The FED Inspector General Has No Idea Where The 9 Trillion Dollars Went

[sealybobo]

The fact that there was an innocent verdict doesn't mean there is no law. It means that for whatever reason the jury decided the person wasn't guilty.

People are declared not guilty of committing murder too. That doesn't mean there is no law against murder.

Whatever makes you feel better when you file your returns.

Or when you realize how much you have voluntarily given to the government so they could piss it away.

At least I see the scam for what it is.

Whether the Govt spends wisely is a different issue.

You cited Russo for the claim there is no law saying we have to pay taxes. I have in fact shown you US laws saying you have to pay taxes.

Not really. Watch the dvd and see the piece of the puzzle you are missing. I can't help you anymore. Nor do I want to. You seem happy.

 

[sealybobo]

I took several law classes. It bored the hell out of me so I didn't go to law school. Thank God. Many of my lawyer friends are miserable.

Google is your friend.

Code of law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_(law)
Civil code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statutes

Statute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, I explained fiscal and monetary policy to you. Did you learn anything?

Look into it further and realize you have been hood winked. Bamboozled!

The purpose of publishing revenue rulings and revenue procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin is to promote correct and uniform applications of the tax laws by the Internal Revenue Service employees and to assist taxpayers in attaining maximum voluntary compliance. (emphasis added)



On July 8, 1981 the Controller General of the United States issued a report entitled Illegal Tax Protesters Threaten Tax System (GGD-81-83)3, which, on its cover, warned that illegal tax protesters threatened our tax system because they represent a threat to our nation's voluntary tax system. (emphasis added)

Mafia Chap1

Dude, there isn't a single link on the page you linked to. How do you know its true, and how do you know its taken in context?

The fact that its on the Internet does not make it true.

You and iriemon are under informed. Watch Freedom to Fascism and see why. It'll explain.

If you wanted someone to see the Wizard of Oz, is there another movie similar that you would recommend?

No. There is no subtitute for the original Wizard of Oz movie.

And there is no better DVD than Freedom to Fascism. Not that I'm aware of.

 

[Toro]

You and iriemon are under informed. Watch Freedom to Fascism and see why. It'll explain.

If you wanted someone to see the Wizard of Oz, is there another movie similar that you would recommend?

No. There is no subtitute for the original Wizard of Oz movie.

And there is no better DVD than Freedom to Fascism. Not that I'm aware of.

Here is why I won't watch that movie.

First, I have better things to do with 90 minutes of my life.

Second, reasonable and educated people tell me that it is wrong. Wesley Snipes in prison for four years confirms that.

Finally, I have watched several films and clips that conspiracy theorists have told me to watch over the years and I just come away even more convinced of my opinion because the logic and facts are flawed or wrong.

 

[Iriemon]

I took several law classes. It bored the hell out of me so I didn't go to law school. Thank God. Many of my lawyer friends are miserable.

Google is your friend.

Code of law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_(law)
Civil code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statutes

Statute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, I explained fiscal and monetary policy to you. Did you learn anything?

Look into it further and realize you have been hood winked. Bamboozled!

The purpose of publishing revenue rulings and revenue procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin is to promote correct and uniform applications of the tax laws by the Internal Revenue Service employees and to assist taxpayers in attaining maximum voluntary compliance. (emphasis added)

On July 8, 1981 the Controller General of the United States issued a report entitled Illegal Tax Protesters Threaten Tax System (GGD-81-83)3, which, on its cover, warned that illegal tax protesters threatened our tax system because they represent a threat to our nation's voluntary tax system. (emphasis added)

Mafia Chap1

Dude, there isn't a single link on the page you linked to. How do you know its true, and how do you know its taken in context?

The fact that its on the Internet does not make it true.

In contrast to selected uncited quips, the IRS gives a detailed analysis of what it (and federal courts) calls the "frivolous" argument that taxes are voluntary. I personally find it much more persuasive than uncited quips from some internet blog. Other may proceed at their own risk of using this as a defense to an action for failing to pay taxes.

1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.

Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them from the outset. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).

Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the non-complying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, “although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper.” The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B. 863, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.

In August 2005, the Justice Department announced that Royal Lamarr Hardy was sentenced to a 156-month prison term for, among other things, selling a tax evasion scheme called the “Reliance Defense” that incorrectly asserted the income tax laws were voluntary (i.e., the laws imposed no legal obligation to pay tax or file a return). Hardy was also ordered to pay costs of prosecution in the amount of $59,267.88, and restitution to the IRS for $197,555. See 2005 TNT 169-12 (Aug. 31, 2005).

