Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Income Tax: That Evil And Immoral Monster

March 4, 2013 by  

Income Tax: That Evil And Immoral Monster
PHOTOS.COM

Modern states all have paper currencies, a debt money system. All forms of government money represent debt. Modern governments would not and could not exist without both the power to create debt money and the income tax system.

The purpose of modern paper currencies (all forms, including computer symbols) is to transfer wealth to the government without payment by the government. The Federal government creates modern “money” out of nothing and “pays” it into circulation for something. In other words, the government gets money (any amount of it) and passes it into the “economy” for goods and services. This is the same as saying that the government actually pays for nothing. It transfers wealth and production to itself for free. It pays not one penny.

Why then the income tax? The purpose of the income tax is to conceal the fraud that massive wealth is being transferred to the government without payment. This cover-up conceals the fact that since the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln’s “greenbacks,” paper money is the means of financing all wars and all means and methods of suppressing human liberty.

The vast wealth of governments comes from the creation of money, not from income tax. Why would governments need our income tax if they can create any amount of “money”?

The answer is, of course, they don’t need our income tax, but they have to have the income tax system to cover their money creation fraud. In other words, the people must believe that their income taxes are necessary to support government. All must pay their “fair share.”

So important is the income tax system as a cover-up that it is regulated by threat, coercion, mass brainwashing and a whole system of witchcraft called the tax code. Remember, governments have to conceal their greatest secret, their money machine.

The income tax is not a Constitutional issue. It is a system of Phariseeism promoting general and widespread social depravity and spiritual immorality. It is indeed a spiritual deception.

That governments print money is no state secret. Then why do so few question the meaning of the income tax?

Little children are taught in school to pay income tax. All the propaganda says “pay your fair share.” It is a complete and absolute brainwashing and so big as to defy inquiry. The system is inbred.

Though the income tax is not necessary as a source of government funds in a paper economy, it is very important as a system of regulation. It promotes class warfare and privilege. The government and its politicians can discriminate or favor with the income tax system.

The American people are victims of a massive entrapment scheme that has conned them out of billions of dollars, as well as millions of hours of recordkeeping and loss of freedom. Federal judges and U.S. attorneys have all conspired against human rights by failing to inform the people of the nature of income tax entrapment.

This is a financial holocaust that is nothing less than organized crime against the people. What a masterpiece of cynicism and deceit. This conspiracy by the government against the American people is equal to and greater than any tyrant in the history of the world. Please do not forget the duplicity of your “elected representatives.” They have betrayed you.

One final word for those who mimic the “fair share” cliché as well as the misnomer that the Federal government needs your income taxes as government revenue: You do not understand monetary realism nor history of government finance.

For a true education on monetary realism you should read Money, The Greatest Hoax on Earth by the great monetary genius Merrill Jenkins Sr., if you can get your hands on a copy. It is no longer in print, but is sometimes available at Amazon.com. There is also our reproduction of Jenkins’ lectures in Money: The Single Greatest Lie in American History.

How can the Internal Revenue Service trap millions of Americans into an enforceable contract and yet claim that it is “voluntary”?

The point is that the income tax has to be understood before you sign a 1040. People sign 1040 income tax forms believing that they are “tax payers.” The government wants very much for you to think of yourself as a “taxpayer.” Has the propaganda succeeded?

One very important fact: The U.S. monetary system as well as the world monetary system is a credit debt system. In other words, all U.S. “money” is credit money, which is debt. Is it possible to pay a tax debt (assuming you owed one) with debt? Not according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Don E. Williams v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue.

Federal Reserve notes (paper dollars) do not promise anything and are not redeemable in anything. The system works on confidence.

Why then do we play this April game if it is not about paying income taxes?

Remember that all modern “money” is debt. You do not “pay” your debts. You swap debt money for debt.

So when you write a check to the IRS, you think that you are paying taxes simply because this process reduces the numbers in your bank account. Consequently, you have less “money” to spend.

The “payment of income taxes” is not payment of anything, nor is it intended to be. It is a process of regulation to continually reduce the amount of your “money” in circulation. Your check to the IRS reduces your “money” numbers so that you have less to “spend.” Without this regulation (paying income taxes to reduce the volume of money):

  1. Our “money” would become (be perceived as) worthless.
  1. The system would be revealed as the fraud that it is. People must believe that they are “taxpayers” and that their “fair share” goes to support government. They must never know that government creates its “money” for the purpose of transferring wealth to itself without payment.

The so-called income tax system is a regulatory process that is absolutely essential with a debt money system. One cannot exist without the other. Lincoln started the first income tax along with his Lincoln greenback paper money. Lincoln did not free the slaves (a pretense). He made slaves of us all to the money machine. All modern wars were made possible with Lincoln’s paper (debt) “money.”

But we do write symbols on checks “payable” to the IRS. What is happening?

What we are actually doing is conforming to the regulation process by reducing the numbers in our “bank account.” We are limiting our consumption. This process reduces our bidding against government for what we produced. If we were permitted to spend all of the “money” that we get, prices would go to the moon, the system would collapse as the worthless “money” became useless “money” and the fraud of modern money would be revealed, as John Maynard Keynes warned.

So to slow the collapse, every means possible must be found to restrict the supply of spendable money in the hands of the people. Income tax is the big one. But individual retirement accounts, 401(k)s, buying government debt (Treasury bills, T. notes or T. bonds) and even population control are directly related to the control or regulation of the volume of money.

Government gets services, production, materials and our labor with their created money for free. By all definitions, we are slaves to the money creators.

Why should Americans fear terrorism? The money creators created terrorism and all other wars and conflicts.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Income Tax: That Evil And Immoral Monster”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

    Wow, I’m confused Bob….have you magically become aware of…..

    http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

    and that there ARE NO common law and equity courts?

    Just finding out about 26 CFR 31.3402 (p)? Or UCC 1-207/308

    Or that there is no part of Title 26 that identifies you as a person required
    to pay such a tax?

    Is this information what you are offering in the book recommended or the
    reproduced Jenkins lectures?

    Or is this just another yearly rant, timed to coincide with the IRS propaganda?

    For sales purposes?

    Applied knowledge is power, the TRUTH will set you free.

    Are you free? Or will you be filing again this year? Or this quarter?As you
    have, all the others?

    “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past,
    controls the future.”

    There is a common misunderstanding that “No taxation without representation.”
    was a “cause” cited for the “revolution” against the Crown…….what was learned
    after this “victory”, was that the actual cry was “no taxation”, with or without
    representation………as the new government, quickly learned. Makes citing the
    Federalist Papers and “other things” regarding the so called history of this
    country rather naive.

    “The winners write history……temporarily!”

    Might be time to actually start learning the REAL HISTORY?

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Your meandering posts are boring an rarely make any sense. What is your point?

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        That as usual, you are a w.i.f.i., and your question doesn’t make any sense,
        and you never have a point………maybe Bob will help you understand, but
        then again, maybe he won’t.

    • craig

      So true. Take slavery in the history of the United States. Every educational system today, slavery is the only cause of the Civial War. Nothing is said about the economic or Consitutional reasons, such as States Rights. Nothing is said about how the Spanish were the ones to bring slaves to America. Nothing is said about how it was other African tribes that sold Africans to the spanish. Or how slavery is still present in Africa to day. The clear and truthful history is ignored by our liberal educational establishments.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        You left out the Arabs who were the biggest slave traders with the Europeans, not the Africans themselves. It is always a good idea to study history. Yes the Civil War was about States rights and the unfair taxation on agricultural products exported from the southern states to the world markets. Actually, had nothing to do with Slavery. Lincoln only executed the Emancipation Proclamation to help the North win the war and conquer the South.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Slaves were sold directly to the American’s, and the price was fixed
        in a distinctly American commodity……and it wasn’t gold.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION. At the time of the founding of the Republic in 1776, slavery existed literally everywhere on earth and had been an accepted aspect of human history from the very beginning of organized societies.

        Current thinking suggests that human beings took a crucial leap toward civilization about 10,000 years ago with the submission, training and domestication of important animal species (cows, sheep, swine, goats, chickens, horses and so forth) and, at the same time, began the “domestication,” bestialization and ownership of fellow human beings captured as prisoners in primitive wars.

        In ancient Greece, the great philosopher Aristotle described the ox as “the poor man’s slave” while Xenophon likened the teaching of slaves “to the training of wild animals.” Aristotle further opined that “it is clear that there are certain people who are free and certain who are slaves by nature, and it is both to their advantage, and just, for them to be slaves.” The Romans seized so many captives from Eastern Europe that the terms “Slav” and “slave” bore the same origins. All the great cultures of the ancient world, from Egypt to Babylonia, Athens to Rome, Persia to India to China, depended upon the brutal enslavement of the masses – often representing heavy majorities of the population.

        Contrary to the glamorization of aboriginal New World cultures, the Mayas, Aztecs and Incas counted among the most brutal slave-masters of them all — not only turning the members of other tribes into harshly abused beasts of burden but also using these conquered enemies to feed a limitless lust for human sacrifice….

        SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC – INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAY’S AMERICANS. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution put a formal end to the institution of slavery 89 years after the birth of the Republic; 142 years have passed since this welcome emancipation.

        Moreover, the importation of slaves came to an end in 1808 (as provided by the Constitution), a mere 32 years after independence, and slavery had been outlawed in most states decades before the Civil War.

        Even in the South, more than 80% of the white population never owned slaves.

        Given the fact that the majority of today’s non-black Americans descend from immigrants who arrived in this country after the War Between the States, only a tiny percentage of today’s white citizens – perhaps as few as 5% — bear any authentic sort of generational guilt for the exploitation of slave labor. Of course, a hundred years of Jim Crow laws, economic oppression and indefensible discrimination followed the theoretical emancipation of the slaves, but those harsh realities raise different issues from those connected to the long-ago history of bondage.

        THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT….

        IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES….

        more: http://prairiepundit.blogspot.ca/2007/09/slavery-in-america.html

      • Vigilant

        “You left out the Arabs who were the biggest slave traders with the Europeans, not the Africans themselves. Yes the Civil War was about States rights and the unfair taxation on agricultural products exported from the southern states to the world markets. Actually, had nothing to do with Slavery. Lincoln only executed the Emancipation Proclamation to help the North win the war and conquer the South.

        Yes, “it is always a good idea to study history.” You should try to do that sometime.

        “Yes the Civil War was about States rights and the unfair taxation on agricultural products exported from the southern states to the world markets.”

        You might start with that egregiously wrong statement above.

        (1) “States rights”: translation = the right to own and trade in slaves.
        (2) “unfair taxation on agricultural products exported from the southern states to the world markets.” Entirely wrong. There was NO tax on exports. Duties were levied on IMPORTS of finished goods. Hint: Northerners and Southerners paid exactly the same prices for imported goods.
        (3) BTW, the tariff bugaboo is as bogus as most of the other neoconfederate claims. After the 1820s, tariffs weren’t even on the radar of the South. And the Morrill Tariff wasn’t even passed until after the secession.

        Now, let’s inspect the other propaganda.

        “Actually, had nothing to do with Slavery.” Au contraire, my programmed neoconfederate. Slavery was the proximate cause of the war beyond doubt. The issue had been hot button since the 1820s (Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska, Lincoln Douglas Debates), and the argument was NEVER about outlawing slavery where it already existed. It was about the extension of slavery into the territories.

        Check out the Democrat platforms of 1856 and 1860; Look at the secession declarations; read the constitution of the CSA. If you can do that and not come away with the conclusion that slavery was the major cause of the war, then you need a reading comprehension course. But you, like so many neoconfederates, will not take the time to do that, but rather rely on the half-truths and nlies promulgated by Di Lorenzo and other pseudohistorians.

        Given all the assurances in the world by Lincoln that he did NOT intend to eradicate slavery in the South, they seceded anyway (some before he even took office). It was a simple power grab by the South: they saw their power diminishing in the Congress as new states were admitted and as the populations were increasing in the industrialized portion of the Union.

        And it was much more than a simple secession: they laid claim to western territories that hadn’t even been admitted as states. The CSA constitution clearly accommodated the extension of slavery into these territories.

        “Lincoln only executed the Emancipation Proclamation to help the North win the war and conquer the South.”

        Well, at least you got ONE thing right. But what you neoconfederates do is attempt to stop history at that point. Lincoln avidly and actively supported the 13th Amendment, something that was way beyond a mere war measure. And it is likely that Lincoln’s last speech, in which he advocated limited voting franchise for blacks who had served in the military, was the catalyst for Booth to assassinate him.

        But I suspect that you, like DaveH, are actually afraid to read the source documents surrounding the Civil War. You prefer the easy reading of charlatans like Di Lorenzo, whose lies give you comfort in your own predispositions and biases.

        • tony newbill

          Thanks for that Info Vigilent !!!! The truth serves free people Lies are used to Enslave Free people !!!!!

