CIA Handbook on Psyops: "Slander the identity of a sovereign and her founders"

[phosphene]

Legitimate taxation

lol

[freedom_commonsense]

Agreed, just the attitude of "im not free unless I pay taxes and the government says im free," is what I don't agree with :p.

Which is why I detest the attitude of people who think good things always spring from big government. Although theres been some backtracking on some of it recently, like universities in the United Kingdom for example.

[freedom_commonsense]

lol

If you think theres no such thing as legitimate taxation and states, then I hope you have the means to grab as much land as possible before the likes of Rockefeller and Rothschild do.

[decemberfellow]

Incorrect attitude to have. What you just said is that you are not free until they make you free.

 

I believe I have that correct.  It is ones own belief system that controls us.  We will never be "free" as long as we have bills  utility payments  medical payments,
car, house whatever. I have those like all of us, I pay them I am "free" I pay taxes for that reason. Now if I get hassled after that then I fight for my rights, and feel justified in doing so.  That is the right I have or "freedom" I have givin to me from God.

[Freeski]

Thanks JT, I was unaware of this 'quick amend' process.

[JT Coyoté]

Thanks JT, I was unaware of this 'quick amend' process.

That's what I like to call it. The globalists would have people today believe that the only way to remove an amendment is by calling a con-con. This would be the sure death of the Organic Constitution. All folks need to do is look at the lawful precedent set by the 18th (prohibition) amendment and then it's repeal with the 21st amendment to know how this process really works. Remember, all of the Constitutional Amendments from the 11th on were added by this process.

Accomplishing this amendment housecleaning and "taking out of globalist trash," so to speak, is one of the thrusts of the original 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Movement, FYI... The Globies don't like me much...(chuckle)...

JTCoyoté

"...the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty, under the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, over all powers
not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by
the United States Constitution." ~From HJR-94-1035, The First
10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, 1994

[Freeski]

That's what I like to call it. The globalists would have people today believe that the only way to remove an amendment is by calling a con-con. This would be the sure death of the Organic Constitution. All folks need to do is look at the lawful precedent set by the 18th (prohibition) amendment and then it's repeal with the 21st amendment to know how this process really works. Remember, all of the Constitutional Amendments from the 11th on were added by this process.

Accomplishing this amendment housecleaning and "taking out of globalist trash," so to speak, is one of the thrusts of the original 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Movement, FYI... The Globies don't like me much...(chuckle)...

JTCoyoté

"...the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty, under the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, over all powers
not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by
the United States Constitution." ~From HJR-94-1035, The First
10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, 1994

So the only way the Bill of Rights (1-10) can be changed is through a Constitutional Convention?

[JT Coyoté]

So the only way the Bill of Rights (1-10) can be changed is through a Constitutional Convention?

YES, that is the only way they could be "lawfully" changed or removed.

Oldyoti

"The government turns every contingency
into an excuse for enhancing power in itself."
~John Adams

[phosphene]

YES, that is the only way they could be "lawfully" changed or removed.

is that quick amend process the same process used to pass the federal reserve act christmas eve 1913 with only a handful of representatives present?

[kevlar442]

Tell me you don't like the guy after listening to this speech:

http://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose#p/u/2/2Msr01w7iYw

http://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose#p/u/4/NJCC-_m9p7I

http://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose#p/u/3/2MX9hwITqik

[JT Coyoté]

is that quick amend process the same process used to pass the federal reserve act christmas eve 1913 with only a handful of representatives present?

No. The Federal Reserve Act was an Act of Congress. A congressional act of infamy at best in the way it was passed. It should be rectified ASAP. The first half dozen posts in this linked thread deal with the FED Act and the 16th Amendment.

The ratification of an Amendment must be done independently within the legislatures of each of 3/4 of the states... that would take 38 states today.

Coyoté

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress
and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but
to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
--Abraham Lincoln

[phosphene]

A congressional act of infamy at best in the way it was passed.

indeed. and we're supposed to believe that, in the 97 xmas eves  since, there hasnt been another handful of congressman able to sneak in there and undo the federal reserve act? easy come, easy go....right? wheres the go? Oh yeah, congress likes the unlimited credit the FRB grants them...they dont wanna change it. whats it called?? "continuity of government", or somethin?

Larken Rose is reminding us that we are the authority behind the constitution....not the paper itself. Your 13 hated amendments are support that assertion.

[phosphene]

You're Not the Boss of Me! (1 of 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Msr01w7iYw

Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, in Philadelphia, a bunch of guys got together and wrote a letter to their king. The letter was very eloquent, and well thought out, but it basically boiled down to this:

"Dear King George,

You're not the boss of us!

Sincerely,

A Bunch of Troublemakers"


That's essentially what the Declaration of Independence was: abunch of radicals declaring that they would no longer recognize the right of their king to rule them, at all, ever again. They went on to create a new boss, which turned into a new oppressor, but we'll get to that in a moment. First, let's consider the essence of that attitude: "You're not the boss of me!"

This July 4th, like every year, millions of Americans are celebrating Independence Day with various parades, picnics, fireworks, and so on. But how many of those people celebrating have ever actually considered what the Declaration was actually about, and what the colonists actually did? The colonists did not merely beg the king to change his ways. In fact, the Declaration explains how they had tried that, to no avail. Instead, the colonists were doing something far more drastic.