In August 2007, a U.S. District Court permanently barred Robert Schulz and his organizations, We the People Congress and We the People Foundation, from promoting a tax scheme that helped employers and employees improperly stop tax withholding from wages on the false premise that federal income taxation is voluntary. The court concluded that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the website, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct. The court also ordered that the web site that sold the materials stating that individuals can legally stop paying taxes be shut. See #214: 04-03-07 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES ROBERT L. SCHULZ AND “WE THE PEOPLE” TO STOP ALLEGED TAX SCAM, and #595: 08-09-07 NEW YORK FEDERAL COURT ORDERS HALT TO NATIONWIDE “TAX TERMINATION” SCHEME. The result in this case was affirmed on appeal and certiorari was denied. United States v. Schulz, 529 F.Supp2d 341 (N.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd 517 F.3d 606 (2nd Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 435 (2008).

Relevant Case Law:
Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) – the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil] sanctions.”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court held that “[a]ny assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit.”

United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986) – the court upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the premise “that the tax system is somehow ‘voluntary’ . . . is incorrect.”

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) – the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the claim that filing a tax return is voluntary “was rejected in United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), wherein the court described appellant’s argument as ‘an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit.’”

Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) – the court rejected the claim that reporting income taxes is strictly voluntary, referring to it as a “‘tax protester’ type” argument, and found Woods liable for the penalty for failure to file a return.

Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468, 471 (1999) – the court found Johnson liable for the failure to file penalty and rejected his argument “that the tax system is voluntary so that he cannot be forced to comply” as “frivolous.”

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments - Section I

 

[Iriemon]

Look into it further and realize you have been hood winked. Bamboozled!

The purpose of publishing revenue rulings and revenue procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin is to promote correct and uniform applications of the tax laws by the Internal Revenue Service employees and to assist taxpayers in attaining maximum voluntary compliance. (emphasis added)



On July 8, 1981 the Controller General of the United States issued a report entitled Illegal Tax Protesters Threaten Tax System (GGD-81-83)3, which, on its cover, warned that illegal tax protesters threatened our tax system because they represent a threat to our nation's voluntary tax system. (emphasis added)

Mafia Chap1

Dude, there isn't a single link on the page you linked to. How do you know its true, and how do you know its taken in context?

The fact that its on the Internet does not make it true.

You and iriemon are under informed. Watch Freedom to Fascism and see why. It'll explain.

If you wanted someone to see the Wizard of Oz, is there another movie similar that you would recommend?

No. There is no subtitute for the original Wizard of Oz movie.

And there is no better DVD than Freedom to Fascism. Not that I'm aware of.

I watched the video, as you asked. So please tell me what part DVD (time frame please) demonstrates how the laws Toro and I cited do not say you are required to pay taxes.

In fact, show me anywhere in the CD where these laws we cited saying you have to pay taxes are even mentioned.

Did Russo just miss them or purposely ignore them? In the former case it would indicate incredibly sloppy research, as we were able to find these laws in an hour or less; in the latter case it would show an intentional deception on his part to ignore laws that explicitly say you have to pay taxes when he is claiming there is no such law.

 

[Toro]

Just some more info

US Code

The United States Code (USC) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States. It contains 50 titles and is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the US House of Representatives.

United States Code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Internal Revenue Code

The Internal Revenue Code (or IRC; more formally, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) is the main body of domestic statutory tax law of the United States organized topically, including laws covering the income tax (see Income tax in the United States), payroll taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes and statutory excise taxes. The Internal Revenue Code is published as Title 26 of the United States Code (USC), and is also known as the internal revenue title.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the income tax in the United States

The federal government of the United States imposes a progressive tax on the taxable income of individuals, partnerships, companies, corporations, trusts, decedents' estates, and certain bankruptcy estates. Some state and municipal governments also impose income taxes. The first Federal income tax was imposed (under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution) during the Civil War, then again in the 1890s, and again after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Current income taxes are imposed under these constitutional provisions and various sections of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including 26 U.S.C. § 1 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates and trusts) and 26 U.S.C. § 11 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of corporations).

Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And on the Wesley Snipes case

Proponents of this anti-tax theory, commonly referred to as the "861 position," believe that because this section of the federal tax code does not explicitly say that wages are taxable (the phrase "compensation for services" does not encompass wages, according to this line of reasoning), earners are not obligated to pay taxes on them.

Tax experts say that argument - appealing as it may be to some workers and business owners - has been firmly and repeatedly shot down in court.

