Letme see/I pay my taxes, My Neighbors pay their taxes,But Ron Paul says Break The Law and Dont Pay Your Taxes? And this guy is wasting his time running for what office? I guess we should just makeup our own laws individually? MArtin Luther King and Ghandi had a good cause.... Ron Paul is a Gofball. I think i will vote for Him just to have another "Reality Show!" LOL! On the flipside Obama Must Go!
An indirect tax is a tax on activity. The activity is what ever you do when you work. There is no law in title 26 that addresses all work. Title 26 talks about the production of alcohol, firearms, tobacco and some other revenue taxable activities. but there is no law that claims that all work activities are taxable! RON PAUL DOES NOT KNOW THIS!!!!! This is bad.
bney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836, 841 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. den. 346 U.S. 924 (1954). “[Hamzik] contends only that he does not have a tax liability and subsequent deficiency because all federal income taxes are ‘indirect taxes’ and the Commissioner has not produced the statutes defining the ‘revenue taxable activity’ that would make Hamzik subject to or liable for any tax under Title 26. The tax court properly rejected Hamzik’s arguments as frivolous.”
Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998) “The IRS is not required to show that the Debtor’s income is derived from a ‘revenue taxable activity.’”
In the first case, when a judge calls a legal position "frivolous," the judge isn't just saying the person is wrong. The judge is saying the person's argument is insane and the person arguing it has lost their mind. Claiming the income tax is unconstitutional is like saying objects don't fall when you drop them.
Ego are you an IRS agent? I see you have trolled all IRS videos. The 16th amendment was passed on Christmas Eve at midnight and was never truly ratified. The income tax doesn't run the federation, the tax pays the federal reserve for printing notes, a loan out of thin air, at 6% on a paper bank entry. The federal reserve made 84 billion dollars in 2010 out of thin air. Citing IRS codes does not make it legal. There is a billion dollars buy out clause in the federal reserve act, do it.
Can you define the term 'troll' for me as you are using it? I don't understand how you can conclude I am a troll when I provide extremely thorough and sourced debunks to tax protester arguments. If you really saw my other comments, you will see I have discussed Senator Knox's decision making and have proven the ratification of the 16th amendment.
The only way to change it would be to resurrect the dead Congressmen and State Legislators (Who during their lifetimes never complained the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified) and have them debate over whether or not it was properly ratified. The ratification of amendments is in the hands of state legislators and congressmen, not courts.
Moreover, if you really read my comments you would have seen that your statement that the income tax pays for interest on the national debt is completely wrong. The claim comes from a false interpretation of the Grace Commission Report. The income tax exceeds interest on the debt twenty fold, so its impossible the income tax all paid for the interest on the debt unless the US paid that interest 20 times.
Moreover, the Federal Reserve provides the US Treasury with 95-96% of its profits, which more than makes up for the profit off of the interest to the national debt. Moreover, the federal reserve doesn't merely print money out of thin air at absolutely no cost. A bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks.
This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.
The federal reserve earned $82 billion in profit in 2010, and gave $79 billion of it to the US Treasury, according to New York Times. So the Fed actually earned $3 billion in profit in 2010. Quit the deception.
Last, I cite court cases. I can prove to you that the IRS Code is law in detail if you wish, using court cases. That way you can't argue that the IRS Code is no law, and therefore you must conclude that citing the IRS Code is indeed citing the law.
Agent Ego, the IRS code is not law. You know that the federal gov in the District of Criminals doesn't use the Constitution anymore and we are under Uniform Commercial Codes. We have been collateral since 1933, the year the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES bankrupt. Federal Courts are commissioned by the corporation, they will protect the system. The people have the right to change any code you use as prove. Get a job in the real world of profit and lose and you will CHANGE your opinion.
My response to you will be a thorough debunk, and hence it will be long. Please wait until there has been ~10 minutes since my most recent post before formulating a response.
Let me start off with your first false statement: "The IRS code is not law."
The arguments that the Internal Revenue Code is not a valid statute are all strange, and take several different forms.
One form of argument is simply that the Internal Revenue Code was never enacted. This is easily disproved by checking the records of the U.S. Congress. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3.
The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986). More recent amendments to the Internal Revenue Code (as well as other public laws) can be found on-line through the “Thomas” web site maintained by the Library of Congress.
Public Laws are numbered consecutively within each session of Congress, each session lasting two years. The Congress that convened in January of 2001 was the 107th, so the first bill passed by that Congress and signed by the President was P.L. 107-1, the second was P.L. 107-2, and so forth. All public laws are published in the U.S. Statutes at Large, usually abbreviated “Stat.”, so a citation to “68A Stat. 3” refers to page 3 of volume 68A of the U.S. Statutes at Large.
The U.S. Statutes at large can be found at most law libraries, so the text of the original Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and published proof of its enactment, can be found at any law library with a copy of the U.S. Statutes at Large.
The other argument is more subtle and more complicated. Many of the statutes of the United States have been “codified,” or reorganized into more orderly collections of statutes known as the “United States Code,” which is divided by subject matter into “titles.”
As part of this codification, many statutes that were enacted separately have been reenacted together as part of the United States Code, so that the Code itself became “positive law.” For example, the statutes relating to federal courts have been organized and reenacted as Title 28 of the United States Code. So, when referring to a provision of Title 28, it is usually not necessary to worry about when or how it was enacted;
all you need to do is refer to the right section of Title 28. For convenient reference, the Internal Revenue Code has been published as Title 26 of the United States Code but, technically speaking, has never been enacted as part of the United States Code. This is explained in the printed volumes of the United States Code, which states that Title 26 is evidence of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code,
but that Title 26 itself is not “positive law,” even though the revenue laws enacted by Congress (such as Public Law 83-591 enacted in 1954, or Public Law 99-514 enacted in 1986), all of which can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large, are “positive law.”
The distinction between Title 26 of the United States Code and “positive law” is purely technical and would never be important to anyone unless the U.S. Government Printing Office
made a typographical error in printing Title 26 of the United States Code, so that the United States Code did not accurately reflect the revenue laws enacted by Congress. If a typographical error did occur, then the courts would look to the U.S. Statutes at Large to determine the text of the relevant statute, instead of Title 26 of the United States Code.
So, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have been enacted by Congress as positive law, and the fact that the Internal Revenue Code as not been reenacted or codified as part of the United States Code is irrelevant.
What do the courts say about tax protester claims to the contrary? “Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable.”
United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146, 90 TNT 246-11, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 11/26/1990); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986). “Congress’s failure to enact a title [of the United States Code] into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself).
Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryan’s rights by enforcing it.”
Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985). “The petitioner’s argument that the Internal Revenue Code was not enacted by Congress is equally meritless. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83rd Congress on August 16, 1954 (ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3) and has been amended by Congress with some frequency since that time.”
Urban v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-220, affd. per curiam, 964 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1992). “In his opposition, Plaintiff asserts that ‘Title 26 U.S.C. (including section 6321) has not been enacted into positive law, and is not the law, but is only prima facie evidence of the law.’ ... Congress’ failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. section 204(a).
‘Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law’. [Citations omitted] Plaintiff’s positive law argument is without merit.”
Bilger v. United States, 87 AFTR2d ¶2001-468, No. CIV F 00-6486 OWW JLO (U.S.D.C. E.D.Ca. 1/9/2001). “On appeal he [Scott] makes the same arguments advanced and rejected countless times in tax protestor litigation, such as that the Tax Code is not binding “positive law,” and wages are exempt from taxation because they are not income.
[Citations omitted] Needless to say, these contentions do not state a claim against the United States, let alone support a lien against its agents.”
United States v. Scott, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 16877; 99-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,745; 84 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5342, (7th Cir. 1999). “Similarly frivolous is his claim that a summons could not be issued because title 26 has not been enacted into ‘positive law.’”
