[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances "NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk) Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat Cinnamon reduces fat How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3. 'Armed Queers' Marxist Revolutionaries Under Investigation For Possible Foreknowledge Of Kirk's Assassination Plot Who Killed Charlie Kirk? the Case Against Israel Sen. Grassley announces a whistleblower has exposed the FBI program “Arctic Frost” for targeting 92 Republican groups Keto, Ivermectin, & Fenbendazole: New Cancer Treatment Protocol Gains Momentum Bill Ackman 'Hammered' Charlie Kirk in August 'Intervention' for Platforming Israel Critics "I've Never Experienced Crime Of This Magnitude Before": 20-Year Veteran Austrian Police Spox The UK is F*CKED, and the people have had enough No place for hate apeech America and Israel both told Qatar to allow Hamas to stay in their country Video | Robert Kennedy brings down the house. Owner releases video of Trump banner ripping, shooting in WNC Cash Jordan: Looters ‘Forcibly Evict’ Millionaires… as California’s “NO ARRESTS” Policy BACKFIRES Dallas Motel Horror: Immigrant Machete Killer Caught America has been infiltrated and occupied Netanyahu 1980 Senior Trump Official Declares War On Far-Left NGOs Sowing Chaos Nationwide White House Plans Security Boost On Civil Terrorism Fears Visualizing The Number Of Farms In Each US State Let her cry The Secret Version of the Bible You’re Never Taught - Secret History

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Constitutional help wanted
Source: self
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 31, 2011
Author: me
Post Date: 2011-03-31 02:13:26 by titorite
Keywords: None
Views: 410
Comments: 32

I am having trouble understanding a few parts of the constitution and the laws of today.

Specifically , taxation,the 16th amendment and the supreme court ruling of 1895 Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co.

Seriously , as a look into this, I find some severely fucked up shit.

Section 9 of article 2 states

"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

Followed by

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

Now as I read this, it seems clear that both income tax and many sales taxes are void.

Income tax and sales tax being a direct tax and that is to say nothing about things the states export to one another and get taxed on.

Allegedly the 16th amendment supersedes article to section 9

"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."

Reading up on all this I came across this website,

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16thb.htm

"Because an income tax was declared unconstitutional before the adoption of the 16th Amendment in a case called Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894), on reh’g 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and because the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, protestors conclude that the income tax must still be unconstitutional.

This conclusion is false. The short answer is that, while the Supreme Court did hold that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, the amendment relieved the pre-existing power to tax incomes from the constitutional requirement of apportionment. Therefore, the previous problem with the income tax was removed and the income tax is now constitutional."

Now my brain starts to boggle because this law website says that the 16th only relieved the pre-existing power to tax incomes from the constitutional requirement of apportionment.

But this power was not pre-existing!

Thats why it was ruled unconstitutional in the first place!!!

Apportionment has little to do with it since we all earn money. Whether we beg on the street or work for a fortune 500 company the government considers any form of money coming into your hands INCOME and theirfor taxable. It applies to every us citizen that earns even one cent from picking it up off the ground.

How is this not considered a direct tax?

Now whats worse is because of the lack of apportionment the common man is taxed more then the rich man or corporation. As we have seen with several companies that are able to pay ZERO income taxes and even in some cases are entitled to tax refunds. This is not because they are exempt , for no US citizen or entity is exempt. The corporations have merely been allowed to retain lawyers to provide "write offs and tax deductions" on such a massive scale that it equals fraud.

The Government currently seems to tax everyone whatever amount they want.

If your poor then you will pay more in taxes and if you are rich you can pay nothing if you jump the the loopholes not afforded to the poor.

AND THEN their is the matter of exported articles being non taxable.

IF a Florida farmer exports oranges to Missouri the oranges are not supposed to be taxable as they came from another state. And yet Missouri taxes them and all foods.

Where this has much more serious implications is with online transactions.

Many folks that use ebay and craigslist are resellers. Buying something here and selling it there. Recently many states are attempting to pass internet transaction taxes. Again this goes against the constitution and what it prohibits regarding state to state exports.

How is all this unconstitutional stuff being held up as valid?

All this IRS BS seems more like a scam to me.

Why the hell aren't we using a flat tax system...

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: titorite (#0)

I'll evade the income tax debate for now but the following is quite easy:

IF a Florida farmer exports oranges to Missouri the oranges are not supposed to be taxable as they came from another state. And yet Missouri taxes them and all foods.

