This stupid fucking brainwashed Muzzie blew himself to hell and all he did was put a square dent in the side of the ship and slightly injure a crewman.
FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL you fucking dumb twats Muslims!!! Why do we still let these roam the earth???
@arvydas0069 You're a black water fuck. Racist piece of shit who couldn't hack it in the private sector. So you had to join up and follow your racist instincts. God is not on your side. Arvy, enjoy ur BMW with blood $. ARVY is Blackwater. MURDERERS GO TO HELL and share it with Imperialist. (Not mutually exclusive.) Also Arvy, you're such a pussy you block me. Worthless grunt Fuck. Please don't come back to America to beg in the streets. Enjoy your PTSD you MURDERER.
Great Idea to help the people of Louisiana: Why don't the Government pay all the claims and then the Govt can get the money from BP or take it if they need too. Because the Govt has the power to take when they want, the people do not have any power. Come on Government, do it for the people, like you did it for the Banker's.
Oil can collapse a wobble in a vibration that could shake itself apart if it didn't compensate for the pressure. Search Cymatics! Many oil spills seem to be happening recently in specific areas around the states. Like a Hot Potato, we pass the pressure around with Tesla Tech. Pymide Tech has been used to "draw" more oil pressure from wells. Just check the patent office.
It's happening near the place where the dinasar-killer metior hit. We are the new Fossil Fuels! Please take a number to enter into the D.U.M.B. in an orderly fassion.
@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE great lakes in the states and canada enbridge oil spill funny all these oil spills poppin up all over and 2 billion gallons of raw sewage i hear to few days ago
@MaxFlared i will tell u maxflared, ur corrupt governments and baby killers are getting ready for another illegal war in iran, pakistan and syria. bp oil, china oil and japan tanker oil are all staged.
@BigBobsh2o not believing in conspiracies is saying the old money of the last 300 years has about 300 people who just sit around and play golf, pay for sex, twiddle or something like that. Economic Enslavement is Real Yo! Wake up already! stop drinking floride or taking those pills or whatever it takes, get over it and see that you are under attack even if you think you are safe for some super lame reasons like you get a bunker or you work for blackwater. if you die, they (the 300) don't care.
The 300? With conspiracy theories/ theorists it's always popular to invent a faceless, nameless enemy.
The fear mongering is a form of entertainment. Sort of like horror movies. It makes the way people perceive their dull boring lives, into a real life horror movie. And it rallies those who believe it into a made up cause against a made up enemy that wants to destroy the earth. Throw end times into it and all of a sudden its a struggle against the devil himself.
@BigBobsh2o this explotation is an arm of the same crap people trying to make us kill eachother and eat poison. it's sick and someone is planing to take over the world through or behind or with this system of exploitation.
@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE to further what i said a immigrant just got 4 yrs jail that will only serve 20 months for sending 2 high tech guages to iran from usa for them to use on nuclear devices. usa is going to get taken over by 3rd world i think thats what up whites are going to be minority already are!
@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE how about loyalty to a country can continue, but the people of the world start to realise that their country is them, not the usuall liars who try to lead them.yet should be serving them. as they know what they want. they want to be free enough to not be enslaved.
@BigBobsh2o Assholes have climbed up on top of people and try to dominate the world and the minds of millions for thousands of years all over the place, in Africa, Asia, Europe, South America and North America,(probably more then we know) why would any of this just stop all of a sudden? and since you think it did stop, when did it stop. 200 years ago?500? 50? you know what is going to stop it? the ideals in the real USA bein followed by the people of the USA, and becoming a lesson for the world
@SadegoGG what make you say i'm ridin alex jones dick? you seem to be lost in a world of bullshit, to be saying somethin like this. take a deep breath and try again, this time using your brain.
The brain is an electronic switching station that controls the vibration one is in, so I don't know of what you talk about when you tell me to use my brain...as every individual has emotions. Anyways, you sit there talking like Alex Jones even though you have absolutely no documentation backing up what you say. If you did have documentation and could prove the shit you are saying, you would be flooding the courtrooms.
You just blamed the federal government of acting in its own self interest and not caring about the American people. Yet you have absolutely no evidence of this. Not ever leader of the world and ever government is like Hitler and Nazi Germany.
@SadegoGG you don't know about the private federal reserve bank, and it's income tax? This Fed Bank is a private bank and is the same thing that so many old presidents fought against successfully and not so successfully. There is no law that says you must pay it, but you can still go to jail for not paying it. that is dogma and against the law and against reason and logic. the best evidence (other then watching a documentary and then checking it out) is that it is un-apportioned to the states
@SadegoGG i think you are correct in your assumption, but i've seen that it it is not quite true. the 16th doesn't say that at all. i read it and i agreed it didn't, but it's been a while since i brushed up on this, i thought it was the 13th at first that is used to falsly justify the fed income tax. i checked this stuff a while ago, forgot some, but remember the conclusions i came to. also they just print our money, it's like counterfieting, w/ interest, we could just print our $ interest free!
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Kid, you have no idea what you are talking about. Put the conspiracy theories to sleep.
@SadegoGG i just needed my memory jogged or re-instated. thanks now i remember. and it had alot to do with the 17th amendment i think. like, they had a loophole, a big one, closed less then a month after the 16th. is that right?
@SadegoGG it was the vacancies during the vote on the 16th amendment that spurred 17th with the need to assure the senators were all present or represented at all times if vacant. i think
You're sitting there making wild accusations against the United States government yet you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you actually make a case with some actual evidence backing you up. Oh wait, there isn't any. Its just a little conspiracy theory.
@SadegoGG so why is it that when a jury asks a prosecuter to show them the fed income tax law, they can't prosecute? i saw testimony of this from a few different people.
@Idolcruisefix section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”
As explained in the regulations:
“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....”
The word “impose” means “to establish or apply as compulsory; levy.” So how can a tax be “imposed” if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can’t. If a tax is imposed on a person’s income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.
In a bankruptcy dispute over the allowance of interest on unpaid taxes as a claim against the estate of the bankrupt, the Supreme Court stated the self-evident proposition that:
“The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation....”
U.S. v. Childs, 266 U.S. 304 (1924).
Also, I.R.C. section 6151 directs that any person required to file a return “shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return.”
