Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

When the 16th Amendment Became Law

February 24, 2010 by  

Ninety-four years ago this week the United States Constitution suffered its worst-ever addition when the 16th Amendment, which permits a progressive income tax, was ratified by Congress. In just one sentence, a mere 31 words long, our relationship with those who would rule over us was changed dramatically.

A graduated federal income tax became legal for the first time in our country’s history on Feb. 25, 1913, thanks to 16th Amendment. Prior to its ratification the courts had repeatedly ruled that a progressive income tax—that is, the more you earn the greater percentage the government would take—was unconstitutional.

Thanks to a virtual conspiracy among the rich and powerful and their lackeys in Congress, Americans were persuaded that a graduated income tax (a key plank in the Communist Manifesto, by the way) would “soak the rich” and shower benefits on the poor. Instead, as many warned at the time, the tax and those who enforce it have done incalculable harm to the spirit of freedom and independence that once typified this country.

—Chip Wood

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “When the 16th Amendment Became Law”

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

  • whisper74

    Hey.. someone help me out here. Wasn’t this passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and President? Please remind me what party President Taft was in, and also who in control of the 61st U.S. Congress.. thanks!!

    • Charles

      You’re right! However, last I checked the IRS wasn’t asking for a party affiliation – - – just your earned wealth. It’s not about parties.

    • s c

      If you want a TRUE picture of the vote, go back, read the full tally, and list each name according to their party affiliation. Until you do that, you’re not seeing what you need to see, whisper. You DO want to be accurate, don’t you?
      If you CARE about being accurate, dig a little. If you make this a habit, you may be forced to learn that it takes BOTH parties to ‘do the dance’ in Washington.
      BOTH parties have sold us out. If you are naive enough to believe that one party is good, and the other is bad, then you are [by choice] CLUELESS, and you have neglected your education, whisper.

    • bud

      i dont have the tallies but did we the people even get a vote on this or was this the begining of the goverment can do what they see fit without the peoples input

  • Tony

    I have a question?

    Under Article I section 9 of the Constitution it says “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid” so how does the income tax get around this? Before you jump an say the 16th Amendment look at what the Supreme Court had to say about the 16TH Amendment.

    “The Sixteenth Amendment…..does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects….
    Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, at 172 (1918)

    The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”

    What this means is the taxing power congress had before the 16th Amendment remained the same after the 16th Amendment.

    Do you not find it funny that the the income tax started right after the Private Fed started in 1913???

    Besides income itself is not a tax………the word income is the tool used to measure the amount of tax that is due from the activity or source that is being taxed. Does your wages or labor fall under one of these?

    Even Ron Paul talks about this.

    • Tony

      Still no answer for this reply?

      • Tony

        Where is Chip on this one?

    • http://none Chip Wood

      There is nothing “funny” about the fact that we got a federal income tax the same time we got the Federal Reserve. Read Ed Griffin’s magnificent study, “The Creature from Jekyl Island,” to see how the same group of powerful bankers and politicians foisted both on us. I believe it is all part of a centuries-old plot by people many call The Insiders.

      In addition to all of the good points you raise above, I’ll add another: Was this amendment (and at least two others) even passed legally? The Supreme Court has refused to allow such questions to be raised before them.

      Regardless of the source of these problems, I don’t think there is any question about the solution. It is to elect enough good constitutionalists to Congress, especially the House. If we had more Ron Pauls and Larry McDonalds, there is no doubt in my mind that we could turn things around.

      If we can’t do that, I see no hope of preserving the freedoms we have and restoring the ones we have lost. Do you?

      Chip Wood

      • Tony

        Agree will you 100%

        • Tony

          Federal Reserve. Read Ed Griffin’s magnificent study, “The Creature from Jekyl Island,
          Yes great book read several years ago.