        • tony newbill

          Listen to Allan Savory and consider what he is talking about as a solution for all supply-side market solutions in terms of how we use the tools of our economic system .
          I think a economic system that was designed to be regulated with interest rates as the regulator of how Money is distributed and towards what kinds of areas that show the most inflation due to a shortage in supply , then the taxes be levied off those interest rate receipts would be a better Overall system to build a Overall sustainable supply side market and it would stop the way the current system Divides the society based off the Prosperity of a Individual .
          This is not a way to bring equality to all in a even distribution and at the same time keep supply adequately providing all equally !!!!!
          Take this analyzation for example of how a Tax system is not working for the betterment of a Society or its Economic structure and environmental sustainability for survival . http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=button__2013-03-04
          Instead of this kind of activity and scientific sense being used to curb environmental destruction of the Eco system and Ozone , and what we have instead today is Tax Money being corrupted with a ideology that’s heading our Environmental regulatory process in the exact Opposite Direction of effecting economic growth .
          Once you watch this video of a Very creditable scientist and compare what he says about OZONE management versus the EPA Policy today , it becomes Clear that The Current Administrations Environmental Policy needs reevaluation and using a New tax Code policy to effect this might be the way to create the changes needed .
          The Idea that Regressive Cost of Living is happening today due to a EPA regulatory system that is Not working right and its survival is based off a Federal Tax system that Directly attacks that Production of Equality rather than being funded from the Benefits of Equality being Sustained through a system that produces equality in the greater society with a tax code that generates its revenues from a Interest Rate driven investment policy targeting the demand side of a market that pays investments that invest into producing and expanding that area of supply that’s short so a restriction of use is NOT the only economic activity to stall inflation is what we need to debate , see this , http://www.balancedenergyfortexas.org/taxes-on-energy-are-regressive/

      • Vigilant

        WTS/JAY, you make some excellent points, but clarification is needed on a couple of them, i.e.:

        “Moreover, the importation of slaves came to an end in 1808 (as provided by the Constitution), a mere 32 years after independence, and slavery had been outlawed in most states decades before the Civil War.”

        Sadly, it didn’t come to an end then. Plank 9 of the Republican Party platform in 1860 says, “That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.”

        You say, “Given the fact that the majority of today’s non-black Americans descend from immigrants who arrived in this country after the War Between the States, only a tiny percentage of today’s white citizens – perhaps as few as 5% — bear any authentic sort of generational guilt for the exploitation of slave labor.”

        You are correct, but as far as “generational guilt” goes, I beg to differ. My direct ancestors were slave owners here in NY. I bear no guilt whatsoever for that fact, nor should I.

        The libs, as I posted elsewhere on this site recently, are of a mind that one can fault our country by overlaying today’s enlightened moral standards on a civilization that existed over 200 years ago. No person of common sense buys into this nonsense.

      • TML

        Vigilant says, “(1) “States rights”: translation = the right to own and trade in slaves.”

        Incorrect; State’s rights translation = the right of secession.

        Vigilant says, “Actually, had nothing to do with Slavery.” Au contraire, my programmed neoconfederate. Slavery was the proximate cause of the war beyond doubt. The issue had been hot button since the 1820s (Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska, Lincoln Douglas Debates), and the argument was NEVER about outlawing slavery where it already existed. It was about the extension of slavery into the territories.”

        I think the indifference between the two positions, in which one says that the war had nothing to do with slavery, rest squarely on the immediate causes of the war, as opposed to a “proximate” cause. As you point out, the arguments were never about abolishing slavery where it already existed and instead surrounded the expansion of slavery – in fact, the expansions of blacks, free or slave, into the west at all. I think it could more correctly be stated that the proximate cause of secession was slavery, and the immediate cause of the war was secession – State’s rights. It is said that the war itself was not about slavery because of the very specific facts that no one ever invaded the south to free slaves, and Lincoln himself said that his paramount objective was “saving the Union”, and was not about freeing slaves… thus, the war itself was not about slavery, and instead, or more precisely, about the right of a state to secede. And as stated in South Carolina’s declaration of Causes of Secession, they seceded specifically in the face of other states defaulting the compact – Northern States tried to nullify fugitive slave laws that were pursuant to the Constitution via Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3 (which was superseded by the 13th Amendment).

        “If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.” – Abraham Lincoln 1862

        And then of course, we have the fact that the four Border States certainly did not secede over slavery, as their secession was directly related to Lincoln’s decided invasion of the South which they deemed outside his power as President.

        When speaking in the context of the immediate causes of the war itself, it can correctly be said that is was about State’s rights, and the central governments tyranny over those rights by subjugating the southern states at the barrel of a gun, resulting in the deaths of 600k Americans, and not about slavery.

        As it is said, from a captive Confederate Soldier in Tennessee who owned no slaves, and cared not for the institution of slavery, “I am fighting because you are down here!”

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained:

        I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by (British Kings and Parliaments) as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence.

        . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule ["do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12]. 1

        Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:

        Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it…

        The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that (Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery). For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:

        He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade].

        Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

        . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.

        Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the “hell-hound of abolition” for his extensive efforts against that evil).

        Adams explained:

        The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves.

        While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery.

        Yet, despite the support for slavery in those States, the clear majority of the Founders opposed this evil. For instance, when some of the southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, responded:

        [E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.

        Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, “[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.”

        Notice a few additional examples of the strong anti-slavery sentiments held by great numbers of the Founders here: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=122

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        All that writing…….save yourself the trouble next time.

        But you might try reading “The Real History of the Civil War :A New Look
        at the Past”………and : “The Fall of the House of Dixie.”

        So the correct summary is: Slavery was the “cause” of the war, specifically
        the paranoia regarding it’s future…….which was brought to a head by
        the addition of “new states”, the abolitionist movement in the north, the
        refusal to enforce the fugitive slave law, and the FACT that the major slave
        holders of the Confederacy, chose to secede in response to this future.

        It was a foolish choice, ill timed, ill considered and unnecessary.

        Use of slave labor at the time of the writing of the Constitution was becoming
        unprofitable for everyone………..but this changed in 1893 with the invention
        of the cotton en ‘gin’ e………which essentially defined much of the “political
        history”…….with tension building until this “choice” was made.

        Greed and lack of vision is in our nature and it continues to this day, it
        is our history and everyone else’s……there is nothing “exceptional” about
        this country……a FACT which you may go to your graves and still be
        in denial of.

        To add to this TRUTH, there is another recent volume which could potentially
        alter your “perceptions”………Smuggler Nation

        BTW I was just kidding about the “potentially”…….

        “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past,
        controls the future.”

        You believe in a past that never was, rushing toward a future which you
        do not have………hopefully you will not suffer a prolonged death.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Vigilant: The libs, as I posted elsewhere on this site recently, are of a mind that one can fault our country by overlaying today’s enlightened moral standards on a civilization that existed over 200 years ago. No person of common sense buys into this nonsense.

        Agreed, as the issue of slavery is always raised with the intent to discredit the Founding Fathers. The historical fact is that, slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; rather, slavery had been established by (British Kings and Parliaments) as well as by the laws of the country ages before the Founding-Fathers…slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. Thomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the slave trade and, by implication, slavery, but he also blamed the presence of enslaved Africans in North America on avaricious British colonial policies.

        Yes, the libs, as you posted above, are of a mind that one can fault our country by overlaying today’s enlightened moral standards on a civilization that existed over 200 years ago. This is called “white-guilt”. White guilt is the individual or collective guilt often said to be felt by some white people for the racist treatment of people of color by whites both historically and presently. The term is generally used in a pejorative way (and in a partisan fashion within American political circles). “White guilt”, is a concept, an invention of liberals and others to induce white Americans to support the policies of affirmative action and redistribution of wealth. “White guilt” has been described as one of several psychosocial costs of racism for white individuals along with the ability to have empathic reactions towards racism, and fear of non-whites.

        Shelby Steele, a conservative black political writer, discussed the concept extensively in his 2006 book White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. Steele criticizes “white guilt” saying that it is nothing more than an alternative interpretation of the concept of “black power”:

        Whites (and American institutions) must acknowledge historical racism to show themselves redeemed by it, but once they acknowledge it, they lose moral authority over everything having to do with race, equality, social justice, poverty and so on. The authority they lose transfers to the ‘victims’ of historical racism and becomes their great power in society. This is why “white guilt” is quite literally the same thing as Black power.

        George F. Will, a conservative American political columnist, wrote: “[White guilt is] a form of self-congratulation, where whites initiate “compassionate policies” toward people of color, to showcase their innocence to racism…

        I would highly reccomend the book: White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era -by Shelby Steele

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        1. White guilt:

        a belief, often subconscious, among white liberals that being white is, in and of itself, a great transgression against the rest of the world for which one must spend their life making atonement. It is often exemplified by embracing the cultures and philosophies of various other ethnic groups while neglecting one’s own roots. Although Randy came from a family of middle-class W.A.S.P.s from the suburbs, his white guilt later spurred him to become a Rastafarian.

        2. White guilt

        The result of a wide spread racist propaganda campaign launched against European-Americans by various racist groups, individuals, Government public schools and was encouraged by many media outlets in the late 1990s.

        The propaganda campaign goals were to diminish any sense of a European-American’s pride in oneself and their community. To encourage European-Americans to feel that the only way for them to feel is self-sacrificing for non-whites and to ignore their own interests. And to tarnish history with over exaggerations, wild claims all while pressuring publishers of books to underplay great accomplishments of history.

        Most European-Americans see the propaganda for what it is, however to this day many still hold onto white guilt because it was the way they were taught in school as children and don’t realize it is the result of a propaganda campaign.

        At the height of the propaganda campaign was the Wichita Massacre, where several black men brutally beaten and murdered many whites in the ice cold feilds of Wichita, the media grossly hid the story from public view despite organizations such as the European-American Issues Forum bringing the case to their attention. Also came in to play was the notion to give greater punishment to whites who commit racial based crimes and ignore racial based crimes against whites.

        A few examples of the propaganda campaign against white people of European ancestry:

        “White folks was in caves while we was building empires… W…
        more…

        3. White Guilt

        See: Barack Obama

        I’m a successful white liberal. I’m voting for Barack Obama because he lessens my white guilt.

        4. White guilt

        What misguided liberal white people feel when blacks blame the issues in their community (or that their in jail) on something that happened with a small area in the southern United States more than 200 years ago.

        Despite giving them affirmative action and welfare, Melanie still felt a lot of white guilt because black people are under-acheivers in today’s society.

        5. White guilt

        A resource that blacks, jews, and mexicans fight over. With out white guilt blacks would starve or be deported to Africa. Without white guilt jews would be run out of the country, and Israel would cease to exist. Without white guilt mexicans would be forced back to mexico. The biggest fear blacks, jews and mexicans have is whitey saying I don’t do guilt trips, and white guilt ending.

        6. White guilt

        Those suffering from White Guilt are primarily the (Liberal) Democrats, many of whom voted for Obama because Obama is Black simply to show they were not racist, even though voting for a Black Man simply because he is Black is exactly what a racist does: he sees the color of a man’s skin rather than judging him based on his character or his deeds.

        Republicans are quite content to see a man based on his ideas rather than skin tone. In fact, Herman Cain was a rising star in the Republican Party because of his likability and conservative ideals and not because he happens to be Black.

        Michael Pfleger: Liberal white guilt at its finest

      • Vigilant

        GALT, who doesn’t practice what he preaches re reading history, says. “Use of slave labor at the time of the writing of the Constitution was becoming unprofitable for everyone………..but this changed in 1893 with the invention
        of the cotton en ‘gin’ e………which essentially defined much of the “political history”…….with tension building until this “choice” was made.”

        That would be quite a feat if Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1893 because he died in 1725. He invented it in 1793.

        That’s two strikes against GALT today.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Wow (never, ever) Vigilant spotted a “typo”……you must be so proud.

        And yes it would be a feat, since there was no slavery in 1893 either.

        So, nothing relevant?…….no style criticism or spelling errors?

    • Charlie

      GALT,,,
      Well,,, with all your Howard Freeman data, and you being smarter than all on this site,,, why don’t you Create a Common Law Court Jury of “Posse” people or “True” Christian Men ??? A Court can be Created under The Holy Bible,,,AND / OR under The Declaration of Independence… “”Jurisdiction”” ,,,jurisdiction means Authority of Law, and secondary meaning is the land area that “The” Law is used on / in… After a Court Creation … You will have proved you are as smart as you THINK you are… Meanwhile……
      Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

      Charlie Freedom

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Charlie,

        I ain’t paying……I don’t CARE what you do…….I don’t care what you think…..
        I don’t care what you believe……….

        “All life has the unalienable right to continue to attempt to survive.”

        Welcome to this universe and your reality….time to GROW UP!

      • Charlie

        GALT,,,.
        Not a very direct answer for your whining about the courts… What good paying jobs have you worked at since 40 years ago??? What is your Jurisdiction now???

      • Charlie

        GALT,,,
        No , problem , just thought We’d give you a chance to prove your “brainwashing” … BTW The Confederate Flag is still flying in most Confederates states and is known around the world… The Confederate Flag has more “Christian” markings than any other American Flag… Meanwhile………………………..
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

        Charlie Freedom

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Poor Charlie…….how is “I ain’t paying!”….whining?

        But let me thank you for paying “your fair share and MINE.”

        Because as I said…….I AIN”T PAYING!!!!!!

        Don’t cry……….learn to follow directions.

  • Vicki

    The OP writes:
    “This is the same as saying that the government actually pays for nothing.”

    I think you meant to say “…pays nothing for….(insert wealth ref here)”

  • FreedomFighter

    End the FED.

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

  • hipshotpercusion

    “Free your mind, and your ass will follow.” George Clinton
    Repeal the illegal 16th and 17th amendments and get rid of the Federal Reserve. Its tenure of deceit expires in December of this year.

  • Not a Slave

    Federal Reserve Printing debt and IRS collecting debt is pure evil to enslave & control mankind… Corrupt ploiticians,Judges & Attorneys are the EVIL DOERS.. HANG THEM ALL

  • Ken10

    Who pays for government, with gold or paper, if we have no taxes?

  • Warrior

    “We don’t have a spending problem. We have a ‘paying for’ problem.” – Nancy Pelosi

  • Uknowho

    Bob Livingston,

    The Gov and the services that the Gov provides has to be paid for by taxes… Its not EVIL or GOOD… It just IS. I know you do not like this country and feel that you should be free of those nasty taxes that pays for all the things in this society that people like you take for granted and feel entitled to.

