Yeah, we are in a neighborhood with HOA, we would love to get a place more in the country with a few acres, but it's still too expensive and right now houses are not flying off the market like it used to. When Trump was in office, our neighborhood couldn't keep a house on the market more than a few days, now there's homes been on the market for over a year now.
I know the feeling. Took me a long time to get out from under that one during the last big market downturn. I'm out in the sticks now, wouldn't trade it for anything.
I just spoke with a realtor. Told them no hoa listing's. Sorry for those who own a house in an hoa that nobody wants but maybe they'll fight the idiots amd rollback the stupidity.
HOA fee's are not a tax. It is a voluntary contractual obligation people enter into when buying real estate that includes an HOA. If you do not want to be in an HOA then don't buy in an HOA subdivision.
To my knowledge, there's nothing un-Constitutional about a city or county levying a property tax. They're too damn high in many cities, and in my big blue city I get absolutely nothing for my property taxes, but federal income tax? Completely un-constitutional and far, far more important to fight.
Actually, one of the founding principles upon which our Republic was established is the right to own property. A recurring tax makes that impossible. Government has no authority to levy a recurring property tax. Remember, government was instituted to protect our individual rights and serve us, not tax us to death and rule over us.
Recurring property taxes are responsible for more people losing their homes than you probably realize. It also makes owning a home impossible since there will always be a payment, even when the mortgage is paid in full. Many people can afford to pay when they are younger, healthy, and employed, but older people who are on fixed incomes often cannot.
Property taxes aren't unconstitutional. On the contrary, the constitution explicitly states that all property (not just land or houses, but all property) belongs to the US Govt. Not only does all property belong to the US Govt, but all people do as well. This was built into the Constitution (both of these proclamations are explicitly stated in the Fifth Amendment if you know the other laws on the books at the time, but you can find them stated implicitly in the original document itself in numerous places).
Of course the US Govt doesn't actually exist. It is a corporation (which means, by definition, an entity that only exists within a certain framework of law, aka a legal fiction). Like all such entities that don't actually exist, the claims of ownership are made by people and separated into the controllers (trustees) and the beneficiaries, who are also alwayspeople. This is the nature of Trust Law. The trustees and beneficiaries are ALWAYS ultimately people, no matter how many corporations (legal fictions) fall in the middle to confuse the issue. At the time of the writing of the constitution, the controllers (trustees) of all the land and all the people that are "owned" by the US Govt were the Aristocrats that created it. They were also, on their whim, the beneficiaries, a condition built into the constitution itself. The entire thing was designed to ensure that those Aristocrats would always retain the power over everything.
How was this accomplished? Well, originally it was designed such that only land owners could vote. Less than 3% of the population were land owners, all of them Aristocrats, descended from land owners who were themselves the direct descendants of the Lords of Britain and Holland, all intermarrying to preserve their bloodlines. These few who could vote remained the few who could vote for quite some time since land could only be purchased in 320 acre lots. These land buying laws ensured that no one who was not already filthy rich could possibly buy land.
Things eventually changed, but all sorts of laws and other social constructs remained to ensure that only the Aristocrats could possibly become Senators, Presidents, Judges, etc. Though the reasons have changed over the years, that situation still remains today.
People who worry about whether or not a thing is "constitutional" rather than whether or not a thing is Right (or related to a persons inalienable Rights) do not understand what the Constitution was: It was a document created by the American Aristocrats in protest against the King of England, declaring themselves their own Rulers, rejecting the monarchy and embracing their own Aristocracy. It was also highly influenced by the Bankers. Indeed, the Bankers (Rothschild et al) inspired and funded the US Revolution (both sides), just like every other war of the past four centuries or so.
Those who espouse the "Constitution" as being the best thing ever have never actually read it in earnest and/or are completely oblivious to the other laws that made up the government at the time. They are instead spouting off the nonsense they have been trained to believe by their Controlled Opposition agents. We are where we are today because the Constitution was designed to lead us here.
Those who espouse the "Constitution" as being the best thing ever have never actually read it in earnest...They are instead spouting off the nonsense they have been trained to believe
I espouse the Constitution, as originally signed by the founders. I have been studying the establishment of our Republic since 1991 when I served in the Gulf War. I was disillusioned by the lies I was told and had my eye opening moment that led me to want to better understand what I took an oath to defend.
I have spent many hours researching the true history and read many private correspondence of many of the founders, ready original law books of their era, and was very impressed with the original intent of our federal government.
Some of what you allude to is true, but taken out of context. Regardless, I believe in the founding principles of our Constitutional Republic, and have my own research and understanding to support my faith in the great experiment.