What the Constitution says is "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

It is simply saying that Florida cannot collect local taxes on items being shipped out of state. What Missouri does is a different issue as that is not taxing an export to another state but is a tax collected within the state and has nothing to do with interstate commerce which is what the constitutional prohibition is about.

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-03-31   3:09:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

It is simply saying that Florida cannot collect local taxes on items being shipped out of state. What Missouri does is a different issue as that is not taxing an export to another state but is a tax collected within the state and has nothing to do with interstate commerce which is what the constitutional prohibition is about.

Would the constitutional prohibition apply at a federal level as well?

For example If I buy my electric or phone services from another state that exports the service where ever, shouldn't that service or goods be non taxable?

titorite  posted on  2011-03-31   3:18:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The point of the apportionment restriction was to prevent congress from indirectly encouraging emancipation of slaves via taxes.

I agree, no new power bestowed by the 16th.

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

That's talking about the fedgov's tax power; it revokes a fed power to tax exports.

A sales tax is not an import or export tax. It's a tax on the sale, not the movement.

Rastus? What'n you like bestus?
Why I like asbestos.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2011-03-31   3:20:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

A sales tax is not an import or export tax. It's a tax on the sale, not the movement.

If this is so then why do I have to pay a five dollar interstate transmission fee on my ATT phone bill?

Just asking.

I been reading from my antique books again.

titorite  posted on  2011-03-31   3:36:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

It is simply saying that Florida cannot collect local taxes on items being shipped out of state. What Missouri does is a different issue as that is not taxing an export to another state but is a tax collected within the state and has nothing to do with interstate commerce which is what the constitutional prohibition is about.

Would the constitutional prohibition apply at a federal level as well?

For example If I buy my electric or phone services from another state that exports the service where ever, shouldn't that service or goods be non taxable?

They justify it under Section 8's general taxing authority and also under the interstate commerce clause - which has been warped and perverted by successive courts all out of its original intent which was to insure the free flow of commerce between the states.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-03-31   3:45:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I agree, no new power bestowed by the 16th.

I agree as well.

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

That's talking about the fedgov's tax power; it revokes a fed power to tax exports.

No, I would suggest the context, in addressing problems under the Arts of Confederation where states were aggressively taxing goods crossing state borders, was a prohibition upon the states to prohibit them from taxing goods exported from other states. It was essentially a NAFTA in that day and age designed to promote commerce within the union. Perhaps a USFTA.

Pinguinite  posted on  2011-03-31   3:47:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No, I would suggest the context, in addressing problems under the Arts of Confederation where states were aggressively taxing goods crossing state borders, was a prohibition upon the states to prohibit them from taxing goods exported from other states. It was essentially a NAFTA in that day and age designed to promote commerce within the union. Perhaps a USFTA.

Now that is exactly what I was originally thinking,,of course it can and should be construed to extend to a federal level as well...

BUt yeah back in the 1700 the nations was having all sorts of issues and the article on

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

seems to me to be something used to promote trade among the states and discourage trade abroad.

meaning buy your tea local don't buy brittain.

titorite  posted on  2011-03-31   4:01:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This is kinda a blast from the past for me.

"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

Followed by

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

Now as I read this, it seems clear that both income tax and many sales taxes are void.

Well, what the founders didn't forsee very well is the ability of bureaucrats to to tax more that just objects or "Articles". Activities can be taxed as well. A sales tax is a tax on an activity, not upon the object being sold. I.e. the act of selling is the "thing" that is taxed, and that tax is valued according to the value of the transaction.

Similarly, the income tax is also not a tax upon the money itself. It's rather a tax upon an activity. It's an important distinction. That's why someone giving you money is not an income taxable thing.

"Because an income tax was declared unconstitutional before the adoption of the 16th Amendment in a case called Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894), on reh’g 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and because the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, protestors conclude that the income tax must still be unconstitutional.

I understand the "income tax" was not declared unconstitutional. The USSC could never make such a generic ruling. They can only decide whether a particular taxing statute is unconstitutional and they ruled that it was BECAUSE such a tax would be a direct tax made without apportionment.