In short, they committed treason. They broke the law. They disobeyed their government. They were traitors, criminals and tax cheats. The Boston Tea Party was not merely a tax protest, but open lawlessness. Furthermore, truth be told, some of the colonists were even cop-killers. At Lexington, when King George's "law enforcers" told the colonists to lay down their guns, the colonists responded with, "No, you're not the boss of us!" (Well, that was the meaning, if not the exact verbiage.) And so we had "The Shot Heard 'Round the World," widely regarded as the beginning of the American Revolution.

Looking back now, we know the outcome. We know who eventually won, and we don't mind cheering for the rebels. But make no mistake: when you cheer for the founders of this country, you are cheering for law-breakers and traitors. As well you should. But, for all the flag-waving and celebrating that goes on every July 4th, do Americans actually believe in what the colonists did? Do they really believe in the attitude expressed in the Declaration of Independence? Are they really still capable of supporting a mantra of "You're not the boss of me!"?

In, short, no. Imagine the equivalent of what the colonists did so many years ago, being done today. Imagine a group of people writing a letter to the United States government, sending a letter to Congress and to the President, saying that they would no longer pay federal taxes, they would no longer obey federal laws, and that they would resist--by force, if necessary--any attempt by federal agents to enforce those laws. How would a group which did such things be viewed today, by most Americans?

They would be viewed as nut-cases, scofflaws and terrorists, despicable criminals and malcontents. They would be scorned as the scum of the earth, despised by just about everyone who today celebrates Independence Day.

How ironic.

So why the double standard? Why would the American public today condemn the exact same attitudes and behaviors which they glorify and praise in the context of the American Revolution? Quite simply, it's because, for all the proud talk of "land of the free and home of the brave," the spirit of resistance--the courage to say "You're not the boss of us!"--has been trained out of the American people.

We have become a nation of wimps.

For years and years, in the churches and schools, on the news, in the media, and from everywhere around us, we have been taught one thing above all else: that obedience to authority is the highest virtue, and that disobedience is the worst sin. As a result, even most of those who now claim to be zealous advocates for individual rights and personal liberty will almost always couch their "demands" with disclaimers that, of course, their efforts for justice will be done "within the system," and that they would never advocate anything "illegal." They claim to be devout proponents of freedom, and yet all they ever do is seek a political solution, whether through lobbying of politicians, elections, or other government-approved means.

Of course, government never approves of anything which might actually endanger government power. As the bumper-sticker says, "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." And why should civilized people assume that change must be done "legally" and "within the system"? That is obviously NOT what the Declaration of Independence was about. In fact, the Declaration states quite plainly that when a government ceases to be a protector of individual liberty, it is not only the right, but the DUTY of the people to ALTER or ABOLISH that form of government. In other words, when the government becomes an oppressor, instead of a protector-- as is obviously the case today--the people are morally obligated to adopt an attitude of, "You're not the boss of us!"

So how many Americans are doing that? Almost none. Instead, even the most vocal critics of corruption and injustice usually do little more than banging their heads against a brick wall, begging, in half a dozen different ways, for the tyrants to please be nicer to us. (Meanwhile, they go to great lengths to distance themselves from people like me, for fear of what the general public might think of them. As a result, I believe the general public, and those in government, view them pretty much as I view them: as harmless and irrelevant conformists, destined to forever beg for freedom, and never achieve it.)

Make no mistake, begging and whining is not what the Declaration of Independence was about. It was about breaking the law, when the law is unjust. It was about committing treason, when the rulers became oppressive. It was about disobedience--civil disobedience, when effective, and not-so-civil disobedience when necessary. It was about open resistance, including violent resistance when called for.

So where is that attitude today? Where is the candidate advocating such a thing? Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams--where are the modern equivalents? For all the whining about extremists, where are those willing to openly resist injustice? Not only don't most Americans believe in resisting tyranny, they feel extremely uncomfortable just hearing others talk about it, even in abstract terms (like this).

Maybe it's just that we're not quite at the level of oppression to justify resistance. Is that it? Hardly.. If two or three percent taxation justified rebellion in 1776, why doesn't fifty percent taxation justify it now? If a few puny excise taxes on tea and pieces of paper justified it then, why don't the myriad of unavoidable, crushing taxes at all levels, and the hordes of callous, vindictive tax collectors justify it now? If the relatively unusual cases of Redcoats abusing colonists justified it then, why doesn't it justify it when American police see no problem with randomly stopping, detaining, interrogating and searching anyone they want, whenever they want, for any reason or no reason at all?

Does anyone think Thomas Jefferson, if he were alive today, would quietly allow himself to be strip-searched, and allow his belongings to be rummaged through, by some brain-dead TSA thug? Read the Fourth Amendment. They had a revolution over that sort of thing. Does anyone think that Patrick Henry would take kindly to being robbed blind to pay for whatever war-mongering the politicians wanted to engage in this week? Read what the Founders said about standing armies. They had a revolution over that sort of thing. Think James Madison would go along with being disarmed, by the various state and federal control freaks? Read the Second Amendment. They had a revolution over that sort of thing. Think George Washington would be happy to have both his earnings and savings constantly looted by a parasite class, to pay for all manner of wealth redistribution, political handouts and other socialist garbage? Think Thomas Paine would gladly be extorted to give all his money to some giant, failed corporation or some huge international bank? Think the founders would have quietly gone along with what this country has become today? Think they would have done nothing more than vote, or whine? Well, the founders are dead. And, unfortunately, so is their spirit of resistance. In short, just about all of the flag-waving and celebrating that happens every July 4th is nothing but empty hypocrisy. How many Americans today can say, loudly and proudly, like they mean it, "Give me liberty or give me death!"? Or, at least, in the modern vernacular, "You're not the boss of me!"? Anyone? In this nation that imagines itself to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, where are those who dare to resist, or even dare to talk about it? And I don't mean voting, or whining to your congressman, or begging your masters to not whip you so hard. I'm talking about resisting, refusing to obey.

