EnviroLink Forum

_________________
join the Ron Paul Revolution!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

if I could wake up tomorrow morning and push a button and all the AR's would be gone, I would lay awake tonight in anticipation of pushing the button.~~OHIOSTEVE

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

I like this better....

A symbol represents qualities or characteristics that are expressions of the ideals of a culture and principles of the people it represents…when I look at the flag I see a stark contrast with reality.

http://www.newhumanist.com/flag.html

"Some people think that if you are free to say what you like, you are living in a democracy. But freedom of speech is not the sum total of democracy, only one of its necessary conditions. A government is not a democracy when it leaves us free to say what we want but leaves others free to do what they want with our country, our resources, our taxes and our lives" - Michael Parenti.

_________________
join the Ron Paul Revolution!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

if I could wake up tomorrow morning and push a button and all the AR's would be gone, I would lay awake tonight in anticipation of pushing the button.~~OHIOSTEVE

yes denni .....a country that has universal health care ( BTW this USED to be called socialized medicine but the truth in the name was too much so it is now universal health care) is promoting socialism.....You can talk all day long about the tax system but everyone knows it is immoral . The amount of money stolen by the IRS and given away is wrong not to mention illegal and unconstitutional. There is NO constitutiuonal basis for it and you can agree with doing it all you want to but it is still unconstitutional. Personally I don't care if a singler mother has ten kids..I did NOT get her pregnant and I should not be responsible for her care or that of her kids...AGAIN if I WANT to help her then that is fine but to FORCE me to does 2 things..It makes me despise the welfare class and makes her feel bad about herself....And as for her ER visits if the f##kin government and insurance companies were out of the picture she could pay for the care out of her pocket, the same as you and I could......BESIDES if the country was ran CONSTITUTIONALLY There would be no tax money to pay for her troubles.......The government does not help ANONE by handouts...They have created an entire class of people who grow learning how to get by without working.......I just recently returned from a trip down south....I was AMAZED at this particular county I was visiting..EVERYONE ( nearly) was drawing SSI. Entire families drawing simply because they knew how to get it. It was a given that at the age of 18 you go sign up.......Think I am lying go to McCreary county or Wayne co KY and look around for a while.
As far as the link you provided I did not get into it much...sales taxes and property taxes can be justified constitutionally..the income tax is illegal and completely unconstitutional, and goes to pay the interest on the national debt.. And its funny, every year more and more people are finding out the truth about it and not paying......Yes I know some are getting prosecuted BUT a LOT are not and more and more are winning against the IRS as the truth presents itself more and more. The constitution allows for two types of taxes...direct ( cigarettes tobacco gas firearms etc etc) and apportioned ( the govt has a need for X amount of dollars and that cost is divided equally among the states based on population) the income tax is neither, and is illegal.

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People
The Real Story of the Money-Control Over America

by Pastor Sheldon Emry, circa 1980*

Posted at Bull Not Bull on May 1, 2005.

Comments and discussion on this article are welcomed and encouraged. Click here.

Editor's note: This piece is an internet classic, outlining the terrible flaws in our current banking system, and how it enriches bankers and powers-that-be at the expense of common people like us. If you have never seen it, you are in for an eye opener! If you have read it before, read it again - it is well worth it. Although originally written in 1980, the article is especially timely today in light of the new bankruptcy law that has been passed by the Senate and will surely be passed by the Congress soon. Read it and think about the world that we live in! Opening yourself to new information is the first step in awakening to the truth about the road we are traveling.

————————————————————-

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

-- Thomas Jefferson


A VERY interesting ( long) read.......I also suggest watching the video " AMERICA...FROM FREEDOM TO FASCISM" it is very eye opening......It is not EXACTLY what this thread is concerning but it talks of taxation and its illegal implementation........

The whole quote makes it clear the individual may refuse to submit their own private papers/books to the grand jury without a warrant, which does not mean those papers/book cannot be reviewed at all. It merely states there is the requirement for a warrant for an individual and in this particular case a more narrowly defined scope of documents required.

If, whenever an officer or employee of a corporation were summoned before a grand jury as a witness he could refuse to produce the books and documents of such corporation, upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation itself, it would result in the failure of a large number of cases where the illegal combination was determinable only upon the examination of such papers. Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

In the Supreme Court case of Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., Mr. Justice Butler stated:

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.