The words “shall ... pay” certainly look like an obligation to pay, and the Supreme Court has held that the United States may enforce a stamp tax through a suit to collect the amount of the tax from the person required to pay the tax, even though the statute did not impose any personal liability for the tax, stating:
“When a statute says that a person shall pay a given tax, it obviously imposes upon that person the duty to pay...”
As explained below, the obligation to file a return is established by I.R.C. section 6012. A person having more than a stated minimum of income is required to file a return and, according to section 6151, is required to pay the tax shown on the return.
So what have the courts said about the claim that there is no one liable for the tax imposed on their incomes?
“The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required.”
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990). “Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax ‘liability.’ The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion,
stating in section 1 that a tax is ‘hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual’ (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax and creating a ‘liability’ for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.”
Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d ¶99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).
“Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for payment of a tax on ‘income.’
Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C. section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on ‘income.’”
United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5317, n. 3, 2000 TNT 186-76, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 8/25/2000). “Plaintiff’s arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.] First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax ‘liability’. The plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is ‘imposed’.
See 96 [sic] U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax and creating a ‘liability’ for tax. The Court fails to see a difference. Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes.”
Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff’d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax
Cas. (CCH) ¶50,394, 83 AFTR2d ¶99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).
“Appellants’ argument that the Internal Revenue Code does not define income or impose income tax liability on individuals is also meritless. 26 U.S.C. section 1 clearly imposes income tax liability on individuals.”
Liddane v. Commissioner, KTC 2000-28, No. 99-5499 (3d Cir. 1/14/2000), aff’ng T.C. Memo 1999-330 (referring to “the same partially incomprehensible but thoroughly frivolous arguments that they are not liable for Federal income taxes,” the Tax Court imposed sanctions of $10,000 for each docketed case for filing frivolous petitions).
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals....”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990). “The Plaintiffs further assert, in their Reply Memorandum dated September 12, 2005, that the ‘IRS has repeatedly refused to show [Plaintiffs] where in the [Internal Revenue] Code it makes [Plaintiffs] “liable for” the tax they claim is owed.’ Plfs.’ Reply at p. 7.
The Plaintiffs allege that it is ‘abundantly unclear’ what the term taxpayer, as used throughout the IRC, means, and state that ‘when [the United States] can show where [Plaintiffs are] ‘subject to” or “liable for” a so-called tax, at that point [Plaintiff] will gladly pay the tax.’ Id. At 4, 10. However, the Government does not have the burden of showing the Plaintiffs ‘where’ they are ‘subject’ or ‘liable for’ the tax before the tax is paid.
The comprehensive administrative enforcement scheme and judicial review process with which the Government is required to proceed under the IRS code is well established and none of it requires the Government to answer the Plaintiffs’ philosophical questions regarding the tax system.
For a clear explanation of ‘where in the law subjects the Plaintiffs to tax,’ the court directs the Plaintiffs’ attention to Amendment XVI of the Constitution and the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1, which is entitled ‘Tax Imposed.’”
An attorney named Thomas J. Carley argued before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that “[n]owhere in any of the Statutes of the United States is there any section of law making any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on ‘taxable income.’”
@Idolcruisefix The Second Circuit responded that “Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C.) (hereinafter the Code) provides in plain, clear and precise language that ‘[t]here is hereby imposed the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with’ tables set-out later in the statute. ... Despite the appellant’s attempted contorted construction of the statutory scheme,
we find that it coherently and forthrightly imposed upon the appellant tax upon his income for the year 1980.” Ficalora v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. den. 105 S.Ct. 1869 (1985).
Oddly enough, the same attorney raised nearly the identical argument before the Eighth Circuit, arguing that there was “no law imposing an income tax” on his clients. The Eighth Circuit held that the appeal was “frivolous” and imposed a penalty on the appellants of double the Commissioner’s costs of the appeal. Lively v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 1983).
Even more incredibly, only a year after losing the Lively appeal, and six months after losing the Ficalora appeal, the same attorney, Thomas J. Carley, raises the same idiot issue with the 10th Circuit, questioning “Whether there is any law or statute imposing an income tax on appellants for the year 1977 and, if such a law or statute is claimed to exist, what is the precise citation of such law or statute?”
The 10th Circuit quoted from both the Ficalora and Lively opinions in answer to his question, and then spent the rest of the opinion explaining why it was going to impose sanctions on Mr. Carley personally (not his clients).
“It is obvious that despite having full knowledge of the learned opinions of two different Article III courts and the accurate reasoning of the Tax Court in Manley [v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 46 T.C.M. 1359 (1983), another case lost by Mr. Carley)] concerning his arguments,
Carley has failed to learn that he has no right to occupy the time of such courts with frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious proceedings, and that if he does so, he exposes not only his clients but also himself personally to sanctions.”
Charczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 771 F.2d 471, 474 (10th Cir. 1985).
"The requirement to file an income tax return is explicitly stated in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), and 6072(a) [of the Internal Revenue Code] and corresponding Treasury Regulations. In addition, section 6151 requires taxpayers to submit payment of their taxes with their tax returns.
Under these provisions of the Code, any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income during the tax year is required to file a return for the year and pay tax on the income."
@SadegoGG i think the descrepancy, was that "income" (in the irs books) has no deffinition. and the only known deffinition in U.S. documaents is one where income excludes labor related income. as labor is a trade, not a growth in an investment. and that other thing you posted, looks like it says "it might NOT be against the law to pay it, but it's agaist the law to hold a position that it is against the law, " "frivilous position?" that is the law for income tax? that "opposition is futile"????
It is true that “income” is not defined by the Constitution, but the Constitution defines very few words. “Freedom of speech,” “due process,” and “equal protection” are all undefined in the Constitution, and yet those provisions are enforced by the courts. Similarly, the courts can determine what is meant by “income” within the 16th Amendment, and have held that “income” has the same meaning as used in everyday speech.
“For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term ‘income,’ as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....”
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1935), (holding that “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.” 252 U.S. at 207).
So the lack of an express definition of the word “income” income within the Constitution has consistently been held to be a frivolous objection to 16th Amendment. For example:
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (8) the term “income” as used in the tax statutes is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite....”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
(As an aside, one of the hallmarks of tax protester arguments is that they are “ad hoc” arguments, selectively and inconsistently applied. A tax protester will argue that “incomes” is not defined by the 16th Amendment, which is therefore ineffective,
@Idolcruisefix but no tax protester has ever argued that Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is ineffective because “direct tax” is not sufficiently defined, because that would mean that all taxes are constitutional whether or not they are apportioned.)