America, where is your Independence Day pride now? Exactly what are you proud of? I have a message for you, from a guy named Sam. Samuel Adams, that is. Yeah, the beer guy. But he did a little more for this country than make beer. Here is his message:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

When's the last time you heard a modern so-called "statesman" say something like that?

So what happened? When did Americans lose their ability to say, "You're not the boss of me," and why? Yes, most people are scared, and for good reason. With the capacity for violence of the current police state, and the willingness of the politicians and their thugs to crush anyone who threatens their power, everyone has to choose his battles carefully, and decide for himself what he's willing to risk, what is worth fighting for and what isn't. That makes sense, but there is more to it than just fear. Because not only won't most Americans resist, but they will condemn anyone who does. If you do what the founders did, most people in this country would call you a tax cheat, a malcontent, a criminal, a traitor, even a terrorist. Why? Why do Americans now vehemently condemn those who say and do exactly what the Founders did a couple hundred years ago? When did our priorities and view of the world change so drastically, and why?

I'll tell you why. Gradually, and very systematically, we have been trained to measure our own worth, not by what we produce, not by how we treat other people, but by how well we obey authority. Consider the term, "law abiding taxpayer." How many people wear that label as a badge of honor? "I am a law-abiding taxpayer!" When they say that, they mean, "I'm a good person." But is that what it really means?

Well, "law-abiding" just means that you do whatever the politicians tell you to do. We speak with great reverence of this thing called "the law," as if it is the decree of the gods, which no decent human being would dare to disobey. But what is it really? It's whatever the politicians decide to command you to do. Why on earth would anyone think that obedience to a bunch of liars and crooks is some profound moral obligation? Is there any reason for us to treat with reverence such commands and demands? No rational reason, no. The only reason we do it is because we have been trained to do it. Some might point out that obeying the laws against theft and murder is a good thing to do. Well, yes and no. It is good to refrain from committing theft and murder, but it is NOT because "the law" says so. It is because theft and murder are inherently wrong, as they infringe upon the rights of others. And that was true before any politician passed a "law" about it, and will be true even if they "legalize" theft and murder (as every government has done, in the name of "taxation" and "war"). What is right and wrong does not at all depend upon what is "legal" or "illegal." And if you need POLITICIANS to tell you what is right and what is wrong, you need your head examined. Instead, you should judge the validity of so-called "laws" by whether they match what is inherently right and wrong. Thomas Jefferson put it this way:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

So why should anyone be proud of being "law-abiding," when all it means is blindly obeying whatever arbitrary commands the parasite class spews out this week? And pride in being a "taxpayer" is no better, since all that phrase means is that you give the politicians lots of money. When, exactly, did obeying politicians and giving them money become the measure of whether you're a good person?

Consider Nazi Germany. Were the law-abiding taxpayers in Nazi Germany the good guys? No. By obeying the so-called "laws" of that time, the majority allowed, or even assisted in, a nearly incomprehensible level of evil. And by being "taxpayers," they provided the funding for it. No, the good people in Germany were the criminals and tax cheats, who refused to assist, even passively, in the oppressions done in the name of "government."

The same is true under the regimes of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro--you can go right down the list (and it's a very long list). Under every nasty regime in history, the obedient subjects, who quietly did as they were told, the law-abiding taxpayers, were not the good guys. The law-breakers and rebels, the so-called traitors and terrorists, those were the good guys. How about in this country, when slavery was legal? The cowards were the ones obeying the law, while the good guys broke it.

How about here, today? Is it good to fund what the government is doing? Do you have some moral obligation to give your "fair share" of however many thousands of dollars, so Obama can give it to his banker buddies? Is it noble to fund whatever war the politicians decide to engage in this week? Do you like paying for the detention and torture of people who haven't been convicted, or even charged with any crime? (By the way, instead of doing away with that, Obama just gave it a new name: preventative detention.) Is it some great virtue to have helped to finance the police state growing up all around you, on both the federal and state levels? In short, is being a "law-abiding taxpayer" really something you should be proud of, or is it something you should be ashamed of?

Over time we have forgotten a very important secret--a secret the control freaks don't want you to know; a secret some of the Founders hinted at, though even most of them didn't seem to fully grasp it. Ready for it?

You own yourself.

You are not the property of the politicians, or anyone else. I own me, and you own you. Each of you owns himself. Sounds simple enough, right? And most people respond with, "Well duh, of course. That's no secret. We knew that." But in reality most people don't know that.

If you own yourself, would anyone have the right to take, without your consent, the fruits of your labor? What you earn, with your time and effort, does anyone have the right to take that from you by force? Of course not, most will answer. Really? And what if they call it "taxation"? "Oh, well, that's different." No, it isn't.

If you own yourself, would anyone have the right to force you to pay rent for a house you already paid for, under threat of taking your house away? Of course not. What if they call it "property taxes"? Oh, that's different. No, it isn't. And you can go right down the list: if you truly own yourself, the vast majority of so- called "laws," at all levels, are absolutely illegitimate. As Jefferson put it, ANY so-called "law" that infringes upon individual liberty--which is dang near all of them--is inherently
bogus.