I assume you mean the context of things like the Federalist Papers and other documents created by the people you are calling the "Founding Fathers" (FF). That is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant as a work of philosophy, or a work of history, but as a work of law, which is what the Constitution is, it is 100% irrelevant. A judge might take that, or other such documents, such as the DoI, into consideration when adjudicating Constitutional Law, but they might not as well, and indeed, there is evidence that both have happened with the vast majority (as far as I have found) falling into the category of "FF opinions don't mean shit." That is because there is nothing that requires that to be the case. Thus, "what is Constitutional" becomes a matter of the whims of the Judge.
I too had previously had faith in the Constitution and the "intentions of the Founding Fathers." I too had read many of their documents (Federalist Papers, John Locke, etc.). Upon awakening I began a whole new investigation. I wanted to know how we got from there to here. At every turn of that investigation I ran into two surprising things I did not expect; a direct tie to Bankers, and signs of Controlled Opposition; signs of intentions different than how they appeared on the surface. These things presented both conflicts of interest and reasonable doubts on the actual intentions of the people who created our country. There were all sorts of hidden things, things lying underneath, that made me dig deeper the second time around. And again, I focused on what actually happened, not on the flowery words and philosophical musings.
Because of all these things, I suggest it is incredibly important to look at laws first, and opinions second. Opinions, no matter who wrote them, have no place in law (what actually guides development) unless by the whims of some individual with power. Like, you can find instances of people quoting Founding Father's opinion pieces in congressional records, but what actually wins in the end is the law. The Law is the Ultimate Authority. The opinions may or may not be influential or even get lip service at all. They are just works of philosophy, nothing more, and are always treated as such. The law however is always treated as LAW.
When you look at the actual constitution and the Bill of Rights, and you put it into the context of the actual laws, you see exactly what I am saying. The philosophies of a few people are irrelevant to what actually guides society in the legal sense. If there is a conflict between the Law and the Opinion, almost every time the Law wins. That is why the Law matters, and the Opinions do not.
I also can't stress enough how much is hidden; hidden associations, hidden agendas, hidden purposes. Believing you know the actual intentions of any of the writers of those opinions is foolish. There are all sorts of people in such positions of former power, with their flowery philosophies, that are provably compromised, or reasonably suspected as compromised. Even for those that are not, assuming they are acting in earnest is foolish. There are literally spies everywhere.
Looking into Benjamin Franklin for example brings up all sorts of very questionable motives. He was certainly an Elitist of the most profound magnitude. He was an Aristocrat, a Malthusian (he inspired the Malthus population control philosophies), a eugenicist (before eugenics was cool), and a high level Freemason (which automatically means oaths of fealty and hidden agendas, even if we don't know what those agendas are). His past is painted as "underprivileged" yet investigation shows that nothing could be further from the truth. He was born at the top of society and had all of the privileges and opportunities afforded to all other members of the Aristocracy. He was massively influential in so many pieces of fuckery it's difficult to comprehend until you dig in. There are even all the signs that he was a member of the Ritual Child Sacrifice Cult of Magic that has existed within the power structure for thousands of years.
That is a very brief synopsis of just one person. There are so many more. Once you take off the rose colored glasses and actually investigate these people, with an understanding of the specifics of the hidden power structure, you see all the signs of hidden agendas.
Take one more thing as example, since it is relevant to my original post. The DoI says:
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
There are numerous reasons to believe that "all men are created equal" DID NOT MEAN what you think it means, nevertheless, because of the topic of this piece of the thread I will not focus on that. I will focus on the second part:
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
John Locke, the supposed inspiration of these words was all about private ownership of property. It was essential in his philosophy that a person could own their own land, that it was not subject in any way to the whims of a Sovereign. For if a person's property was subject to a Sovereign (other than the person themselves), then they themselves were ultimately also subject (in every sense of that word) to that external "Sovereign," which is to say, slaves.
The DoI could have said:
among these are Life, Liberty and Property
and been perfectly in line with Locke, but it did not. A persons property (not just land, but all property) was left out. Why? Well, because then the Constitution couldn't later lay claim to all property, or at least if it did the hypocrisy would be obvious. This lack of inclusion of property in the DoI and the explicit claims to all property by the Sovereign Government (which really means (legally speaking) the Sovereign people controlling the government) ensured that We The People would always be subject (slaves) to those people. You have a God Given Right (Natural Law) to Defend Your Property. The Constitution takes that Right away. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IF ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT. And legally speaking, they can take it on a whim. Indeed, that happens all the time.
The IRS, as an acting agent of the Treasury Department (technically a private subcontractor, but still an "acting agent") can, on suspicion of a "tax crime," take all of your property, with no court that will adjudicate in your favor. That system, as evil as it is, stems from the omission in the DoI and the explicit statements in the Constitution. That system was inevitable and is completely legal, indeed, it was there from the foundation.