United States v. Hooper, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 38246; 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 8026, 1995 WL 792039 at *1 (9th Cir. 1995). “Finally, we reject as frivolous Kolchev’s remaining contentions asserting that his wages are not taxable income, see 26 U.S.C. § 61, that notices of deficiency may only be issued to government employees, [citation omitted], that the IRS code is not enforceable because it has not been enacted into positive law, [citation omitted],
and that the Commissioner lacked delegated authority to issue the notice of deficiency, [citation omitted].”
Kolchev v. Commissioner, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2683; 75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 839, (9th Cir. 1995). “The appellant’s argument regarding the validity of Title 26 is frivolous. The validity of Title 26 is not affected merely because it has not been codified as ‘positive law’.”
Hackett v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 933 (6th Cir. 1986).
@brainerdrebel “The claim that Title 26 was not enacted into ‘positive law,’ has been rejected as ‘frivolous,’ ‘baseless,’ ‘specious,’ and ‘preposterous.’ [Citations omitted]”
United States v. Maczka, 957 F.Supp. 988, 991 (W.D.Mich. 1996).
See also, United States v. Zuger, 602 F.Supp. 889, 891-92 (D. Conn. 1984) (‘holding that the failure of Congress to enact a title as such and in such form into positive law . . . in no way impugns the validity,
effect, enforceability, or constitutionality of the laws as contained and set forth in the title’ and describing argument as “specious”), aff’d. without op., 755 F.2d 915 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 805 (1985); Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F.Supp. 141, 149 (N.D.Ind. 1984) (asserting that ‘even if Title 26 was not itself enacted into positive law,
that does not mean that the laws under the title are null and void’ and referring to the “positive law” argument as “preposterous”); United States v. Cooper, 170 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986);
Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984); Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986); Sloan v. United States, 621 F.Supp. 1072, 1076 (N.D.Ind.1985) (litigants advancing ‘frivolous’ arguments such as assertions that the Internal Revenue Code is not positive law subjected to sanctions under Rule 11, FED. R. CIV. P.),
aff’d in part and appeal dismissed, 812 F.2d 1410 (7th Cir.1987) (table); United States v. McLain, 597 F.Supp.2d 987, 994, n. 6 (D. Minn. 2009) (“[W]hile McLain is technically correct in arguing that Title 26 is merely prima facie evidence of the law, the distinction is largely academic because the relevant sections of Title 26 are identical to the relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code.”).
Now, let me cover federal courts jurisdiction over enforcing tax laws. Many tax protesters argue federal courts are “admiralty” or “maritime” courts or (alternative) tax enforcement is governed by admiralty law and can be defeated by properly invoking admiralty procedures.
This nonsense seems to arise out of a misunderstanding of the meaning of “exclusive,” so statements that federal court jurisdiction over maritime litigation is “exclusive” is read as meaning that federal courts can hear only maritime litigation, while what was meant was that maritime litigation can only be heard by federal courts and cannot be heard by state courts.
(This claim therefore seems related to the claim that Congressional power is limited to the District of Columbia and other “federal areas,” which arises out of the mistaken belief that the power of Congress to exercise ““exclusive Legislation” means that Congress can legislate only for the District of Columbia, while what was clearly intended was that the power of legislation should be exclusive to Congress and denied to the states.)
As ridiculous as this claim about admiralty law might look, at least one court has taken the time to refute it: “The Saunders argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the summonses. In support of their position, they cite The Glide, 167 U.S. 606, 623-24, 17 S.Ct. 930, 936, 42 L.Ed. 296 (1897),
which holds that ‘[t]he maritime and admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the constitution and laws of the United States upon the district courts of the United States is exclusive.’ The Saunders apparently interpret this language as limiting the jurisdiction of federal district courts to admiralty and maritime actions. The Saunders also seem to believe that, by issuing a notice of dishonor under the Uniform Commercial Code,
they prevent the IRS from characterizing this case as a contract in admiralty or a maritime action, leaving the district court no basis for jurisdiction.
“The Saunders reading of The Glide founders. In describing the district courts’ maritime and admiralty jurisdiction as ‘exclusive’ the Supreme Court excluded state courts from adjudicating either category of lawsuit. The Court did not, by employing the phrase ‘exclusive,’ delimit the bases of federal jurisdiction.
To the contrary, Congress has expressly directed federal district courts to hear tax enforcement matters. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b), 7604(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1340. We have repeatedly confirmed the authority--indeed, duty--of the district courts to adjudicate tax summons cases such as the one being prosecuted here. See, e.g., United States v. Author Servs., Inc., 804 F.2d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.1986), amended, 811 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir.1987).”
United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991).
Still, there are many tax protester pleadings referring to admiralty or maritime law, all of which are usually ignored by the courts as simply gibberish.
The claim that “Federal courts may not enforce the internal revenue laws because their jurisdiction is limited to admiralty or maritime cases or issues” has been identified by the IRS as a
“frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.
Now, lets move on to your claim that "Federal Courts are commissioned by the corporation, and will protect the system." Please provide me with the ideas that led to you formulating this conclusion. Include references of the original documents that went into producing your reasoning.
Your next statement: "The people have the right to change any code you use as prove" makes absolutely no sense to me, please clarify what you mean.
Last, you say "Get a job in the real world of profit and lose and you will CHANGE your opinion."
Well, I wake up every mourning and thank god I have never had a job. I consider a job doing work that you don't like to do. Working is the absolute worst way to earn money, and I see no point in working if you don't love it.
Now, I earn all kinds of money and can assist you if you would like more information in regards of establishing financial independence...but I don't see how working being a bad way to make money pertains to tax laws. Throughout all of human history working has been the worst way to earn money. Wealthy individuals have always had multiple sources of passive income, even in Ancient Greece.
Agent Ego, we finally agree on something, investments are the way to make money. The Carl Max theory (communist manifesto) of progressive income tax takes the incentive of investment and hard work out of the equation. I had to work hard first before I had the capitol to invest, I wouldn't do it under the current tax system. I would take advantage of the system, get all the free benefits and work for cash.
I never said investments are the way to make money. I believe investing money is the second best way to earn money. That's because you need money to invest money. I believe the best way to earn money is through setting up multiple sources of passive income. Of all the wealthy individuals I have studied dating back to Andrew Carnegie have all had multiple sources of income. Investing is just one part of establishing multiple sources of income, and is used for long term growth,
The fact that income taxes, and more broadly progressive taxes, exist has nothing to do with the reason why working is a horrible way to earn money. The reason working is a bad way to make money is:
(a) you are limited to your physical presence (When you set up passive sources of income you leverage others)
(b) There is a limited amount of time, there is all there is. In my opinion, life is too short to waste it working.
Money is reward for service rendered, not hours worked.
RON PAUL MADE A MISTAKE. and he kept on making the same mistake. Cavuto is a complete idiot but RON PAUL SHOULD KNOW BETTER!
1) The income tax is constitutional not because of the 16th Amendment but because of Article 1 section 8 clause 1. The only purpose of the 16th Amendment was to stop congress from labeling the income tax a direct tax. the 16th Amendment did not give congress any new taxing power. 2) The Income tax is an indirect tax which means that he tax is on the job activity.
Fox News and the rest of the media should be indicted for misinforming the people. That is conspiracy to defraud. They have swayed votes on faulty reporting and that is fraudulent. Ron Paul won all the straw polls and Fox refused to acknowledge it on several occasions.
Cavuto is looking like he is ignorant about the income tax and what it pays for. Does anyone have a copy of freedom to fascism left they can send to Mr. Cavuto?
He won't have to if "We the People" vote for him in 2012 and stand up to these people and throw out every ione thats there now and put real americans in office
I only ask this question, because I was wondering how Paul can persuade the tyrannizers into legislating themselves away from the very tyranny they impose?