But let's take it one step further. If you own yourself--your life, liberty and property--doesn't that imply that you have the right to defend those things from any and all aggressors? Yes. What if the aggressors call themselves "government" and call their attacks and robberies "law" and "taxes"? You still have the right. Changing the name of an act cannot make something bad into something good. And if you have the right to defend your life, liberty and property from all aggressors, it stands to reason that you have the right to equip yourself to do so. In other words, you have the right to be armed--the right to possess the equipment to exert whatever force is necessary to repel any attempts to infringe upon your rights to life, liberty and property.

I know it makes people uncomfortable (especially people who work for the government) when I say the following: I want every sane, adult American to have the ability to use force, including deadly force, against government agents. I don't want people randomly gunning down cops, but I do want the people to retain the ability to forcibly resist their own government. The very concept bothers a lot of people, but what is the alternative? The alternative is something a lot scarier: that the people should NOT have the means to resist their own government. But, once again, even most people who claim to be vehemently pro-freedom, don't like to talk about what that really means. Many "gun rights" organizations, for example, go to great lengths to beg the politicians to LET them remain armed. Why? At Lexington, when the British troops told the colonists to lay down their weapons, what was the response? Did the colonists say, "Awe, can't we keep them, pretty please?"? No, they had a very different attitude, something alone the lines of, "You're not the boss of us!"

If you own yourself--and this is a big one--it is not only your right, but your most profound obligation as a human being, to judge for yourself what is right and wrong, and to act accordingly. But what if people claiming to be "authority" want to force you to do something contrary to what you deem to be right? Do you have an obligation to obey them, and ignore your own conscience? No. What if their threats are called "legislation"? It makes no difference.

You are always, at all times, in every situation, obligated to do what you deem right, no matter what so-called "government" and "authority" and "law" have to say about it. And when the tyrants and control freaks, authoritarian thugs and megalomaniacs, try to tell you that are an evil, nasty, despicable criminal and traitor for daring to think for yourself, you have a right and duty to stand firm, and say, with confidence, "You are not the boss of me!"

[JT Coyoté]

indeed. and we're supposed to believe that, in the 97 xmas eves  since, there hasnt been another handful of congressman able to sneak in there and undo the federal reserve act? easy come, easy go....right? wheres the go? Oh yeah, congress likes the unlimited credit the FRB grants them...they dont wanna change it. whats it called?? "continuity of government", or somethin?

Larken Rose is reminding us that we are the authority behind the constitution....not the paper itself. Your 13 hated amendments are support for that assertion.

It will take us, we from whom all power originates. If 3%, 10 million people were to pummel their state houses armed with the knowledge I link to in my last post, and kept it up for a month, the 10th Amendment movement would grow to force an end to the FED outright and then restore Lincoln's Constitutional monetary system.

This exchange between you and I about a year ago, fits in here quite well.

Forgive me for being a Constitutional noob. But, the way I understand it is..... "The People" got together and wrote a Constitution. Then "The People" offered this Constitution to "The United States". 1 sovereign entity hands a contract to another. So, "The United States" is signatory to the contract(Constitution) provided by "The People".

We have 2 sovereign entities here..."The People" and "The United States". "The People" are sovereign above "The United States" because they wrote and offered the contract. But who, exactly are "The People". Well, we know 1st hand who "The People" are NOT....blacks, slaves, women, non-Christians, citizens, etc. So it is clear that the US Constitution was written for the elites and by the elites. They were not "being nice". They were declaring how they were gonna run the show.

My question is....
Why would a State secede on Constitutional grounds(10th amendment), when seceding is essentially renouncing the Constitution anyways?

Using the Constitution to fight the Constitution doesn't make sense to me. OK, OK......you are not talking about "secession"...just "state sovereignty". The State still runs into the same problem.....using the Constitution to fight the Constitution. The State cannot simultaneously "breach" and "be covered by" the contract(Constitution) at the same time.

You have a little bit of unlearning to do... some of the logic you use is correct, but because you're initial conception of who created what, and who is sovereign and who is not, is wrong, that creates a lot of your confusion. Also the idea that the Constitution was written for the elite by the elite is another misconception that is fostered in public schools today...

Since the time of its writing, who "We the people" are was determined by each individual state, most required only that the person voting in the affairs of the state was a landowner... and contrary to popular belief, more than 75% of the people owned land or property and this included widows, or women who had inherited or purchased property... property owning blacks and freed slaves voted as well... It must be remembered that a large percentage of people who emigrated to America up until the Civil War, were indentured servants, a slave with a term limit... many of these people went on to become landowners as well.

Many of the presumptions that you hold, you will have to lose, because they are fallacies that have been planted in your head and unfortunately a lot of other heads by the federal socialist education system over the last 30 years... this is by globalist design, and not Constitutional design to be sure.

We the people, through our individual sovereign states, created a compact that would provide as is suggested in the preamble all of the things necessary to maintain a peaceful union of the state's while not interfering with the people's self-government, our liberty, our property, or that of our posterity. This contract creates the limited second entity... the United States federal government. It has certain specific functions that are spelled out clearly in article 1 section 8... these are the duties of the federal government... constitutionally it is not sovereign, and was never intended to be sovereign.

It is impossible to secede from the union without breaking this Constitutional contract. And as has been stated many times you cannot be protected under a contract that you break. The 10th amendment is the last article of the Constitutional contract... the idea that secession somehow involves the 10th amendment is a misconception that was fostered before and during the Civil War... it is a fallacy, but it is still used today by secessionists, to give their movement "legitimacy."