    If you hate taxes so much, please refrain from driving on our roads, flying in airplanes because the air grid is paid for by your taxes. Leave the lower 48 and move to Alaska and burn your credit cards and money and live off the land… Leave the grid all together. You won’t be missed.

    Maybe you should take a class and lean how a modern industrial society works? There is no society that works like your fanttasyworld believes it should. Why? Because in a country of millions, it doesn’t work.

    I know you are playing to the town kooks who buy your BS but you do the country a diasservice… Not that you care about this country anyways.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Uknowho (aka Dave67),

      You write: “The Gov and the services that the Gov provides has to be paid for by taxes.” That is not true. See http://personalliberty.com/2010/12/20/income-taxes-are-not-for-income-to-the-federal-government/
      http://personalliberty.com/2011/09/19/how-much-do-you-think-i-deserve-to-keep/
      http://personalliberty.com/2012/02/06/the-wrong-conversation-about-taxes/

      You write: “I know you do not like this country…” You know nothing.

      You write: “like you take for granted and feel entitled to.” You are confused as to who it is that seeks entitlements. I seek merely to be left alone.

      You write: “If you hate taxes so much, please refrain from driving on our roads, flying in airplanes because the air grid is paid for by your taxes.” If my earnings are going to be confiscated under the guise of paying for roads and the “air grid,” why should I not use them?

      You write: “leave the grid all together.” How do you know I haven’t?

      You write: “I know you are playing to the town kooks who buy your BS but you do the country a diasservice…(sic)” No. Your progressive claptrap and those who think like you are what does the country a disservice.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Uknowho

        Guess what Bob? You make a living in this society? You benefit from this society? You don’t get left alone. You have this thing called “responsibility” to this society. You stand on the shoulders of those who actually put country first and sacrificed to make this country great. But you would not know anything about that would you? You feel entitled… Just being you means the rules of society don’t apply to you. You have no clue how societies function and how a country stays strong.

        If you have left the grid yet and you post here and keep this site going, then you are leaching off someone. Isn’t that one of the things you rail against?

        You want to be left aone? Please seek a new land that is devoid of laws and taxes… Somalia would be a perfect choice for you.

        You and your ultra conservative minions are doing your best to destroy this country. The rest of us will not let you do it. Most people here do not expect a Gov handout, nor want the Gov to solve every problem. We do expect an equal shake and it is big money in the political process that is the true enemy, not the income tax. We understand that solving the problems of this country surround spending, taxes to pay for the stuff we buy, regulations to prevent market manipulators from gaming the system and trade regs to put us on an equal footing with our trading partners. We can have vaild discussions on all those issues to but say income tax is evil to sell whatever book you want to sell is nonsense.

        Hugs and Kisses,

        The heavily moderated Dave67 and the non-moderated Unknowho until now.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Uknowho (aka Dave67),

          You write: “then you are leaching off someone.” Please tell me who that might be. All expenses for starting this site were born by my company. The content is offered for free. No one pays to come here, and you are free to come and go at your leisure.

          You write: “You and your ultra conservative minions are doing your best to destroy this country.” No. I am trying to save the country from progressives/statists/Marxists.

          You write: “The heavily moderated Dave67 and the non-moderated Unknowho until now.” You earned your status.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Uknowho

        Really Bob?

        I “earned” my status? Why? because I disagree with you and your other contributors?

        Thanks big brother… I am glad you make that call. I don’t threaten anyone, I provide my opinions and links to back those opinions up (just like you)… I use many of the same names your favorites call the people you disagree with and they do not get moderated.

        Good to see your hypocrisy in clear terms.

        Pathetic Bob… I guess your ideas can’t stand the light of day so you need to moderate those who call your BS what it is and ideas cannot be discussed in real time.

        FYI, Progressives ended slavery, got us the 40 hour work week, safe working conditions, women the right to vote and minorities the right to vote. I will take the progressive record ANY day over the conservative record.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Uknowho (aka Dave67),

          You write: “I “earned” my status? Why? because I disagree with you and your other contributors?” No. As I informed you at the time, it was because of repeated violations of the comment policy. You became unable to respond to other commenters without vile ad hominems.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Uknowho

        Hey Bob,

        Is this an attack? maybe I’m confused…

        Capitalist at Birth says:
        March 4, 2013 at 10:58 am
        “You’ve got that right tony. nc is a parasite, pure and simple.”

        Is this an example of that high level of discourse you and your friends engage in? Can you send me a copy of the rules as the pertain to liberals and progressives like myself and how it is different conservatives like your firends?

        I guess I should watch my step around here. Bob you are starting to look like Hitler… Oh wait… “Hitler” comments are only allowed by your rightist friends when talking about Obama. I forgot.

        My apologies.

        Dave67.

        • tony newbill

          Hey What about all those Liberals that attacked Mitt Romney calling him Mutt and demonizing his life ????? Oh thats different I forgot ….

      • Vicki

        Uknowho (AKA Dave67) says:
        “Guess what Bob? You make a living in this society? You benefit from this society? You don’t get left alone. You have this thing called “responsibility” to this society.”

        Bob’s, yours, my responsibility to this society is to protect each other (and others) from those who would use force or fraud to get their way. Many of us also have a duty to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The pen like object, being mightier then the sword like object, is our first (and best) choice.

        IF you have a higher power to pray too, you would be wise to pray that we ALL stay with the pen. There is evidence that the current administration is thinking seriously about swords.

        • tony newbill

          Vicki is right , YKNOWHO please tell me why Obama is stock piling ammo at the rate that will last the average civilian security force use in the USA 42 years ???

        • tony newbill

          UKNOWHO not YKNOWHO sorry .

      • Uknowho

        Tony,

        Like all conspiracy theories, there is an underlying, reasonable source for the story and then, like playing whisper down the lane, the initial story gets parts of it omitted or changed.

        http://www.businessinsider.com/dhs-fletc-ammunition-purchases-750-million-200-million-40-caliber-rounds-2013-1

        Per the story Dept of Homeland Security ordered 750 million rounds of 40 S&W, a standard caliber for much, if not all of Federal law enforcement. Among the armed agencies under DHS are the Coast Guard, Secret Service, Customs, Border Patrol, ICE, TSA and Federal Protective Service. Some of the other agencies under the DHS umbrella probably have armed personal as well.*

        DHS is also responsible for Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and uses the ammo for training there and some of the agencies that train new agents at FLETC include:
        U.S. Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), State Department
        Federal Bureau of Prisons
        Federal Offices of Inspectors General
        Federal Reserve Police
        Maritime Law Enforcement Academy
        NASA Office of Inspector General
        National Park Ranger
        Smithsonian Police
        U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
        United States Border Patrol#Training
        United States Capitol Police
        United States Federal Protective Service
        United States Park Police
        United States Pentagon Police
        United States Marshals Service

        • tony newbill

          ok So they have made a case for their Purchases .
          But what about all those agents and agencies that could be performing the duties you said the SS agents did making aressts ?? It can be debated here that this is where cuts in the Agents could be made because there are alot of FBI , ICE , Border , US Marshels that could do this duty that SS needs instead of each having their own agents . I bet there are alot of these Agents who are sitting around doing nothing in the same areas while others are doing their duty at the time .

      • Uknowho

        Tony and Vicki,

        AP debunked this rabid piece of nonsense as well.

        “It didn’t take long for the Internet to start buzzing with conspiracy theories after the Social Security Administration posted a notice that it was purchasing 174,000 hollow-point bullets.

        Why is the agency that provides benefits to retirees, disabled workers, widows and children stockpiling ammunition? Whom are they going to use it on?

        “It’s not outlandish to suggest that the Social Security Administration is purchasing the bullets as part of preparations for civil unrest,” the website Infowars.com said.

        Another website, The Daily Caller, said the bullets must be for use against American citizens, “since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.”

        The clamor became such a distraction for the agency that it dedicated a website to explaining the purchase. The explanation, it turns out, isn’t as tantalizing as an arms buildup to defend against unruly senior citizens.

        The bullets are for Social Security’s office of inspector general, which has about 295 agents who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes, said Jonathan L. Lasher, the agency’s assistant IG for external relations.

        The agents carry guns and make arrests – 589 last year, Lasher said. They execute search warrants and respond to threats against Social Security offices, employees and customers.

        Agents carry .357 caliber pistols, Lasher said. The bullets, which add up to about 590 per agent, are for the upcoming fiscal year. Most will be expended on the firing range.”

        So is each fighter jet and tank purchased to use against citizen’s too?

      • Vicki

        Uknowho (AKA Dave67) says:
        “Tony and Vicki,

        AP debunked this rabid piece of nonsense as well.”

        Not sure what argument to ridicule Dave is talking about. His own or something he believes to be nonsense and is unable to articulate why.

        The only connection I can find with what I said is swords. So how does AP plan to debunk the observation that the DHS is buying tanks (labeled POLICE right on them)?
        http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/obama-dhs-purchases-2700-light-armored-tanks-to-go-with-their-1-6-billion-bullet-stockpile/

        And can ap (or even Dave67) debunk the self evident truth that

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        • tony newbill

          Thanks for the Info Vicki I guess this DETAIL is not subject to scrutiny by the Kool-aid drinking support groups that only want to Keep the Message War going to take back the Congress in 2014 so Obama can really finish up with a Bang !!!!

      • Dave67

        Yep Tony, They did make the case but if you do a search on “Obama arming for civil war” you get the standard right wing websites putting out the worst conpiracy theory out there and many here buy the propaganda hook line and sinker…

        So now you know how these agents spend their days? Do tell.

        Bob does not have the market cornered on any sort of truth. Since Obama has not put this country into any wars, did not crash the economy, he is not the anti-Christ. He is just another corporatist who along with the GOP and Democrats in Congress have succeeded in keeping the status quo in place.

        Its not taxes that are at issue, its the well paying jobs that we have sold out due to bad trade deals, its the lack of proper regulation and enforcement that allows the banksters, the home building hucksters and wall street crooks to bleed this country dry.

        Bob is focusing on the wrong thing… I am sure because its tax season and he has something he is trying to make money off of is why.

        • tony newbill

          Dave you are right both side make up the Immoral Monster Bob is talking about !!!!!

    • Capitalist at Birth

      If you do not agree, can you at least make valid arguments, rather than venting your frustrations, to no end?

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Roads and Highways are funded through “use” taxes disguised as gasoline taxes, both State and Federal. A true free market person, such as myself, would purport that they could be built and managed more efficiently and cost effective through private enterprise than by the Government. I believe that Airports and the FAA are financed for the most part in a similar manner. So you cannot refuse any one the right to travel until you purchase those rights from us.

      • avenger

        Right on … also, isn’t it confusing to note that the Feds tax gasoline as a ‘road tax’ to keep up with highways and bridges. Then Obama comes along and says we need more ‘stimulus’ to repair our failing infrastructure and ‘create’ shovel-ready jobs. Only a ‘progressive’ like Dave67 can see the ‘logic’ in such a rationale.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        Here is an exerpt from a NewsMax article about the “crumbling infrastructure”.

        Insider Report from Newsmax.com

        ——————————————————————————–

        1. Study Finds U.S. Infrastructure Not ‘Crumbling’

        President Obama has proposed spending $40 billion on “urgent upgrades” to the nation’s infrastructure, saying that “crumbling” roads, bridges, airports and rail lines are hindering U.S. economic growth.

        But countering the doom and gloom about America’s deteriorating infrastructure is some surprising good news: A study by the Reason Foundation reveals that U.S. roads and bridges have improved significantly over a 20-year period.

        “There are still plenty of problems to fix, but our roads and bridges aren’t crumbling,” said David Hartgen, lead author of the report and emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

        “The overall condition of the state-controlled road system is getting better and you can actually make the case that it has never been in better shape. The key going forward is to target spending where it will do the most good.”

      • ibcamn

        are you talking the right to travel?and you mean a private person(who owns company or corperate people)?ive traveled on privatly owned hyways(toll roads)most are in no way shape or form nice or maintained!your right to travel is on open roads,i believe our taxes pay that,and to maintain them.some of the privatly owned ones are for profit only,low or non excistant care taking or maintanence!hate em!but some are great,smooth and actually have great scenery!really beautiful on the visual sense!

        So is that what your talking about?because you think you would want to vette the new owner to check them out to see if it’s just greed that drives this deal to own a hyway or actual care for safety and to follow state regulations and laws!because if i’m in my vessel and i’m moving from one place to another,i want to do it freely!!(and isn’t a toll extortion?)oh well,i got to look all that up…just thought i’d ask!

    • Uknowho

      tony newbill says:
      March 4, 2013 at 10:24 am

      It seems that this Tax and Spend Liberal….

      Capitalist at Birth says:
      March 4, 2013 at 8:06 am
      Your meandering posts are boring an rarely make any sense.

      This is just from this thread alone… The people like JeffH and others who call people like myself socailists, communists, marxists recieve no such moderation.

      Double standard much Bob?

      But you are above it all Bob aren’t you? You just provide the gasoline one moment and the match in another and let others put the two together. You sound like all the GOPers out there that get others to do your dirry work. I give what I get from people here. I get moderated while others get a free pass because they agree with you.

      I get it. The Freedom Fighers, the Alondras, they all get a free ride from you even though they give out plenty of vitrol… You like them.

      The religious folk who use the bible to excuse their bigotry, thats ok too… I see.

      But one must be politically correct in the context of your site, right?

      Hugs,

      Dave67

      • tony newbill

        Uknowho says
        The people like JeffH and others who call people like myself socailists, communists, marxists recieve no such moderation .

        Hey I think these words are not bigotry , but terms of our debating what we do or do not want to see our nation turn into . that simulate past and present nations systems and the events that these system and policies ended in catastrophic human failures and atrocities and we are trying to keep from going down these roads and repeating history again Uknowho so get with the program so we don’t repeat history again !!!!