So whatever the "opinions" of the "Founding Fathers" may have been, or whatever you believe them to be, it is irrelevant to what actually happened, or what could happen,, because of the Laws as written.
The fuckery is there, from day one. Defending it does exactly zero people any good, and a whole lot of harm. Until we stop defending it, we can never break free of it's evils.
It seems you are not as familiar with the words and actual beliefs of those that sacrificed to establish our Constitutional Republic. I will let their plain words speak for themselves. You can try to twist their meaning all you want, but that is exactly what the usurpers have done over the decades to erode our liberty to what we have today.
The fact is, in a free society, individuals have the right to do right or wrong, as long as they don’t threaten or infringe upon the rights or property of others. This is exactly what our founders intended by establishing our Republic.
“Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, laws, under no form of government, are better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind.” ~ George Washington (1732-1799) Founding Father, 1st US President, 'Father of the Country'
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
to Justice William Johnson, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
“The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” ~ John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Defence of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States
“In short, it is the greatest Absurdity to suppose it in the Power of one or any Number of Men, at the entering into Society, to renounce their essential natural Rights or the Means of preserving those Rights, when the grand End of civil Government, from the very Nature of its Institution, is for the Support, Protection and Defense of those very Rights: The principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.” ~ Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution."
The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston in Town Meeting Assembled, According to Law. Published by Order of the Town. Nov 20 1772
“Among the natural Rights of the Colonists are these: First, a Right to Life; secondly, to Liberty; thirdly, to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best Manner they can. Those are evident Branches of, rather than Deductions from, the Duty of Self-Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.” ~ Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution."
The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston in Town Meeting Assembled, According to Law. Published by Order of the Town. Oct 1772
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. ... This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” ~ James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Essay entitled Property, published March 27, 1792 in the NATIONAL GAZETTE, and reprinted in THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, Vol. 14, p. 266 (University of Virginia Press 1982).
“All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.” ~ George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virgina Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington
First Draft, Virginia Declaration of Rights
“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” ~ Rev. Nicholas Collin (1746-1831) Episcopal pastor, friend of Benjamin Franklin
Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” ~ Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943
“It is embarrassing to have to remind people of this in the United States of America. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson singled out three natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last phrase, appearing instead of "property," has prompted much discussion. I cannot say what Jefferson was thinking. But here's a plausible theory: Property is already implicit in liberty. If you are free, you can use your belongings as you see fit. But by specifying the pursuit of happiness Jefferson might have been pointing out that the blessing of liberty need not be justified through selfless service to others. One's life and happiness on earth are justification enough.” ~ Sheldon Richman Editor of The Freeman, author, journalist
“[F]or everybody has a natural right to defend his own person and property against aggressors, but also to go to the assistance and defence of everybody else, whose person or property is invaded. The natural right of each individual to defend his own person and property against an aggressor, and to go to the assistance and defence of every one else whose person or property is invaded, is a right without which men could not exist on earth.” ~ Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist
Vices are Not Crimes, A Vindication of Moral Liberty (1875)
“The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights... . In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property.” ~ Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 1972
“The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less that the right to speak out or the right to travel is, in truth, a “personal” right.” ~ Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation, 1972
Look, you are welcome to find use in these statements. I find a lot of use in them. They are useful. What they are not is statements of What Actually Happened. These ideals were NOT what was written into law. They didn't make it into the Constitution. The Constitution did NOT apply to all people equally. It wasn't even close. It was never intended to do so.
Am I saying there were no people who felt that way? No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is there is no way to know how a person actually felt. It is impossible. I am saying that when you take off your rose colored glasses and stop focusing on your ideals and what you "need" to be true, and investigate in earnest, you find all sorts of shit that you did not expect. The most important being the laws we actually got.
You can choose to ignore that if you wish; make appeals to pathos ("those that sacrificed"), ignore logos completely, ignore what actually happened, ignore the actual laws that led to where we are today. That is within your purview. You are welcome to choose anything you wish. But if you do, and you ignore all the shit that actually happened, you do NO ONE a service by espousing the evil that actually exists because of what choices were actually made by the people who created our government.
The Constitution was SHIT. It laid false claims on the individual's life, liberty, and property, straight up, in multiple places. It ensured that the power structure remained in the Aristocracy. The reason that we see a world today where people own nothing, and are ruled by the same Aristocracy is because it was designed to ensure that happened.
So at least acknowledge the shit that is there so we can fix it instead of lauding your heroes, who may or may not be as deserving of your praise as you think, at the expense of what We The People actually need to fulfill those flowery words as reality.
Like I said, I have been researching and learning about this since 1991. I feel I am familiar with the laws and the intent of those who established this Republic. I also know that they were human, and imperfect, just like the rest of us. They were not always right, nor did they always agree on things when working to establish the "Great Experiment" of our Constitutional Republic.