For secession to be legitimate, it would have to be unanimous, a precedent that was set by no less a group of thinkers than the founding fathers when they unanimously declared their independence from Britain on July 4, 1776... it was a unanimous succession, as it had to be, and they understood why... otherwise there would have been Civil War.

The 10th amendment sovereignty movement, is NOT a secessionist movement... it is merely the Constitutional exercising of the 10th amendment prerogative by each state, to rein-in an out of control, albeit megalomaniacal, federal agent, a government that has grown up around the Constitution by unconstitutional means wielding unconstitutional powers. the states have the power to bring it back into Constitutional shape. The rogue government knows this... but that is a whole 'nother thread.

One misconception that has been allowed to grow is the idea that you espouse in your first paragraph that the lawful constitutional federal government the United States is somehow a sovereign entity... it is not. On the other hand, the unconstitutional, created out of whole cloth, corporate government, that was incorporated on February 21, 1871 however, is. It is also a foreign corporation that by it's stealth under color of law, as well as the inattentiveness, or lack of participation by the people over the last 140 years or so, has invented itself as THE federal government... it is promulgating many misconceptions like the ones you hold... all of which push us even further away from our constitutional mooring. This unconstitutional entity must be pushed back to Britain from where it originates.

Once you realize the truth upon reading and understanding the Constitution and the body of writing that surrounds it, you will see that the only sovereigns are the people, who have united together to form the states which can exercise the people's sovereign power to provide an agency of federal protection.  All of the constitutional amendments from the present 14th amendment on, have been created to enhance and strengthen the false federal corporation's power. This " false federal government" is so far outside Constitutional bounds it is incredible... This can only be stopped if the states exercise their Constitutional power as the founding fathers intended them to use it, provided by the 9th and 10th amendments.

JTCoyoté

"It [the Market Crash of 1929] was not accidental.
It was a carefully contrived occurrence.... The
international bankers sought to bring about a
condition of despair here so that they might
emerge as rulers of us all."
~ Rep. Lewis T. McFadden (R-PA)
Chairman of the House banking and
finance committee (1920-31)

[phosphene]

the constitution aint perfect, but its the best thing around. A few adjustments would be fine. I dont think the whole thing needs to be chucked though.

writing words on paper is called "spelling" for a reason. Larken Rose can spell a tax clause, and we scoff, laugh, and chuckle. the wizards referred to as "the founding fathers" can spell a tax clause, and we handover 50%+ of our paychecks. Why do the wizards in washington have more powerful spells than Larken Rose? Not because of the threat of force. Because more people believe in washington's magic.

[JT Coyoté]

the constitution aint perfect, but its the best thing around. A few adjustments would be fine. I dont think the whole thing needs to be chucked though.

writing words on paper is called "spelling" for a reason. Larken Rose can spell a tax clause, and we scoff, laugh, and chuckle. the wizards referred to as "the founding fathers" can spell a tax clause, and we handover 50%+ of our paychecks. Why do the wizards in washington have more powerful spells than Larken Rose? Not because of the threat of force. Because more people believe in washington's magic.

The point is, YOU ARE NOT HANDING 50% OF YOUR CHECK TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION... you are not paying that money to the government since the founders clause gives no authority to tax an individuals wages or income AT ALL.  

The "50%" you are loosing goes to the private bank that was created when congress passed a law 97 years ago that gave the fed a monopoly on the nation's money at interest.  The collateral on these loans is the income and property of all 14th Amendment citizens...

By agreeing to pay the tax when you sign a W-4 or a form 1099 etc. you have entered into an agreement to pay the IRS on behalf of the bank and the Bank by charter uses the BIR/IRS as the collection agent. It all goes to the bank every red cent, the government gets $0.00... the government gets none of it!

When the government wants some cash, it borrows it from the fed at interest instead, a different thing completely...

You are not taxed by the Constitution, you are taxed by contract to the fed as laid out in the federal reserve act, that you signed. All the 16th amendment did was to give the government the power to engage a private central banking monopoly.

Larken Rose is spreading disinfo about the origin of the income tax.  That video needs to be TRASHED!

JTCoyoté

"To say that any people are not fit for freedom,
is to make poverty their choice, and to say they
had rather be loaded with taxes than not."
~Thomas Paine

[phosphene]

By agreeing to pay the tax when you sign a W-4 or a form 1099 etc.

when the constitution was written, there was no w-4, 1099, or even IRS. But they still added in the tax clauses, didnt they? the point of the video is, pieces of paper dont rule your life....unless you let them. And anybody who gets upset by pieces of paper being crumpled up in a youtube video, is having trouble dealing with that.

voluntary servitude is the nation's biggest problem....not apathy.

[JT Coyoté]

when the constitution was written, there was no w-4, 1099, or even IRS. But they still added in the tax clauses, didnt they? the point of the video is, pieces of paper dont rule your life....unless you let them. And anybody who gets upset by pieces of paper being crumpled up in a youtube video, is having trouble dealing with that.

voluntary servitude is the nation's biggest problem....not apathy.

There is your proof... the W-4, 1099 are IRS contract forms for collecting the interest for the bank... The article I section 2 clause GIVES NO AUTHORITY TO TAX INDIVIDUAL INCOME and the article I section 9 clause forbids a direct government income tax on individuals and states that, this includes the inability to authorize the collection by a third party on the government's behalf.