It is difficult to understand how you can claim a property right in something you haven’t done yet. If your labor were “property” like other property, you could sell it and then sit back and do nothing. However, if you “sell” your labor and are paid for it, you still have to work to earn it.
Even if the major premise is correct, and labor is a form of property, the conclusion is still wrong because the Internal Revenue Code does not tax labor itself, but the compensation received for labor (i.e., the income from labor).
If you go into your back yard and work for a week taking clay and making pots, there is no income and no tax. However, if you sell your pots, you have income because you have taken in money, and have more money than you had before. Similarly, if you “sell your labor” by agreeing to work in someone else’s factory (or farm) for a week, you have sold your labor and the compensation you receive is taxable.
As a general proposition, it is correct that Congress cannot tax the value of property directly (or at least not without apportionment), but can only tax exchanges or transfers of property. For example, the federal estate tax is clearly a tax on the value of property, and yet it has been held to be constitutional as an excise tax on the transfer of the property at death. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41 (1900).
Similarly, Congress cannot tax the value of real property, but can tax sales or transfers of real property. So the income tax is a tax on the receipt of income, and the sale of labor is a transaction that allows the constitutional imposition of a tax.
Of course, every court that has been forced to rule on this issue has ruled against the tax protester raising it.
“Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property, a tax on them is a property tax, and because the tax the Commissioner is attempting to collect is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional. However, as we and innumerable other courts have repeatedly explained, wages are income, and income taxes do not need to be apportioned.”
Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 against the taxpayer). “It is clear beyond peradventure that the income tax on wages is constitutional.”
Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. den. 106 S.Ct. 149 (1985).
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises...” The only specific exemption is in Section 9, which prohibits taxes on exports.
In Hylton v. United States, the three justices who wrote opinions were unanimous in their view that the Congressional power to tax was a general (or “plenary”) power, the only exception being exports. Justice Chase stated that:
“The power, in the eighth section of the first article, to lay and collect taxes, included a power to lay direct taxes, (whether capitation, or any other) and also duties, imposes, and excises; and every other species or kind of tax whatsoever, and called by any other name. ... I consider the Constitution to stand in this manner. A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports...”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Chase; emphasis added).
In the same case, Justice Paterson (who was a member of the Constitutional Convention) stated: “It was, however, obviously the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that Congress should possess full power over every species of taxable property, except exports. The term taxes, is generical, and was made use of to vest in Congress plenary authority in all cases of taxation.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Iredell; emphasis added).
In a later decision, the Supreme Court confirmed these conclusions, stating that:
“It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications.
Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.”
License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866) (emphasis added).
In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton had stated that the Congressional power to tax would be “concurrent and coequal” with the power of the states to tax (Federalist #32) and the Supreme Court has agreed that “The subject-matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states....” Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581 (1937).
@Idolcruisefix And, before and after the adoption of the Constitution, several states imposed taxes on professions, vocations, or employments. As explained by the Supreme Court:
“Taxes, which are but the means of distributing the burden of the cost of government, are commonly levied on property or its use, but they may likewise be laid on the exercise of personal rights and privileges. As has been pointed out by the opinion in the Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. Case [301 U.S. 548 (1937)],
(quote cont) such levies, including taxes on the exercise of the right to employ or to be employed, were known in England and the Colonies before the adoption of the Constitution, and must be taken to be embraced within the wide range of choice of subjects of taxation, which was an attribute of the sovereign power of the states at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and which was reserved to them by that instrument.
(quote cont) As the present levy [imposed by Alabama on wages paid] has all the indicia of a tax, and is of a type traditional in the history of Anglo-American legislation, it is within state taxing power, and it is immaterial whether it is called an excise or by another name.”
Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 508-509 (1937).
If the states had the power to tax wages, salaries, and other incomes from employment, then the Congress of the United States had the same power. (For other examples, see the cases cited in the discussion of whether a tax on wages is a “direct tax.”)
There have been a few Supreme Court decisions that have found incomes that Congress did not have the power to tax. However, all of those decisions arose out of considerations of federalism
@SadegoGG i gotta go, i'll get back to this mealstrom of bullshit later. economic enslavement is real and you (witting or un-witting) are a minion of the ones who print our money with zero oversight.
(i.e., the relationship between the federal and state governments) or the separation of powers within the federal government, and all of those decisions were over-ruled by later decisions and are no longer good law. For example:
@Idolcruisefix -In Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870), it was held that Congress could not tax the salary of a state employee. That holding was explicitly overruled by Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 486-487 (1939).
-Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), held that the compensation received by federal judges could not be subject to income tax because Article III of the Constitution states that the compensation of judges ‘shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.’ Evans v. Gore was over-ruled by O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).
-In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, (1895), the Supreme Court held that interest on the debts of state and local governments could not be taxed. That holding was reversed in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988).
-In Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 (1932), it was held that the income from land owned by a state and leased to a private corporation could not be taxed if the lease was part of a “governmental function.” That holding was reversed by Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376 (1938).
So, over the years, the Supreme Court has considered the possibility that certain types of income from government-related activities might be constitutionally exempt from income tax, but eventually decided that no such exemptions existed.
@Idolcruisefix Tax protesters sometimes find and quote those decisions, not realizing (or not caring) that the decisions represent relatively short-lived experiments in inter-governmental immunities and are simply not relevant to federal taxes on incomes unrelated to any governmental activity.
There is not a single decision in the history of the United States in which any judge has ever even suggested that Congress cannot tax wages and salaries generally.
And, if the salaries of state employees can be taxed by Congress, it is ludicrous to suggest that ordinary salaries paid by private employers might have some kind of immunity from tax.
And so the claim that “Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code imposes a requirement to file a return or pay tax” 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.
@SadegoGG i just needed my memory jogged or re-instated. thanks now i remember. and it had alot to do with the 17th amendment i think. like, they had a loophole, a bi one, clesed less then a month after the 16th. is that right?
@SadegoGG i just needed my memory jogged or re-instated. thanks now i remember. and it had alot to do with the 17th amendment i think. like, they had a loophole, a bi one, clesed less then a month after the 16th. is that right?
@SadegoGG i was trying to post a comment, but it had two typo's so i removed it and couldn't re-post it. i was saying "thank you for informing me" or some such thing about having my memory jogged. i remembered hearin trickery in the passing of that amendment in 1913 and wasn't sure how to retort, as it has been some time sence i reserched this and came to such conclusions that "we are being robbed" and the like.