All the taxes you pay go to pay off the interest to the Federal Reserve..
It would be different if the income taxes went to public services but they don't - the INCOME TAX goes to pay the international bankers AKA The secret federal reserve shareholders (whoever they are)
Willis Carto is very interesting. He is the president of the American Free Press. He also has connections to the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam, and the Heritage Foundation. Search more for information about him, you might find out something I don't know.
Anybody who is just waiting for the libertarian party to infilitrate the mafia and institute a new age of liberty and prosperity is delusional. There is no political solution to this problem. We will just have to wait for the Keynesian quackery and this culture of violence to meet its inevitable end, and then we must rebuild from the ground up for a free society. In a few decades, we will have our opportunity. But it is important for people to understand how this is not a failure of freedom.
"Thank you very much we'll see what happens to the Browns" - That son of a B*tch should get ran over by a snowplow... and directly after, a sand dispensing truck. I can't fu*king stand FOX News and only deaf and blind idiots watch Fox News... It should be viewed for nothing more that gut filled laughter.
Wow....and I thought George Bush turned my stomach.......this Cavuto made me barf.....
He is much more arrogant than Bush & I know why. He is trying to impress his bosses with I control interviews...did not impress, made an ASS of himself. And Ron Paul will do a number on this wanna-Be every time.
They built buildings on either the backs of slaves (prior to 1864) or the backs of very low paid sons of slaves or the hopelessly poor under the worst of conditions.
Cavuto comes off as a shockingly complete idiot in this exchange. I agree that he was just fishing for Paul to mis-speak so he could get an enticing sound bite to hawk to his ambulance-chasing popular news brethren. Shameless. Kudos to Paul for holding firm to our rights and the role of the public in a free society.
which surveys some of the economic problems plaguing Michigan and the nation, and the ideas of the one man with a viable solution, rooted in freedom and peace:
Cavuto is just like any other corporate slave towing the line..He is destroying journalism for faux news and (not) american citizen murdick...that foreigner shouldn't even own any US news corp..thats the problem from the start...media broken up and restored back to americans..RON PAUL sachools neil the queer..let him finish his answers you rude ass....
It should be understood by now that if you are going to interview Dr. Paul you had better do your homework. It appears that Neil cannot distinguish "the Income Tax" from "Taxes." His childish manner reflects his inability to comprehend such complex thoughts such as people not wanting to pay taxes. Ron Paul is my hero!!!
Cavuto is a monkey puppet, Ron Paul answers his accusitory qustions with ease and truthfullness.
Soundl like FAUX news goes right to a Paris Hilton story right after this, you gotta follow a truth bomb like that with some mind numbing distracting junk like that so people won't follo up and learn about the TRUTH.
I think this is really funny. On the CNNyoutube debate Huckabee said he wants to get rid of the IRS. He copies ron paul and gets praised, but it was ron paul's view first and he was called crazy...hmmmm.....
i hate that neil cavuto, what a lieing piece of shit! they call this journalism? did he get ONE FUCKING THING RIGHT AT ALL? well i guess he did know his NAME... geez what a piece of shit.. how can they allow this kind of SHIT to be peddled for truth on their network
Cavuto approached Paul from an uninformed position, and got his head handed to him by Paul. It seemed to me that, because of the way Paul handled it (e.g. in his gentlemanly manner), that that allowed Cavuto to listen carefully to Paul's argument. At the end Cavuto seemed to reconsider his position. Maybe Paul made a convert.
So rude interupting him like that. Look at the difference with the later Cavuto interview (Nov) now that Ron Paul is recognized as a forerunner candidate (post money-bomb). Cavuto is a jerk!
how funny. Hes has the best voting record in the history of the congress....said by his fellow members. You got your no. 6 from the fox news focus group. Sorry but there is no cult. We want to restore the constitution and put gov't back in its proper role. So stay happy with your current system of nation building and the FED......
Two First Names "non interventionalist" policy = Fighting the bad guy in your backyard. It is the weakest excuse for being a WIMP. Face it we will be at war for a while but we are tearing down Islamic fundamentalism or extreamism that has been festoring for generations. Normal people say "thanks but no thanks" if help is unwanted, extreamists say DEATH TO AMERICA because they want to kill me and you.
you offer no facts or anything to support your claim,the things u just posted have no sources except that they are your own lies created to take down ron paul. sorry kid but the people are waking up, you and your fox news buddy wont work anymore
He is a liberal pacifist disguised as a Republican -- he will retreat from Iraq
In conclusion, Ronnie has accomplished nothing during his TEN TERMS of Congress. He is a gynecologist who hasn't earned the privilege of the becoming the most powerful man on the planet.
Calling Ron Paul a lib is simply missing the facts. Cutting taxes and replacing them with no new taxes is liberal? hellotommy you are an uninformed sheep, free yor mind and allow the truth to seep in through the pollution.
Spending money we don't have on a war that is pissing off the world instead of on our border where it's proven that terrorists are streaming trhough is your solution?
It's all a globalist adgenda that Hillary, Obama, Rumsfeld, Bush, etc are ramming down our throats.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Let me address all Ron Paul Kool-Aid Drinkers...
Ron Paul has NO chance of winning the Republican nod. Therefore, you AND Ron Paul are MOOT. What you think of me and my politics is MOOT as well. Are we getting the picture? The only thing Ron Paul has succeeded in doing is uniting a group of whacko's on the internet. He has given them what they lack in "real" life... Hope.
"Nuff said, I hope you enjoyed your stay. Please help yourself to a cookie on your way out...
Bro, if you're sucked into Mr. "I'm a 9-11 Hero" Giuliani's line of horseshit, then you are the one eyeball deep in kool aide. The man is a complete slimeball. He has no chance of getting the nod either. Too many people are aware of his complete duplicity.
I'll admit Ron Paul's chances are slim, however he is injecting truth and important issues into the debates and campaign.
My money would be on Hillary. That's who the neo-cons want to pass the baton to. They know they can control her.
uh this wacko just raised 4.2 million dollars in two days, and yeah ill agree hes a little crazy in alot of his views and personally i dont like him but i do like it when hes on the stage and attacks the other morons up there and reminds em this genius we got in the white house with his 2.3 percent approval rating has been the BIGGEST disaster in U.S. history.
You are right....Ron Paul is giving everybody what they don't have in life under the New World Order...HOPE. I realize you are scared, otherwise you wouldn't have taken time to write such hateful comments....but whose army are you gonna stand behind when the current one is disbanded due to a collapsing economy?
I believe the "don't taze me bro" refers to your neo-con attitude that appears to support the NWO & their world domination plot to eliminate the middle class, and replace it with 2 classes, the Elite and the slaves. Which will you be?
An Elite or a Slave?
Ron Paul is a true Righteous American who devotes himself to Defending the Constitution of the United States, as all of our leaders swore they would do, but only Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich actually do it.
Ron Paul is not defending Ed Brown here. He is saying to change the law. If any of you idiots don't pay your taxes you will be in prison just like Ed Brown.
I agree. Before you tube I never knew all the income taxes went to international bankers... I thought they went to essential services. As it turns out all those services come from everything else but the income tax. Why to the bankers need interest for printed money? Why are they paid in this manner? Cant the government just print the money itself? This is a simple service. Why are they paying the Federal Reserve interest? There is somthing going on ... some kind of banking conspiracy...
I challenge all you doubters! Show me the law that says i must we must pay "PERSONAL INCOME TAXES ON OUR LABOR" not property taxes , sales tax or any other tax! The issue is "Personal income taxes on wages and/or labor" So Show me the law!!!!