This is why Larken does not show the clause, just a box scribed on a printout of the Constitution and says a tax clause is there... He does not mention the IRS or the private federal reserve, which has contracted with the treasury to help them collect their "interest" creating a private taxing scheme. These are the real culprits... The same crooks that own the bank run the schools and control the media... thus they control you.

This video is designed to equate the founders and the Constitution as ROBBERS, when it is the global bankers who are the robbers, and they are doing it outside the Constitutional system and People are volunteering to participate.

Larken, in this video does the constitution and the founders a horrible dis-service. He should pull it and then do the honorable thing and do a video THAT SHOWS AND TELLS THE TRUTH!

JTCoyoté

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought
to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but
moderation in principle is always a vice."
"The Rights of Man", 1792
~Thomas Paine

[phosphene]

the point of the video is, pieces of paper dont rule your life....unless you let them.

freedom is bigger than the US constitution. He coulda used any piece of paper to demonstrate his point. In fact he does. he starts by writing his own taxation clause. If he drew a box around the taxation clause of the EU constitution, or Russian constitution, i bet nobody would have a problem with what he is saying.

[JT Coyoté]

freedom is bigger than the US constitution. He coulda used any piece of paper to demonstrate his point. In fact he does. he starts by writing his own taxation clause. If he drew a box around the taxation clause of the EU constitution, or Russian constitution, i bet nobody would have a problem with what he is saying.

The fact is that he didn't! He chose to demonize the Founders and the Constitution instead...

This is a truth movement based upon the teachings of the founders of modern Liberty and the Charters of Freedom. Liberty which is granted by Providence. The author of this video has falsely and provably so, attacked one of those charters... and you are making excuses for this rascal??  Hmmm...

Oldyoti

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule,
where fifty-one percent of the people may
 take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
~Thomas Jefferson  

[phosphene]

The Declaration of Independence is the document that encompasses the spirit of the founding fathers. The Declaration of Independence is the document thats got balls. The Constitution is just a list of rules and regulations that the feds are subject to. Are the federal agents gonna manipulate the rules to make their job easier, and for even more sinister reasons? no doubt about it.

[JT Coyoté]

The Declaration of Independence is the document that encompasses the spirit of the founding fathers. The Declaration of Independence is the document thats got balls. The Constitution is just a list of rules and regulations that the feds are subject to. Are the federal agents gonna manipulate the rules to make their job easier, and for even more sinister reasons? no doubt about it.

Spirit with Balls, eh phos? Now there's a picture. In your third sentence, you are saying that the Constitution is JUST a piece of paper, "a list of rules and regulations."  This attitude not only shows hostility toward it, but shows that you are STILL a noob when it comes to understanding the purpose of the Constitution.

JTCoyoté

"Do not separate text from historical background.
If you do, you will have perverted and subverted
the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted,
bastardized form of illegitimate government."
~James Madison

[stymo1]

This thread is AWESOME.

Thanks for all the schoolin JT.

I have saved a lot of your Constitution truths to get myself educated some.

[Freeski]

This thread is AWESOME.

Thanks for all the schoolin JT.

I have saved a lot of your Constitution truths to get myself educated some.

I agree, the thread is awesome. There's so much spin to sort through and I have no problem learning, unlearning and relearning over and over again until I think I've got it, only to receive a curve ball that causes me more angst and confusion.

I do like the way Phosphene and others challenge stuff, too, because that's the essence of what Ben Franklin meant (I think) when he said "A republic, if you can keep it". Our work is never done. We must be guards of our own freedom -- forever and ever and ever because the minute we let our guard down, some asshole will begin plotting against us.

Eternal vigilance!

[phosphene]

OK. So lemme get this straight. Its OK for JT to reject and criticize every amendment after 10. But Larken Rose criticizes the taxation clause and he's a globalist Rockefeller psy-op disinfo agent? lol! It sounds like JT is more disgusted with the constitution than this Larken Rose guy.

[JT Coyoté]

This thread is AWESOME.

Thanks for all the schoolin JT.

I have saved a lot of your Constitution truths to get myself educated some.

Thanks Stymo,

How are things going in your bid?

JTCoyoté

"What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in
any new branch of commerce when he knows not
that his plans may be rendered unlawful before
they can be executed?"
~James Madison

[Freeski]

No matter what, we are ALL largely allies -- and we need each other.

[phosphene]

It was when I looked closer at private contracts that my US Constitution epiphany occurred. Lemme give an example....

JT Coyote's simple private contract can restrict Phosphene's inalienable, god given right, of freedom of speech.

From what I understand, JT is a gunsmith. Imagine JT invents a cool new gun barrel. Imagine Phosphene is interested in distributing cool new gun barrels. In order to protect his trade secret, JT would require Phosphene to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement before he showed him the cool new barrel design. After signing the agreement, would Phosphene still be protected by the 1st amendment regarding JT's trade secrets? No, of course not. So, you see, even the simplest of private contracts is more powerful than the almighty Constitution. So, Larken Rose's "I am allowed to rob you" contract is just as powerful. You just need to sign up for it.

TPTB understand how contracts work. And they count on the sheople to not. We sign away our rights all day long....licenses...forms...endorsing checks...and on and on. Thats how you can end up in traffic court and be told that "the constitution does not apply here." by the judge.

Judge: Constitution "not relevant" - 1/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwJN3zFHF5c

[JT Coyoté]

OK. So lemme get this straight. Its OK for JT to reject and criticize every amendment after 10. But Larken Rose criticizes the taxation clause and he's a globalist Rockefeller psy-op disinfo agent? lol! It sounds like JT is more disgusted with the constitution than this Larken Rose guy.