@SadegoGG you say "Kid, you have no idea what you are talking about. Put the conspiracy theories to sleep." because i can't remember/don't know my own USA, which also happens to be one of the coolest ("kids") documents ever. but i know that there hasn't yet come an end to those who conspire and some also trick idiots into believing giant crazy lies, like "floride in all your water is there becuse it fixes your teeth" or "the 2nd amendment is for the army" as in a "standing army" ...lol?
You are now changing the subject from the income tax, since you know you are wrong. If sodium fluoride is so toxic, why don't you take the matter to court? Can you find me some major universities who agree with Alex Jones and agree sodium fluoride shouldn't be in the water? Also, who has ever said the second amendment is only for the military?
@SadegoGG you were talkin bad about conspiracy theories before that "divergent" comment of mine, so you had broden the spectrum of topic, not I. i didn't "change the subject"
@SadegoGG and i'm sure tooth paste, says to call poison control for help on it in case of ingestion, just says that because they don't have any evidence it is poison.
The toothpaste warnings are because of Sodium fluoride and Triclosan.
Different toothpastes have different ingredients that contribute to the label. However, you have absolutely no evidence that sodium fluoride is found in dangerous quantities in food and water. Otherwise I am sure you or someone else would have already taken it to court. Which you haven't.
@SadegoGG GMO's, floride in water, aspertame, and alot of perscription drugs and alot of other stuff (like pesticides, toys, paints, thinners, cleaning products, food, microwaves, body scanners, x rays) said to be safe for everyone, (ie pesticides, toys, paints, thinners, cleaning products, food, technology,) that it's given to.... it's bad science and because of that it's genocide. because scientists who get tons of money, are not stupid asses.
SadegoGG how many like nazi's? Aztecs killed for the sun to come up, egyptians enslaved people foe a tomb for a (god/king), all royalty collects goods of the public and redistributed it to themselves and can hurt people and stuff. usually religious cleptocracies seem to lead us to a similar end. an end of slavery and death. and religion is just a tool, science can be a tool too. like how they still teach that our orbit is fixed to make natural systems look delicate, but stationary w/out people.
Why are you talking about ancient civilizations that have no influence on the United States federal government? And you still have not answered my question regarding the sixteenth amendment.
I like tarpley's war-room type excerpts like strategy on a table ala mode let's get tarpley some war maps to explain the possibilities in more detail I just can't picture Israel's missile defence to be even that strong, I could be wrong.
@nobodysfoolinnobody Intoduced H.R. 5741: ... To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
Terrorist fail. Only managed to dent the thing. Didn't see any Arab juice splatted on the side though. Maybe a US sub hit it.
1st503rdSGT 1 year ago
Gojira! Gojira!
cyber10art 1 year ago
This stupid fucking brainwashed Muzzie blew himself to hell and all he did was put a square dent in the side of the ship and slightly injure a crewman.
FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL you fucking dumb twats Muslims!!! Why do we still let these roam the earth???
arvydas0069 1 year ago
@arvydas0069 You're a black water fuck. Racist piece of shit who couldn't hack it in the private sector. So you had to join up and follow your racist instincts. God is not on your side. Arvy, enjoy ur BMW with blood $. ARVY is Blackwater. MURDERERS GO TO HELL and share it with Imperialist. (Not mutually exclusive.) Also Arvy, you're such a pussy you block me. Worthless grunt Fuck. Please don't come back to America to beg in the streets. Enjoy your PTSD you MURDERER.
Ryguy1450 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are a brainwashed hate child!
mrtruthify 1 year ago
Hey!
Thanks Alex for accepting my video response!!! ^^^
hope u like it...
EoinJackson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ORGANISE PEACEFUL SIT DOWN PROTESTS IN YOUR TOWNS AND CITIES, SIT IN THE STREETS AND SHUT DOWN THE SYSTEM---THUMBS UP IF YOU AGREE!!!!!
sourceoftruth444 1 year ago
At 3:13 Alex says "Nable stand off"
Maybe he like to snack on Bit-o-hunny candy, hes got bee's flying around!
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great Idea to help the people of Louisiana: Why don't the Government pay all the claims and then the Govt can get the money from BP or take it if they need too. Because the Govt has the power to take when they want, the people do not have any power. Come on Government, do it for the people, like you did it for the Banker's.
rocksiphone 1 year ago
Japaneses are related to grays.
SteveXnycperformance 1 year ago
Oil can collapse a wobble in a vibration that could shake itself apart if it didn't compensate for the pressure. Search Cymatics! Many oil spills seem to be happening recently in specific areas around the states. Like a Hot Potato, we pass the pressure around with Tesla Tech. Pymide Tech has been used to "draw" more oil pressure from wells. Just check the patent office.
honestcheetah 1 year ago
It's happening near the place where the dinasar-killer metior hit. We are the new Fossil Fuels! Please take a number to enter into the D.U.M.B. in an orderly fassion.
Rev:6:13 = Project Blue Book Sky Hologram
Rev:9:1 = LHC + Black Hole Tech
honestcheetah 1 year ago
has alex ever been threatened..gy government or have they thought of assasinating him
weapons33 1 year ago
@weapons33 No but I now he's been approached many times by the FBI, he said that a while ago.
coolkid19901 1 year ago
@coolkid19901 * know
coolkid19901 1 year ago
@weapons33 The US gov. is in full power, they aren't worried about any threat coming from inside America!
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 1 year ago
@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE they let everybody and anybody into usa and canada wouldnt be to hard to study up and write home!
hondacr60r 1 year ago
@hondacr60r Come again?
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 1 year ago
@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE great lakes in the states and canada enbridge oil spill funny all these oil spills poppin up all over and 2 billion gallons of raw sewage i hear to few days ago
hondacr60r 1 year ago
@hondacr60r I think we went into Costa Rica to counter Venezuela!
I don't know what to make of all the oil leaks.
Hay Alex, how many "B's" are in the word Navel?
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 1 year ago
oil spills are everywhere. china, russia, gulf, and now theyre attempting in japan. WTF IS GOING ON !!!!! TELL MEE!!!!