I get so sick of them rephrasing him and totally getting it wrong. They constantly put words in his mouth and it's exhausting. We don't need it run through the Foxpropaganda machine. We can think for ourselves. The funny thing is Cavuto is implying taxes go to services. He's an idiot and doesn't even know how things work or he's purposely spreading propaganda. Fox is a freaking joke.
We need to focus more on REPLACING the income taxes, not simply getting rid of them. None of these folks seem prepared enough to talk about what we're going to use instead of income tax. This interview is a perfect example of such a poorly clarified argument.
Pretty funny attempt by Cavuto to get a sound bite and put words in Dr. Pauls mouth. He even looks at his notes at one point and says "Just a minute WE HAVE GOT TO STAY ON THE MESSAGE HERE". In other words, the message he wants to get across, not the news. I seriously wonder how much they paid Cavuto for his soul and ethics. HOW MUCH was that worth Mr. Cavuto?
SO DON'T WATCH FOX NEWS!!!. You do know how to change the channel don't you? I can see why they get high ratings. People who hate fox news watch fox news.
Every time I watch Fox News, I want to punch something. They do not have a "right-wing" slant. They are just a bunch of corporate zionist pawns. AIPAC hates Ron Paul. Fox New hates the Browns.
There are taxes besides income tax that provide sufficient coverage for pub.projects and gov spending, such as corp. taxes, profit taxes, property taxes, tarifs, state and city taxes, gasoline tax, and user fees, etc. these are taxes outside of the "income tax" but for some reason some people feel like the country would go broke without it! the fact is it wouldnt as it only accounts for less than half of ALL government revenue coincidentally the same percentage as military spending...
How could anyone not vote for Ron Paul I mean that like saying you don't care for Freedom and Liberty and you want your Government to take care of you and tell you how to Jump, Dress and what you can Eat and when you can work! You would have to be like very uneducated to not vote for Ron Paul!
What a dumb ass. Ron Paul sure likes the cash he's getting, he is just another piece of crap politician waiting to rape the country. I hate all politician. They spend something like 250 million dollars to become president that pays something like $250k a year. He is just another asshole that will get rich from special interest lobbyist.
Letme see/I pay my taxes, My Neighbors pay their taxes,But Ron Paul says Break The Law and Dont Pay Your Taxes? And this guy is wasting his time running for what office? I guess we should just makeup our own laws individually? MArtin Luther King and Ghandi had a good cause.... Ron Paul is a Gofball. I think i will vote for Him just to have another "Reality Show!" LOL! On the flipside Obama Must Go!
Semper Fi
IraqiSniper107 1 month ago
FOX is such a sham. This clown should be hung
tseitz123 2 months ago
FOX and all the news channels are so full of bull $hit God Bless Ed and Elaine Brown
4289Lecroix1 3 months ago
Back-paddling at its best
AmaElMundo 4 months ago
I love the "We'd be in a hurting way" fake redneck shit, like "y'all" and "folks", always a sure sign of a third rate liar.
nilbud 6 months ago
An indirect tax is a tax on activity. The activity is what ever you do when you work. There is no law in title 26 that addresses all work. Title 26 talks about the production of alcohol, firearms, tobacco and some other revenue taxable activities. but there is no law that claims that all work activities are taxable! RON PAUL DOES NOT KNOW THIS!!!!! This is bad.
Francescaalejandro 8 months ago
@Francescaalejandro
bney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836, 841 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. den. 346 U.S. 924 (1954). “[Hamzik] contends only that he does not have a tax liability and subsequent deficiency because all federal income taxes are ‘indirect taxes’ and the Commissioner has not produced the statutes defining the ‘revenue taxable activity’ that would make Hamzik subject to or liable for any tax under Title 26. The tax court properly rejected Hamzik’s arguments as frivolous.”
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@Francescaalejandro
Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998) “The IRS is not required to show that the Debtor’s income is derived from a ‘revenue taxable activity.’”
In the first case, when a judge calls a legal position "frivolous," the judge isn't just saying the person is wrong. The judge is saying the person's argument is insane and the person arguing it has lost their mind. Claiming the income tax is unconstitutional is like saying objects don't fall when you drop them.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
Ego are you an IRS agent? I see you have trolled all IRS videos. The 16th amendment was passed on Christmas Eve at midnight and was never truly ratified. The income tax doesn't run the federation, the tax pays the federal reserve for printing notes, a loan out of thin air, at 6% on a paper bank entry. The federal reserve made 84 billion dollars in 2010 out of thin air. Citing IRS codes does not make it legal. There is a billion dollars buy out clause in the federal reserve act, do it.
brainerdrebel 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
Can you define the term 'troll' for me as you are using it? I don't understand how you can conclude I am a troll when I provide extremely thorough and sourced debunks to tax protester arguments. If you really saw my other comments, you will see I have discussed Senator Knox's decision making and have proven the ratification of the 16th amendment.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
The only way to change it would be to resurrect the dead Congressmen and State Legislators (Who during their lifetimes never complained the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified) and have them debate over whether or not it was properly ratified. The ratification of amendments is in the hands of state legislators and congressmen, not courts.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
Moreover, if you really read my comments you would have seen that your statement that the income tax pays for interest on the national debt is completely wrong. The claim comes from a false interpretation of the Grace Commission Report. The income tax exceeds interest on the debt twenty fold, so its impossible the income tax all paid for the interest on the debt unless the US paid that interest 20 times.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
Moreover, the Federal Reserve provides the US Treasury with 95-96% of its profits, which more than makes up for the profit off of the interest to the national debt. Moreover, the federal reserve doesn't merely print money out of thin air at absolutely no cost. A bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.
The federal reserve earned $82 billion in profit in 2010, and gave $79 billion of it to the US Treasury, according to New York Times. So the Fed actually earned $3 billion in profit in 2010. Quit the deception.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
Last, I cite court cases. I can prove to you that the IRS Code is law in detail if you wish, using court cases. That way you can't argue that the IRS Code is no law, and therefore you must conclude that citing the IRS Code is indeed citing the law.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
Agent Ego, the IRS code is not law. You know that the federal gov in the District of Criminals doesn't use the Constitution anymore and we are under Uniform Commercial Codes. We have been collateral since 1933, the year the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES bankrupt. Federal Courts are commissioned by the corporation, they will protect the system. The people have the right to change any code you use as prove. Get a job in the real world of profit and lose and you will CHANGE your opinion.
brainerdrebel 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
My response to you will be a thorough debunk, and hence it will be long. Please wait until there has been ~10 minutes since my most recent post before formulating a response.
Let me start off with your first false statement: "The IRS code is not law."
The arguments that the Internal Revenue Code is not a valid statute are all strange, and take several different forms.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
One form of argument is simply that the Internal Revenue Code was never enacted. This is easily disproved by checking the records of the U.S. Congress. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986). More recent amendments to the Internal Revenue Code (as well as other public laws) can be found on-line through the “Thomas” web site maintained by the Library of Congress.
A brief note about citations to statutes:
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
Public Laws are numbered consecutively within each session of Congress, each session lasting two years. The Congress that convened in January of 2001 was the 107th, so the first bill passed by that Congress and signed by the President was P.L. 107-1, the second was P.L. 107-2, and so forth. All public laws are published in the U.S. Statutes at Large, usually abbreviated “Stat.”, so a citation to “68A Stat. 3” refers to page 3 of volume 68A of the U.S. Statutes at Large.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
The U.S. Statutes at large can be found at most law libraries, so the text of the original Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and published proof of its enactment, can be found at any law library with a copy of the U.S. Statutes at Large.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
The other argument is more subtle and more complicated. Many of the statutes of the United States have been “codified,” or reorganized into more orderly collections of statutes known as the “United States Code,” which is divided by subject matter into “titles.”