      • bud

        hey how many reg voters signatures does it take to repeal an amendment lets find out and get one started

  • Darold

    The early republicans were not conservative. Their main popularity was their isolationist view of world politics. Lincoln was a Federalist of the worst kind adopting the imperial federal government we see today taking away states rights by appointing governors. I’m not saying these actions were not necessary at the time, but they are the founding principles for the soft tyranny we feel today. I support the Fair Tax bill as I believe we do need a federal income base for a standing military, census, judicial services, etc. The Fair Tax bill will not stop congress from raising or lowering the rate but at least it is fair based on how much you spend and not earn. This would be a big boon for the federal coffers when it includes previously unreported income (black market, under the table, and gang or drug related) as these people can continue in their activities yet they are still consumers of regular items which would then be taxed. Also don’t forget the tourist dollars, America is a destination for many travelers and they spend money here that is earned abroad. They use emergency services occasionally and contribute very little and usually only locally.

    • Tony

      So you want to keep feeding the monster? Fair tax….still feeding the monster. The income tax does not support any part of the government.

      “100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt … all
      individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services
      taxpayers expect from government.”
      -Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan – January 15, 1984

      The final report of the 1984 Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald Reagan,
      quietly admitted that none of the funds they collect from federal income taxes goes to
      pay for any federal government services. The Grace Commission found that those funds
      were being used to pay for interest on the federal debt, and income transfer payments to
      beneficiaries of entitlement programs like federal pension plans

      • Darold

        I’m not sure that you are aware that the no government agency is allowed to make a profit. They get around budget issues by borrowing. So of course all income to the federal government goes to pay off these debts. Instituting the Fair Tax would not change the way congress does budgets. However the extremely high cost of collecting the income tax would almost vanish. The only other source of income for the federal government is one of two things. Tariffs (which need to be higher in my opinion to keep goods and services in America for Americans), and per use fees levied at the point of use for various functions of government. Unless you suggest that all government functions become per uses, (I’m not directly opposed to that but I don’t want to pay tolls on Interstate highways) then what is your solution?

        • Tony

          Simple……get rid of the income tax an replace it with nothing! Stop spending 1.5 trillion over seas policing the world and spend it here! We could repave every road in America with that. America did not have a income tax until 1913. How did we survive till 1913?

          • Darold

            Simple… we did not have a standing Army. Our national defense was in the hands of the Governors who held border states. Each Governor acting independently if necessary to thwart whoever they deemed enemies. With ICBM’s I don’t think a well regulated militia is enough. Flight in 1911 and of course the internal combustion engine changed all that. Tesla/Marconi radio doesn’t help your isolationist views either. We need a standing Army. True we don’t need to appease our trade allies as we have enough local resources for America, but logistically that makes us vulnerable to attack for the soul purpose of taking those resources away. Then if we are not trading our resources we are loosing them to attrition even if no attack is successful. So there needs to be a balance and I agree it needs to be a little more isolationist but not so much as to demilitarize.

            And we did have a small era of income tax to pay for the War between the States. (American Civil War) The tax was not well enforced and was indeed a show of patriotism for those (in the north) that paid. And it was considered restitution from the Southern States until the war debt was paid off.

            As far as overseas policing goes I couldn’t agree more. The reason we “police” is not for democracy. (Hitler had a democracy.) It is to keep trade treaties, or to make trade treaties. With the exception of WWI (which had a distinct and stupid reason for starting, it is the reason it continued) I would be hard pressed to think of a major war that this was not the cause. That is the purpose of all wars. As America goes we do not need trade treaties, except to value our growth against another nation. It is of course this value that may make our enemies wish to attack us and that is why we need a standing Army. For Defense.

          • bud

            i agree with this but here is my question when the 16 amendment was ratified who voted just the congress or did us the people get the vote now with that in the open how do we the people get our vote out there and how do we go about firing all those b holes in the goverment we need to get the word out and take some action on this issue

          • ShadoWeaver

            Does personal income tax fund the military??? I thought it was corporate tax?

  • Tony

    It would save trillions if America would stop fighting all these undeclared Unconstitutional Wars. As for a standing army “YES” a Constitutional one. Yes there was a small income tax imposed during the Civil War but I don’t think it was ever taken to court as being Constitutional or not.

    • Darold

      It was taken to court and found unconstitutional.

  • Robin Choleton

    It’s unfortunate that the purported 16th Amendment to the Constitution is still being bandied about as if it were the law. It is not the law.