MaxFlared 1 year ago
@MaxFlared There is one in Lake Michigan right now too!
luke94123 1 year ago
@MaxFlared now the fresh water great lakes !
hondacr60r 1 year ago
@MaxFlared i will tell u maxflared, ur corrupt governments and baby killers are getting ready for another illegal war in iran, pakistan and syria. bp oil, china oil and japan tanker oil are all staged.
jojo1ukuk 1 year ago
False flag? Come on guys read the article. No where does it mention Iran or give any indication that Iran is being setup for the blame.
So many of these conspiracies are just fear mongering and sensationalism.
Read the actual Bloomberg article.
BigBobsh2o 1 year ago 5
@BigBobsh2o yes and you look like a dumbass commenting anything from your sock account
uroprop 1 year ago
@uroprop
Hahaha tell me something why do conspiracy believers get so angry over an opinion?
O and what do you mean by "sock account"?
BigBobsh2o 1 year ago
@BigBobsh2o go away i have my anti asshole deo on today
uroprop 1 year ago
@BigBobsh2o not believing in conspiracies is saying the old money of the last 300 years has about 300 people who just sit around and play golf, pay for sex, twiddle or something like that. Economic Enslavement is Real Yo! Wake up already! stop drinking floride or taking those pills or whatever it takes, get over it and see that you are under attack even if you think you are safe for some super lame reasons like you get a bunker or you work for blackwater. if you die, they (the 300) don't care.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
The 300? With conspiracy theories/ theorists it's always popular to invent a faceless, nameless enemy.
The fear mongering is a form of entertainment. Sort of like horror movies. It makes the way people perceive their dull boring lives, into a real life horror movie. And it rallies those who believe it into a made up cause against a made up enemy that wants to destroy the earth. Throw end times into it and all of a sudden its a struggle against the devil himself.
BigBobsh2o 1 year ago
@BigBobsh2o so i guess economic enslavement(aka genocide) happening world wide is a figment of my imagination.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Which genocide are you talking about? Genocide happens. And not because of some "New World Order".
There is a good amount of exploitation (especially in labor markets).
BigBobsh2o 1 year ago
@BigBobsh2o this explotation is an arm of the same crap people trying to make us kill eachother and eat poison. it's sick and someone is planing to take over the world through or behind or with this system of exploitation.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix Correctomundo! Now if we can get BigBob to understand how the Big ugly world works!
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 1 year ago
@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE to further what i said a immigrant just got 4 yrs jail that will only serve 20 months for sending 2 high tech guages to iran from usa for them to use on nuclear devices. usa is going to get taken over by 3rd world i think thats what up whites are going to be minority already are!
hondacr60r 1 year ago
@hondacr60r Loyalty is what the NWO needs for it's self. Loyalty to a country is on it's way out! Per their plan!
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 1 year ago
@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE how about loyalty to a country can continue, but the people of the world start to realise that their country is them, not the usuall liars who try to lead them.yet should be serving them. as they know what they want. they want to be free enough to not be enslaved.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@BigBobsh2o Assholes have climbed up on top of people and try to dominate the world and the minds of millions for thousands of years all over the place, in Africa, Asia, Europe, South America and North America,(probably more then we know) why would any of this just stop all of a sudden? and since you think it did stop, when did it stop. 200 years ago?500? 50? you know what is going to stop it? the ideals in the real USA bein followed by the people of the USA, and becoming a lesson for the world
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Maybe Alex Jones wants to take over America with people who ride his dick...kind of like you.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG what make you say i'm ridin alex jones dick? you seem to be lost in a world of bullshit, to be saying somethin like this. take a deep breath and try again, this time using your brain.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
The brain is an electronic switching station that controls the vibration one is in, so I don't know of what you talk about when you tell me to use my brain...as every individual has emotions. Anyways, you sit there talking like Alex Jones even though you have absolutely no documentation backing up what you say. If you did have documentation and could prove the shit you are saying, you would be flooding the courtrooms.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG income tax is still upheld as legal in court. I try not to waste too much time. the law of the land will stay in ideas, not in laws.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
And what is wrong with the income tax?
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG i didn't think i needed documents to prove what i call, common knowledge, ie, history
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
You just blamed the federal government of acting in its own self interest and not caring about the American people. Yet you have absolutely no evidence of this. Not ever leader of the world and ever government is like Hitler and Nazi Germany.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG you don't know about the private federal reserve bank, and it's income tax? This Fed Bank is a private bank and is the same thing that so many old presidents fought against successfully and not so successfully. There is no law that says you must pay it, but you can still go to jail for not paying it. that is dogma and against the law and against reason and logic. the best evidence (other then watching a documentary and then checking it out) is that it is un-apportioned to the states
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Can you explain to me why you believe there is no law saying you have to pay the income tax?
If i'm not mistaken, doesn't the sixteenth amendment make it okay for the income tax to not be apportioned?
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG i think you are correct in your assumption, but i've seen that it it is not quite true. the 16th doesn't say that at all. i read it and i agreed it didn't, but it's been a while since i brushed up on this, i thought it was the 13th at first that is used to falsly justify the fed income tax. i checked this stuff a while ago, forgot some, but remember the conclusions i came to. also they just print our money, it's like counterfieting, w/ interest, we could just print our $ interest free!
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Sixteenth Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Kid, you have no idea what you are talking about. Put the conspiracy theories to sleep.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
Comment removed
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SadegoGG i just needed my memory jogged or re-instated. thanks now i remember. and it had alot to do with the 17th amendment i think. like, they had a loophole, a big one, closed less then a month after the 16th. is that right?
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
What does the seventeenth amendment have to do with the income tax?
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG it was the vacancies during the vote on the 16th amendment that spurred 17th with the need to assure the senators were all present or represented at all times if vacant. i think
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
You're sitting there making wild accusations against the United States government yet you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you actually make a case with some actual evidence backing you up. Oh wait, there isn't any. Its just a little conspiracy theory.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG so why is it that when a jury asks a prosecuter to show them the fed income tax law, they can't prosecute? i saw testimony of this from a few different people.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”
As explained in the regulations:
“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word “impose” means “to establish or apply as compulsory; levy.” So how can a tax be “imposed” if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can’t. If a tax is imposed on a person’s income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.
In a bankruptcy dispute over the allowance of interest on unpaid taxes as a claim against the estate of the bankrupt, the Supreme Court stated the self-evident proposition that:
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
“The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation....”
U.S. v. Childs, 266 U.S. 304 (1924).