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
As part of this codification, many statutes that were enacted separately have been reenacted together as part of the United States Code, so that the Code itself became “positive law.” For example, the statutes relating to federal courts have been organized and reenacted as Title 28 of the United States Code. So, when referring to a provision of Title 28, it is usually not necessary to worry about when or how it was enacted;
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
all you need to do is refer to the right section of Title 28. For convenient reference, the Internal Revenue Code has been published as Title 26 of the United States Code but, technically speaking, has never been enacted as part of the United States Code. This is explained in the printed volumes of the United States Code, which states that Title 26 is evidence of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code,
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
but that Title 26 itself is not “positive law,” even though the revenue laws enacted by Congress (such as Public Law 83-591 enacted in 1954, or Public Law 99-514 enacted in 1986), all of which can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large, are “positive law.”
The distinction between Title 26 of the United States Code and “positive law” is purely technical and would never be important to anyone unless the U.S. Government Printing Office
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
made a typographical error in printing Title 26 of the United States Code, so that the United States Code did not accurately reflect the revenue laws enacted by Congress. If a typographical error did occur, then the courts would look to the U.S. Statutes at Large to determine the text of the relevant statute, instead of Title 26 of the United States Code.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
So, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have been enacted by Congress as positive law, and the fact that the Internal Revenue Code as not been reenacted or codified as part of the United States Code is irrelevant.
What do the courts say about tax protester claims to the contrary? “Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable.”
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146, 90 TNT 246-11, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 11/26/1990); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986). “Congress’s failure to enact a title [of the United States Code] into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself).
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryan’s rights by enforcing it.”
Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985). “The petitioner’s argument that the Internal Revenue Code was not enacted by Congress is equally meritless. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83rd Congress on August 16, 1954 (ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3) and has been amended by Congress with some frequency since that time.”
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
Urban v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-220, affd. per curiam, 964 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1992). “In his opposition, Plaintiff asserts that ‘Title 26 U.S.C. (including section 6321) has not been enacted into positive law, and is not the law, but is only prima facie evidence of the law.’ ... Congress’ failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. section 204(a).
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
‘Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law’. [Citations omitted] Plaintiff’s positive law argument is without merit.”
Bilger v. United States, 87 AFTR2d ¶2001-468, No. CIV F 00-6486 OWW JLO (U.S.D.C. E.D.Ca. 1/9/2001). “On appeal he [Scott] makes the same arguments advanced and rejected countless times in tax protestor litigation, such as that the Tax Code is not binding “positive law,” and wages are exempt from taxation because they are not income.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
[Citations omitted] Needless to say, these contentions do not state a claim against the United States, let alone support a lien against its agents.”
United States v. Scott, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 16877; 99-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,745; 84 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5342, (7th Cir. 1999). “Similarly frivolous is his claim that a summons could not be issued because title 26 has not been enacted into ‘positive law.’”
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
United States v. Hooper, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 38246; 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 8026, 1995 WL 792039 at *1 (9th Cir. 1995). “Finally, we reject as frivolous Kolchev’s remaining contentions asserting that his wages are not taxable income, see 26 U.S.C. § 61, that notices of deficiency may only be issued to government employees, [citation omitted], that the IRS code is not enforceable because it has not been enacted into positive law, [citation omitted],
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
and that the Commissioner lacked delegated authority to issue the notice of deficiency, [citation omitted].”
Kolchev v. Commissioner, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2683; 75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 839, (9th Cir. 1995). “The appellant’s argument regarding the validity of Title 26 is frivolous. The validity of Title 26 is not affected merely because it has not been codified as ‘positive law’.”
Hackett v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 933 (6th Cir. 1986).
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel “The claim that Title 26 was not enacted into ‘positive law,’ has been rejected as ‘frivolous,’ ‘baseless,’ ‘specious,’ and ‘preposterous.’ [Citations omitted]”
United States v. Maczka, 957 F.Supp. 988, 991 (W.D.Mich. 1996).
See also, United States v. Zuger, 602 F.Supp. 889, 891-92 (D. Conn. 1984) (‘holding that the failure of Congress to enact a title as such and in such form into positive law . . . in no way impugns the validity,
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
effect, enforceability, or constitutionality of the laws as contained and set forth in the title’ and describing argument as “specious”), aff’d. without op., 755 F.2d 915 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 805 (1985); Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F.Supp. 141, 149 (N.D.Ind. 1984) (asserting that ‘even if Title 26 was not itself enacted into positive law,
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
that does not mean that the laws under the title are null and void’ and referring to the “positive law” argument as “preposterous”); United States v. Cooper, 170 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986);
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984); Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986); Sloan v. United States, 621 F.Supp. 1072, 1076 (N.D.Ind.1985) (litigants advancing ‘frivolous’ arguments such as assertions that the Internal Revenue Code is not positive law subjected to sanctions under Rule 11, FED. R. CIV. P.),
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
aff’d in part and appeal dismissed, 812 F.2d 1410 (7th Cir.1987) (table); United States v. McLain, 597 F.Supp.2d 987, 994, n. 6 (D. Minn. 2009) (“[W]hile McLain is technically correct in arguing that Title 26 is merely prima facie evidence of the law, the distinction is largely academic because the relevant sections of Title 26 are identical to the relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code.”).
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
Now, let me cover federal courts jurisdiction over enforcing tax laws. Many tax protesters argue federal courts are “admiralty” or “maritime” courts or (alternative) tax enforcement is governed by admiralty law and can be defeated by properly invoking admiralty procedures.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
This nonsense seems to arise out of a misunderstanding of the meaning of “exclusive,” so statements that federal court jurisdiction over maritime litigation is “exclusive” is read as meaning that federal courts can hear only maritime litigation, while what was meant was that maritime litigation can only be heard by federal courts and cannot be heard by state courts.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
(This claim therefore seems related to the claim that Congressional power is limited to the District of Columbia and other “federal areas,” which arises out of the mistaken belief that the power of Congress to exercise ““exclusive Legislation” means that Congress can legislate only for the District of Columbia, while what was clearly intended was that the power of legislation should be exclusive to Congress and denied to the states.)
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
As ridiculous as this claim about admiralty law might look, at least one court has taken the time to refute it: “The Saunders argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the summonses. In support of their position, they cite The Glide, 167 U.S. 606, 623-24, 17 S.Ct. 930, 936, 42 L.Ed. 296 (1897),
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
which holds that ‘[t]he maritime and admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the constitution and laws of the United States upon the district courts of the United States is exclusive.’ The Saunders apparently interpret this language as limiting the jurisdiction of federal district courts to admiralty and maritime actions. The Saunders also seem to believe that, by issuing a notice of dishonor under the Uniform Commercial Code,
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
they prevent the IRS from characterizing this case as a contract in admiralty or a maritime action, leaving the district court no basis for jurisdiction.
“The Saunders reading of The Glide founders. In describing the district courts’ maritime and admiralty jurisdiction as ‘exclusive’ the Supreme Court excluded state courts from adjudicating either category of lawsuit. The Court did not, by employing the phrase ‘exclusive,’ delimit the bases of federal jurisdiction.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
To the contrary, Congress has expressly directed federal district courts to hear tax enforcement matters. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b), 7604(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1340. We have repeatedly confirmed the authority--indeed, duty--of the district courts to adjudicate tax summons cases such as the one being prosecuted here. See, e.g., United States v. Author Servs., Inc., 804 F.2d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.1986), amended, 811 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir.1987).”
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991).
Still, there are many tax protester pleadings referring to admiralty or maritime law, all of which are usually ignored by the courts as simply gibberish.
The claim that “Federal courts may not enforce the internal revenue laws because their jurisdiction is limited to admiralty or maritime cases or issues” has been identified by the IRS as a
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
“frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.