        Are YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO those Technocrats that are calling for the same kinds of Policies that led to massive destruction of humanity in the last century ????

      • Uknowho

        Tony,

        I do pay attention and what Obama is doing is no such thing. Bob has one set of rules for thwe people who agree with him and another for those who do not. Bottom line.

        He actually is doing what he accuses the “ALL POWERFUL OBAMA” of being guilty of.. which is having one rule for his friends and another for people who disagree.

        Its comical… He accuses me of being worthy of moderation due to my attacks on poor defenseless conservatives here but then he lets his agents make all kinds of unsubstantiated attacks others. You just have to be on the “right” side of the political fence.

    • TML

      Uknowho says “If you hate taxes so much, please refrain from driving on our roads, flying in airplanes because the air grid is paid for by your taxes.”… … “We do expect an equal shake and it is big money in the political process that is the true enemy, not the income tax. We understand that solving the problems of this country surround spending, taxes to pay for the stuff we buy, regulations to prevent market manipulators from gaming the system and trade regs to put us on an equal footing with our trading partners. We can have vaild discussions on all those issues to but say income tax is evil to sell whatever book you want to sell is nonsense.”

      If you are going to zealously defend an income tax you better do your research. The American Revolution started by “real” Americans who objected to taxation without representation, so how can you imply that anyone who hates taxes is un-American?
      100% of all personal income taxes extorted by the IRS goes to the Federal Reserve Banking System, and does not fund a single function of the government. Without the central bank siphoning off the rest of the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a federal income tax.

      • tony newbill

        Heres some use of tax money that says we need greater oversight into any administrations use of tax money . Just think what and how the tax money can get funneled through these allocations into private pockets ??? http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/us-army-wastes-taxpayers-money-on-bizarre-sex-training/

      • Uknowho

        TML,

        You know as well as I do that the American Revolution was started by people who had no say in the gov that was taxing them (The British Royalty). Today, we (the exception being Washington DC) do have a say in the laws that govern the taxes we pay.

        The trouble comes when in the past 40 years, when Germany, Japan rise economically from the ashes of WW2 (we are not the only game in town anymore), then Reagan comes into power and the start of globalization starts to really kick in along deregulation and a reduction in taxes while spending still goes up.

        Today we have the added pressure of the baby boomer generation retiring from the workforce so we don’t have their income coming in and they use more HC due to their age and the new generation’s numbers do not offset the BB’s. All of this means we are spending alot of money while the trend since Reagan has been to reduce taxes. The result is we have the large deficit we have.

        If Bob and his ilk really care about the debt we have, cut the spending and raise the taxes to pay down the debt. Instead, we get Bob whining that his taxes are oppresive… (sure glad he did not live in the 1950′s when the tax rates were much higher)

        I am all for lower taxes, as long as the spending comes down appropriately and those cuts do not harm the social fabric of this nation. I think Bob agrees with me that at this time I think its safe to bring the troops home from Germany and Japan because Hitler and Tojo are still dead I think and we can reduce the amount spent on defense by half. Thats 350B a year right there. Lets also get rid of oil and farm subsidies. Thats a good start.

        We also need to fix the trade agreements that we got ourselves into that shipped good paying and revenue generating jobs out of the country and putting in the proper regulations in place to make sure that the market manipulators do not have it as easy to game the system.

        Lets not forget one thing… Wealthy corp interests make the tax laws, the trade laws and regulatory laws under the current system of unlimited money in the politcal system. The key to everything is to get large wealthy interest money out of the political arena.

        Bob is merely whining about one part of a larger issue.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Uknowho,

          You write: “(sure glad he did not live in the 1950′s when the tax rates were much higher)” You have not paid attention, have you?

          You write: “If Bob and his ilk really care about the debt we have, cut the spending and raise the taxes to pay down the debt.” I advocated for Ron Paul’s plan to cut $1 trillion from the Federal budget in his first year. Federal revenues in 2012 exceeded those of 1999. Why is there a need to raise taxes? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012 Especially when the Fed can just print more money.

          You write: “I think Bob agrees with me that at this time I think its safe to bring the troops home from Germany and Japan because Hitler and Tojo are still dead I think and we can reduce the amount spent on defense by half.” Yes, and South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mali, Algeria, Jordan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and wherever else they are fighting or poised to fight wars of aggression.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Uknowho

        Bob,

        Does that number of dollars taken in account for growth in population, inflation or the growth of the economy? According to the CBO, revenues are16.9 percent of GDP this year. That doesn’t meet the hight of 17.9% after WW2. When the tax hikes on the top wage earners kicks in then it will go further than the post WW2 high. We need to bring all the troops home as you alluded to, stop raiding SS for political whimsy and understand we will be paying more for entitlements due to the changing makeup of the population.

        I don’t want higher taxes any more than you do but we have to meet the social obligations for those who can’t afford a K street lobbyist or to take a congressperson to dinner or atten a $1000 a plate dinner to gain political access. Before SS, Medicare, the poverty rate among the elderly was much higher. The purpose of those “entitlements” is to have a safety-net so people do not fall through the cracks. That is what decent societies due in the modern age.

        We are in the mess we are because too many in this country want a free lunch and I am not talking about those at the bottom who have little or no economic power in this country, I am referring to wealthy corp interests who have bought the policies of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Obama. The wealth-gap is huge because the likes of our recent leadership as President and in Congress needs money for their re-election campaigns rather than understanding when there is a huge gap between the haves and the have nots leads to revolution.

        Ron Paul is absolutely correct on military spending and on the phony drug war but he is out to lunch on the global economy when dealing with countries with different currencies and styles of gov and economic systems like your mises.org is.

        Instead of calling income tax, “evil”, use your power to engage the issues of spending, taxation, trade, regulations all at once. Its all connected.

        Your articles need to deal in the post industrialized and globalized world… In many cases you and mises.org fails to do that.

      • Uknowho

        Tony,

        Do you believe that there is a human population “issue”? Do you believe that food and energy be sustained for a world at almost 7 Billion people and rising? If you don’t, why do you believe that? What information sources can you bring to the table to show food sources are infinate as are fossil fuels?

        In my opinion, China or India is nothing to aspire to. We as a race can either use contraception to control our population growth or nature will control in for us with famine, disease and war because resources are too scarce. Do you want to live in the coastal reagion of China where the population is so dense that it puts a strain on resources for basic services? Heck no. Do you like the slums of India? I will put you down as no there. India is a product of religious nonosense that tells people to not use birth control, now they have some of the worst living conditions on earth.

        Its our choice…

        In not something bad to use contraception to help stop pregnacies before they start. Since we have no predators that hunt us except ourselves, we have to take responsibility for controling our own population. Like I said, we can either do it or it will be done for us by nature and it won’t be pretty when the later happens.

        • tony newbill

          The problem I have is the Power of this population control decision making being consolidated into the hands of a few elite Government official who can become Politically motivated to stay in Power and use this kind of power to influence and persuade , isolate their political advisories to do so .
          Human Oppression has always been the tactic in this as power over the Economic Independence of a society was consolidated into a Collective system as supply shrinks whether by accident or on purpose as a tool to suppress resistance to the Tactic to stay in Power .
          In the Bible it talks about Limitations to live by in the 7 deadly sins . so yes as far as what I believe God intended for the scriptures to be a Living guide , I believe that was to create a sustainability for human life on Finite earth but as a Personal belief not a Forced one by a Oppressive Government that did not do their job of Keeping people able to be self educated in the faith of a Holistic Sense of what I believe God intended , but instead these Ideologues in the top Echelons of Power Lost their faith and in turn decided that in order to stay in Power a reeducation of the general public about Gods Views was needed for them to be able to stay in power and today we have these same people controlling everything ad all messages and even the Finite resources with the Mammon they put in our Pockets with the same Oppressive tactics as has been used for ever to control the minds of the people there Financial and resource oppression .
          Case in point see this, $253.5B—Obama Borrowed Nearly 6x as Much in February as Sequester Cuts All Year , http://cnsnews.com/news/article/2535b-obama-borrowed-nearly-6x-much-february-sequester-cuts-all-year

          , as they were losing the faith of the electorate while they were trying to SHIFT to their Idea of a World wide Collective over these Past 5 years of Capitalist Collapse that they staged for this Transformation , Now and for the past 2 1/2 years they reversed the financial tactics to rally back support for the Group in change , so my question is …..
          Why didn’t the Bush administration JUST do what the Obama administration is doing to keep the Banks and Financial system and stock market from collapsing in 2008 and save all those who have Lost their homes and investments ????
          If I were a Home owner who was caught in the financial Bubble in 2008-9 that lost and was forced out it looks like they were put in that Positions for no reason if all the Government needed to do was run this Debt Investment strategy as the FIX for the STOCK MARKET !!!!!

        • tony newbill

          And Uknowho if we end up with ZERO Growth in the economy as these Population control people want then there will be NO TAXES , so what will the Resource Distribution System be called then ????

    • Zenphamy

      Jeez, why do you bother to read comments on sites such as this? Maybe spending some of that time studying actual and empirical information rather than just taking in the crap in order to spit it back out in the guise of knowledge would be of benefit. At least to the rest of us that are truly interested in discussing these issues in the interest of expanding our base of knowledge.

      • Zenphamy

        Sorry guys, my last post was intended for Uknowwho. somehow jumped to general.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    The average American must work 230 days, or 63% of the year, to pay for the full cost of government. It essentially means that 63% of your labor output belongs not to you and the loved ones you care for, but to Washington.

    Here’s how it breaks down:

    Federal spending: The average American worker has to labor for 104 days just to pay for federal spending, which consumes 28.6% of national income.

    That compares to 90 days in 2008, a 15.5% increase. The chief increase in costs were the bailouts of the financial crisis. The bailouts cost the average American 14 days of worth of work to pay for them.

    State and local spending: This is also costing us all, big time. In 2010 the average American had to work 52 days just to pay for state and local government expenditures.

    That’s up from 42.5 days in 1999. A whopping 22.3% increase in costs.

    The regulatory costs of the federal government: Another shocker ― the average American worker must labor 48 days just to cover the costs of federal regulations.

    And then there’s …Another 26 days you must toil to pay the costs of state and local regulations.

    63 out of every 100 hours you work is to pay for government?

    You get to keep only 37% of your labor?

    It’s high time we got rid of big government. That ratio needs to be inverted, at a minimum. We should keep at least 75% of our labor.

    Government should cost far less, way less. Less than one-quarter of our labor output, in my opinion.

    http://www.uncommonwisdomdaily.com/the-insane-cost-of-government-12432

  • Ray

    Does anyone know about the republicforthe unitedstates? These people are real and Godly and believe it or not are a lawful government. Not perfect but a good start and if would lay down some petty differences and realize that united we stand and come together we could change this mess in a big hurry because if we stay divided we will fall.

  • Howard C

    The people of the US were put up as collateral to the Federal Reserve when the US Government filed for bankruptsy in 1933. Which is the real reason for the establishment of the Social Security Administration. The Government (Democrooks and Republiars) believes that we are their property. If a SSN was just for retirement, then why do you one to start elementary school?? Why is it that when you die your relatives have to pay a ridiculous inheritance tax just for them to be able to the property that was yours?? YOU ARE THEIR PROPERTY AS FAR AS THEY ARE CONCERNED.

    • Howard C

      *need one to start elementary school.

    • Jim B

      Milk cows, and serfs. Voting has become a joke, after being milked for so long (dummied down by the media and political tripe), or taken over by zombie serfdom, nothing is working anymore, and when the right nerve is reached all hell will break loose.

  • Jim B

    Legal tender may ars… it’s paper people and at the end of the day, perhaps tomorrow, maybe the next, you can wipe your ars with it. And the ones holding the most, the US Government, are the biggest ars wipes of them all. My apologies to the believers, I’m just having some fun!

  • Ted

    A system of taxation is a necessary function of a government. Common sense tells us that a society has to contribute in some way for benefit of all. The current taxation system is designed to control the population and benefit politicians only. Changes made to income tax rates and regulations only serve to appease the masses to satisfy their need to show them something is being done. Only complete reform of how funding government functions will save this country. The Fair Tax is a far better way to accomplish this, however, I have concluded this will never become a reality because both parties know this will reduce their power to control. The Tea Party understands this, however they are dismissed by the complicite media and the ruling class. Demographics, poor education and reduced work ethic in our society also contribute to the eventual collapse of our economy.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    The Government is essentially a predator, a destroyer of value, and the source of class conflict. In every society the government is the greatest of consumers and does not create wealth. Nor does it stimulate others to create wealth, a myth that is very popular today.

    “[T]hose who persuade themselves that consumptions can be a cause of direct riches, maintain that the levies made by government, on the fortunes of individuals, powerfully stimulate industry; that its expenses are very useful, by augmenting consumption; that they animate circulation; and that all this is very favourable to the public prosperity. To see clearly the vice of these sophisms, we must always follow the same track, and commence by well establishing the facts.”

    “The expenditure [government] makes does not return into its hands with an increase of value. It does not support itself on the profits it makes. I conclude, then, that its consumption is very real and definitive; that nothing remains from the labour which it pays; and that the riches which it employs, and which were existing, are consumed and destroyed when it has availed itself of them. . . .” -Destutt de Tracy

    Untold wealth is lost every day as the state government systematically abolishes property rights. Regulations, environmental restrictions, zoning laws, sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes combine to reduce the value of people’s land, homes, and businesses. Place enough taxes and restrictions on any asset and it becomes a liability, costing the owner more than it is worth. Move that same asset to a place where property rights are protected and the asset instantly regains its value. So, capital flees the state. Money, resources, and people are packing up and heading to those states that still respect property rights.