Also, I.R.C. section 6151 directs that any person required to file a return “shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return.”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
The words “shall ... pay” certainly look like an obligation to pay, and the Supreme Court has held that the United States may enforce a stamp tax through a suit to collect the amount of the tax from the person required to pay the tax, even though the statute did not impose any personal liability for the tax, stating:
“When a statute says that a person shall pay a given tax, it obviously imposes upon that person the duty to pay...”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 US 250 (1910).
As explained below, the obligation to file a return is established by I.R.C. section 6012. A person having more than a stated minimum of income is required to file a return and, according to section 6151, is required to pay the tax shown on the return.
So what have the courts said about the claim that there is no one liable for the tax imposed on their incomes?
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
“The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required.”
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990). “Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax ‘liability.’ The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion,
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
stating in section 1 that a tax is ‘hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual’ (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax and creating a ‘liability’ for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d ¶99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).
“Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for payment of a tax on ‘income.’
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C. section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on ‘income.’”
United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5317, n. 3, 2000 TNT 186-76, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 8/25/2000). “Plaintiff’s arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.] First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax ‘liability’. The plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is ‘imposed’.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
See 96 [sic] U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax and creating a ‘liability’ for tax. The Court fails to see a difference. Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes.”
Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff’d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Cas. (CCH) ¶50,394, 83 AFTR2d ¶99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).
“Appellants’ argument that the Internal Revenue Code does not define income or impose income tax liability on individuals is also meritless. 26 U.S.C. section 1 clearly imposes income tax liability on individuals.”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Liddane v. Commissioner, KTC 2000-28, No. 99-5499 (3d Cir. 1/14/2000), aff’ng T.C. Memo 1999-330 (referring to “the same partially incomprehensible but thoroughly frivolous arguments that they are not liable for Federal income taxes,” the Tax Court imposed sanctions of $10,000 for each docketed case for filing frivolous petitions).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals....”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990). “The Plaintiffs further assert, in their Reply Memorandum dated September 12, 2005, that the ‘IRS has repeatedly refused to show [Plaintiffs] where in the [Internal Revenue] Code it makes [Plaintiffs] “liable for” the tax they claim is owed.’ Plfs.’ Reply at p. 7.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
The Plaintiffs allege that it is ‘abundantly unclear’ what the term taxpayer, as used throughout the IRC, means, and state that ‘when [the United States] can show where [Plaintiffs are] ‘subject to” or “liable for” a so-called tax, at that point [Plaintiff] will gladly pay the tax.’ Id. At 4, 10. However, the Government does not have the burden of showing the Plaintiffs ‘where’ they are ‘subject’ or ‘liable for’ the tax before the tax is paid.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
The comprehensive administrative enforcement scheme and judicial review process with which the Government is required to proceed under the IRS code is well established and none of it requires the Government to answer the Plaintiffs’ philosophical questions regarding the tax system.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
For a clear explanation of ‘where in the law subjects the Plaintiffs to tax,’ the court directs the Plaintiffs’ attention to Amendment XVI of the Constitution and the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1, which is entitled ‘Tax Imposed.’”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Celauro v. United States, 411 F. Supp. 2D 257, 269, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3147, 2006-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,168, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 761, No. 05-cv-02245-ADS-WDW (U.S.D.C. E.D. N.Y. 1/28/2006).
See also, United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (Del. 1982).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
An attorney named Thomas J. Carley argued before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that “[n]owhere in any of the Statutes of the United States is there any section of law making any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on ‘taxable income.’”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix The Second Circuit responded that “Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C.) (hereinafter the Code) provides in plain, clear and precise language that ‘[t]here is hereby imposed the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with’ tables set-out later in the statute. ... Despite the appellant’s attempted contorted construction of the statutory scheme,
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
we find that it coherently and forthrightly imposed upon the appellant tax upon his income for the year 1980.” Ficalora v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. den. 105 S.Ct. 1869 (1985).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Oddly enough, the same attorney raised nearly the identical argument before the Eighth Circuit, arguing that there was “no law imposing an income tax” on his clients. The Eighth Circuit held that the appeal was “frivolous” and imposed a penalty on the appellants of double the Commissioner’s costs of the appeal. Lively v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 1983).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Even more incredibly, only a year after losing the Lively appeal, and six months after losing the Ficalora appeal, the same attorney, Thomas J. Carley, raises the same idiot issue with the 10th Circuit, questioning “Whether there is any law or statute imposing an income tax on appellants for the year 1977 and, if such a law or statute is claimed to exist, what is the precise citation of such law or statute?”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
The 10th Circuit quoted from both the Ficalora and Lively opinions in answer to his question, and then spent the rest of the opinion explaining why it was going to impose sanctions on Mr. Carley personally (not his clients).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
“It is obvious that despite having full knowledge of the learned opinions of two different Article III courts and the accurate reasoning of the Tax Court in Manley [v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 46 T.C.M. 1359 (1983), another case lost by Mr. Carley)] concerning his arguments,
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Carley has failed to learn that he has no right to occupy the time of such courts with frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious proceedings, and that if he does so, he exposes not only his clients but also himself personally to sanctions.”
Charczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 771 F.2d 471, 474 (10th Cir. 1985).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
The court also referred to Mr. Carley’s arguments as “meritless,” “preposterous,” “nearly silly,” and “thoroughly defy[ing] common sense.”
As silly as this claim might be, the IRS has publicly refuted it.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
"The requirement to file an income tax return is explicitly stated in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), and 6072(a) [of the Internal Revenue Code] and corresponding Treasury Regulations. In addition, section 6151 requires taxpayers to submit payment of their taxes with their tax returns.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Under these provisions of the Code, any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income during the tax year is required to file a return for the year and pay tax on the income."
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG i think the descrepancy, was that "income" (in the irs books) has no deffinition. and the only known deffinition in U.S. documaents is one where income excludes labor related income. as labor is a trade, not a growth in an investment. and that other thing you posted, looks like it says "it might NOT be against the law to pay it, but it's agaist the law to hold a position that it is against the law, " "frivilous position?" that is the law for income tax? that "opposition is futile"????
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
It is true that “income” is not defined by the Constitution, but the Constitution defines very few words. “Freedom of speech,” “due process,” and “equal protection” are all undefined in the Constitution, and yet those provisions are enforced by the courts. Similarly, the courts can determine what is meant by “income” within the 16th Amendment, and have held that “income” has the same meaning as used in everyday speech.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
“For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term ‘income,’ as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....”
