.

Can you explain why/how/if he is wrong?

 

[AmericaFirst]

Hey, can you reply to Kevin Kennedy? He said to me:

Congress does do many things that are unconstitutional, but imposing an income tax is not unconstitutional. The amendment process is done to add things to the Constitution that were not in it originally. The 16th Amendment makes an income tax Constitutional. The founding fathers would never have stood for an income tax, that's correct. But like I said, the amendment process is done to add things to the Constitution. Therefore, under the 16th Amendment, the income tax is legal and Constitutional.

Can you explain why/how/if he is wrong?

He explained it. It's part of the Constitution. My reply was so what? If it wasn't for the FED we wouldn't need the tax. Get rid of the FED first..

 

[sealybobo]

He explained it. It's part of the Constitution. My reply was so what? If it wasn't for the FED we wouldn't need the tax. Get rid of the FED first..

Smart. You are taking the conspiracies out of this conversation and just approaching him from a common sense/factual position.

Just because it is legal or constitutional doesn't mean its a good idea.

And just because it exists doesn't mean it must always exist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ok, so the Supreme Court in the 1800's said income tax was unconstitutional. Then in the 1900's Congress passed the income tax. Correct? Ok, so the Supreme Court never ruled on the income tax again again. So we must assume what they said in the 1800's still stands. Correct?

But they won't review it. Neither Republicans nor democrats will make a stink about this because then their careers are ruined. Look at what they did to Dr. Paul.

In the 1800's an income tax would have been unconstitutional because the Constitution did not authorize the federal government to implement an income tax. That changed when the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, the income tax became legal and constitutional.

It may be of interest to you that the American people got saddled with the Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment in the very same year, 1913.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Smart. You are taking the conspiracies out of this conversation and just approaching him from a common sense/factual position.

Just because it is legal or constitutional doesn't mean its a good idea.

And just because it exists doesn't mean it must always exist.

I didn't say the income tax was a good idea, I said it was constitutional when you said that it wasn't. I very clearly stated that I do not agree with the income tax, and I have previously said that I would support the immediate repeal of the 16th amendment so that the government would no longer have the authority to impose the income tax. I don't like the income tax, but there can be no arguing it's legality.

As for the Federal Reserve, it is an unconstitutional institution and should be abolished immediately.

 

[pfife]

People want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Congress could pass that and then the Supreme Court could rule it unconstitutional later.

But if what I am saying is true, the Supreme Court is even in on the income tax scam. The DVD says Dems and GOP are all in on it. And anyone who speaks out gets blackballed.

I love the posts from a fellow Michigander, but alas, how can the supreme court rule that the constitution is unconstitutional? If its an amendment, they can't say its unconstitutional - because it's the constitution.