Your understanding of the founders and the establishment of our Constitutional Republic is very different from my own. I am not looking through "rose colored glasses", I am leaning on my understanding based upon my own extensive research and study.
I view the Constitution as genius, and the men who founded our Republic as enlightened in the subject of government and individual sovereignty that allowed them to establish something incredible.
Where we are today is the result of evil minded people who either ignored, or twisted, the plain meaning of the Constitution to pervert our government away from the limits of power it should be operating within. So, yes, I acknowledge that there are a lot of things that need to be fixed, but it is not a result of nefarious intentions of our founders. It is 100% due to the intentional undermining of the Constitution and founding principles by people determined to rule rather than serve.
What I see to be true is not based out of a need for it to be true, but because it is true. It is clear you and I will not agree on this subject. That is fine, that is what individual liberty is all about.
The extra cash flow would really allow people to have more families.
Yes some would use it to vacation more or buy more merchandise. But really that extra cash flow would give people incentive and breathing room to re-prioritized their lives and dreams.
The real gain is paying down that mortgage. Which I've said before, the income tax is just the first step. Then do a hard correct on the housing market
If I had 5k, I might be enticed to even open a small country diner, since it's such a rarity here now that all the local ones no longer exist.
Of course I'm way too broke right now, but me and my wife still dream
A universal 10% import tax and large budget cuts would allow Trump to make big cuts in the personal income tax. Drill baby drill and bitcoin mining by the government would allow additional cuts. Improved business economics would help a little as well. Having a 1% sales tax that the states collect and send to the government in combination with the above may allow the elimination of the income tax.
Upvoted. First person (besides me :) to get the 1% figure right.
If that doesn't cover all the Big Govt you want, then guess what: Govt is too damn big. You reduce that shit til it's paid for by 1% consumption tax, which excludes food, blankets, medicines, and other necessities.
State govts can have a sales tax too, but no more income taxes.
FIRST the fake 16th Amendment must be repealed, an extremely tall order indeed. If we don't repeal it, then the govt will institute both a sales tax AND the income tax.
Might be easier to just kill the 1871 USA Corporation and start over with just the state governments and the new "Constitution for the Republic of United States of America". (Still gotta keep that Bill of Rights though)
If the Internal Revenue Code was meant to apply to the majority of people in the States of The Union, don't you think they would have listed the names of the 50 states in the code?
Import tax the jobs back. Bring back quality made goods with repairs industry. Where's the environmentalists advocating for repairs? All about their yearly iPhone upgrades and throw away culture.
I was thinking this can only be acheived through a stable currency as the income tax first came along with the federal reserve act, where the system needs some escape valve to reduce inflation.
The reason I was thinking is that an income tax could only be possible in a fiat system. If the system was backed by gold - all money would eventually flow to the government (that doesn't produce) over time. In fiat they used the income tax to minimize money velocity that is intrinsically linked with inflation. The federal reserve only wants to steal 2% of your money otherwise you would notice. Now the cats out of the bag - and they are going to continually bail themselves out with more fresh cash reserves.
I always believed the US dollar is a house of cards. All reserve currencies fail due to Triffin's Dilemma, where there is tremendous pressure to export your dollars abroad by sacrifice your long term potential. The Iraq war was a consequence of Triffin as it wasn't to have posession of oil, but the war to price oil in US dollars.
losthorizons.com has interesting info for sure
I'm far too chicken to do it though.
But very interesting!
The author of that site has a long history of not paying and teaching others how.
The author of that site has a long history of not paying and teaching others how.
To go on the front lines of the income tax protest fight, you have to be willing to live a much harder life, always feeling pursued, embattled, under the gun, a criminal on the lam. It sucks, but the income tax has become the fee we pay to live in the worst system ever created, except for all the others.
Now do property tax.
ONCE, Just ONCE, I made the mistake of buying a home with an HOA.
Amen!
Yeah, we are in a neighborhood with HOA, we would love to get a place more in the country with a few acres, but it's still too expensive and right now houses are not flying off the market like it used to. When Trump was in office, our neighborhood couldn't keep a house on the market more than a few days, now there's homes been on the market for over a year now.
I know the feeling. Took me a long time to get out from under that one during the last big market downturn. I'm out in the sticks now, wouldn't trade it for anything.
Yeah, my wife and I bought 5 acres out in the country, and built a new house back in '20/'21. I wish I could have done it 20 or 30 years earlier!!
We love it out here sooooo much! I think the best thing is that we're about 20 minutes from everything!
The purpose of HOAs was supposed to be to raise property values for the homeowners.
The irony is that many people (including myself) would never buy a home connected to an HOA.