"The fact of the matter is that compensation for services includes employment. That's Tax 101," said Tom Ochsenschlager, vice president of taxation for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. "There's just no merit to what he's claiming here."

U.S. courts have routinely denied the legitimacy of this position, but have occasionally acquitted tax protestors whose cases have been brought to court on criminal charges. Most famously, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 overturned the conviction of tax protestor John Cheek, ruling that a good-faith belief - even if its unreasonable - that one is not violating the complex IRS tax code is a legitimate defense against criminal culpability.

While cleared of criminal charges, most of these defendants were ultimately required to pay the IRS the money owed, as Cheek was.

Wesley Snipes tax protest case heads to court - Jan. 17, 2008

 

[Toro]

Look into it further and realize you have been hood winked. Bamboozled!

The purpose of publishing revenue rulings and revenue procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin is to promote correct and uniform applications of the tax laws by the Internal Revenue Service employees and to assist taxpayers in attaining maximum voluntary compliance. (emphasis added)

On July 8, 1981 the Controller General of the United States issued a report entitled Illegal Tax Protesters Threaten Tax System (GGD-81-83)3, which, on its cover, warned that illegal tax protesters threatened our tax system because they represent a threat to our nation's voluntary tax system. (emphasis added)

Mafia Chap1

Dude, there isn't a single link on the page you linked to. How do you know its true, and how do you know its taken in context?

The fact that its on the Internet does not make it true.

In contrast to selected uncited quips, the IRS gives a detailed analysis of what it (and federal courts) calls the "frivolous" argument that taxes are voluntary. I personally find it much more persuasive than uncited quips from some internet blog. Other may proceed at their own risk of using this as a defense to an action for failing to pay taxes.

1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.

Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them from the outset. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).

Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the non-complying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, “although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper.” The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B. 863, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.

In August 2005, the Justice Department announced that Royal Lamarr Hardy was sentenced to a 156-month prison term for, among other things, selling a tax evasion scheme called the “Reliance Defense” that incorrectly asserted the income tax laws were voluntary (i.e., the laws imposed no legal obligation to pay tax or file a return). Hardy was also ordered to pay costs of prosecution in the amount of $59,267.88, and restitution to the IRS for $197,555. See 2005 TNT 169-12 (Aug. 31, 2005).

In August 2007, a U.S. District Court permanently barred Robert Schulz and his organizations, We the People Congress and We the People Foundation, from promoting a tax scheme that helped employers and employees improperly stop tax withholding from wages on the false premise that federal income taxation is voluntary. The court concluded that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the website, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct. The court also ordered that the web site that sold the materials stating that individuals can legally stop paying taxes be shut. See #214: 04-03-07 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES ROBERT L. SCHULZ AND “WE THE PEOPLE” TO STOP ALLEGED TAX SCAM, and #595: 08-09-07 NEW YORK FEDERAL COURT ORDERS HALT TO NATIONWIDE “TAX TERMINATION” SCHEME. The result in this case was affirmed on appeal and certiorari was denied. United States v. Schulz, 529 F.Supp2d 341 (N.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd 517 F.3d 606 (2nd Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 435 (2008).

Relevant Case Law:
Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) – the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil] sanctions.”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court held that “[a]ny assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit.”

United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986) – the court upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the premise “that the tax system is somehow ‘voluntary’ . . . is incorrect.”

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) – the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the claim that filing a tax return is voluntary “was rejected in United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), wherein the court described appellant’s argument as ‘an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit.’”

Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) – the court rejected the claim that reporting income taxes is strictly voluntary, referring to it as a “‘tax protester’ type” argument, and found Woods liable for the penalty for failure to file a return.

Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468, 471 (1999) – the court found Johnson liable for the failure to file penalty and rejected his argument “that the tax system is voluntary so that he cannot be forced to comply” as “frivolous.”

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments - Section I

If you can't differentiate between what someone with a political axe to grind and offers no references to back him up, and the government agency with case law behind it, the support of the bar, the judiciary and pretty much every elected official over the past 100 years, then I can't help you.

 

[Iriemon]

Whatever makes you feel better when you file your returns.

Or when you realize how much you have voluntarily given to the government so they could piss it away.

At least I see the scam for what it is.

Whether the Govt spends wisely is a different issue.

You cited Russo for the claim there is no law saying we have to pay taxes. I have in fact shown you US laws saying you have to pay taxes.

Not really. Watch the dvd and see the piece of the puzzle you are missing. I can't help you anymore. Nor do I want to. You seem happy.