    Under current rules, government officials regularly deny owners the right to use their property as they wish or they confiscate their property outright. Under such rules, the hardware becomes worth less and with time, worthless. Change the rules, restore property rights, and the value is restored; the hardware begins generating wealth once more. Continue the same confiscatory rules, however, and eventually the damage will become apparent even from the air.

    The capital stock that still retains the potential to create great wealth and lift millions out of poverty will decay, as it has in New York City where rent controls have laid waste to entire city blocks; in Buffalo, where government malware has been running and ruining the hardware for decades, and in the city of Detroit where high taxes, poor services, and little protection from criminals have driven residents away in the tens of thousands. The buildings in the pictures linked to this article were not destroyed by war. They were not destroyed by earthquakes or fire. They were destroyed by powerful and voracious governments. Look at them: http://www.google.com/search?q=abandoned+buildings+detroit+photography&hl=en&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS415US416&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=e07mT5fDMuOC2AXj-_zZCQ&ved=0CGYQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=944 and mourn the ruined lives and wasted resources that each building, each dwelling, represents. Mourn as California, that once golden state, stumbles toward the same wretched, unnecessary end.

  • Melvin2344

    This explanation is ALMOST totally correct : What needs to be added to this presentation is the FACT that the Income Tax is a Penalty to be paid by the PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE so they NEVER become as FINANCIALLY INFLUENTIAL as those who control the Money System ( aka, Federal Reserve ELITES ! ). Those who have studied the SHORT HISTORY of the FEDERAL RESERVE know that the US Government set it up to pull ALL METAL ASSETS away from US Money Standards, and make the People little more than SLAVES to this New World Order of money made from RAGS , instead of Gold ( Roosevelt ~ 1930′s ), or Silver ( Kennedy ~ 1960′s ), or Copper ( Carter ~ 1980′s ): At this time our US Money is little more that a concoction similar to RE-PROCESSED DISPOSABLE BABY DIAPERS ! Maybe all those little packages lying along America’s roads & sidewalks will soon be the NEW AMERICAN CURRENCY ! ! ENJOY !
    ///MRB

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY
  • jopa

    Anyone out there that feels they are a slave to the money machine as mentioned above.Send all your money to me immediately and be free ,free at last.There must be a way we can divert all of your income into my accounts to help you avoid paying taxes.ACT NOW money is the ROOT of all evil, take the evil out of your life and let me deal with it.I wish to take a moment and thank you all in advance.Thank You.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      Something a fourth generation, “welfare-recipient” would say…what’s the matter, jopa; your monthly government-stipend ain’t cutting it?

    • Jim B

      I’ll send you a roll of toilet paper instead, it’s much more efficient for wiping your ars with!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY
  • spark300c

    fiat money require taxes to give it value. so usa dollar is back by tax. so if government requires no tax the money will become worthless in few hours.

  • Robert L.

    Bod said:
    “That governments print money is no state secret.”

    Well not really the way it goes:

    Keep in mind that the “Federal Reserve” is NOT a government entity, but a PRIVATE cartel.
    The government does NOT print money, this private cartel does, calling themselves “the Federal Reserve”, or “Central Bank” in some instances, that alone is the biggest hoax.

    They print the money that the government wants or needs, and LOAN it to the government with interest, and THAT interest is what WE all pay via the IRS, about 60% of the money IRS collects, goes right into the pockets of the cartels that loaned the money in the first place.
    It is an illusion to believe that IRS taxes us for the purpose of the government stability.
    There’s no such thing, this is a debt based monetary system, and the reason why the government always wants more taxes from us is because they have to keep the debt growing all the time in order for this “debt based” system to work, so they create more new debts so more money gets printed, so more interest/IRS is owed to the private cartel/Federal Reserve etc,,,,,,
    The cycle keeps going and going and going,,,,,

    As long as the printing of the money remains in the hands of private cartels, there is no stopping this cycle.

    Solution:
    The money should be created by the treasury, and being backed by real assets, that are tangible and can be reverted to the bearer at all time.
    This would of course reduced the amount of money in circulation, and regain value.

    It will also abolish the need of IRS, and the corruption of the private central banks/federal reserve.

  • tony newbill

    Should we use a Tax system that feeds off of a Interest rate system that targets markets based off supply demand data ?

    It would seem that a Interest Rate system that was More Diverse in targeting markets growth and regulating the growth with Interest rates would be More effective in sustaining equity in a balanced supply-side market than just fixing tax rates , which today are only dividing the society based of individual prosperity without even considering the rate in which a market is adequately supplied leading to market volatility .

  • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

    As many of you might recall, you could take your silver cerificates to a bank and turn them in for silver money. Before that you could turn in gold certificates for gold coins. The point is certificates were merely a convenient way to use as a medium of exchange. At any time you could exchange them for the commodity they represented. That was legitimate money. As the genius of inventors and industry took hold, the buying power of money increased. Today, if you had twenty $20.00 gold pieces, you could buy a $34,000.00 car with them. Notice what’s missing? Government is not involved with this but to police money to be sure it was not counterfeit. In 1864 the Secret Service was created yo do just that. It was a branch of the Treasury department. The government, like us, borrowed money from private banks but unlike us it borrowed money beyond it’s means to repay, “legally”.This is where collusion enters the game. Banks and the government turned a blind eye to banks counterfeiting money. Congress has a power of attorney if you will to borrow money and the power to ask the Treasury Dept. to print paper “money”. Goverment was and is counterfeiting money but the government calls their counterfeit money inflation, a nicer word than counterfeit. In 29 people ran to banks to turn in their paper receipts for the commodity they represented. Obviously the lie that existed between banks and the government would be exposed. So, the man that was rejected at the gates of hell, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) made a decree that the people couln’t have what was theirs. The people would have to use paper from then on. In1972 Nixon did the same thing with silver ceritificates. Because the people didn’t call the thieves and robbers on their treachery FDR got away with it, and governments getting away with it ever since. Where an ounce of gold was $20.00, today it’s $1,500.00. Those extra dollars are representative of the counterfeit paper money that’s being printed. The $20.00 number was the exchange price of gold at the time. The exchange value of gold and the paper certificates had to coincide to some extent. The gold in coins sometimes exceeded the value and price of gold . There was a plus or minus factor as there had to be but not to the extent that it is now, You didn’t have to use coins, You could coin your own coins or barter. There’s nothing unconstitutional about that, although government “Acts” supposedly replace the constitution. In a pigs eye they do.

  • http://google David

    To combat the Obama Socialist Revelution, I’ll still take my gold.

  • nc

    Mr. Livingston, the internal combustion engine and the telegraph ended the simple world as you would have it! People , BY NECESSITY, began thinking outside of the LIMITATIONS oF “all my money in my money purse” box” Tanks and bombers became things we NEEDED before we had the money they would cost! Debt became what we needed since I don’t think throwing a hand full of gold coins would have driven the German UBoats off the high seas!
    It’s “Pi$$ers and moaners” like your kind who should have LIVED in the Warsaw Ghettos OF 1944 just to see how bad you DON’T have it under our present system.

    False Flags and boogermen are comic book stuff and should not be the basis of foreign or domestic policy!

    • tony newbill

      It seems that this Tax and Spend Liberal is on the receiving end of what Bob has described as a sin against the Liberty of the Individual’s ability to be self providing and Independently Proud to be that way rather than sucking off of a make Believe God that only controls the Monetary system for political gamesmanship … something that was a 2008 campaign promise that was to be Reversed , saying that equality was the Goal .
      Today we MORE Billionaires than Ever in the Global economy so this looks Like Obama’s Plans have Failed all he has Done is cause More Independent Prosperity to be taken away and further consolidated into the hands of fewer !!!!

      Oh was that Obamas Plan ??????

      • Capitalist at Birth

        You’ve got that right tony. nc is a parasite, pure and simple.

    • Howard C

      Just keep believing the BS that the Comunists at CNN, MSNBC, and FOX keep feeding you.

  • Dick Grace

    You don’t mean our leaders are taking advantage of us? It should come as no shock that the democrats and republicans are co conspirators in stealing us blind. The sad truth is the public is figuring the Ponzi scheme out and judgment day is fast approaching.

    • http://www.facebook.com/gary.baker.790 Gary Baker

      I wish you were right dick about the public becoming aware. But all the blogs and posts I ever see are two divided peoples. the politicians have done a very good job of dividing americans to conquer.

  • Bob666

    All must pay their “fair share.”

    So important is the income tax system as a cover-up that it is regulated by threat, coercion, mass brainwashing and a whole system of witchcraft called the tax code. Remember, governments have to conceal their greatest secret, their money machine.

    The problem to deal with in not the tax, but fair share.

    • tony newbill

      I think a economic system that was designed to be regulated with interest rates as the regulator of how Money is distributed and towards what kinds of areas that show the most inflation due to a shortage in supply , then the taxes be levied off those interest rate receipts would be a better Overall system to build a Overall sustainable supply side market and it would stop the way the current system Divides the society based off the Prosperity of a Individual .

      This is not a way to bring equality to all in a even distribution and at the same time keep supply adequately providing all equally !!!!!

      Obama is now stuck in the Middle of this failing system as his only line of defense is to divide the electorate with Jealous rage of each others prosperity and lack of as the political weapon of Choice and this should be what is banned from our democratic process !!!!

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      INFLATION IS FAIR! Print all you want……..print what you need……no taxation required.

  • Vigilant

    “The so-called income tax system is a regulatory process that is absolutely essential with a debt money system. One cannot exist without the other. Lincoln started the first income tax along with his Lincoln greenback paper money. Lincoln did not free the slaves (a pretense). He made slaves of us all to the money machine. All modern wars were made possible with Lincoln’s paper (debt) ‘money.’”

    Please recheck your history book. “Lincoln’s paper“ money was most assuredly NOT “debt” money. On the contrary, Lincoln’s greenbacks, which are not AT ALL similar to today’s greenbacks, incurred not one penny of debt for the USG. He created a Constitutional monetary system to allow the Treasury to issue paper money, thereby avoiding the usurious 24-36% that banks would have charged the USG to borrow money.

    It was the Congress, over Lincoln’s protests, that buckled to the banking interests in passing the currency acts of July, 1862 and beyond. Lincoln’s greenbacks never lost their value against gold.

    “The bankers had Lincoln’s government over a barrel…The North needed money to fund a war, and the bankers were willing to lend it only under circumstances that amounted to extortion, involving staggering interest rates of 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln saw that this would bankrupt the North and asked a trusted colleague to research the matter and find a solution. In what may be the best piece of advice ever given to a sitting President, Colonel Dick Taylor of Illinois reported back that the Union had the power under the Constitution to solve its financing problem by printing its money as a sovereign government.” (http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/lincoln_obama.php)

    His greenbacks, always intended to be only temporary in nature, were created to AVOID the very debt you speak of. He was very much against the system we have today, where private banksters lend money to the USG at interest.

    Lincoln HATED the banksters. He said “”I have two great enemies, the southern army in front of me and the financial institutions, in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is the greatest enemy….. I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war.”

    “The Greenbacks aided the Union not only in winning the war but in funding a period of unprecedented economic expansion. Lincoln’s government created the greatest industrial giant the world had yet seen. The steel industry was launched, a continental railroad system was created, a new era of farm machinery and cheap tools was promoted, free higher education was established, government support was provided to all branches of science, the Bureau of Mines was organized, and labor productivity was increased by 50 to 75 percent. The Greenback was not the only currency used to fund these achievements; but they could not have been accomplished without it, and they could not have been accomplished on money borrowed at the usurious rates the bankers were attempting to extort from the North.” (Ibid.)

    • Capitalist at Birth

      You are correct. Lincoln was a Totalitarian Socialist that believed in big and bigger government. Not a good thing. It was a “freer”, (that has eroded ever since), capitalism that created all of those great things you mentioned not the government.

      • Vigilant

        Nice to see you are in bed with DaveH on that incorrect squint on history (and I always thought you were opponents). You are wrong. And NOTHING I said leads to your erroneous conclusion.

        Read it again: “The Greenback was not the only currency used to fund these achievements; but they could not have been accomplished without it, and they could not have been accomplished on money borrowed at the usurious rates the bankers were attempting to extort from the North.”

        “Totalitarian Socialist?” The government of Lincoln IN NO WAY impeded capitalism with his fiscal and monetary policies. On the contrary, if you read the quotes with comprehension, you would see that he ENCOURAGED capitalism.

        You are obviously one of those fanatical Lincoln haters who can not admit that he did a tremendously good thing in restoring the power of the USG to issue currency. And you, in the face of what I’ve just posted, jump to a conclusion that is in no way warranted by my words.

        Now, do you want to condemn Kennedy as well for taking on the banksters in the same fashion Lincoln did?

      • Capiralist at Birth

        Dave H. and I are actually allies. We do not agree on everything, perhaps, but we do agree on most. Abraham Lincoln was a “Crony Capitalist” and started our slide towards Fascism. If you cannot understand that, I am sorry for you.

        • tony newbill

          Why didn’t the Bush administration JUST do what the Obama administration is doing to keep the Banks and Financial system and stock market from collapsing in 2008 and save all those who have Lost their homes and investments ????

          If I were a Home owner who was caught in the financial Bubble in 2008-9 that lost and was forced out it looks like they were put in that Positions for no reason if all the Government needed to do was run this Debt Investment strategy as the FIX for the STOCK MARKET !!!!!

          Would the stock market be as high if this were not going on ???