I just spoke with a realtor. Told them no hoa listing's. Sorry for those who own a house in an hoa that nobody wants but maybe they'll fight the idiots amd rollback the stupidity.
HOA fee's are not a tax. It is a voluntary contractual obligation people enter into when buying real estate that includes an HOA. If you do not want to be in an HOA then don't buy in an HOA subdivision.
School Tax too
Yeah, and demand a refund until math and reading rates are 90% or better. Then we'll see.
Almost all non commercial taxes need to go
"Now do property tax."
"School Tax too"
You guys beat me to it!
That's an entirely different battle.
To my knowledge, there's nothing un-Constitutional about a city or county levying a property tax. They're too damn high in many cities, and in my big blue city I get absolutely nothing for my property taxes, but federal income tax? Completely un-constitutional and far, far more important to fight.
Actually, one of the founding principles upon which our Republic was established is the right to own property. A recurring tax makes that impossible. Government has no authority to levy a recurring property tax. Remember, government was instituted to protect our individual rights and serve us, not tax us to death and rule over us.
Recurring property taxes are responsible for more people losing their homes than you probably realize. It also makes owning a home impossible since there will always be a payment, even when the mortgage is paid in full. Many people can afford to pay when they are younger, healthy, and employed, but older people who are on fixed incomes often cannot.
Property tax means you never really own your property. You are renting from the government. If you don't pay they seize your land. Totally evil.
Property taxes aren't unconstitutional. On the contrary, the constitution explicitly states that all property (not just land or houses, but all property) belongs to the US Govt. Not only does all property belong to the US Govt, but all people do as well. This was built into the Constitution (both of these proclamations are explicitly stated in the Fifth Amendment if you know the other laws on the books at the time, but you can find them stated implicitly in the original document itself in numerous places).
Of course the US Govt doesn't actually exist. It is a corporation (which means, by definition, an entity that only exists within a certain framework of law, aka a legal fiction). Like all such entities that don't actually exist, the claims of ownership are made by people and separated into the controllers (trustees) and the beneficiaries, who are also always people. This is the nature of Trust Law. The trustees and beneficiaries are ALWAYS ultimately people, no matter how many corporations (legal fictions) fall in the middle to confuse the issue. At the time of the writing of the constitution, the controllers (trustees) of all the land and all the people that are "owned" by the US Govt were the Aristocrats that created it. They were also, on their whim, the beneficiaries, a condition built into the constitution itself. The entire thing was designed to ensure that those Aristocrats would always retain the power over everything.
How was this accomplished? Well, originally it was designed such that only land owners could vote. Less than 3% of the population were land owners, all of them Aristocrats, descended from land owners who were themselves the direct descendants of the Lords of Britain and Holland, all intermarrying to preserve their bloodlines. These few who could vote remained the few who could vote for quite some time since land could only be purchased in 320 acre lots. These land buying laws ensured that no one who was not already filthy rich could possibly buy land.
Things eventually changed, but all sorts of laws and other social constructs remained to ensure that only the Aristocrats could possibly become Senators, Presidents, Judges, etc. Though the reasons have changed over the years, that situation still remains today.
People who worry about whether or not a thing is "constitutional" rather than whether or not a thing is Right (or related to a persons inalienable Rights) do not understand what the Constitution was: It was a document created by the American Aristocrats in protest against the King of England, declaring themselves their own Rulers, rejecting the monarchy and embracing their own Aristocracy. It was also highly influenced by the Bankers. Indeed, the Bankers (Rothschild et al) inspired and funded the US Revolution (both sides), just like every other war of the past four centuries or so.
Those who espouse the "Constitution" as being the best thing ever have never actually read it in earnest and/or are completely oblivious to the other laws that made up the government at the time. They are instead spouting off the nonsense they have been trained to believe by their Controlled Opposition agents. We are where we are today because the Constitution was designed to lead us here.
Edgy
What's your proposed alternative
I espouse the Constitution, as originally signed by the founders. I have been studying the establishment of our Republic since 1991 when I served in the Gulf War. I was disillusioned by the lies I was told and had my eye opening moment that led me to want to better understand what I took an oath to defend.
I have spent many hours researching the true history and read many private correspondence of many of the founders, ready original law books of their era, and was very impressed with the original intent of our federal government.
Some of what you allude to is true, but taken out of context. Regardless, I believe in the founding principles of our Constitutional Republic, and have my own research and understanding to support my faith in the great experiment.
For anyone interested in researching for yourself, here is a good place to start; https://teamlaw.net/Mythology-CorpUS.htm
I recommend doing your own independent research of what you find to verify and confirm for yourself.