I watched the video as you asked. What piece of the puzzle am I missing?

 

[sealybobo]

Here's a whole list of laws that talk about having to pay taxes:

US CODE: Title 26,PART I—GENERAL PROVISIONS


TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter A > PART IPART I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
§ 7202. Willful failure to collect or pay over tax
§ 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
§ 7204. Fraudulent statement or failure to make statement to employees
§ 7205. Fraudulent withholding exemption certificate or failure to supply information
§ 7206. Fraud and false statements
§ 7207. Fraudulent returns, statements, or other documents
§ 7208. Offenses relating to stamps
§ 7209. Unauthorized use or sale of stamps
§ 7210. Failure to obey summons
§ 7211. False statements to purchasers or lessees relating to tax
§ 7212. Attempts to interfere with administration of internal revenue laws
§ 7213. Unauthorized disclosure of information
§ 7213A. Unauthorized inspection of returns or return information
§ 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States
§ 7215. Offenses with respect to collected taxes
§ 7216. Disclosure or use of information by preparers of returns
§ 7217. Prohibition on executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations

I'll consult my buddy on this and ask him why this isn't "the law".

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

See, here's the problem Terral. $9 trillion has not gone missing. The Fed and the government has not lent out $9 trillion. That $9 trillion is a reference to the total backstop of liabilities the government has undertaken over the past year. Much of that is simply the increase of FDIC insurance on bank deposits. Others include programs that have not yet been taken up, such as the PPIP. Others include the implicit guarantee of swap insurance underwritten by AIG.

The Congressman has every right to ask the questions that he did, but it is not a surprise that programs which have been drawn in haste to deal with a crisis most of us have never seen in our lifetimes have not yet been reviewed or audited. Audits take time, even for well established programs. However, this does not mean that $9 trillion has been stolen.

Well I know I feel better...

Assurances from a member that has trouble working through a post of greater than 50 words, against an accounting maze that would make the Tax code look like the directions to open a box of cereal...

Sleep well kids... Toro's on the case...

 

[Toro]

PubliusInfinitum

I would like to congratulate you on keeping your last post to less than 20,000 words, and not capitalizing, italicizing nor sizing a single word. That must have been very hard for you. Well done.

Oh, and BTW, you're siding with the same guys who think that Bush was behind 9/11. Well done there too.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PubliusInfinitum

I would like to congratulate you on keeping your last post to less than 20,000 words, and not capitalizing, italicizing nor sizing a single word. That must have been very hard for you. Well done.

Oh, and BTW, you're siding with the same guys who think that Bush was behind 9/11. Well done there too.

So, 'common sense,' thinks the Bush was behind 9-11?

Really? ... Are you sure?

As to the depth of the post... Well... You're the subject, afterall and while there are many words; and while each is unique and useful in their own special way; it only takes a few to speak to the obvious; and while every circumstance does not limit such to this extent... the assurances of a "Centrist" that all is well in the Federal Reserve, at this moment in time... is a circumstance which simply defies depth...

 

[sealybobo]

PubliusInfinitum

I would like to congratulate you on keeping your last post to less than 20,000 words, and not capitalizing, italicizing nor sizing a single word. That must have been very hard for you. Well done.

Oh, and BTW, you're siding with the same guys who think that Bush was behind 9/11. Well done there too.

I don't know. Seems pretty fishy when you add up all the facts. I'm not saying I don't have reasonable doubt, but consider all the facts.

How Cheney had control of Norad
How they were warned over and over and told the CIA to "save your breath" and "ok, you covered your ass, now get out of here".

Then later Condi says they had no idea such a thing could happen?

And then they lied about Saddam's connection.

Then PNAC.

And how the Bin Ladin's are old family friends with the Bush's.

How the Bin Ladin's helped launch Bush's career when they bought his struggling oil company. Now what would the Bin Ladin's need with a crappy little oil well in Texas?

And then look at how the Bush families assets were frozen in WW2 because they were helping the Nazi's.

And just look at that creep Cheney.

And if they would lie 4000 soldiers into being dead and 40,000 who lost limbs and probably just as many that are mentally fucked up.

If they would do just the last one, then they are capable of anything. Fuck them and anyone who defends them, even if ignorantly. Ignorant Germans defended Hitler too. Wake the fuck up.