          $253.5B—Obama Borrowed Nearly 6x as Much in February as
          Sequester Cuts All Year

          http://cnsnews.com/news/article/2535b-obama-borrowed-nearly-6x-much-february-sequester-cuts-all-year

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      With the civil war came the cost of war. America and Russia were the only countries of note that did not have a central bank sytem. The Bank of England, a Rothschid bank, was anxious to lend Lincoln money. Lincoln knew what that would cost America and refused foreign money, Instead he opted for the green back system so we could finance the norths part of the war. The south took loans from England and look at what the souths money turned out to be worth. Once the green back system paid back the money it owed to the people for the cost of it was abolished. The North’s part of the war had been financed internally. Aside from “loaning” the south money, England stated that a state of war between the north and England would commence. Lincoln was good friends with Russia’s Czar Nicholas and Russia had the world’s most powerful navy. Nicholas sent his navy to aid Lincoln and they were waiting for the English when the arrived. The Slimeys turned tail back to England.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Vigilant,

      You write: ” “Lincoln’s paper“ money was most assuredly NOT “debt” money. On the contrary, Lincoln’s greenbacks, which are not AT ALL similar to today’s greenbacks, incurred not one penny of debt for the USG.”

      “The Civil War led to an enormous ballooning of federal expenditures, which skyrocketed from $66 million in 1861 to $1.30 billion four years later. To pay for these swollen expenditures, the Treasury initially attempted, in the fall of 1861, to float a massive $150 million bond issue, to be purchased by the nation’s leading banks. However, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, a former Jacksonian, tried to require the banks to pay for the loan in specie that they did not have. This massive pressure on their specie, as well as an increased public demand for specie due to a well-deserved lack of confidence in the banks, brought about a general suspension of specie payments a few months later, at the end of December1861. This suspension was followed swiftly by the Treasury itself, which suspended specie payments on its Treasury notes. The U.S. government quickly took advantage of being on an inconvertible fiat standard. In the Legal Tender Act of February 1862, Congress authorized the printing of $150 million in new “United States notes” (soon to be known as “greenbacks”) to pay for the growing war deficits. The greenbacks were made legal tender for all debts, public and private, except that the Treasury continued its legal obligation of paying the interest on its outstanding public debt in specie. The greenbacks were also made convertible at par into U.S. bonds, which remained a generally unused option for the public, and was repealed a year later. In creating greenbacks in February, Congress resolved that this would be the first and last emergency issue. But printing money is a heady wine, and a second $150 million issue was authorized in July, and still a third $150 million in early 1863. Greenbacks outstanding reached a peak in 1864 of $415.1 million. Greenbacks began to depreciate in terms of specie almost as soon as they were issued… As soon as greenbacks depreciated to less than 97¢ in gold, fractional silver coins became undervalued and so were exported to be exchanged for gold. By July 1862, in consequence, no coin higher than the copper-nickel penny remained in circulation. The U.S. government then leaped in to fill the gap with small tickets, first issuing postage stamps for the purpose, then bits of unglued paper, and finally, after the spring of 1863, fractional paper notes. A total of $28 million in postage currency and fractional notes had been issued by the middle of 1864. Even the nickel-copper pennies began to disappear from circulation, as greenbacks depreciated, and the nickel-copper coins began to move toward being undervalued. The expectation and finally the reality of undervaluation drove the coins into hoards and then into exports. Postage and fractional did not help matters, because their lowest denominations were 5¢ and 3¢, respectively. The penny shortage was finally alleviated when a debased and lighter-weight penny was issued in the spring of 1864, consisting of bronze instead of nickel and copper.” A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II, Murray Rothbard. pp. 123-125.

      “The Republican administration argued that its issue of greenbacks was required by stern wartime “necessity.” The spuriousness of this argument is seen by the fact that greenbacks were virtually not issued after the middle of 1863. There were three alternatives to the issuance of legal tender fiat money. (1) The government could have issued paper money but not made it legal tender; it would have depreciated even more rapidly. At any rate, they would have had quasi–legal tender status by being receivable in federal dues and taxes. (2) It could have increased taxes to pay for the war expenditures. (3) It could have issued bonds and other securities and sold the debt to banks and non-bank institutions. In fact, the government employed both the latter alternatives, and after 1863 stopped issuing greenbacks and relied on them exclusively, especially a rise in the public debt. The accumulated deficit piled up during the war was $2.614 billion, of which the printing of greenbacks only financed $431.7 million. Of the federal deficits during the war, greenbacks financed 22.8 percent in fiscal 1862, 48.5 percent in 1863, 6.3 percent in 1864, and none in 1865. This is particularly striking if we consider that the peak deficit came in 1865, totaling $963.8 million. All the rest was financed by increased debt. taxes also increased greatly, revenues rising from $52million in 1862 to $337 million in 1865. tax revenues as a percentage of the budget rose from a miniscule 10.7 percent in fiscal 1862 to over 26 percent in 1864 and 1865. It is clear, then, that the argument of the “necessity” in the printing of greenbacks was specious, and indeed the greenback advocates conceded that it was perfectly possible to issue public debt, provided that the administration was willing to see the prices of its bonds rise and its interest payments rise considerably. At least for most of the war, they were not willing to take their chances in the competitive bond market.” [Ibid. pp. 131-132]

      Best wishes,
      Bob

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Vigilant,

      I forgot to post the link. It is here: http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        But Bob……

        Debt The first 5000 years,,…..is so much MORE educational, and money doesn’t even show up until 800 BCE?

        Then there is:

        Economics Unmasked
        Econned
        Extreme Money
        Power, Inc.
        Lords of Finance
        The Great Divergence

        Thanks for the von mises link….David H would be proud.

        BTW Those are just the economics books….,( technically )

        Wanna try some of the history books?

        “The winners write history……temporarily!!!!!”

  • Vigilant

    “The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots and the bankers went anew to grab the riches. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it to systematically corrupt modern civilization.” – Otto von Bismarck, German Chancellor (1815-1898), after Lincoln assassination.”

    So staunchly opposed was Lincoln to banker control of the currency that he should be LAUDED, not denigrated by the foes of the Federal Reserve.

    As an historical note, some have speculated that Kennedy was assassinated because he attempted to circumvent the private Federal Reserve banking cartel by authorizing the issuance of $2.00 US Notes by the Treasury. Kennedy, in effect, was doing PRECISELY what Lincoln did.

    • Charlie

      Check out how easy General Grant came in under “Martial Law Rule”,,,did the “International Bankers” back Grant ??? Did Grant bring back The Constitution after the war between the states??? Show the paper work…

  • ibcamn

    Wasn’t the gov’t suppost to spend a crap load of that stimulouse money on inferstructure?!because i know alot of bridges that should be fixed,repaired or replaced and yet nothing(if very little)was ever done!roads,yeah right,roads are bad,you got copanies that say they fixxed this stretch of hyway,just to have it crumble a year later!(con artists)because gov’t wants to save and spend as little as possible,it ends up costing more(to re-fix) and then putting repairs of other pearts of roads, behind schedual,and things just fall apart right away and NEVER get caught up!

    But you think if gov’t uses these supposed repairs on the top of the list,as a priority,you think they should actually do it for a change!all the money wasted in the last three years,so much could have been done,fixed,replaced and just plain done instead of lied about!kids could have benifitted from it as well as whole families and counties within each state!but nooo!

    This income tax revanue never goes were it’s suppose to..a great void in common sense!

    • Jana

      Around Austin, Texas any roads that are being “fixed” are all TOLL ROADS. From what I understand these companies that are doing the “fixing” to make them Toll Roads are Companies from other Countries. I hear the same thing is going on in the Dallas/Fort Worth area too.
      There was never any oversight committee on how that money was spent, it was just one person from what I remember. A lot of it went overseas to help them out.
      We are still borrowing money yet still a lot of our money is going overseas to help out other countries.
      What is wrong with this picture???

      • Old Henry

        Doncha just love ole W’s [comment has been edited] Rick Perry??

        Don’t mess with Texas! LOL!

      • Jana

        I actually ran two thoughts together there and it didn’t come out right.

        This part,_________ There was never any oversight committee on how that money was spent, it was just one person from what I remember. A lot of it went overseas to help them out.
        We are still borrowing money yet still a lot of our money is going overseas to help out other countries.
        What is wrong with this picture???__________ is talking about the stimulus money that our Government borrowed and promptly lent out again. Also, there was no oversight in the spending of this money.

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      The government looks at America as their own garden with a batch of worker bees, us, tending it. The government extended their garden to include the world with the dollar becoming the world’s soverign currency. The rules Bob outlined now apply to the world. Communism has a comintern, world congress. Some countries are members of the conintern and the rest have to be brought into the fold. Communism and America’s Federal Reserve work well together don’t they?

      • Old Henry

        TCA:

        I like that garden analogy. That is good.

  • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

    26 CFR

    § 31.3402(p)-1

    Voluntary withholding agreements.

    (a) In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of § 31.3401(a)-3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder. See § 31.3405(c)-1, Q&A-3 concerning agreements to have more than 20-percent Federal income tax withheld from eligible rollover distributions within the meaning of section 402.

    (b) Form and duration of agreement. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (withholding exemption certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding.

    (ii) In the case of an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) with his employer, if the employee performs services (in addition to those to be the subject of the agreement) the remuneration for which is subject to mandatory income tax withholding by such employer, or if the employee wishes to specify that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the employee shall furnish the employer with a request for withholding which shall be signed by the employee, and shall contain—

    (a) The name, address, and social security number of the employee making the request,

    (b) The name and address of the employer,

    (c) A statement that the employee desires withholding of Federal income tax, and applicable, of qualified State individual income tax (see paragraph (d)(3)(i) of § 301.6361-1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedures and Administration)), and

    (d) If the employee desires that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the date of termination of the agreement.

    If accepted by the employer as provided in subdivision (iii) of this subparagraph, the request shall be attached to, and constitute part of, the employee’s Form W-4. An employee who furnishes his employer a request for withholding under this subdivision shall also furnish such employer with Form W-4 if such employee does not already have a Form W-4 in effect with such employer.

    (iii) No request for withholding under section 3402(p) shall be effective as an agreement between an employer and an employee until the employer accepts the request by commencing to withhold from the amounts with respect to which the request was made.

    (2) An agreement under section 3402 (p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other. Unless the employer and employee agree to an earlier termination date, the notice shall be effective with respect to the first payment of an amount in respect of which the agreement is in effect which is made on or after the first “status determination date” (January 1, May 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year) that occurs at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is furnished. If the employee executes a new Form W-4, the request upon which an agreement under section 3402 (p) is based shall be attached to, and constitute a part of, such new Form W-4.

    (86 Stat. 944, 26 U.S.C. 6364 ; 68A Stat. 917, 26 U.S.C. 7805 )
    [T.D. 7096, 36 FR 5216, Mar. 18, 1971, as amended by T.D. 7577, 43 FR 59359, Dec. 20, 1978; T.D. 8619, 60 FR 49215, Sept. 22, 1995]

    How many times will this have to be posted before YOU LEARN TO READ!!!!

    or understand that, Bob, nor anyone else here has ever posted this?

    How many times?

    • Vigilant

      “How many times will this have to be posted before YOU LEARN TO READ!!!!

      or understand that, Bob, nor anyone else here has ever posted this?

      How many times?”

      GALT, it’s your choice, as it is with others like CA Horton, to post whatever irrelevant material you want.

      Voluntary vs. mandatory withholding of federal and state tax from paychecks has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. And it’s about as important an item as a fart in a windstorm.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Vigilant says:
        March 5, 2013 at 8:28 am
        “How many times will this have to be posted before YOU LEARN TO READ!!!!

        or understand that, Bob, nor anyone else here has ever posted this?

        How many times?”

        Well, ( never, ever ) Vigilant, always nice to see you actually quoting…..I’m curious……have you been pronuoced “cured” regarding your status as a “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”? Let’s see, shall we?

        GALT, it’s your choice, as it is with others like CA Horton, to post whatever irrelevant material you want.

        You begin with two logical fallacies in your first sentence and you do not seem to be disputing the single FACT contained in the portion you took the trouble to quote. Your w.i.f.i. status is still intact.

        Voluntary vs. mandatory withholding of federal and state tax from paychecks has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

        Really?

        “Income Tax: That Evil And Immoral Monster”

        The title of this article would seem to suggest otherwise? Now, I would agree that this RANT, wanders all over the place in typical the “mushroom” rabble rousing feeding frenzy…….common to PLD, even to being self contradictory……..

        “The income tax is not a Constitutional issue. It is a system of Phariseeism promoting general and widespread social depravity and spiritual immorality. It is indeed a spiritual deception.”

        But, unless this is some sort of PRAYER for DIVINE INTERVENTION, it does seem to be citing a PROBLEM, that involves government, the income tax, money, fraud, debt, the LAW, elected representatives, history, The Supreme Court, religion, morality, et cetera?

        Of course, knowing what any particular “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate” might see when reading all of this, is by definition:IMPOSSIBLE.

        So, (never, ever) Vigilant…….what is the SUBJECT of this ARTICLE? What is the POINT of THIS ARTICLE? Is it citing a problem, if so, what is the problem? Is it suggesting a solution? If so, what is the solution?

        And it’s about as important an item as a fart in a windstorm.

        Yes, this article and your comment to me, is precisely that, because you have been given the SOLUTION many times to the problem of the constitution and the income tax……..

        You and Bob have also been provided with material to finally grasp what money and debt actually is……..

        Debt: The First 5000 Years. ( any several other volumes where the proper understanding is available. )

        I would say that I eagerly await any cogent, intelligent and relevant response here……..from either of you, but that is also not POSSIBLE………..

        PS for Charlie…….you have been dismissed.

    • Charlie

      GALT,,,
      The Law Axiom ” first in time, first in Law ” , how does that apply to the “CFR’s “,,, NOT ONLY ,learn to read,,,learn to UNDERSTAND what you read……………………………..

  • Victor

    great piece! the only thing i’d add is that it is not the government doing this but the Federal Reserve…a private entity controled in its majority by foreigners…and through it took over (hijacked) the governmet of this country as it has done in many other countries in the world…everytime the “government” needs money it has to borrow it from The Federal Reserve…very clever perhaps…or a fraud… Courage is the only thing that can change things for the better

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Why is IT a GREAT piece?