I assume you mean the context of things like the Federalist Papers and other documents created by the people you are calling the "Founding Fathers" (FF). That is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant as a work of philosophy, or a work of history, but as a work of law, which is what the Constitution is, it is 100% irrelevant. A judge might take that, or other such documents, such as the DoI, into consideration when adjudicating Constitutional Law, but they might not as well, and indeed, there is evidence that both have happened with the vast majority (as far as I have found) falling into the category of "FF opinions don't mean shit." That is because there is nothing that requires that to be the case. Thus, "what is Constitutional" becomes a matter of the whims of the Judge.
I too had previously had faith in the Constitution and the "intentions of the Founding Fathers." I too had read many of their documents (Federalist Papers, John Locke, etc.). Upon awakening I began a whole new investigation. I wanted to know how we got from there to here. At every turn of that investigation I ran into two surprising things I did not expect; a direct tie to Bankers, and signs of Controlled Opposition; signs of intentions different than how they appeared on the surface. These things presented both conflicts of interest and reasonable doubts on the actual intentions of the people who created our country. There were all sorts of hidden things, things lying underneath, that made me dig deeper the second time around. And again, I focused on what actually happened, not on the flowery words and philosophical musings.
Because of all these things, I suggest it is incredibly important to look at laws first, and opinions second. Opinions, no matter who wrote them, have no place in law (what actually guides development) unless by the whims of some individual with power. Like, you can find instances of people quoting Founding Father's opinion pieces in congressional records, but what actually wins in the end is the law. The Law is the Ultimate Authority. The opinions may or may not be influential or even get lip service at all. They are just works of philosophy, nothing more, and are always treated as such. The law however is always treated as LAW.
When you look at the actual constitution and the Bill of Rights, and you put it into the context of the actual laws, you see exactly what I am saying. The philosophies of a few people are irrelevant to what actually guides society in the legal sense. If there is a conflict between the Law and the Opinion, almost every time the Law wins. That is why the Law matters, and the Opinions do not.
I also can't stress enough how much is hidden; hidden associations, hidden agendas, hidden purposes. Believing you know the actual intentions of any of the writers of those opinions is foolish. There are all sorts of people in such positions of former power, with their flowery philosophies, that are provably compromised, or reasonably suspected as compromised. Even for those that are not, assuming they are acting in earnest is foolish. There are literally spies everywhere.
Looking into Benjamin Franklin for example brings up all sorts of very questionable motives. He was certainly an Elitist of the most profound magnitude. He was an Aristocrat, a Malthusian (he inspired the Malthus population control philosophies), a eugenicist (before eugenics was cool), and a high level Freemason (which automatically means oaths of fealty and hidden agendas, even if we don't know what those agendas are). His past is painted as "underprivileged" yet investigation shows that nothing could be further from the truth. He was born at the top of society and had all of the privileges and opportunities afforded to all other members of the Aristocracy. He was massively influential in so many pieces of fuckery it's difficult to comprehend until you dig in. There are even all the signs that he was a member of the Ritual Child Sacrifice Cult of Magic that has existed within the power structure for thousands of years.
That is a very brief synopsis of just one person. There are so many more. Once you take off the rose colored glasses and actually investigate these people, with an understanding of the specifics of the hidden power structure, you see all the signs of hidden agendas.
Take one more thing as example, since it is relevant to my original post. The DoI says:
There are numerous reasons to believe that "all men are created equal" DID NOT MEAN what you think it means, nevertheless, because of the topic of this piece of the thread I will not focus on that. I will focus on the second part:
John Locke, the supposed inspiration of these words was all about private ownership of property. It was essential in his philosophy that a person could own their own land, that it was not subject in any way to the whims of a Sovereign. For if a person's property was subject to a Sovereign (other than the person themselves), then they themselves were ultimately also subject (in every sense of that word) to that external "Sovereign," which is to say, slaves.
The DoI could have said:
and been perfectly in line with Locke, but it did not. A persons property (not just land, but all property) was left out. Why? Well, because then the Constitution couldn't later lay claim to all property, or at least if it did the hypocrisy would be obvious. This lack of inclusion of property in the DoI and the explicit claims to all property by the Sovereign Government (which really means (legally speaking) the Sovereign people controlling the government) ensured that We The People would always be subject (slaves) to those people. You have a God Given Right (Natural Law) to Defend Your Property. The Constitution takes that Right away. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IF ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT. And legally speaking, they can take it on a whim. Indeed, that happens all the time.
The IRS, as an acting agent of the Treasury Department (technically a private subcontractor, but still an "acting agent") can, on suspicion of a "tax crime," take all of your property, with no court that will adjudicate in your favor. That system, as evil as it is, stems from the omission in the DoI and the explicit statements in the Constitution. That system was inevitable and is completely legal, indeed, it was there from the foundation.
So whatever the "opinions" of the "Founding Fathers" may have been, or whatever you believe them to be, it is irrelevant to what actually happened, or what could happen,, because of the Laws as written.