This conclusion is false. The short answer is that, while the Supreme Court did hold that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation,

Correct.

the amendment relieved the pre-existing power to tax incomes from the constitutional requirement of apportionment. Therefore, the previous problem with the income tax was removed and the income tax is now constitutional."

But this is wrong. It certainly contradicts the previous sentence since if it "relieves" a taxing power from a requirement, it most certainly does grant new taxing power.

My take: The first "income tax" was imposed under the Lincoln administration during the war. I don't think it was ever challenged. The question for the USSC in the Pollock ruling was whether the a particular tax, which was called an "income tax" was a direct or indirect tax as defined by the Constitution. It had to be one or the other. I understand the USSC narrowly decided it was a direct tax and therefore held to be unconstitutional.

Later the 16th Amendment was passed and the USSC had to readdress the "income tax" issue in light of the 16th and they ruled that the wording of the 16th did not create any new taxing power, but instead clarified that such taxes were to be considered indirect and not direct taxes. The implication of that is that "income tax" could not be imposed upon property, but only upon activities, because a tax on property is a direct tax by definition. Ergo, it was no longer possible for the feds to levy an "income tax" on the value of real estate, personal property or even money itself as money is property as well. That is why today the "income tax" is not upon the money that's earned, but rather upon certain activities (duties, imposts & excises) that are tied to the receiving of money. That's an important difference.

Now my brain starts to boggle because this law website says that the 16th only relieved the pre-existing power to tax incomes from the constitutional requirement of apportionment.

But this power was not pre-existing!

Actually it was. Taxing incomes fell under the power to tax indirectly under the original Constitution. The founders just didn't use the term "income tax". They used "duties, imposts, excises".

Apportionment has little to do with it since we all earn money. Whether we beg on the street or work for a fortune 500 company the government considers any form of money coming into your hands INCOME and theirfor taxable.

They probably do, but that's wrong. The money that's received is not the subject of the tax. Nor is the act of receiving it, as money that's given to you freely is not taxable either. What's possibly taxable is the act of earning the money, the job that's done which results in the money being received. How much tax is due for such activities?? Answer: It's based upon the amount of money that is paid as compensation for the work. So the money is not the subject of the tax, it's instead the reference that's used to determine the amount of tax that's owed.

How is this not considered a direct tax?

As I explained above, hopefully relatively clearly.

Now whats worse is because of the lack of apportionment the common man is taxed more then the rich man or corporation. As we have seen with several companies that are able to pay ZERO income taxes and even in some cases are entitled to tax refunds. This is not because they are exempt , for no US citizen or entity is exempt. The corporations have merely been allowed to retain lawyers to provide "write offs and tax deductions" on such a massive scale that it equals fraud.

Corporations have the ability to write off as an expense everything they do to stay functioning. People, on the other hand are not. People cannot deduct the cost of the food they need to eat to stay alive. They cannot deduct all other expenses they suffer, such as car, clothing, entertainment, and so on which are all required to stay fit and sane in order to work. Corps, on the other hand, can deduct such things. They deduct everything, every expense they have, including dinners out & entertainment for everything slightly related to the company.

The Government currently seems to tax everyone whatever amount they want.

The USSC also ruled the power to tax was the power to destroy. And that therefore, the power to tax had to be limited. Rights, for example, cannot be taxed, such as taxing people for voting. It was ruled unconstitutional. And people have a right to live and work under the recognized inalienable right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". And that is where the "income tax", taxing people on their labor hits a legal brick wall.

How is all this unconstitutional stuff being held up as valid?

Same way all the other unconstitutional stuff is upheld as valid.

All this IRS BS seems more like a scam to me.

Agreed.

Why the hell aren't we using a flat tax system...

It's not needed. The USA became a world power with only minimal taxation as a far smaller % of GDP than today.

Dang this is a long post. Thanks for the mental exercise.

Pinguinite  posted on  2011-03-31   4:30:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

seems to me to be something used to promote trade among the states and discourage trade abroad.

As I recall, there was no desire whatsoever to tax international exports. That would have been very counterproductive. International trade improves economies. I think the feds were and are prohibited from taxing exports from the USA.

Pinguinite  posted on  2011-03-31   4:33:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The IRS does not set the tax rates. It was Congress that decided on a progressive rather than a flat tax.

The Supreme Court said that the 16th Amendment did not confer any new power .... because Congress always had the power to lay and collect taxes. The 16th Amendment removed impediments to a particular kind of tax, namely the income tax.