    The so-called 16th Amendment was never ratified by the several states responsible for voting on the amendment. Authors Red Beckman and Bill Benson in the 1980s visited the state capitols of those states involved in the ratification process for the 16th amendment. Finding that the state archives proved unequivocally that the 16th Amendment failed to secure the necessary number of states to ratify in conformance with constitutional authority, these gentlemen wrote and published two volumes of a book entitled “The Law That Never Was”.

    We don’t need to ever again refer to the purported 16th Amendment as though it was ever the law, or that it is the law today.

    Now it is the same situation for the purported 14th Amendment. Virtually no one knows this egregious amendment is not law, due to it never having been ratified in 1868, as alleged.

    Congressman John Rarick of Louisiana, in 1967 published in the Congressional Record several pages of a treatise written by a judge from the same state which offers anyone willing to read, a blow by blow account of the supposed “ratification” process of the purported 14th Amendment, which when it was all said and done, unequivocally proved the amendment never secured enough states to ratify the amendment according to constitutional criteria.

    The Idaho Observer in November 2005 also published an article which exposed this reporting in the Congressional Record, and had photographic representation of the pages applicable which gives their page numbers for research into.

    The posting of the failed 14th Amendment process in the Congressional Record makes the record of its non-ratification factual for all intents and purposes, since no subsequent rebuttal by anyone, reportedly could prove that the information on the 14th Amendment as non-ratified was not the truth.

    It’s unfortunate that most Americans today believe they are made subject citizens of the 14th Amendment. Because the 14th Amendment is not law, there are no officially designated people called “United States citizens”, like it or not.

    The validity of the non-ratified 14h amendment may be brought up as a defense in litigation to claim that the people of the several states are not subordinate to corporate government, and may resist such violations imposed by municipalities, such as those demanding business licenses from certain people, which is a tax that has no benefit accruing to those subjected to government extortion to apply for one.

    It’s now appropriate for Chip Wood to do a follow-up article to put a disclaimer into the allegation that somehow the 16th Amendment as suggested, is the law. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to write a disclaimer, in the face of evidence the 16th Amendment is not the law now, and never was the law.

    In California, two government code sections proclaim that the people of the state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them.

    It’s up to the people to assert their supremacy over government by filing lawsuits against government extortion and abuse of process, and do this pro se (because no attorney will collaborate in this).

    • Darold

      I have never heard of this before and google is my friend so I looked up your Bill Benson. It turns out on his web page he makes all the claims you said he did. However a quick fact check of some of the claims shows how poor his research is. I’ll just pick one, since I am a resident of California I knew this without having to look it up. California never ratified the 16th amendment was Benson’s claim. California never ratified the 16th amendment is also the claim of Congress during the adoption process. Benson would have us believe that Secretary of State Philander Knox (at the time in 1913) said that California did adopt it, however California is mentioned no where in the adoption announcement. There were other date issues where Benson is correct in saying that some states rejected the 16th Amendment, however some of those states had re-votes and latter did ratify. It seems Benson is a half truth sort of fellow. I didn’t bother looking up the other fellow as I only needed to point out a half truth and not a quarter truth.

      • Tony

        Bill Benson’s findings, published in “The Law That Never Was,” make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

        The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

        Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

        In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words “on income” from the text, so they weren’t even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

        In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

        Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state’s approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the “presumptive conclusion” argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

        If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

        The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment’s trend. You’ve probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you’d be right – they didn’t; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

        Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

        Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

        When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it’s authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota – which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

        These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn’t have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.

        Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

        The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above)

        • RetSquid

          “The second contention is that in the Constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their Legislatures. The argument is that by reason of these specific provisions the Legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state Legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state.”
          Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 136-137 (1922).

          “Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

          “Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

          “Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and–taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems–advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

          “Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”
          U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).