How involved was Bush with 9-11? All that he needed was prior knowledge, which he had, and all he needed to do was ignore the warnings and don't tell the airlines to be careful. That's it. Not so hard to believe, unless you are such a partisan fuck you can't see the obvious. But no grand conspiracy needed. They just needed an attack to happen and got one. Maybe they could have prevented it, but they needed it to happen, so why would they stop it? PNAC said they would need a Pearl Harbor to happen, so they were warned and said nothing. And you think they'll keep you safe?

Who the fuck are you? Toro Rockafellor? They don't give a fuck about you. They played you. They used you.

I think people who are sure Bush wasn't behind 9-11 are dumber than people who think he was.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PubliusInfinitum

I would like to congratulate you on keeping your last post to less than 20,000 words, and not capitalizing, italicizing nor sizing a single word. That must have been very hard for you. Well done.

Oh, and BTW, you're siding with the same guys who think that Bush was behind 9/11. Well done there too.

I don't know. Seems pretty fishy when you add up all the facts. I'm not saying I don't have reasonable doubt, but consider all the facts.

How Cheney had control of Norad
How they were warned over and over and told the CIA to "save your breath" and "ok, you covered your ass, now get out of here".

Then later Condi says they had no idea such a thing could happen?

And then they lied about Saddam's connection.

Then PNAC.

And how the Bin Ladin's are old family friends with the Bush's.

How the Bin Ladin's helped launch Bush's career when they bought his struggling oil company. Now what would the Bin Ladin's need with a crappy little oil well in Texas?

And then look at how the Bush families assets were frozen in WW2 because they were helping the Nazi's.

And just look at that creep Cheney.

And if they would lie 4000 soldiers into being dead and 40,000 who lost limbs and probably just as many that are mentally fucked up.

If they would do just the last one, then they are capable of anything. Fuck them and anyone who defends them, even if ignorantly. Ignorant Germans defended Hitler too. Wake the fuck up.

How involved was Bush with 9-11? All that he needed was prior knowledge, which he had, and all he needed to do was ignore the warnings and don't tell the airlines to be careful. That's it. Not so hard to believe, unless you are such a partisan fuck you can't see the obvious. But no grand conspiracy needed. They just needed an attack to happen and got one. Maybe they could have prevented it, but they needed it to happen, so why would they stop it? PNAC said they would need a Pearl Harbor to happen, so they were warned and said nothing. And you think they'll keep you safe?

Who the fuck are you? Toro Rockafellor? They don't give a fuck about you. They played you. They used you.

I think people who are sure Bush wasn't behind 9-11 are dumber than people who think he was.

Well, there's no actual evidence that you 'think' at all... and what's more, this post goes towards the WAREHOUSES of evidence that ya aren't capable of it.

PNAC? . . . 9-11... wooO HOO! Man that one hurt my neck a little... how about some warning?

 

[sealybobo]

PubliusInfinitum

I would like to congratulate you on keeping your last post to less than 20,000 words, and not capitalizing, italicizing nor sizing a single word. That must have been very hard for you. Well done.

Oh, and BTW, you're siding with the same guys who think that Bush was behind 9/11. Well done there too.

I don't know. Seems pretty fishy when you add up all the facts. I'm not saying I don't have reasonable doubt, but consider all the facts.

How Cheney had control of Norad
How they were warned over and over and told the CIA to "save your breath" and "ok, you covered your ass, now get out of here".

Then later Condi says they had no idea such a thing could happen?

And then they lied about Saddam's connection.

Then PNAC.

And how the Bin Ladin's are old family friends with the Bush's.

How the Bin Ladin's helped launch Bush's career when they bought his struggling oil company. Now what would the Bin Ladin's need with a crappy little oil well in Texas?

And then look at how the Bush families assets were frozen in WW2 because they were helping the Nazi's.

And just look at that creep Cheney.

And if they would lie 4000 soldiers into being dead and 40,000 who lost limbs and probably just as many that are mentally fucked up.

If they would do just the last one, then they are capable of anything. Fuck them and anyone who defends them, even if ignorantly. Ignorant Germans defended Hitler too. Wake the fuck up.

How involved was Bush with 9-11? All that he needed was prior knowledge, which he had, and all he needed to do was ignore the warnings and don't tell the airlines to be careful. That's it. Not so hard to believe, unless you are such a partisan fuck you can't see the obvious. But no grand conspiracy needed. They just needed an attack to happen and got one. Maybe they could have prevented it, but they needed it to happen, so why would they stop it? PNAC said they would need a Pearl Harbor to happen, so they were warned and said nothing. And you think they'll keep you safe?

Who the fuck are you? Toro Rockafellor? They don't give a fuck about you. They played you. They used you.