Now, lets move on to your claim that "Federal Courts are commissioned by the corporation, and will protect the system." Please provide me with the ideas that led to you formulating this conclusion. Include references of the original documents that went into producing your reasoning.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
Your next statement: "The people have the right to change any code you use as prove" makes absolutely no sense to me, please clarify what you mean.
Last, you say "Get a job in the real world of profit and lose and you will CHANGE your opinion."
Well, I wake up every mourning and thank god I have never had a job. I consider a job doing work that you don't like to do. Working is the absolute worst way to earn money, and I see no point in working if you don't love it.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
Now, I earn all kinds of money and can assist you if you would like more information in regards of establishing financial independence...but I don't see how working being a bad way to make money pertains to tax laws. Throughout all of human history working has been the worst way to earn money. Wealthy individuals have always had multiple sources of passive income, even in Ancient Greece.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
Agent Ego, we finally agree on something, investments are the way to make money. The Carl Max theory (communist manifesto) of progressive income tax takes the incentive of investment and hard work out of the equation. I had to work hard first before I had the capitol to invest, I wouldn't do it under the current tax system. I would take advantage of the system, get all the free benefits and work for cash.
brainerdrebel 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
I never said investments are the way to make money. I believe investing money is the second best way to earn money. That's because you need money to invest money. I believe the best way to earn money is through setting up multiple sources of passive income. Of all the wealthy individuals I have studied dating back to Andrew Carnegie have all had multiple sources of income. Investing is just one part of establishing multiple sources of income, and is used for long term growth,
SadegoGG 8 months ago
@brainerdrebel
The fact that income taxes, and more broadly progressive taxes, exist has nothing to do with the reason why working is a horrible way to earn money. The reason working is a bad way to make money is:
(a) you are limited to your physical presence (When you set up passive sources of income you leverage others)
(b) There is a limited amount of time, there is all there is. In my opinion, life is too short to waste it working.
Money is reward for service rendered, not hours worked.
SadegoGG 8 months ago
RON PAUL MADE A MISTAKE. and he kept on making the same mistake. Cavuto is a complete idiot but RON PAUL SHOULD KNOW BETTER!
1) The income tax is constitutional not because of the 16th Amendment but because of Article 1 section 8 clause 1. The only purpose of the 16th Amendment was to stop congress from labeling the income tax a direct tax. the 16th Amendment did not give congress any new taxing power. 2) The Income tax is an indirect tax which means that he tax is on the job activity.
Francescaalejandro 8 months ago
If Ron Paul wins, he should pardon Ed and Elaine Brown
BeerBottleSlide 9 months ago in playlist Taxation Without Representation
Cavuto is a complete idiot!
hydroponikroniksmoke 1 year ago 3
The reporter is either an idiot or a jerk.
funglip 1 year ago
Ron Paul should step in on the this case and get them out. Cavuto would look good with a shaved head and a ball gag!
sickasso72 1 year ago
Ron Paul should step in on the this case and get them out
sickasso72 1 year ago
Fox News and the rest of the media should be indicted for misinforming the people. That is conspiracy to defraud. They have swayed votes on faulty reporting and that is fraudulent. Ron Paul won all the straw polls and Fox refused to acknowledge it on several occasions.
ckairnes68 1 year ago
cavuto what a FOOL!!!
jdharmer1 1 year ago
I hate fox news!!!! fox isn't news they are NWO.
xoxobell7 2 years ago 2
@xoxobell7 yeah fox is NWO so is cbs, nbc. cnn
Francescaalejandro 8 months ago
Cavuto is looking like he is ignorant about the income tax and what it pays for. Does anyone have a copy of freedom to fascism left they can send to Mr. Cavuto?
END THE FED!!! RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!!
jwsoup 2 years ago 5
He won't have to if "We the People" vote for him in 2012 and stand up to these people and throw out every ione thats there now and put real americans in office
myteepatriot 2 years ago
Did Thomas Jefferson preach non-violence" ??
I only ask this question, because I was wondering how Paul can persuade the tyrannizers into legislating themselves away from the very tyranny they impose?
kenzo5716 2 years ago
lol i know this is old but still funny whenever people try to pigeon RP into a hole he throws it back in their face with truth.
0bodobod0 2 years ago
All the taxes you pay go to pay off the interest to the Federal Reserve..
It would be different if the income taxes went to public services but they don't - the INCOME TAX goes to pay the international bankers AKA The secret federal reserve shareholders (whoever they are)
LeftLiberalSoCal 2 years ago
Typical s[pinster shit.
Nice wig btw Cavuto. He is a goverment subversive. He is an ass. The teleprompter hes reading says nothing he wrote or researched.
CCF is right.... the person giving him bad thumbs should pull their head outta their ass.
And
inflateablesoulmate 2 years ago
Willis Carto is very interesting. He is the president of the American Free Press. He also has connections to the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam, and the Heritage Foundation. Search more for information about him, you might find out something I don't know.
ccf1971 2 years ago
I don't trust the American Free Press, Ted Gunderson, Willis Carto, Jim Butler, or Alex Jones.
WIllis Carto - Knight of Malta
Joe Kennedy - Knight of Malta
Rupert Murdoch - Papal Knight
ccf1971 2 years ago
Ron Paul wants you to think that the Zionists are in control. However, Ed Brown is right when he says it's the Jesuits.
ccf1971 2 years ago
i hate fox news reporters so hard
JustCantDraw 3 years ago 9
Anybody who is just waiting for the libertarian party to infilitrate the mafia and institute a new age of liberty and prosperity is delusional. There is no political solution to this problem. We will just have to wait for the Keynesian quackery and this culture of violence to meet its inevitable end, and then we must rebuild from the ground up for a free society. In a few decades, we will have our opportunity. But it is important for people to understand how this is not a failure of freedom.
RadicalForLiberty 3 years ago
"Thank you very much we'll see what happens to the Browns" - That son of a B*tch should get ran over by a snowplow... and directly after, a sand dispensing truck. I can't fu*king stand FOX News and only deaf and blind idiots watch Fox News... It should be viewed for nothing more that gut filled laughter.
Melanatedone 3 years ago 2
Wow....and I thought George Bush turned my stomach.......this Cavuto made me barf.....
He is much more arrogant than Bush & I know why. He is trying to impress his bosses with I control interviews...did not impress, made an ASS of himself. And Ron Paul will do a number on this wanna-Be every time.
SweetLOU48096 3 years ago 2
I'd vote against Fox news.
AMcGrath82 3 years ago 2
Cavuto is probably a British agent
NosePickingSob 3 years ago 2
cavuto has a huge head
Emb21 3 years ago
cavuto is a puto!
cocodapitbull 3 years ago
3:45 is ownnnnnneedddddd, ron paul ftw!
returntoiceland 4 years ago
They built buildings on either the backs of slaves (prior to 1864) or the backs of very low paid sons of slaves or the hopelessly poor under the worst of conditions.
rushingr 3 years ago
ron paul freedom march this summer
Stevedowg2001 4 years ago
Ron Paul is the man.
IKSDoomie 4 years ago 5
Cavuto comes off as a shockingly complete idiot in this exchange. I agree that he was just fishing for Paul to mis-speak so he could get an enticing sound bite to hawk to his ambulance-chasing popular news brethren. Shameless. Kudos to Paul for holding firm to our rights and the role of the public in a free society.
qumdh1 4 years ago 12
YES! It just took me 5 years to realize it !
JimTL1000R 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Michigan Voters and Liberty Lovers -
Check out my video :
Michigan Economics; Case for a Candidate
which surveys some of the economic problems plaguing Michigan and the nation, and the ideas of the one man with a viable solution, rooted in freedom and peace:
Congressman Ron Paul!
phreezephrame9449 4 years ago
Look at Niel trying his best to be a good gate keeper. what a suck ass. power to the revolution!
kobenbawest 4 years ago
Just watching that makes me hate Cavuto with a vengeance
grogiedog 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ron Paul is a lunatic.
