Taxes are unconstitutional.
(twitter.com)
Comments (69)
sorted by:
My Boomer parents think I'm basically a terrorist for not wanting money stolen out of my paycheck
That’s just the outward expression of their inner shame of not taking a stand themselves.
Couldn't have said it better
Fuckin normies man. These retards are the main reason we are in this situation.
These people legitimately think the world will end if we stop paying taxes.
"“Then what happens? Then all of a sudden we have 1913. Two things happen in 1913, right before World War I, what is it?
The Federal Reserve and taxes gets introduced.”
And the flu.... dont forget the flu
The last Czar of Russia and his entire immediate family ( The Romanov's ) were all executed by the Bolshevic's.
The Titanic went down along with influential people and bankers that were against the establishing of the Federal Reserve.
You are so right - they were hell bent on establishing the Federal Reserve and I dont think it will go down with just a wimper.
I think that's why Trump wants the debt cap removed. He plans to bankrupt the Federal Reserve.
IF this is true it makes sense because the Fed is the Central Bank of the entire central banking system.
Nah, the Bank of England is above the Fed in the hierarchy
Perhaps in the TO but not in terms of income. I do believe that if you bankrupt the Fed you bankrupt the entire system.
Military? 😎
Honorable Discharge from the USN.
Relevant post earlier today: https://greatawakening.win/p/19A1GoJGoG/thirteen-centuries-ofkhazarian-t/
Thank you TaQo great read. Love me some ashlanddog : )
Howls and wags tail
The linked articles in the comments are really good too and complimentary to the original article.
IPOT on Rumble has a series that is really good. It’s not chok full of humor like his previous stuff but still really informative.
Thanks
Is this the channel?
https://rumble.com/user/IPOT1776/videos
The decision was later nullified by the Sixteenth Amendment.
Yeah, I'm not sure how income taxes are "unconstitutional" when they are explicitly allowed by an amendment to the constitution. There are a lot of people in the thread here who don't know how the constitution works.
IF the 16th indeed does that.
1: From memory I recall that during a court-case the judge ruled that the 16th did not grant new taxing power.
So, if in 1898 is was ruled unconstitutional, and later it was ruled, no new powers were granted by the 16th, then it follows: IRS contributions are unconstitutional, unless .... you declared yourself guilty to it.
Or do employers not by default shove a certification to that effect under your nose as part of your on boarding as an employee?
Do employers enter into contract with the IRS to do these things?
Hence, voluntary. But there are ways to unburden yourself by what has been.
2: 16th was never ratified. The amendment is not part of the Constitution. It has no function in law, or consequences in law. Null and void. This is well documented to be the case.
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) said that the 16th amendment did not grant congress new powers (they have always had the power to levy taxes), but that congress could exercise this power without need for apportionment.
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895) was the reason why the 16th amendment exists. This court case stuck down certain taxes, because they were not apportioned to the people in the individual states
Yeah, I'm going to need proof on that. From what I understand, there were some procedural oddities, but the 16th amendment was ratified by 42 states, and only 36 were needed. Which states did not pass it? There was a case (United States v. Thomas (1986)) where someone tried to say income taxes were not constitutional, and that was shot down.
What are you talking about? The headquarters for the IRS are based in Washington D.C.
Too many crossed wires there in part 2. 16th was deemed ratified, and although IRS started as a territorial bureau they inherited enforcement in the several states too because the income tax presumes a federal nexus. See my main comment here for more.
There is the 16th amendment. However, I do not know of any law congress passed that says we must pay income tax. There is tax code from the IR$, but that seems more like a mandate which s not a law. I would really like to understand this better. It is also important to note that SCOTUS struck down Chevron Doctrine last year. This means the courts do not refer these things to agencies anymore. The courts can now rule based on law, not the opinion of an agency. If no law, no taxes....
Aren't there a lot of laws? Like, when Congress changes the percentages of who pays what, isn't that all the new laws? President Trump gave people a temporary tax break in 2017, that was a law as well
Yes, we should unite, but those seeking to get it to happen have been suppressed.
The fuller story is that Lincoln started the income tax in 1862, which is the one that the Supremes declared unconstitutional in 1894. After big money fumed for awhile trying to figure out how to trick Americans into giving up their sovereignty for the security of slavery, a plan was hatched, the first part of which was to pretend to soak the rich by creating the corporate (excise) tax of 1909 (which didn't need any Constitutional change because it wasn't income tax). Once corporations were in the habit of annual assessment, as the 1910 Jekyll Island meeting solidified, the Federal Reserve Bank could be created (with the promised slaves as collateral) and the 16th amendment deemed ratified, allowing our entry into the Great War with a convenient loss of the Lusitania under Lord Admiral Winston Churchill's watch. The personal income tax IIRC started at 1% then jumped to 90% during the War. Clearly an intent to use an excuse to burn up resources, enslave nations to perpetual debt, and cause workers to believe they remained free enterprisers when in reality they could be collateralized at will. Don't get me started on the WWII innovations.
The income tax is only Constitutional if it's voluntary (an excise); if it were a poll tax or other direct tax it's known it wouldn't be Constitutional. (The Obamacare "mandate" tax is ruled Constitutional for the same reason as technically voluntary and rolled into the income tax system.) Therefore the truth should be told for those who wish to cease to volunteer and who are willing to take the responsibility for that decision. The education process that is required to allow people to have a fully clear conscience has been beset by both official deception and infiltration of such confusion that even responsible people have a hard time finding the way through the labyrinth given all the false shortcuts offered.