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1935), (holding that “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.” 252 U.S. at 207).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
So the lack of an express definition of the word “income” income within the Constitution has consistently been held to be a frivolous objection to 16th Amendment. For example:
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (8) the term “income” as used in the tax statutes is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite....”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
(As an aside, one of the hallmarks of tax protester arguments is that they are “ad hoc” arguments, selectively and inconsistently applied. A tax protester will argue that “incomes” is not defined by the 16th Amendment, which is therefore ineffective,
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix but no tax protester has ever argued that Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is ineffective because “direct tax” is not sufficiently defined, because that would mean that all taxes are constitutional whether or not they are apportioned.)
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
It is difficult to understand how you can claim a property right in something you haven’t done yet. If your labor were “property” like other property, you could sell it and then sit back and do nothing. However, if you “sell” your labor and are paid for it, you still have to work to earn it.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Even if the major premise is correct, and labor is a form of property, the conclusion is still wrong because the Internal Revenue Code does not tax labor itself, but the compensation received for labor (i.e., the income from labor).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
If you go into your back yard and work for a week taking clay and making pots, there is no income and no tax. However, if you sell your pots, you have income because you have taken in money, and have more money than you had before. Similarly, if you “sell your labor” by agreeing to work in someone else’s factory (or farm) for a week, you have sold your labor and the compensation you receive is taxable.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
As a general proposition, it is correct that Congress cannot tax the value of property directly (or at least not without apportionment), but can only tax exchanges or transfers of property. For example, the federal estate tax is clearly a tax on the value of property, and yet it has been held to be constitutional as an excise tax on the transfer of the property at death. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41 (1900).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Similarly, Congress cannot tax the value of real property, but can tax sales or transfers of real property. So the income tax is a tax on the receipt of income, and the sale of labor is a transaction that allows the constitutional imposition of a tax.
Of course, every court that has been forced to rule on this issue has ruled against the tax protester raising it.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
“Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property, a tax on them is a property tax, and because the tax the Commissioner is attempting to collect is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional. However, as we and innumerable other courts have repeatedly explained, wages are income, and income taxes do not need to be apportioned.”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 against the taxpayer). “It is clear beyond peradventure that the income tax on wages is constitutional.”
Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. den. 106 S.Ct. 149 (1985).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises...” The only specific exemption is in Section 9, which prohibits taxes on exports.
In Hylton v. United States, the three justices who wrote opinions were unanimous in their view that the Congressional power to tax was a general (or “plenary”) power, the only exception being exports. Justice Chase stated that:
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
“The power, in the eighth section of the first article, to lay and collect taxes, included a power to lay direct taxes, (whether capitation, or any other) and also duties, imposes, and excises; and every other species or kind of tax whatsoever, and called by any other name. ... I consider the Constitution to stand in this manner. A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports...”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Chase; emphasis added).
In the same case, Justice Paterson (who was a member of the Constitutional Convention) stated: “It was, however, obviously the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that Congress should possess full power over every species of taxable property, except exports. The term taxes, is generical, and was made use of to vest in Congress plenary authority in all cases of taxation.”
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Paterson; emphasis added).
And, finally, Justice Iredell stated:
“The Congress possess the power of taxing all taxable objects, without limitation, with the particular exception of a duty on exports.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Iredell; emphasis added).
In a later decision, the Supreme Court confirmed these conclusions, stating that:
“It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.”
License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866) (emphasis added).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton had stated that the Congressional power to tax would be “concurrent and coequal” with the power of the states to tax (Federalist #32) and the Supreme Court has agreed that “The subject-matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states....” Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581 (1937).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix And, before and after the adoption of the Constitution, several states imposed taxes on professions, vocations, or employments. As explained by the Supreme Court:
“Taxes, which are but the means of distributing the burden of the cost of government, are commonly levied on property or its use, but they may likewise be laid on the exercise of personal rights and privileges. As has been pointed out by the opinion in the Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. Case [301 U.S. 548 (1937)],
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
(quote cont) such levies, including taxes on the exercise of the right to employ or to be employed, were known in England and the Colonies before the adoption of the Constitution, and must be taken to be embraced within the wide range of choice of subjects of taxation, which was an attribute of the sovereign power of the states at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and which was reserved to them by that instrument.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
(quote cont) As the present levy [imposed by Alabama on wages paid] has all the indicia of a tax, and is of a type traditional in the history of Anglo-American legislation, it is within state taxing power, and it is immaterial whether it is called an excise or by another name.”
Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 508-509 (1937).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
If the states had the power to tax wages, salaries, and other incomes from employment, then the Congress of the United States had the same power. (For other examples, see the cases cited in the discussion of whether a tax on wages is a “direct tax.”)
There have been a few Supreme Court decisions that have found incomes that Congress did not have the power to tax. However, all of those decisions arose out of considerations of federalism
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG i gotta go, i'll get back to this mealstrom of bullshit later. economic enslavement is real and you (witting or un-witting) are a minion of the ones who print our money with zero oversight.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
(i.e., the relationship between the federal and state governments) or the separation of powers within the federal government, and all of those decisions were over-ruled by later decisions and are no longer good law. For example:
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix -In Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870), it was held that Congress could not tax the salary of a state employee. That holding was explicitly overruled by Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 486-487 (1939).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
-Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), held that the compensation received by federal judges could not be subject to income tax because Article III of the Constitution states that the compensation of judges ‘shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.’ Evans v. Gore was over-ruled by O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
-In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, (1895), the Supreme Court held that interest on the debts of state and local governments could not be taxed. That holding was reversed in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
-In Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 (1932), it was held that the income from land owned by a state and leased to a private corporation could not be taxed if the lease was part of a “governmental function.” That holding was reversed by Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376 (1938).
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
So, over the years, the Supreme Court has considered the possibility that certain types of income from government-related activities might be constitutionally exempt from income tax, but eventually decided that no such exemptions existed.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix Tax protesters sometimes find and quote those decisions, not realizing (or not caring) that the decisions represent relatively short-lived experiments in inter-governmental immunities and are simply not relevant to federal taxes on incomes unrelated to any governmental activity.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
There is not a single decision in the history of the United States in which any judge has ever even suggested that Congress cannot tax wages and salaries generally.
And, if the salaries of state employees can be taxed by Congress, it is ludicrous to suggest that ordinary salaries paid by private employers might have some kind of immunity from tax.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Rev. Rul. 2007-20, 2007-14 IRB 863, 864.