You still haven't got it straight... it is the amendments from 14 on that need to be scrutinized by the states under their 10th amendment power for constitutionality.

Try as we may we can find little wanting in constitutionality and nothing in the way of global shenanigans anywhere in the Organic Constitution and the first 4 external amendments the last being Lincoln's 14th which we now know as the 13th amendment. Everything after that is suspect however.

The only one who has used ad-homs to characterize Larken Rose is you in your post above. My disgust is with Mr. Rose's mis-characterization of the constitutional tax clauses, as a spring board to blame the Organic Constitution as the reason people "HAVE" to pay income taxes. This is dis-information at best, and an out and out prevarication to it's core.

Oldyoti

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can
vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
attributed to ~ Alexander Tytler

[JT Coyoté]

It was when I looked closer at private contracts that my US Constitution epiphany occurred. Lemme give an example....

JT Coyote's simple private contract can restrict Phosphene's inalienable, god given right, of freedom of speech.

From what I understand, JT is a gunsmith. Imagine JT invents a cool new gun barrel. Imagine Phosphene is interested in distributing cool new gun barrels. In order to protect his trade secret, JT would require Phosphene to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement before he showed him the cool new barrel design. After signing the agreement, would Phosphene still be protected by the 1st amendment regarding JT's trade secrets? No, of course not. So, you see, even the simplest of private contracts is more powerful than the almighty Constitution. So, Larken Rose's "I am allowed to rob you" contract is just as powerful. You just need to sign up for it.

TPTB understand how contracts work. And they count on the sheople to not. We sign away our rights all day long....licenses...forms...endorsing checks...and on and on. Thats how you can end up in traffic court and be told that "the constitution does not apply here." by the judge.

I'm sure you can see that your analogy only proves my point.  The contract you sign with another person is between you and that person, as long as the contract is entered into in good faith on both sides it should be abided by. The Constitution will protect that contract.  If the contract is a scam or a misrepresentation on the part of the initiator, or not adheared to by one or the other of the principals in the contract, and this can be proven in a court of law, the Constitution and constitutional law provides a remedy for the injured party.  

This is not the argument here though. The argument is the miss characterization of one or the other of the constitutional tax clauses that is being represented by Mr. Rose as providing the aegis for the Internal Revenue Service to collect income tax.  Which is untrue.  As a matter of fact the 16th Amendment doesn't even extend the pre-existing tax clauses.  The 16th Amendment as the Supreme court has ruled several times, does not alter or extend the Constitutional tax laws.

Try to remember, it is not the federal government that is collecting the taxes--it is an agency of the federal Govt, the IRS, working under contract with the Federal Reserve ... a private bank that receives the funds. The federal government does not see a single penny as revenue from the taxes collected... I explained it all before.

JTCoyoté

"If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they
cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make
such laws and enforce them." ~Candidus,
in the Boston Gazette, January 20, 1772  

[Freeski]

Try to remember, it is not the federal government that is collecting the taxes--it is an agency of the federal Govt, the IRS, working under contract with the Federal Reserve ... a private bank that receives the funds. The federal government does not see a single penny as revenue from the taxes collected... I explained it all before.

Public private partnerships. P3s, the usurping of government by private interests. He with the most money has the control. Fascism?

[phosphene]

Try to remember, it is not the federal government that is collecting the taxes--it is an agency of the federal Govt, the IRS,

Try to remember that an "agency" cant collect anything. Individuals acting on behalf of an agency can though. Try to remember that its not the state of x that charges you sales tax at the store. the guy behind the counter does with the cash register machine. And he does it voluntarily, without even getting paid for it.

This still is a free country. we support the system. voluntary servitude is thriving, and legal.

[JT Coyoté]

Try to remember that an "agency" cant collect anything. Individuals acting on behalf of an agency can though. Try to remember that its not the state of x that charges you sales tax at the store. the guy behind the counter does with the cash register machine. And he does it voluntarily, without even getting paid for it.

This still is a free country. we support the system. voluntary servitude is thriving, and legal.

Wonderful parsing and omission, there phos.  You forgot to include who the federal agency (IRS), is contracted to collect the taxes for however...

It would be one thing if it was to be used for the benefit of the people, but it is not.  It is collected to pay interest (protection), to a rogue foreign banking cartel whose intent is to overthrow the peace and security of the American people, and the people of the world. To create a world empire ruled by and for themselves.  

It is one thing in your work to lawfully collect a 4 percent state sales tax or a $0.40 per gallon fuel tax, knowing it goes to repair roads and bridges, build hospitals, pay fire and rescue personnel, and other necessary infrastructure for the safe and comfortable living of the American people.  Yet it's another thing entirely to allow for the taking of 30+% and falsely slip it into the coffers of 6000 criminal agents, their minions, and their global masters who use the trillions to bankrupt and wage constant war against the people of the planet pitting one against another in provocateured conflicts blaming it on the American people and the Constitution. All done by the hands of criminals whose blood lust depravity and greed is beyond satiability.

And then, you bring in a video from a man clearly placing the blame for the so-called federal income tax on one of two falsely represented clauses in the Constitution for the United States of America. Then, by association he labels the founding fathers as robbers.  Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows just by time-line association if nothing else, that this "income" tax was created at the same time the Federal Reserve Bank was created. Now why do you think that was...Duh...

The "federal" in federal income tax has nothing to do with the lawful federal government described in the Constitution for the United States of America, which has unfortunately been dormant since the late 1860s. Nope... the word "federal" in this case has everything to do with the "Federal Reserve."  