It was hotly disputed before the adoption of the 16th Amendment whether the income tax of the 19th century was direct, indirect, or something else (e.g., an excise) tax. Each point of view had the support of at least one court decision. The adoption of the 16th Amendment eliminated the need for deciding this issue.

Before the adoption of the income tax under the 16th Amendment, the federal govt's prime source of revenue was high tariffs on imports, which led to foreign countries adopting similarly high tariffs on American goods. With the adoption of the income tax, these tariffs were immediately lowered, so the 16th Amendment played a part in turning the US into an international trading powerhouse.

Shoonra  posted on  2011-03-31   5:26:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

How is all this unconstitutional stuff being held up

because the govt has more guns, & they can claim whatever jibberish they want, because their perv 'judges' will lock resisters up to rot & die in prison; even if the resister is 100% right

"if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 12:31—13:13
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Artisan  posted on  2011-03-31   6:44:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

deleted

The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

Eric Stratton  posted on  2011-03-31   8:35:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The guy with the badge and the gun is the law.

Sometimes they think they don't even need no stinkin' badges but there's a difference between legitimate law and the color of law and it's not firepower.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-03-31   13:51:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It was hotly disputed before the adoption of the 16th Amendment whether the income tax of the 19th century was direct, indirect, or something else (e.g., an excise) tax. Each point of view had the support of at least one court decision. The adoption of the 16th Amendment eliminated the need for deciding this issue.

The 16th Amendment is hotly disputed as unconstitutional on the grounds that it wasn't properly ratified.

Before the adoption of the income tax under the 16th Amendment, the federal govt's prime source of revenue was high tariffs on imports, which led to foreign countries adopting similarly high tariffs on American goods. With the adoption of the income tax, these tariffs were immediately lowered, so the 16th Amendment played a part in turning the US into an international trading powerhouse.

That doesn't justify the 16th Amendment. Tariffs, high or not, weren't invented by America. If an exporter to a country thinks that tariffs make it not worth their time and effort to ship and sell there, likely the country and its economy doesn't need that business and they shouldn't expect anyone there to be obligated to pay them for their unneeded surplus in the "interest of international trade". They should try shipping and selling somewhere else or, better yet, change what they're marketing to something that is more useful and quit pushing the overproduction of what isn't.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-03-31   14:21:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

With the adoption of the income tax, these tariffs were immediately lowered, so the 16th Amendment played a part in turning the US into an international trading powerhouse.

Superficially that argument can be made, but it is superficial. The effect of a direct income tax is to, as it grows beyond a minimal annoyance, punish production. One can see that best in the so-called "Progressive Income Tax" which punishes greater production with an increased rate of taxation. An "Income Tax" is not necessarily bad but as it is administered in this time and place it hobbles the economy and the survival of the average citizen. Because of political influence the true burdens of the tax have been shifted to the, dwindling true Middle Class, and the upper Working Class. As currently operated and administered it is unjust and counterproductive to the welfare of the nation and its people.

Taxation always should be to simply raise the money needed to support essential, and agreed upon, functions best delegated to a government. However, it has been perverted into a means of social control by punishing some behaviors and activities economically that cannot legally, under our system, otherwise be attached. Thus the tax system has become a Byzantine Maze which has lost its purpose of raising essential monies to a system of controls and oppression.

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-03-31   14:35:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The 16th Amendment is hotly disputed as unconstitutional on the grounds that it wasn't properly ratified.

Which has been proven to be the case EXCEPT the corrupt political structure will not allow it to be tested in court. Every time there has been a risk that such would occur the case has been dismissed - usually "with prejudice" at the request of the Persecution.

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-03-31   14:37:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Which has been proven to be the case EXCEPT the corrupt political structure will not allow it to be tested in court. Every time there has been a risk that such would occur the case has been dismissed - usually "with prejudice" at the request of the Persecution.

Now THAT is an interesting tid bit of information!

titorite  posted on  2011-03-31   14:54:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The other tactic has been to have the Judges rule the evidence as "inadmissable" on one pretext or another.

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-03-31   16:09:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

deleted

The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin

Eric Stratton  posted on  2011-03-31   16:39:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why the hell aren't we using a flat tax system...