And so the claim that “Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code imposes a requirement to file a return or pay tax” 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.
You are wrong, conspiracy theorist.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG you have to admit, there might not even be a line between "resistance is futile" and "you have a 'frivilous possition' "
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
Why don't you go read the case?
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG how do you gain anything in an even trade? thus your deffinition of income is vague. vague enough to get folks hung.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
I just described the definition of income more thoroughly above.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SadegoGG i just needed my memory jogged or re-instated. thanks now i remember. and it had alot to do with the 17th amendment i think. like, they had a loophole, a bi one, clesed less then a month after the 16th. is that right?
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SadegoGG i just needed my memory jogged or re-instated. thanks now i remember. and it had alot to do with the 17th amendment i think. like, they had a loophole, a bi one, clesed less then a month after the 16th. is that right?
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@SadegoGG i was trying to post a comment, but it had two typo's so i removed it and couldn't re-post it. i was saying "thank you for informing me" or some such thing about having my memory jogged. i remembered hearin trickery in the passing of that amendment in 1913 and wasn't sure how to retort, as it has been some time sence i reserched this and came to such conclusions that "we are being robbed" and the like.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
I don't know how you established conclusions on a matter you know absolutely nothing about.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG you say "Kid, you have no idea what you are talking about. Put the conspiracy theories to sleep." because i can't remember/don't know my own USA, which also happens to be one of the coolest ("kids") documents ever. but i know that there hasn't yet come an end to those who conspire and some also trick idiots into believing giant crazy lies, like "floride in all your water is there becuse it fixes your teeth" or "the 2nd amendment is for the army" as in a "standing army" ...lol?
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
You are now changing the subject from the income tax, since you know you are wrong. If sodium fluoride is so toxic, why don't you take the matter to court? Can you find me some major universities who agree with Alex Jones and agree sodium fluoride shouldn't be in the water? Also, who has ever said the second amendment is only for the military?
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG you were talkin bad about conspiracy theories before that "divergent" comment of mine, so you had broden the spectrum of topic, not I. i didn't "change the subject"
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@SadegoGG soto maeyor has said the 2nd amendment is for the mil. only
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@SadegoGG and i'm sure tooth paste, says to call poison control for help on it in case of ingestion, just says that because they don't have any evidence it is poison.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
The toothpaste warnings are because of Sodium fluoride and Triclosan.
Different toothpastes have different ingredients that contribute to the label. However, you have absolutely no evidence that sodium fluoride is found in dangerous quantities in food and water. Otherwise I am sure you or someone else would have already taken it to court. Which you haven't.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG GMO's, floride in water, aspertame, and alot of perscription drugs and alot of other stuff (like pesticides, toys, paints, thinners, cleaning products, food, microwaves, body scanners, x rays) said to be safe for everyone, (ie pesticides, toys, paints, thinners, cleaning products, food, technology,) that it's given to.... it's bad science and because of that it's genocide. because scientists who get tons of money, are not stupid asses.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@SadegoGG if you can't see the corruption that could be construed as 21st century genocide, in our western health care, then you are really blind.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@SadegoGG the federal reserve bank is not the fed, it is a lie
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
SadegoGG how many like nazi's? Aztecs killed for the sun to come up, egyptians enslaved people foe a tomb for a (god/king), all royalty collects goods of the public and redistributed it to themselves and can hurt people and stuff. usually religious cleptocracies seem to lead us to a similar end. an end of slavery and death. and religion is just a tool, science can be a tool too. like how they still teach that our orbit is fixed to make natural systems look delicate, but stationary w/out people.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Idolcruisefix
Why are you talking about ancient civilizations that have no influence on the United States federal government? And you still have not answered my question regarding the sixteenth amendment.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@BigBobsh2o Maybe it was, but failed to rupture the tanker so they dropped it, who knows!
Sure beats lady Gaga on the boob tube! Now go freshen up your popcorn!
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 1 year ago
@TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE
Sure I'll freshen up my popcorn if you go to a shrink and ask if you can get anything for delusional thinking.
BigBobsh2o 1 year ago
@BigBobsh2o Smear is a uneducated conservative tactic, and right out of the gate is childish! What are you referring to?
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 1 year ago
Are the 28th videos uploaded out of order?
bunnylicker 1 year ago
319 Views @ 12.30 GMT
35THIRTYFIVE 1 year ago
@35THIRTYFIVE *hi* 319views 14:02PM Germany
vastell 1 year ago
This doesn't mean military, it could have been some fucking pirates.
DvineGaming 1 year ago
@DvineGaming That's right!
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 1 year ago
OH FUCK!! We are so dead if we start a shit storm with Iran, North Korea, China and Russia.
DvineGaming 1 year ago
I like tarpley's war-room type excerpts like strategy on a table ala mode let's get tarpley some war maps to explain the possibilities in more detail I just can't picture Israel's missile defence to be even that strong, I could be wrong.
EsCurve 1 year ago
enough is enough
press the red button
lets get it on
chena3 1 year ago
war drums intensifying their... drumming... for war....
freakfiend32 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@freakfiend32
He's running out of things to say!
PantsThatDontFit 1 year ago
" Bin Gaggen?" are you kidding me?
Andgrey 1 year ago
remember, 2012 is the date for ww3 according to lindsay williams unless its started by israel
masterllama43 1 year ago
Alex Jones, it is now safe to say, YOU ARE A LOON!!!
diceyLee 1 year ago
@diceyLee you are obviously a brain dead moron or you took way to many flu shots
kbr247 1 year ago
@kbr247 and your defend loons and have watched way to much youtube.....
diceyLee 1 year ago
@diceyLee I don't feel like feeding trolls but the proof is right in the video
kbr247 1 year ago
@kbr247 i think Jones is a pretty cool guy. eh has docment and doesnt afraid of anything.
bobthemadgoat 1 year ago
@kbr247 if you think that the unsubstantiated claims of this video is "Proof" then you truly are as uneducated as i thought.....
peace out
diceyLee 1 year ago
if they wanna invade iran they would probably re instate the draft... right?
nobodysfoolinnobody 1 year ago
@nobodysfoolinnobody Intoduced H.R. 5741: ... To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
grandmasterqz 1 year ago
I need some fish
DanOlooney 1 year ago
Would you like oily maki-teka or radioactive rainbow roll? @DanOlooney
mldnathai 1 year ago
Thank you AlexJonesChannel
LIQUIDDEMONS 1 year ago