      Are you NOT FILING?

      IS BOB LIVINGSTON NOT FILING?

      Have you been educated about how NOT TO FILE??????

      CLUELESS???????????

      • Charlie

        GALT,,,
        Hey ,here’s your chance to tell us all about Howard Freeman and his method of beating the IRS…But first you better tell us about “””Contract Law”””… Where is it in The Bible?
        Then tell us the difference between God’s Laws and Man’s laws……………………………..

      • Charlie

        GALT,,,
        BTW,, I have NOT filed since 1989,,,never been in “”Their”””Court,,,never been under arrest by any law agency… Why? “”They”””won’t spell My name “”Right”””OR Properly ID who they are trying to communicate with,,,BUT,,,that does Not stop them from stealing about half of the payback side of the “””Contract””” I was in with “””Them”””,,,but,,,they only steal for a while………………………….. IT’s ALL about “”””Jurisdiction”””What jurisdiction did King Jesus Christ say to be in??? ……….Jurisdiction,,.Jurisdiction,,,Jurisdiction,,,,what does the word mean??? Primary meaning,,,Authority of Law,,,.secondary meaning,,, “Venue” what does “Venue” mean??? The land area that the “”Authority””” of Law is used in… It’s in Black’s Law Dictionary… Guess who OWNS both??? King Jesus tells you at Matthew 4 IF,,,you can understand what you are reading? Meanwhile…GALT,, take a salt pill and get you head in gear and write us a book on what you don’t know about “””Jurisdiction”””……
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

        Charlie Freedom

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Charlie, Me and God are Tight….so tight in fact, that God wanted Me
        to check on you and ask if you knew what the LAW was, or were aware
        of the “unalienable right” you have available that allows you to keep it
        and the simple morality which is easily derived from both, which permits
        easy navigation in the most troubled of waters?

        As for whatever else it is that you are trying to express or if there are any
        actual questions……if can you manage to provide a little clarity, I will be
        quite happy to answer any questions, clarify any confusion, or comment on
        anything you have to offer which MIGHT be relevant.

    • Old Henry

      Victor:

      Google: collateral for U.S. debt, or U.S. national debt.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      Victor: the only thing i’d add is that it is not the government doing this but the Federal Reserve…

      Close, but not close enough…the Federal Reserve is a collection agency and answers to…? Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the…?, and his heirs and successors? are still receiving interest from the original American Charters.

      I was always told that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by our winning the Revolutionary War, and as the result, Americans defeated the king and won their freedom. However, the Treaty of 1783, contradicts that notion.

      In the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States.

      In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture.

      Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers.

      In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?

      This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status?

      We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War?

      If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won. Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, as well, John Adams and John Jay, and all sported the title “Esquire”.

      An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions.

      “Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown….for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman.” Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

      “Esquire – In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others.” Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641

      Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..

      Is United States is still a British Colony?
      http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/

  • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

    Some “observer” of this site, got single out by having the “original” idea
    of voting for the lessor of three evils, the libertarians……and the mentioned
    the “traits” of the founders” that seemed to be MISSING….. as a “cause” of
    our current “conundrum”?

    GALT says:
    March 4, 2013 at 9:15 am

    Which particular character trait do you think we’re missing from the
    “founder”s”……..the slave owning trait, the labor exploiting trait, the
    smuggling trait, the war profiteering trait, the land grabbing trait,
    or the “federalist” trait?

    Anyone…..or are we done HERE?????

  • Zenphamy

    Bob, excellent and thought provoking article. You provide an interesting way of thinking of a problem I have in trying to explain my own concepts of our nonsense monetary system and it’s benefits to the BIG government crowd. Txs

  • Jeremy Leochner

    Lincoln did free the slaves. He helped develop the income tax system as a way to fund the war to preserve the unity of this country.

    Taxation is the means by which the government pays the bills. And those bills include services to this country. The government is an employee to we the people. We pay them for work they do. I admit the government does not always do their job. But there is a difference between paying employees money they don’t deserve or need and not paying at all. We don’t refer to the relationship between an employer and an employee and the fact that employers are required to pay employees as “nothing less than organized crime”. For those who see taxation as crime I would suggest you look at this link:

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/26/102-things-not-to-do/

    • TML

      “Lincoln did free the slaves.”

      No he didn’t.

      “He helped develop the income tax system as a way to fund the war to preserve the unity of this country.”

      No, he invaded and subjugated Southern states at the barrel of a gun.

      “For those who see taxation as crime I would suggest you look at this link:”

      You speak as if taxation being viewed as a crime is absolute, while failing to acknowledge the important deciding factor; consent. The way you talk, no taxation should be opposed. I doubt any rational person would agree with your position.

      Your link is ridiculous

      • Jeremy Leochner

        TML

        1: Lincoln did free the slaves. He pushed for both the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment to end slavery forever. He always believed slavery was wrong. And this is not coming from watching Lincoln. Its from being a Civil War and Lincoln buff who has read hundreds of books on the Civil War and Lincoln.

        2: He invaded states that were part of the United States that had fallen under the control of radicals. Not all southerns wanted to leave the Union. And the ones who voted in favor of it did so before Lincoln was even inaugurated. And regardless Lincoln swore an oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution. I consider preserving the country to fall within that oath.

        3: TML I never at any point said no taxation should be opposed. If you want to talk about absolute here is something Mr. Livingston said

        “The income tax is not a Constitutional issue. It is a system of Phariseeism promoting general and widespread social depravity and spiritual immorality. It is indeed a spiritual deception.”

        4: Money that is obatined through taxation and then spent unwisely or ineffectively or immorally should be opposed. But Mr. Livingston is opposing the mere act of taxing money. That seems unreasonable to me.

        5: How is my link ridiculous

      • TML

        Jeremy Leochner says “1: Lincoln did free the slaves. He pushed for both the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment to end slavery forever. He always believed slavery was wrong. And this is not coming from watching Lincoln. Its from being a Civil War and Lincoln buff who has read hundreds of books on the Civil War and Lincoln.”

        Then you should understand that the Emancipation Proclamation was only a war effort; pseudo-freeing of slaves in a land he technically had no further jurisdiction – leaving the slaves in Northern States who remained in the union in bondage. Additionally, he always advocated, and proclaimed, that he did not have the power nor intent to affect slavery where it existed, and was only against the expansion of slavery (and even free blacks) in to the west. Simply believing that slavery was wrong – as even many Founding Fathers believed – doesn’t mean he freed the slaves. He even plainly said that his intention was not to save or destroy slavery. All of his ideas about emancipation was always accompanied by deportation.

        Jeremy Leochner says “2: He invaded states that were part of the United States that had fallen under the control of radicals. Not all southerns wanted to leave the Union. And the ones who voted in favor of it did so before Lincoln was even inaugurated. And regardless Lincoln swore an oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution. I consider preserving the country to fall within that oath.”

        Radicals? The secessions passed their State legislatures in legitimate process, and clearly and concisely spelled out in their causes which compelled them to the separation, and was legitimate to the rule of law, even if we disagree on a moral stand point… in fact, four states seceded as a direct response to Lincoln’s decided invasion of the South. There was no “radicals” about it. And I fail to see how the vote talking place for some states prior to Lincoln’s inauguration has any significance on the matter. He did swear an oath to defend the Constitution and that Constitution does not enumerate the power of secession, nor how a state could go about secession, and thus is not a power of central government.

        Consider the words of Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural compared to Lincolns during

        “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” – Thomas Jefferson

        “But the Union, in any event, will not be dissolved. We don’t want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it we won’t let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury, in our hands and at our command, you could not do it… …We do not want to dissolve the Union; you shall not.” – Abraham Lincoln

        Jeremy Leochner says “3: TML I never at any point said no taxation should be opposed.”

        Your link certainly seemed to imply such with that long list, which is why the link was ridiculous. Most of the things on the list were state funded (or should be)….

        Jeremy Leochner says “4: Money that is obatined through taxation and then spent unwisely or ineffectively or immorally should be opposed. But Mr. Livingston is opposing the mere act of taxing money. That seems unreasonable to me.”

        … in contrast, Livingston’s statement was specifically about federal income tax.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        TML

        1: The emancipation was a war measure to defeat the confederacy. But Lincoln himself said it helped his desire for all men everywhere to be free. Lincoln spoke against the expansion of slavery and in support of deportation because he was trying to be reasonable. He knew if he came out as an abolitionist it would only inflame the passions of his opponents. And Lincoln changed his position on both issues later in life.

        2: The secessions were radical specifically because they took place before Lincoln was inaugurated. They seceded without provocation. If you read the political speeches of the day all those who support secession talk about is what Lincoln and his party will do. How they are all Black Republicans who will free the slaves and make them the equal of the white man. They will destroy the constitution and abolish states rights. All of these were predictions about the future. Lincoln had not held high political office for several years. His own words gave no credence to any of these predictions. The simple fact is the seven states that formed the original confederacy did so based on assumptions about the future rather than actual evidence. And the ones that joined in the wake of the attack on fort Sumter had great reluctance.

        3: The preservation of the country does fall under the power of the executive branch. Secession is the willful break up of a country. It means the United States is no longer the United States. Republics throughout history fall to internal division. The Civil War was when America could have suffered such a fate.

        4: Jefferson specifically mentions reason in his statement. He did not want people to “dissolve this Union or to change its republican form” based on assumptions and willful misinterpretation of a leaders words or intentions. And remember as Lincoln also said in his first inaugural:

        ” In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”
        I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

        5: I was not saying people cannot oppose any taxes. What I through my link was trying to say is if you believe the idea of taxation or taxes in and of themselves are bad then you should not do those things on that list. I was not saying accept all taxes. I was simply saying don’t oppose all taxes which is what it appeared Mr. Livingston was doing.

        6: He was not opposing the misuse of the dollars obtained through the income tax. He was opposing the income tax itself. And he was not making an economic argument against it. He was declaring it propaganda that is used to control the masses. He seemed to have no regard for the things income tax money is used to pay for which benefit many like the social safety net.

      • TML

        Jeremy Leochner says “1: The emancipation was a war measure to defeat the confederacy. But Lincoln himself said it helped his desire for all men everywhere to be free. Lincoln spoke against the expansion of slavery and in support of deportation because he was trying to be reasonable. He knew if he came out as an abolitionist it would only inflame the passions of his opponents. And Lincoln changed his position on both issues later in life.”

        “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” – Abraham Lincoln, 4th Debate with Douglas 1858

        This is why he supported deportation. Everyone already knew he was against slavery. I highly doubt he changed from this in the remaining seven years of his life. The point of the matter is; he did not free the slaves, as even you agree the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure which left slaves to remain in bondage in the North.

        Jeremy Leochner says “2: The secessions were radical specifically because they took place before Lincoln was inaugurated. They seceded without provocation. If you read the political speeches of the day all those who support secession talk about is what Lincoln and his party will do. How they are all Black Republicans who will free the slaves and make them the equal of the white man. They will destroy the constitution and abolish states rights. All of these were predictions about the future. Lincoln had not held high political office for several years. His own words gave no credence to any of these predictions. The simple fact is the seven states that formed the original confederacy did so based on assumptions about the future rather than actual evidence. And the ones that joined in the wake of the attack on fort Sumter had great reluctance.”

        The secession was not radical, because the first state to do so clearly identifies that the federal government continually failed to enforce the fugitive slave laws, while northern states tried to nullify those federal laws even though they were legitimately, and directly, pursuant to the constitution via Article 4 Section 3 Clause 3, thereby defaulting a material part of the compact. They evoke their rights under the “two great principles of the Declaration of Independence” and declaring a third principle; the law of compact. The only mention of the President in their declaration was in the midst of their unequal representation in congress (because slave states west were being opposed)… saying;

        “For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself.” – South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession.

        Is it radical, if we then consider that Lincoln was the first president to use Executive Orders to get around Congress, even using them to suspend Habeas Corpus, which was clearly only provided to Congress in Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2… ? I think not.

        Jeremy Leochner says “3: The preservation of the country does fall under the power of the executive branch. Secession is the willful break up of a country. It means the United States is no longer the United States. Republics throughout history fall to internal division. The Civil War was when America could have suffered such a fate.”

        No, defense of the states was central government’s role. Not preservation by making war on states who were acting within their Constitutional capacity. Secession is a peaceful withdraw from a compact when it is defaulted. It was no declaration of war. At no time was war truly necessary, especially when it comes to freeing slaves. It was Lincoln refusal to acknowledge their right, and keep peace, that he intentionally provoked the firing on Fort Sumter (just as Polk did with Mexico years earlier; whom he criticized for that action) to attempt justifying his invasion that did not discriminate between civilian and combatant.

        What good is it save a nation that lost its soul to preserve itself, rather than the rights and principles it was bound to defend?

        Jeremy Leochner says 4: Jefferson specifically mentions reason in his statement. He did not want people to “dissolve this Union or to change its republican form” based on assumptions and willful misinterpretation of a leaders words or intentions.”

        Indeed…. War would never be necessary. Whereas Lincoln outright claimed the intended use of force of arms, rather than reason, to save it.

      • TML

        Jeremy Leochner says “6: He was not opposing the misuse of the dollars obtained through the income tax. He was opposing the income tax itself. And he was not making an economic argument against it. He was declaring it propaganda that is used to control the masses. He seemed to have no regard for the things income tax money is used to pay for which benefit many like the social safety net.”

        Perhaps because it is a tax he does not consent to, the same as some do not consent to Social Security or Medicare being taken from their checks. I don’t agree with an income tax either.