The fuckery is there, from day one. Defending it does exactly zero people any good, and a whole lot of harm. Until we stop defending it, we can never break free of it's evils.
It seems you are not as familiar with the words and actual beliefs of those that sacrificed to establish our Constitutional Republic. I will let their plain words speak for themselves. You can try to twist their meaning all you want, but that is exactly what the usurpers have done over the decades to erode our liberty to what we have today.
The fact is, in a free society, individuals have the right to do right or wrong, as long as they don’t threaten or infringe upon the rights or property of others. This is exactly what our founders intended by establishing our Republic.
“Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, laws, under no form of government, are better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind.” ~ George Washington (1732-1799) Founding Father, 1st US President, 'Father of the Country'
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President to Justice William Johnson, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
“The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” ~ John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President Defence of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States
“In short, it is the greatest Absurdity to suppose it in the Power of one or any Number of Men, at the entering into Society, to renounce their essential natural Rights or the Means of preserving those Rights, when the grand End of civil Government, from the very Nature of its Institution, is for the Support, Protection and Defense of those very Rights: The principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.” ~ Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution." The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston in Town Meeting Assembled, According to Law. Published by Order of the Town. Nov 20 1772
“Among the natural Rights of the Colonists are these: First, a Right to Life; secondly, to Liberty; thirdly, to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best Manner they can. Those are evident Branches of, rather than Deductions from, the Duty of Self-Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.” ~ Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution." The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston in Town Meeting Assembled, According to Law. Published by Order of the Town. Oct 1772
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. ... This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” ~ James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President Essay entitled Property, published March 27, 1792 in the NATIONAL GAZETTE, and reprinted in THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, Vol. 14, p. 266 (University of Virginia Press 1982).
“All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.” ~ George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virgina Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington First Draft, Virginia Declaration of Rights
“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” ~ Rev. Nicholas Collin (1746-1831) Episcopal pastor, friend of Benjamin Franklin Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” ~ Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943
“It is embarrassing to have to remind people of this in the United States of America. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson singled out three natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last phrase, appearing instead of "property," has prompted much discussion. I cannot say what Jefferson was thinking. But here's a plausible theory: Property is already implicit in liberty. If you are free, you can use your belongings as you see fit. But by specifying the pursuit of happiness Jefferson might have been pointing out that the blessing of liberty need not be justified through selfless service to others. One's life and happiness on earth are justification enough.” ~ Sheldon Richman Editor of The Freeman, author, journalist
“[F]or everybody has a natural right to defend his own person and property against aggressors, but also to go to the assistance and defence of everybody else, whose person or property is invaded. The natural right of each individual to defend his own person and property against an aggressor, and to go to the assistance and defence of every one else whose person or property is invaded, is a right without which men could not exist on earth.” ~ Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist Vices are Not Crimes, A Vindication of Moral Liberty (1875)
“The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights... . In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property.” ~ Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 1972
“The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less that the right to speak out or the right to travel is, in truth, a “personal” right.” ~ Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation, 1972
Look, you are welcome to find use in these statements. I find a lot of use in them. They are useful. What they are not is statements of What Actually Happened. These ideals were NOT what was written into law. They didn't make it into the Constitution. The Constitution did NOT apply to all people equally. It wasn't even close. It was never intended to do so.
Am I saying there were no people who felt that way? No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is there is no way to know how a person actually felt. It is impossible. I am saying that when you take off your rose colored glasses and stop focusing on your ideals and what you "need" to be true, and investigate in earnest, you find all sorts of shit that you did not expect. The most important being the laws we actually got.
You can choose to ignore that if you wish; make appeals to pathos ("those that sacrificed"), ignore logos completely, ignore what actually happened, ignore the actual laws that led to where we are today. That is within your purview. You are welcome to choose anything you wish. But if you do, and you ignore all the shit that actually happened, you do NO ONE a service by espousing the evil that actually exists because of what choices were actually made by the people who created our government.
The Constitution was SHIT. It laid false claims on the individual's life, liberty, and property, straight up, in multiple places. It ensured that the power structure remained in the Aristocracy. The reason that we see a world today where people own nothing, and are ruled by the same Aristocracy is because it was designed to ensure that happened.
So at least acknowledge the shit that is there so we can fix it instead of lauding your heroes, who may or may not be as deserving of your praise as you think, at the expense of what We The People actually need to fulfill those flowery words as reality.
Like I said, I have been researching and learning about this since 1991. I feel I am familiar with the laws and the intent of those who established this Republic. I also know that they were human, and imperfect, just like the rest of us. They were not always right, nor did they always agree on things when working to establish the "Great Experiment" of our Constitutional Republic.