Because the current tax code is employing millions of people. It's that simple.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2011-03-31   16:43:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Which has been proven to be the case EXCEPT the corrupt political structure will not allow it to be tested in court. Every time there has been a risk that such would occur the case has been dismissed - usually "with prejudice" at the request of the Persecution.

Now THAT is an interesting tid bit of information!

I concur and also with Pinguinite's summations at #8:

"such taxes were to be considered indirect and not direct taxes. The implication of that is that "income tax" could not be imposed upon property, but only upon activities, because a tax on property is a direct tax by definition. Ergo, it was no longer possible for the feds to levy an "income tax" on the value of real estate, personal property or even money itself as money is property as well. That is why today the "income tax" is not upon the money that's earned, but rather upon certain activities (duties, imposts & excises) that are tied to the receiving of money. That's an important difference."

"The USSC also ruled the power to tax was the power to destroy. And that therefore, the power to tax had to be limited. Rights, for example, cannot be taxed, such as taxing people for voting. It was ruled unconstitutional. And people have a right to live and work under the recognized inalienable right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". And that is where the "income tax", taxing people on their labor hits a legal brick wall."

We're being robbed by outlaws. If we form our own economy as a club of Constitutionalists where members work for themselves and each other on salary awarded as a gift of tradable club certificates as currency in return for a number of hours donated to build the endeavor and keep it growing, maybe we could avoid those robbers and eventually put them out of "business".

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-03-31   16:59:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

We're being robbed by outlaws. If we form our own economy as a club of Constitutionalists where members work for themselves and each other on salary awarded as a gift of tradable club certificates as currency in return for a number of hours donated to build the endeavor and keep it growing, maybe we could avoid those robbers and eventually put them out of "business".

I have heard of a business man... A contractor that sub contracted.

He paid his subs in gold and silver coin.

On his taxes he only reported the fair currency value. A dollar here a five dollar coin there.

To his workers he told them to trade it in for the fair value of their work.

Just saying if you wanted a system that is an option.

Perhaps you might want to make your on thread on it...

I am not always able to convey my ideas as perfectly as I would like but I know that this is one good god damn idea.

titorite  posted on  2011-04-01   0:47:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Wow, thanks for the support on that outline to circle the wagons, as they say in Westerns, pardner. :) Gold and silver are mighty scarce around these parts but it's a good option for those who can manage to acquire some. I have a number of threads around here somewhere that are on the subject of starting our own trade zone with alternative currencies. Might be several days before I can get around to it but will try to collect them into a thread and link it here.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-04-01   2:33:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your welcome.

It is an awesome way around the tax man as I understand it... Legally you would be paying your crew only a few dollars...Legally they can still cash in those legal valid tender for all debts public and private for the metal price of 37 per ounce or in the case of gold 1500 per ounce.

It is a great loop hole as I understand it.

titorite  posted on  2011-04-01   3:51:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is an awesome way around the tax man as I understand it... Legally you would be paying your crew only a few dollars...Legally they can still cash in those legal valid tender for all debts public and private for the metal price of 37 per ounce or in the case of gold 1500 per ounce.

It is a great loop hole as I understand it.

Sure sounds like it -- for those who have access to precious metals.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-04-01   4:00:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sure sounds like it -- for those who have access to precious metals.

Craigslist.

It is a great resource once one learns how to utilize it. They have an FAQ section.

You can buy metals at scrap price or less using the list.

Just saying just in case.

I didn't start useing criagslist until about 8 months ago.

It's kept money in my pocket since then.

titorite  posted on  2011-04-01   4:08:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Thanks for the tip. I've never used Craigslist or Ebay but maybe I will go scrapping at the list, if I can afford it. I posted a comment by someone from elsewhere recently that suggested everybody at Craigslist and Ebay refuse to accept fiat currencies. Sounded like a great idea to me. Here's a link to that. Scroll down to the bolded section for SN Zardoz.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-04-01   4:26:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

well craigslist is mostly free .. thats one of the appeals.. the forsale list on craigslist... free unless your a dealer of some kind..(Cars , furnature that sort of thing)

Ebay.. that costs money every time...

Hence why I cragslist instead of ebay these days...

titorite  posted on  2011-04-01   4:40:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

well craigslist is mostly free .. thats one of the appeals.. the forsale list on craigslist... free unless your a dealer of some kind..(Cars , furnature that sort of thing)

Coolness. :)

Ebay.. that costs money every time...