I think people who are sure Bush wasn't behind 9-11 are dumber than people who think he was.

Well, there's no actual evidence that you 'think' at all... and what's more, this post goes towards the WAREHOUSES of evidence that ya aren't capable of it.

PNAC? . . . 9-11... wooO HOO! Man that one hurt my neck a little... how about some warning?

What did you mean by this: this post goes towards the WAREHOUSES of evidence that ya aren't capable of it.


In fact, what did you mean about PNAC? Why would your neck hurt?

I must be missing your southern goober humor. I imagine you speak like Floyd the Barber.

 

[Iriemon]

As to the depth of the post... Well... You're the subject, afterall and while there are many words; and while each is unique and useful in their own special way; it only takes a few to speak to the obvious; and while every circumstance does not limit such to this extent... the assurances of a "Centrist" that all is well in the Federal Reserve, at this moment in time... is a circumstance which simply defies depth...

I just had to chuckle when I read this by PI.

 

[Iriemon]

@Sealy - Did you figure out whether the United States Code are laws or not?

 

[sealybobo]

@Sealy - Did you figure out whether the United States Code are laws or not?

No, I'm still waiting for my buddy to answer me. We work for a tax company so he's probably paranoid to email me back.

I tried calling.

There is something I'm forgetting. Like, is the Code book just the rules or is the exact wording in the 16th amendment the exact wording in the Code book. Maybe the Code book are just the rules to the law, which is the 16th amendment, which is unconstitutional, and which may not have been ratified by enough states, and the supreme court ruled unconstitutional, which says it gives congress no new taxing powers,

I'll let you know as soon as he replies or I see him again.

 

[Iriemon]

@Sealy - Did you figure out whether the United States Code are laws or not?

No, I'm still waiting for my buddy to answer me. We work for a tax company so he's probably paranoid to email me back.

I tried calling.

There is something I'm forgetting. Like, is the Code book just the rules or is the exact wording in the 16th amendment the exact wording in the Code book. Maybe the Code book are just the rules to the law, which is the 16th amendment, which is unconstitutional, and which may not have been ratified by enough states, and the supreme court ruled unconstitutional, which says it gives congress no new taxing powers,

I'll let you know as soon as he replies or I see him again.

Well I'm not agreeing to be bound by whoever your buddy is.

But if the zillion cites on the web confirming it are not enough, go to any law library in the United States (or probably most libaries) and ask where the US laws are, and see where they take you.

It's not some secret.

 

[sealybobo]

@Sealy - Did you figure out whether the United States Code are laws or not?

No, I'm still waiting for my buddy to answer me. We work for a tax company so he's probably paranoid to email me back.

I tried calling.

There is something I'm forgetting. Like, is the Code book just the rules or is the exact wording in the 16th amendment the exact wording in the Code book. Maybe the Code book are just the rules to the law, which is the 16th amendment, which is unconstitutional, and which may not have been ratified by enough states, and the supreme court ruled unconstitutional, which says it gives congress no new taxing powers,

I'll let you know as soon as he replies or I see him again.

Well I'm not agreeing to be bound by whoever your buddy is.

But if the zillion cites on the web confirming it are not enough, go to any law library in the United States (or probably most libaries) and ask where the US laws are, and see where they take you.

It's not some secret.

Yes it is.

And I don't have all the answers. But one thing is for sure. There is enough out there that you should realize somehthing stinks. But you don't, so I'm cool with that.

If I can't explain it to you, and Ron Paul's not getting thru to you, never mind.

Abolish the Federal Reserve

Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.

End the Income Tax, Abolish the IRS | Ron Paul .com

An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent.


On May 5, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) grilled Federal Reserve inspector general Elizabeth Coleman. What knowledge did she have of Bloomberg's report that the Fed had made trillions of dollars in off-balance sheet transactions? Did she know who received the trillion dollars that was added to the Fed's balance sheets since last September? Was there any investigation into why the Fed didn't rescue Lehman Brothers, a move that sent shock waves through the financial sector?

To all of these questions, Coleman professed total ignorance, and assured the Congress there were presently no investigations taking place. What madness is this? The economy is in shambles, and the group most responsible for keeping our financial system stable has no answers and doesn't care to find any.

The Federal Reserve is accountable to no one. It has no budget, no Congressional committee monitors its operations, and although the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is tasked with auditing the Fed, it is so constrained as to be useless.


Campaign For Liberty — Congress Must Audit the Federal Reserve   | by Adam de Angeli