  • s c

    Indirectly, Chip makes a strong case for the idea that America has the “best” legislative and executive branches that MONEY can buy. Like it or not, we also have the “best” judicial branch that MONEY can buy.
    Pessimists would say that America is totally SCREWED. No matter how you look at it, this
    ‘amendment’ was a blatant violation of the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court has never looked into the matter proves that this branch of the government was literally bought and paid for long before many of us were born.
    If you’re a progressive, fascist, socialist, communist or any other type of proven failure, this is good news, as it makes a clear statement about whether or not we are free or “otherwise.”
    They have much to lose by having this damnable amendment looked at by anyone – let alone the Supreme Court. It was an early manifestation of government-blessed redistribution of wealth before that concept was in print or discussed by the American people.
    It’s not a matter of ‘where the Founding Fathers are’ when we need them. It’s strictly a matter of ‘where the hell were the American people’ when IT MATTERED.

  • s c

    How many people have wondered how the IRS can exert so much pressure when their LAST priority is accuracy? IRS tax codes are so complex that those retards don’t understand their own ‘system.’
    How can that be legal? That means THEY gave themselves the RIGHT to do what they want whenever they get the urge.
    I propose that unless or until the IRS can be held accountable for NOT being accurate or having to fully understand their own half-$$#^ system, the American people should have the RIGHT to tell the IRS to go flush itself down the nearest toilet.
    Any government agency that doesn’t have to be accurate should not be able to demand money that it CAN’T prove it DESERVES. A government that treats its citizens like victims of an unending series of
    felonies is a government that is no different than a law-hating, career criminal.


    To Whisper74; party affilation has nothing to do with the 16th amendment. Both parties have the same objective and that is to take the wealth from the people that earned it to enlarge the size and power of government. The US government does not creat wealth, they only consume it and guess where get the wealth. They steal from the people that earned it. I suggest that if you have anything of value that you hide it from the current party in power because they will be looking under every grain of sand to confiscate the wealth that you earned. They may pull a Roosevelt and confiscate any gold that you have.

  • Ben little eagle Stephens

    To all who have posted above I must congratulate you on your background checking of what has taken place over the pastyears and to let you know it is good that there are people still out there that Care about my home land as iam a native of this country and like the person that said niether Pary is for the people they are there because thay couldn’t make a liveing wage by workin like most people do they get out of high school go to colledge get there deploma and work for a few yrs. mostly in positions there rich parents ither paid for or died and ther inhertance gave them the chance to get into politics as they saw where the big bucks wwere and the best hospitals ,Medical and retirement was like Obamanot even an american bought the White House with the help of his forien co conspiritors they furnished him the funds. and he has devistated this country to where if people like you don’t take a stand and put a stop to this today things that are happening what good will it do to know the past history we have to contend with what is happening today and yes the Taxes and the Irs are a part of this today stuff that needs to be taken care of but like the person above said the parties don’t care about the people this is just acusshy job to become even richer just to make a point where can the people working for a company just decide the need another 50.000 dollar raise and vote it in and get it with out letting the people they work for decide how much of a raise they get nad also how much of a retirement they get and why they have benifits that they don’t have to pay for there hospitals and medicines and there are so many things that we need to straighten up and Iam a native amewrican and i fought in 2 off the military wars and niethewr have have been called wars they were never ratified in this catagory and I was in both and they were wars we lost more of our young people in Korea and Vietnam then in any other war that this country has ever fought in , Iam also a good example I don’t get no 150,000 a year for retirement I have to live on a much smaller retiement and it was a retirement of 100 % disability and retired at the governments orders of 18 yrs never got to finish my full retirement. so Iam very proud of each off you that has writtrn in this blog but there are immidiate things that need to be done now before we loose our freedom and this becomes a socialist country first the President needs to prove his citizenship by being born in America and secound he needs to be put in Uniform of the military and made to go to the front lines for at least a year to see what it is these people have given the oath to if nessary die for this country and he wants them to pay for there insuarence and midical care. which as (pres)/ he doesn
    t pay for. Just wanted to let you guys know there are a lot of us that have fought for your rights as well as our own and we damn sure don’t need to let the people we have put in positions that are just jobs working for us the people of this land. Wado for letting me have this space a very humble person. Benlittleeagle Stephens

  • ShadoWeaver

    @Darold Does personal income tax fund the military or is it corporate tax?


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
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.