        Point out to me exactly what things income tax money is used to pay for, how it is necessary, and what social safety nets it provides.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        TML

        1: I know full well of Lincolns remarks during the famous debates. Indeed Lincoln did not change the fact that he opposed slavery. However his positions both regarding deportation and civil rights for African Americans changed in the last years of his life. And though the proclamation was indeed a war measure it cut at the heart of slavery in the south. And it being a war measure was part of why Lincoln took the next step and got the 13th amendment passed in order to end slavery forever.

        2: Slave state admissions were being opposed because slavery was and still is wrong. The slave states had held sway in the white house for nearly a decade before the secession crisis. And in the dred scott case the states rights of the free states was hardly honored when the decision was made that said that African Americans had no rights. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise curtailed the former limits on slavery. So far as I am concerned and the evidence in south carolinas causes of secession appears to support this theory that they were concerned about slave states rights, not states rights. In calling on the principles of the declaration they were trying to defend their rights to keep slaves. And it does bear repeating that Abraham Lincoln had not been inaugurated. South Carolina had not threatened to secede until Lincoln was nominated by the Republicans. And they did not carry it out until he was elected. Evidently everything was acceptable to the south until someone they did not like got elected. The founders had no intention of a lost election being a basis for the dismantling of the nation. The simple fact is the slave states did not want someone telling them they could not have slaves. In spite of the wrongness of slavery for them it was a question of honor. And their sense of honor would not allow them to admit they were wrong. The founders did not intend the defense of the instituion of slavery and the states right to maintain it to be the basis of a revolution. And as for Lincoln being radical in suspending Habeas Corpus I admit I am on the fence. But I will say that he was fighting to keep the country togther. And the people he was facing who were supposedly fighting a second American revolution did things just as questionable.

        3: The states were not acting within their constitutional capacity. The compact of the union was not “defaulted”. As a matter of fact the secessionists were the ones who almost made it default. If Lincoln had mainatined peace according to the souths demands for “independence” it would have destroyed the Republic. There was talk of secession in areas other than the south. States in the west and mid west wanted to form their own seperate republics. Many no longer wished to be part of a country which allowed slavery. The sucess of secession would have been a green light for such movements. We would not be living in the United States of America today. We would be living in one of many countries in a North America that would look excatly like Europe.

        4: The nation did not lose its soul in its preservation. It ended slavery and became more United. It helped understand that the lose of an election does provide justification for the break up of the nation.

        5: Lincoln used reason and continued too throughout the war. In his first inaugural he stated “In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.”

        Throughout the war Lincoln tried to convince the south to come back into the union peacefully. His only condition was the end of slavery. And at times he even wavered on that. For crying out loud the Emancipation Proclamation was initially made in Sept 1862. It was intended to take effect in Jan 1863. It allowed the south several months to return to the union and keep their slaves. The souths refusal to come back cost them their slaves.

        And in the end my feelings as to who is to blame for the war can be summed up by Lincoln himself in his second inaugural:

        “On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.”

    • TML

      From your link….

      1. Do not use Medicare.

      This should be a program in which one can opt out. It’s being taken out of my check whether I even want to use it or not. I’m quite sure I could invest it better to secure the same needs.

      2. Do not use Social Security

      Same thing as above; even if I don’t use it, it’s being taken out of my check and I have no say. Besides, shouldn’t these two systems pay out what ever you paid in… no more, no less? If not, then it amounts to forced charity through wealth redistribution, likened unto communism.

      3. Do not become a member of the US military, who are paid with tax dollars.

      I’m sure that an income tax is not required to fund a strong military… at least, one that doesn’t have imperialist foreign policies, policing the world, with based in hundreds of countries, fighting one undeclared war after the next against a tactic (terrorism).

      I could go on, but you get the idea….

      • Jeremy Leochner

        TML

        1: Medicare is used by many people TML. I respect that you don’t wish to take anything from it for yourself. But I think it is a valid point that we can’t maintain Medicare by simply having those who benefit from it pay for it. And remember the link is simply saying if you hate taxes don’t support Medicare which is funded through taxes.

        2: There is a difference between paying for something you don’t like and communism. Forced charity and communism are not the same. And bear in mind that there are unexpected bills and situations. You can put in a certain amount. But social security is intended for when we retire. When we retire we won’t have a source of income by which to continue to put money towards social security. If a medical issue or economic issue comes up you may need more than you put in. What’s enough for you may not be so for others.

        3: I agree we can make cuts to defense. And I agree we should not be imperialistic. I would however like to know how we would pay for the military or anything without taxes.

      • TML

        Jeremy Leochner says “1: Medicare is used by many people TML. I respect that you don’t wish to take anything from it for yourself. But I think it is a valid point that we can’t maintain Medicare by simply having those who benefit from it pay for it. And remember the link is simply saying if you hate taxes don’t support Medicare which is funded through taxes.
        2: There is a difference between paying for something you don’t like and communism. Forced charity and communism are not the same. And bear in mind that there are unexpected bills and situations. You can put in a certain amount. But social security is intended for when we retire. When we retire we won’t have a source of income by which to continue to put money towards social security. If a medical issue or economic issue comes up you may need more than you put in. What’s enough for you may not be so for others.”

        In both cases, it merely promotes the role of government to act as ones nanny. People are perfectly capable of providing for their own retirement without the help of the nanny state. And some of us could better provide for our own futures if it wasn’t being taken for use by others who refuse to do the same. It takes without consent, which by definition, is theft. You even admit the relationship to communism, or socialism, in promoting the Robin Hood philosophy, which is the essence of the same type of wealth redistribution.

        “3: I agree we can make cuts to defense. And I agree we should not be imperialistic. I would however like to know how we would pay for the military or anything without taxes.”

        I’m sure most of us would consent to taxation to fund a strong military that is put back into the command of the people.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        TML

        1: The issue TML is not everyone can provide for themselves. That is a simple fact. Its not they are wanting or weak. It is simply the nature of life that at times and in certain cases the cards don’t allow it. My intention is not to be robin hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But the alternative seems to be neglecting the poor for the sake of the rich. And its hard to consider the rich to be victims when I see articles like this:

        http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1

        Does this mean we should steal from the rich, no of course not. But it does mean they have plenty to help. And as a society we have a moral obligation to care for the poor and under privileged. I am no saint. I know that not everyone who claims to need help needs it. And those with high incomes have a right to enjoy that which they have worked for. I just try to find some sort of compromise. Because sometimes it seems like the national discourse over taxes makes it seem like Hélder Câmara was right when he said “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.”

        2: TML The military is under the command of the civilian President. He reports to the people.

      • TML

        Jeremy Leochner says “1: The issue TML is not everyone can provide for themselves. That is a simple fact. Its not they are wanting or weak. It is simply the nature of life that at times and in certain cases the cards don’t allow it. My intention is not to be robin hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But the alternative seems to be neglecting the poor for the sake of the rich.”

        Those who have the means can, and do, give by consent to those in need. The issue then, is regardless of intention, you mean to take it from them to provide to those who can not provide for themselves. I’m sure the true number of needy – not those who refuse to work – is well within the charitable means of society without coercion.

        Jeremy Leochner says “TML The military is under the command of the civilian President. He reports to the people.”

        Nay… Congress is the people, they are the representatives of the people. It is in the hands of Congress in which the power to declare war was constitutionally placed, specifically to take the power to make war at will from a single man. That power was given to a single man through the War Powers Act, and the result is endless war with an ambiguous enemy called a terrorist. Just like the issuing power of our currency should be taken from the Federal Reserve (the bankers supporting the income tax) and put back into the hands of the people (Congress), it power to make war should be be placed back in the hands of Congress as well.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        TML

        1: I would disagree about the number TML. I think it is far more than charity can provide for. And if we are going to be perfectly honest TML if people could choose how much to pay in taxes I am guessing a number nearing zero would be a common choice. And if taxes are conducted through “coercion” as you say than I have to ask what you think of any laws or any rules. Since there is a certain amount of “coercion” involved in people obeying laws.

        2: Congress is part of the government of by and for the people. As for the war powers act. I am an opponent of the war powers act and the war on terror.

  • nc

    Tony Newbill, you say” Hey What about all those liberals that attacked Mitt Romney calling him Mutt and demonizing his life?????? Oh that’s different I forgot!”””

    What’s different that you forgot is that when Mitt was a candidate Liberals and the MSM would have had to stand in line to demonize Mitt’s life with the hatchet job the conservative Republicans did on him! Did you forget “liberal Democrat” Bachmann saying he was UNFIT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE United States??? Did you FORGET “liberal Democrat” Santorum” saying he WAS THE WORST REPUBLIICAN IN THE USA?????
    ID YOU FORGET WHEN “liberal Democrat” NEWT CALLED IT LIKE HE SAW IT AND CALLED HIM A LIAR???

    JUST WHAT DID THE LIBERALS SAY ABOUT HIM THAT WAS WORSE OR THAT DEMONIZED HIS LIFE MORE THAN THE PEOPLE ABOVE WHO WORKED WITH HIM AND KNEW HIM BETTER THAN MOST OF US!!

    HIS OWN WORDS ON THE “47% TAPE” WILL ALWAYS BE HIS DEMONIZER AS LONG AS A LIVING DEMOCRAT HAS A COPY! THANKS MITT FOR FOUR MORE YEARS!!
    OUR THANKS TO “daddy’s boy” bush FOR THE FIRST FOUR!!!!

    • tony newbill

      Newt would have put Barack out of a job ……

  • Average Joe

    How to tame the Federal Government Monster:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bfOXeK243g

    Starve the beast!

    AJ

  • Chris

    This is by far the best article I have seen on this site. Straight to the point of the problems we all face as “debt Slaves” Simply put it has been the biggest fraud in history and was started long before we were born, hence the reason may can barely wrap there minds around it.

    • Chris

      Correction : ” Many ” can barely wrap “their” minds around this concept

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Chris the social safety net and the need to pay for it is not a fraud. The desire to preserve the union and free the slaves was not a fraud.

      • Chris

        You are certainly within your rights to believe that, however I stand on my previous comment. It is fraud. pure and simple. Try Kiting Checks the way the Govt. and the Fed. does and see where it gets you. Same concept and in fact worse as they do it at the barrel of a gun if they so choose, so that would make it armed robbery as well.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Chris if you consider taxes to be armed robbery I suggest you look at this article:

        http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/26/102-things-not-to-do/

  • Chris

    Nice article………..”NOW”…………the question is: “HOW” do we STOP paying these so-called “Taxes”????????????

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      See…..

      http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

      and 26 CFR 31.3402 (p) as well as UCC 1-207 ( now 308 )

      This situation has existed since 1938, 1960 at the state level.

      Bob seems to have missed it……..although he does like citing “symptoms”
      BUT for some strange reason he keeps mis stating the disease and the cure.

      and he has been writing about it since 1969.

      Kinda makes your claim that:

      “This is by far the best article I have seen on this site. Straight to the point
      of the problems ”

      a little bit foolish?

      • Chris

        Though your comment was under under a different Chris, I could tell that it was for me. Your Point is well taken and I agree. thanks

  • Vigilant

    A little perspective: Lincoln’s income tax was conceived as a wartime measure, temporary in nature. It was indeed temporary, being repealed 7 years after his death.

    The top marginal rate was 5%.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    TML

    1: I would disagree about the number TML. I think it is far more than charity can provide for. And if we are going to be perfectly honest TML if people could choose how much to pay in taxes I am guessing a number nearing zero would be a common choice. And if taxes are conducted through “coercion” as you say than I have to ask what you think of any laws or any rules. Since there is a certain amount of “coercion” involved in people obeying laws.

    2: Congress is part of the government of by and for the people. As for the war powers act. I am an opponent of the war powers act and the war on terror.

  • Fastrax

    Coercive taxation was never intended by the founders as in the form we have today. There are only two kinds of taxes: direct and indirect. The primary source of revenue for the new limited central government they set up were the indirect taxes: duties, imposts, and excise taxes. These are consumption taxes and taxes on imports and exports. Don’t want to pay the tax, don’t by the item. simple. Direct taxation is the power to take the means to our livelihood right from our wallets. The founders were not about to allow that and didn’t. The power to take an individuals money through taxation was deflected to the states. The central government had to go to the states to take money from individuals directly, as a child goes to its parent for candy. Say, we need fighter planes; feds need “X” number of dollars to produce them. The states would have proportional shares or amounts to collect, according to the population. This is a very high profile process that is subject to scrutiny of those being taxed- We the People. So, we must restore the principles embodied in our Constitution. Otherwise, we’re finished, kaput, a mere footnote in history.
    :o)

  • Fastrax

    The income tax system ifs foreign to the US Constitution and to the Common Law tradition. It is based on a continental system that goes back to Rome. I short, income tax collection and enforcement is based on the Cannon Law. It is what fueled the Catholic Church’s Spanish and French inquisition. The burden of proof is on the accused after taking the oath which flies in the face of the fifth Amendment’s protection not to be a witness against oneself. Does the Common Law trump foreign systems or not, as under the constitution? Does the Supremacy Clause amount to anything anymore? Today, we have been overrun and controlled by two horrendous European institutions: their central banking system, and their Marxist income tax. Did we ever get our independence? For how long? Perhaps, up to the Civil War? It’s late than we think. Time to wake up or pay the consequences for indifference.

  • http://www.premiercleanandrestore.com Ethan David Ellingson

    10% tax on profit is God’s rate. Should be enough to pay for everything governing authorities need to pay for. Articles’ quite right: banking fraud perpetuated by the Fed and commercial banks is monstrous:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1ogy4YvqU

  • http://canadagoosejacketsaled.webs.com/ Canada Goose Parka

    One more thing that I want to share at this time is that, whatever you are using free blogging service however if you don抰 update your webpage on daily basis then it抯 no more attraction

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.