Richardgwm 4 years ago
Ha Ha!!!
Keep it up...all the Ron Paul bashing in the world cannot stop what has begun.
The Revolution is now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
micmart 4 years ago 3
Your mom's a lunatic.
macman13 4 years ago
Cavuto is just like any other corporate slave towing the line..He is destroying journalism for faux news and (not) american citizen murdick...that foreigner shouldn't even own any US news corp..thats the problem from the start...media broken up and restored back to americans..RON PAUL sachools neil the queer..let him finish his answers you rude ass....
italstal07 4 years ago
neil is such a fag.. he acts like a fucking moron on purpose to try to play dumb Ron Pauls explanations. Neil is an idiot guys.
ironicallyenough 4 years ago
Spread the word of the 2008
Ron Paul Money Bomb
Be Part Of The Revolution!
newyearsrevolution08dotcom
rjksoccer06 4 years ago
Ron Paul is the bomb! A non-violent truth bomb.
recie04 4 years ago
Taxes suck.
illinoisgrad 4 years ago 2
Neil sucks.
guyinrichmond007 4 years ago
Niel .....how much of a prick can you be.
sisterwood2000 4 years ago
It should be understood by now that if you are going to interview Dr. Paul you had better do your homework. It appears that Neil cannot distinguish "the Income Tax" from "Taxes." His childish manner reflects his inability to comprehend such complex thoughts such as people not wanting to pay taxes. Ron Paul is my hero!!!
Ron Paul 2008
WIWHGMS 4 years ago
Cavuto you are an A**HOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shut up and let him talk and show you how dumb your questions are.
HumGuitar 4 years ago
neil cavuto is a prick, how does awesoem ron keep calm with this bugger??
bootiack 4 years ago
cavuto is a huge prick, fire him!! Ron Paul is awesome, I couldn't keep my calm with that moron
bootiack 4 years ago 2
At 3:50 you can begin to smell the toast.
Cavuto is a monkey puppet, Ron Paul answers his accusitory qustions with ease and truthfullness.
Soundl like FAUX news goes right to a Paris Hilton story right after this, you gotta follow a truth bomb like that with some mind numbing distracting junk like that so people won't follo up and learn about the TRUTH.
GO PAUL GO!!
ZenOfTube 4 years ago
I think this is really funny. On the CNNyoutube debate Huckabee said he wants to get rid of the IRS. He copies ron paul and gets praised, but it was ron paul's view first and he was called crazy...hmmmm.....
jjcarlso 4 years ago
i hate that neil cavuto, what a lieing piece of shit! they call this journalism? did he get ONE FUCKING THING RIGHT AT ALL? well i guess he did know his NAME... geez what a piece of shit.. how can they allow this kind of SHIT to be peddled for truth on their network
Intangion 4 years ago
Ron Paul pwns faux once again!!!!!!
promontorium 4 years ago
I OBJECT! Stop funding the facists/commies (a.k.a. Neo Cons/Democrats). Withhold your federal tax dollars this year. It is the Christian thing to do.
davann41 4 years ago
Cavuto approached Paul from an uninformed position, and got his head handed to him by Paul. It seemed to me that, because of the way Paul handled it (e.g. in his gentlemanly manner), that that allowed Cavuto to listen carefully to Paul's argument. At the end Cavuto seemed to reconsider his position. Maybe Paul made a convert.
cryptorick 4 years ago
Ron Paul crushed the TH (talking head)
jstewjrome 4 years ago 2
fuck you fox news
daveryanis 4 years ago
we built this city on rock n roll
rockondon 4 years ago
"How do you think they built this building?"
Hahahahaha.
MooseOfReason 4 years ago
"We'll see what happens to the Browns."
In other words, it doesn't matter what you or Ron think. Guys with guns will show up at your door.
Integr8d 4 years ago
Ron Paul will make jet cars (like the jetsons) that run on anything trendy if he becomes President!
For a perfect world in your mind vote Paulsy
hellotommy 4 years ago
wow a video of ron paul i actually haven't seen
YazDawg 4 years ago
So rude interupting him like that. Look at the difference with the later Cavuto interview (Nov) now that Ron Paul is recognized as a forerunner candidate (post money-bomb). Cavuto is a jerk!
Canamanda 4 years ago 3
The original definition of "Income" is: Money received by corporations transacting business.
Wages definition: is TRADE, individuals Trade their time for money/compensation from corporations.
Therefore ONLY CORPORATIONS should pay income tax, and individuals should NOT.
Google it people - educate yourselves & become enlightened.
Raunstar 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
RON PAUL - ALL HYPE, NO HOPE:
1. He is a gynecologist(not a bad thing), not a leader(a bad thing).
2. He has accomplished nothing in TEN TERMS of Congress.
4. He is a liberal pacifist disguised as a Republican -- he will retreat from Iraq
5. He may be certifiably insane.
6. His supporters ARE certifiably in sane.
7. His supporters can be likened to Cult Members. Like the Hare Krishna, they need to be rescued and then de-programmed.
hellotommy 4 years ago
how funny. Hes has the best voting record in the history of the congress....said by his fellow members. You got your no. 6 from the fox news focus group. Sorry but there is no cult. We want to restore the constitution and put gov't back in its proper role. So stay happy with your current system of nation building and the FED......
illusionofsafety07 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL'S CIVIL RIGHTS RESUME
*Published racist garbage in newsletter (1992), exposed by Houston Chronicle(1996), defended comments for 4 years then fabricated "ghostwriter" story
*Columnist for hate groups like American Free Press for 20 years
*opposes 1964 Civil Rights Act b/c it infringes on owners rights to segregate
*Recieved campaign $ from Stormfront(hate group)& won't return it
*told Bill Maher the Civil War was unnecessary
*Endorsed by every hate group in U.S.
GOOGLE 'EM!
hellotommy 4 years ago
Two First Names "non interventionalist" policy = Fighting the bad guy in your backyard. It is the weakest excuse for being a WIMP. Face it we will be at war for a while but we are tearing down Islamic fundamentalism or extreamism that has been festoring for generations. Normal people say "thanks but no thanks" if help is unwanted, extreamists say DEATH TO AMERICA because they want to kill me and you.
hellotommy 4 years ago
hellotommy
you offer no facts or anything to support your claim,the things u just posted have no sources except that they are your own lies created to take down ron paul. sorry kid but the people are waking up, you and your fox news buddy wont work anymore
reno1111 4 years ago 2
RP just will not get the nod! That is the point. He is weak on national defence.
hellotommy 4 years ago
ignore hellotommy, he's just a neocon who fails to comprehend traditional american values and truth.
YazDawg 4 years ago 2
Yeah Shut Tommy up! He is not like us, he is different. Oh Ron Paul show me your way! Oh Ron Paul you are a divine greasy polictician like no other.
hellotommy 4 years ago
Is defense when you invade countries to widen the market for business interests? Oh, wait, that's offense.
Defense is sealing the borders. Defense is preserving liberty. Defense is the 2nd Amendment. Where does your candidate stand on those issues?
giggan1 4 years ago 2
Someone always playing corporation games
Who cares they're always changing corporation names
We just want to dance here, someone stole the stage
They call us irresponsible, write us off the page
hellotommy 4 years ago
look up his voting record. Everything I posted is available online.
hellotommy 4 years ago
He is a liberal pacifist disguised as a Republican -- he will retreat from Iraq
In conclusion, Ronnie has accomplished nothing during his TEN TERMS of Congress. He is a gynecologist who hasn't earned the privilege of the becoming the most powerful man on the planet.
hellotommy 4 years ago
I think OBGYN - Obstretician Gynecologist is a better description - he delivers babies and you think that is unworthy in itself?
sheerterror77 4 years ago
Calling Ron Paul a lib is simply missing the facts. Cutting taxes and replacing them with no new taxes is liberal? hellotommy you are an uninformed sheep, free yor mind and allow the truth to seep in through the pollution.