Thanks for saving me the time to find that out. I probably won't want to shop there.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-04-01   6:10:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I would suggest the context, in addressing problems under the Arts of Confederation where states were aggressively taxing goods crossing state borders, was a prohibition upon the states to prohibit them from taxing goods exported from other states.

I'd second this opinion.

Further, today taxes are imposed upon nearly every transaction conducted whereas previously taxes were imposed on privileges granted by the National government generally to "corporations" and called the Corporations Tax Act. Certain other (commercial) "activities" or events were taxed.

Corporations were allowed to mine and profit from the natural resources that actually belonged to the entire nation but taxed to the credit of everyone for financing the National Government. In this way everyone benefitted from the natural resources of the nation.

The creation of the Federal Reserve Bank changed all of this. Today, taxes are "transaction" fees charged at every instance where a fee can be collected or charged for using the currency or credit created by (and belonging to) the FED RESERVE. This situation has nothing at all to do with the "Constipation" because the FED is a private (commercial) institution operating under private (commercial) law.

The IRS is not a government agency. [See TITLE 31] The IRS is the FED RESERVE'S collection agent. I'd go a step further and say that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is a private commercial institution that was substituted without notice and has created an invisible dimension that relies upon private law and "contracts" rather than the Constipation. [The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the people's "RIGHT TO CONTRACT".]

The 1913 FED RESERVE ACT and accompanying Income Tax Act forced the bankruptcy of the "National (Constitutional) Government" around 1932 and FDR called in all of the GOLD as occurs when an entity is bankrupt or insolvent in order to pay creditors.

The Social(ist) Security insurance scheme made indentured servants of all participants including the STATES. Everyone accepting a benefit or the expectation of a benefit is bound to follow the policies associated with the provider of said benefit.

The Socialist Security System calls the funds taken from you a "CONTRIBUTION" - Contributions are voluntary ! (Income Taxes cannot be collected without providing a SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT (membership) NUMBER.)

Actually, almost nothing can be done in the FED RESERVE "ZONE" without a SSN - kind of brings one to consider that the beast made all both rich and poor receive a mark in order to buy or sell !

Almost every nation on Planet Earth has a similar system in place that's supported and operated by a private central bank.

The best thing about this thread is that SOMEONE saw enough contradiction to ask the QUESTION.

The truth is that we have been born into a system secretly changed before we got here. The teaching we received in school was more like propaganda to prevent us from recognizing the Banks had overthrown the government.

Most people (99.9%) do not comprehend the total usurpation of Constitutional Government that the FED RESERVE has accomplished through the CREATION OF PRIVATE CURRENCY (consider it a commodity/product or even a service) upon which there is a user fee called TAXES.

The term that should be used to describe this situation is a bloodless coup d' etat. You, are the enemy when you participate and condone this system.

End the FED'S ability to create the currency and credit in America and a return to Constitutional Government could occur. Until then there is a voluntary slave system in place and if you participate YOU'RE IN !

Everyone that got a stimulus check is a bought and paid for SLAVE.

"What is required is the abolition of the Federal Reserve and its insidious control over the economic life of America. Instead of tax bills, the bankers and their hirelings need to be served with court summons. The bankers should be charged with financial crimes against humanity, not tax avoidance. " - Kurt Nimmo -2011

noone222  posted on  2011-04-01   6:14:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm wondering how much income tax the Fed Res corporation owes us.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-04-01   6:41:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm wondering how much income tax the Fed Res corporation owes us.

1st, Congress owes us an explanation as to how the most blessed, most productive, most innovative, and most industrious nation ON EARTH is bankrupt AND the most indebted nation on earth.

To estimate the amount of money the FED owes us might be impossible to determine. If I were President I'd have the military surround every FED RES BANK, impound everything, arrest all officials until the damage can be assesed and then try them. I'd also go after all funds that have been transferred to other entities and countries even if it meant war.

The only other financial crime that compares to the thefts commited by the FED are the bank bailouts also attributable to the FED.

"What is required is the abolition of the Federal Reserve and its insidious control over the economic life of America. Instead of tax bills, the bankers and their hirelings need to be served with court summons. The bankers should be charged with financial crimes against humanity, not tax avoidance. " - Kurt Nimmo -2011

noone222  posted on  2011-04-01   6:55:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]