This video needs to be exposed for what it is, destructive DISINFORMATION! Which is what I am doing now.  Truth and truthful information is the Prime Directive of this forum, and the primary reason Prison Planet and Infowars began and continues to THRIVE.  

JTCoyoté

"One unerring mark of the love of truth is
not entertaining any proposition with greater
assurance than the proofs it is built upon
will warrant." ~John Locke

[phosphene]

Larken is talking about questioning authority, the source of authority, and personal responsibility. Thats what the truth movement is all about.

Then he reminds the audience that if theyre not part of the solution, then theyre part of the problem. And thats the most difficult part for anybody to accept. Its not apathy...its been complicity all along.

as long as there are people willing to fight....therell be wars. as long as there are people willing to pay taxes...therell be taxes. etc. etc.

[JT Coyoté]

Larken is talking about questioning authority, the source of authority, and personal responsibility. Thats what the truth movement is all about.

Then he reminds the audience that if theyre not part of the solution, then theyre part of the problem. And thats the most difficult part for anybody to accept. Its not apathy...its been complicity all along.

as long as there are people willing to fight....therell be wars. as long as there are people willing to pay taxes...therell be taxes. etc. etc.

Then he should be truthful and honest in his presentation.  He should accurately represent the authority he is questioning... which he clearly has not done here.  

My previous post is clear on the nature of taxes ... there are lawful taxes and there are unlawful taxes.  And the founders of this country wrote reams of documents explaining the differences.  To a man they were firmly against any imposed or coerced federal taxation on individual wages or income.    

I stand by what I said in my previous post, until Rose points the finger at the true culprit in this case, and represents the Constitution in an accurate light, his video is pure disinformation, nothing more and nothing less.

Oldyoti

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get
yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is
to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding
fathers used in their struggle for independence."
~C. A. Beard

[phosphene]

He should accurately represent the authority he is questioning... which he clearly has not done here.

accurate? Like, according to your preferred 1776 model? Or accurate like how it actually is today?

I think we can all agree that the constitution is a list of rules and regulations that the feds are subject to. Or you could say that federal agents are "subject to" the constitution. And "citizens" are "protected by" the constitution. Disobeying the constitution is not a problem for citizens, because they are not subject to it. Larken is speaking to the citizens in this video, not federal agents.

[JT Coyoté]

accurate? Like, according to your preferred 1776 model? Or accurate like how it actually is today?

I think we can all agree that the constitution is a list of rules and regulations that the feds are subject to. Or you could say that federal agents are "subject to" the constitution. And "citizens" are "protected by" the constitution. Disobeying the constitution is not a problem for citizens, because they are not subject to it. Larken is speaking to the citizens in this video, not federal agents.

Since the Constitution wasn't ratified completely until 1791, 15 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, I will assume this is when you mean.  

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is the shining result of eight years of bitter war, and 7 years of constant debate, failed attempts, and even more debate, heated and widespread. The totality of the editorial page debates on the Bill of Rights alone would fill 20 volumes, whereas the published account of these debates, the Federalist/anti Federalist Papers, only fills two volumes.  

Given the fact that all of this documentation was taken into account in the forging of the document itself, I think it's safe to say that the Constitution is more than just a list of rules and regulations, it is probably the most thoroughly discussed and researched document ever written.  The Bill of rights alone is the ultimate testament to liberty.  

Liberty is the rights graciously bestowed by Providence at our birth.  Morality and virtue are the righteous use of this liberty.  The Constitution for the United States of America and Bill of Rights, in its organic incarnation as manifested in 1791, along with the first four external amendments which includes the original 13th Amendment as well as Lincoln's 14th amendment, insures the maximum protection of liberty. It also provides for the assurance that its offices will demonstrate the maximum of moral virtue through oaths and mutual oversight.  

This truth is glimpsed the first time one reads The Preamble.  By the time the entire document, the supporting documents, the letters, and the editorial exchanges are digested, this truth becomes overwhelming and absolutely real. The Constitution places into undeniable practical application the inspired concepts expressed in its enabling document, the Declaration of Independence.

With that said, Rose needs to redo his video so it reveals the true robbery of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, or the DC Organic Act of 1871 which puts the DC act itself on equal but separate legal footing with the Constitution and thus created the corporate shadow government that set the stage for the many unaccountable private corporate agencies, and the "Federal" income tax.

As it is, Rose's video wrongly demonizes the Founders and the Constitution, and I will not stop until its dishonesty is exposed and he changes it, or he pulls it completely... He is diverting the valuable energy of the people to following a "cliff dropping" red herring.

JTCoyoté

"When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of
remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the
corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other
correction is either useless or a new evil."
~Thomas Jefferson

[Geolibertarian]

For those who haven't already seen the following:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE (The American Form of Government)

[JT Coyoté]

For those who haven't already seen the following:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE (The American Form of Government)

Excellent video synopsis... Thanks G.  

JTCoyoté

"What has been the effect of coercion?
To make one-half the world fools and
the other half hypocrites. To support
roguery and error all over the earth."
~Thomas Jefferson

[phosphene]

The Bill of rights alone is the ultimate testament to liberty.

yeah, Statism is a religion. Respecting and appreciating the constitution is one thing. worshiping it is another.

until 1791, 15 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence..of 1913...of 1871

which point in history should we should we freeze to accommodate your favorite constitutional model? It's like arguing between the old testament and the new testament.