Your understanding of the founders and the establishment of our Constitutional Republic is very different from my own. I am not looking through "rose colored glasses", I am leaning on my understanding based upon my own extensive research and study.
I view the Constitution as genius, and the men who founded our Republic as enlightened in the subject of government and individual sovereignty that allowed them to establish something incredible.
Where we are today is the result of evil minded people who either ignored, or twisted, the plain meaning of the Constitution to pervert our government away from the limits of power it should be operating within. So, yes, I acknowledge that there are a lot of things that need to be fixed, but it is not a result of nefarious intentions of our founders. It is 100% due to the intentional undermining of the Constitution and founding principles by people determined to rule rather than serve.
What I see to be true is not based out of a need for it to be true, but because it is true. It is clear you and I will not agree on this subject. That is fine, that is what individual liberty is all about.
The extra cash flow would really allow people to have more families.
Yes some would use it to vacation more or buy more merchandise. But really that extra cash flow would give people incentive and breathing room to re-prioritized their lives and dreams.
$5k is large enough to make a difference. Not like the $600 bullshit during fauxvid.
The real gain is paying down that mortgage. Which I've said before, the income tax is just the first step. Then do a hard correct on the housing market
If I had 5k, I might be enticed to even open a small country diner, since it's such a rarity here now that all the local ones no longer exist.
Of course I'm way too broke right now, but me and my wife still dream
A family
Trump needs to include all the outsourced jobs and tax them to smithereens
And get rid of a bunch of cabinet-level departments
Energy
Education
Interior
Commerce
Transportation
Homeland Security (we already have Dept. of "Defense" FFS)
Also:
FDA
FBI
IRS
NEA
OSHA
ATF
DEA
UN
NATO
ETC.
Life would go on and, in fact, flourish and prosper like never before, that I can tell you
A universal 10% import tax and large budget cuts would allow Trump to make big cuts in the personal income tax. Drill baby drill and bitcoin mining by the government would allow additional cuts. Improved business economics would help a little as well. Having a 1% sales tax that the states collect and send to the government in combination with the above may allow the elimination of the income tax.
Upvoted. First person (besides me :) to get the 1% figure right.
If that doesn't cover all the Big Govt you want, then guess what: Govt is too damn big. You reduce that shit til it's paid for by 1% consumption tax, which excludes food, blankets, medicines, and other necessities.
State govts can have a sales tax too, but no more income taxes.
FIRST the fake 16th Amendment must be repealed, an extremely tall order indeed. If we don't repeal it, then the govt will institute both a sales tax AND the income tax.
Might be easier to just kill the 1871 USA Corporation and start over with just the state governments and the new "Constitution for the Republic of United States of America". (Still gotta keep that Bill of Rights though)
When the Federal Reserve is gone, there's no need for income tax. Why? Because income tax is largely interest on fiat money.
So happy he's talking about this. This is the key to bring back the American dream
If the Internal Revenue Code was meant to apply to the majority of people in the States of The Union, don't you think they would have listed the names of the 50 states in the code?
Congress does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the States of the Union, but rather only over a few areas listed in Article 1 Section 8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8
Import tax the jobs back. Bring back quality made goods with repairs industry. Where's the environmentalists advocating for repairs? All about their yearly iPhone upgrades and throw away culture.
Without hypocrisy and self contradiction and projection, liberals would have literally nothing. Progressive liberalism would wither and die.
I was thinking this can only be acheived through a stable currency as the income tax first came along with the federal reserve act, where the system needs some escape valve to reduce inflation.
The reason I was thinking is that an income tax could only be possible in a fiat system. If the system was backed by gold - all money would eventually flow to the government (that doesn't produce) over time. In fiat they used the income tax to minimize money velocity that is intrinsically linked with inflation. The federal reserve only wants to steal 2% of your money otherwise you would notice. Now the cats out of the bag - and they are going to continually bail themselves out with more fresh cash reserves.
I always believed the US dollar is a house of cards. All reserve currencies fail due to Triffin's Dilemma, where there is tremendous pressure to export your dollars abroad by sacrifice your long term potential. The Iraq war was a consequence of Triffin as it wasn't to have posession of oil, but the war to price oil in US dollars.
Property tax is so important to get rid of.
By eliminating income tax, is a side benefit also the elimination of misuse of taxpayer's dollars?
We will no longer be funding the abuses with our own taxes?
losthorizons.com has interesting info for sure I'm far too chicken to do it though. But very interesting! The author of that site has a long history of not paying and teaching others how.
To go on the front lines of the income tax protest fight, you have to be willing to live a much harder life, always feeling pursued, embattled, under the gun, a criminal on the lam. It sucks, but the income tax has become the fee we pay to live in the worst system ever created, except for all the others.
Yahoo comments are cancer
Bunch of bots and useful idiots raging against lower taxes and more liberty