Spending money we don't have on a war that is pissing off the world instead of on our border where it's proven that terrorists are streaming trhough is your solution?
It's all a globalist adgenda that Hillary, Obama, Rumsfeld, Bush, etc are ramming down our throats.
ZenOfTube 4 years ago
Ron Paul offers hope to everyone.....the other candidates preach fear......I knnow hat side I'm on.
jdcall23 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Let me address all Ron Paul Kool-Aid Drinkers...
Ron Paul has NO chance of winning the Republican nod. Therefore, you AND Ron Paul are MOOT. What you think of me and my politics is MOOT as well. Are we getting the picture? The only thing Ron Paul has succeeded in doing is uniting a group of whacko's on the internet. He has given them what they lack in "real" life... Hope.
"Nuff said, I hope you enjoyed your stay. Please help yourself to a cookie on your way out...
RUDY IN '08!
hellotommy 4 years ago
Bro, if you're sucked into Mr. "I'm a 9-11 Hero" Giuliani's line of horseshit, then you are the one eyeball deep in kool aide. The man is a complete slimeball. He has no chance of getting the nod either. Too many people are aware of his complete duplicity.
I'll admit Ron Paul's chances are slim, however he is injecting truth and important issues into the debates and campaign.
My money would be on Hillary. That's who the neo-cons want to pass the baton to. They know they can control her.
cdug2169 4 years ago
National Security! Hillary = Flip Flop = ?
DON"T TAZE ME BRO!
hellotommy 4 years ago
uh this wacko just raised 4.2 million dollars in two days, and yeah ill agree hes a little crazy in alot of his views and personally i dont like him but i do like it when hes on the stage and attacks the other morons up there and reminds em this genius we got in the white house with his 2.3 percent approval rating has been the BIGGEST disaster in U.S. history.
bigbossman999 4 years ago
That's your opinion. Time will tell Mr. Knowitall. You got Hillary.
hellotommy 4 years ago
You are right....Ron Paul is giving everybody what they don't have in life under the New World Order...HOPE. I realize you are scared, otherwise you wouldn't have taken time to write such hateful comments....but whose army are you gonna stand behind when the current one is disbanded due to a collapsing economy?
jdcall23 4 years ago 2
I realy don't know what you mean?
Whah did DON"T TAZE ME BRO! offend you?
DON"T TAZE ME BRO!
hellotommy 4 years ago
I believe the "don't taze me bro" refers to your neo-con attitude that appears to support the NWO & their world domination plot to eliminate the middle class, and replace it with 2 classes, the Elite and the slaves. Which will you be?
An Elite or a Slave?
Ron Paul is a true Righteous American who devotes himself to Defending the Constitution of the United States, as all of our leaders swore they would do, but only Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich actually do it.
Raunstar 4 years ago
Dennis Kucinichn saw a U.F.O. I'm a Votin' fer him fer shurely.
hellotommy 4 years ago
Ron Paul is not defending Ed Brown here. He is saying to change the law. If any of you idiots don't pay your taxes you will be in prison just like Ed Brown.
nesnman 4 years ago
Ron Paul wasn't defending the violent nature of the Brown's but he later said that he does support peaceful resistance to income tax laws.
dude58677 2 years ago
what violent nature? Is it violent to defend your family and property that you worked hard for?
HHODork 2 years ago
I'm just stating what Ron Paul said.
dude58677 2 years ago
I agree. Before you tube I never knew all the income taxes went to international bankers... I thought they went to essential services. As it turns out all those services come from everything else but the income tax. Why to the bankers need interest for printed money? Why are they paid in this manner? Cant the government just print the money itself? This is a simple service. Why are they paying the Federal Reserve interest? There is somthing going on ... some kind of banking conspiracy...
LeftLiberalSoCal 2 years ago
I challenge all you doubters! Show me the law that says i must we must pay "PERSONAL INCOME TAXES ON OUR LABOR" not property taxes , sales tax or any other tax! The issue is "Personal income taxes on wages and/or labor" So Show me the law!!!!
myspacecomments 4 years ago
I get so sick of them rephrasing him and totally getting it wrong. They constantly put words in his mouth and it's exhausting. We don't need it run through the Foxpropaganda machine. We can think for ourselves. The funny thing is Cavuto is implying taxes go to services. He's an idiot and doesn't even know how things work or he's purposely spreading propaganda. Fox is a freaking joke.
WhizBProductions 4 years ago 2
"He's an idiot and doesn't even know how things work or he's purposely spreading propaganda."
The latter.
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
We need to focus more on REPLACING the income taxes, not simply getting rid of them. None of these folks seem prepared enough to talk about what we're going to use instead of income tax. This interview is a perfect example of such a poorly clarified argument.
rynlnk 4 years ago
Pretty funny attempt by Cavuto to get a sound bite and put words in Dr. Pauls mouth. He even looks at his notes at one point and says "Just a minute WE HAVE GOT TO STAY ON THE MESSAGE HERE". In other words, the message he wants to get across, not the news. I seriously wonder how much they paid Cavuto for his soul and ethics. HOW MUCH was that worth Mr. Cavuto?
rodgerdodger5 4 years ago
SO DON'T WATCH FOX NEWS!!!. You do know how to change the channel don't you? I can see why they get high ratings. People who hate fox news watch fox news.
nesnman 4 years ago 2
I do not give credit to the feds or the police for the Brown's arrest.
I say that because the time and money they all wasted in order to capture the Browns is a crime itself.
After all, this entire situation could have been avoided.
The Browns would have given up their case months ago if those in charge would have shown them the actual law that says they had to pay these taxes.
How simple would that have been?
George Vreeland Hill
GeorgeVreelandHill 4 years ago
The Browns were captured on 10-4-07, by US Marshals posing as supporters. They are now in prison.
tanrat7 4 years ago
Why don't you address Ed Brown. The so called patriot went to prison during the 1960's for assault and Armed Robbery. Care to explain that one?
nesnman 4 years ago
Every time I watch Fox News, I want to punch something. They do not have a "right-wing" slant. They are just a bunch of corporate zionist pawns. AIPAC hates Ron Paul. Fox New hates the Browns.
seapoidog 4 years ago
Gee, Have you ever thought about changing the channel? Now I see why Fox News gets great ratings. People who hate it also watch it.
nesnman 4 years ago
they try to put words in rons mouth
misfitt13888 4 years ago
There are taxes besides income tax that provide sufficient coverage for pub.projects and gov spending, such as corp. taxes, profit taxes, property taxes, tarifs, state and city taxes, gasoline tax, and user fees, etc. these are taxes outside of the "income tax" but for some reason some people feel like the country would go broke without it! the fact is it wouldnt as it only accounts for less than half of ALL government revenue coincidentally the same percentage as military spending...
capitancarpet 4 years ago
I think we should abolish the I.R.S. also.
Ih8drones 4 years ago
How could anyone not vote for Ron Paul I mean that like saying you don't care for Freedom and Liberty and you want your Government to take care of you and tell you how to Jump, Dress and what you can Eat and when you can work! You would have to be like very uneducated to not vote for Ron Paul!
Budvb 4 years ago
Cavuto is a Great Slave he follows his masters around all day licking there azzez!
Budvb 4 years ago
What a dumb ass. Ron Paul sure likes the cash he's getting, he is just another piece of crap politician waiting to rape the country. I hate all politician. They spend something like 250 million dollars to become president that pays something like $250k a year. He is just another asshole that will get rich from special interest lobbyist.
CamelToeExam 4 years ago