A lot of life is built around filling a tax return. FHA loans and such require producing a tax return to get a home loan. The work around requires a 20% down payment and that is hard to save. They slowly add programs that make work arounds harder and most people take the path of least resistance
By my understanding, it kindof is - not because it is in reality, but because they accuse us that it is, we agree that it is, and after that it’s either legally binding, we perjured ourselves, or we need to rework the paperwork to indicate that we were earnestly mistaken.
destroy the nexus (sociial security number). they used it to create a second class teir of citizens, one below the government rather than above.
cant have your social benefits and not pay into it.
The government got around this SCOTUS decision by way of the 16th Amendment which was ratified on 2/3/1913. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
However, it wasn’t legally ratified. While it did get the required 2/3 vote in both the US House and Senate, it never received the required 3/4 approval from the state legislatures. At the time, there 48 states, so 36 state legislatures were required to approve it. It never reached that threshold. In fact, many state legislators voted against the amendment. In DC, the SOS at the time was Philander Knox who was a lackey to the banking cartels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philander_C._Knox
He simply declared the amendment ratified and no one called him on it. It simply became law at the whim of a puppet of the banking industry. Also, the intent of the income tax was to tax income on investments and not wages earned from labor. Labor started being taxed under FDR without the required changes to the amendment.
There was a Patriot named Larsen Rose who has done all the research on the tax laws dating back to the amendment, but of course he has been persecuted by the government for telling the truth. http://www.larkenrose.com/
Do you have more information on states not ratifying it? From what I could find, it was ratified by 36 states and passed, then it was ratified by an additional six states after it passed. What states are listed as passing that didn't actually ratify it?
Larsen Rose did the research so I will yield to him. I do recall one story that Kentucky voted to reject the amendment, but like a Dominion machine, Secretary Knox changed their certification to approval. Apparently this happened with other states.
Right, but unless this happened in like at least 7 states, it still has enough ratification to pass. I just have a really hard time believing that a freaking amendment was passed because a guy said "yup, everything looks good", and not states tried to sue or point out that they, in fact, had not ratified it.
The records of that vote for all 48 states is online in their archives. I am planning a project to look up all 48 this weekend.
It was Bill Benson in The Law That Never Was who asserted that every state that allegedly ratified the 16th had one of ten irregularities in the process. This list can be found online and is pretty significant. However, the Supremes have stated that all these irregularities are immaterial due to intent, and that's made Benson's argument a dead letter. Those seeking remedy must first research why their earnings are not income and then correct the record.
Larken with section 861, and Bill Benson who promoted the data about the 16th ratification process, are only chipping away at unimportant details, which is why they've gotten no traction.
Since it's deemed ratified it allows an excise upon federal activity. Every individual for whom the IRS receives a credible information return (declaring income) is responsible to verify or challenge that information and it is deemed correct if unchallenged. They also don't make it easy to challenge but they have standard processes that you can use once you do the further research needed.
IRS enforcing the laws? You just said it was voluntary so what law can they enforce?
Simple. If IRS has received an information return from a workplace designating itself your "employer" testifying that you received "wages" (which flow to taxable income), and if you do not give them correct information, your abrogation delegates to them eventually the power to do the assessment themselves instead of having you self-assess; then they can enforce your assessment. All citizens have the sovereign responsibility to read the definitions of the law for themselves and self-assess correctly when there is any question of taxable income.
I have never thought about it like this. Essentially we "can" pay voluntarily but if we dont it can still be collected involuntarily. Rat bastards. Hope DOGE and tariffs burn it to the ground (metaphorically of course).
No taxation
without representationI was wishing it would have been ALL taxes, and Maryland's state government would get the message, LOUD and CLEAR!!
When we remove the taxes can we also bring back airship please
air ships - the truly first flying machine (fuck you wright brothers), so cheap the oil industry set one ablaze and made sure the whole world feared them.
This is why they credit the Wright brothers as building the first "heavier than air" flying machine, or just "airplane" as we know it today.
"Unsafe" from 1 false flag yes how many plane fall out the sky
https://x.com/LarryDJonesJr/status/1876501895487128005
Holy Taxation Batman!!! If it is voluntary, how do you stop paying taxes if they take it out of your pay?
Choosing "exempt" is the proffered carrot in the system to make you feel like you're doing something. u/gc_2024
It's voluntary for the workplace too. They are afraid, with understandable reason, to come out and admit they're not an "employer" and you're not an "employee". Therefore those they "employ" (French for "enslave") have few options and must be creative. If you can get treated as an independent contractor then you're responsible for your own taxes, and this can be sold to the workplace sometimes because it saves them the 7.65% "employer" tax.
For more details, go into the rabbit hole of the definitions of the law and how one corrects incorrect information returns.
asservir is french for 'enslave'. English 'employ' and french emploie, employé, etc all have the same root.
Choose exempt in whatever payroll form it is where number of dependents is requested.
Thanks for the information!
I had done this for several years while I was making very little. The only thing taken from my paychecks was Medicare and SS taxes.
I had told a friend and he had done the same, but he made a few $ more than me. He received a letter from the IRS threatening him that if he did not change his W2 status, the IRS would audit him.
most people hear the word audit and cower in fear. being audited is the best time make them verify the debt (they cant).
all your friend has to do is ask the irs worker to sign (verify) it (they never do because they know its fraud, they have no personal knowledge and are relying on hearsay, they dont want to be held liable)
You are correct. When he had received the letter from the IRS, he folded and changed his W2 back.
However, trying to take the IRS on yourself is a lot like trying to represent yourself in court. A person can try, but there is a good chance they will get trounced by vipers and their clever word games.
well thats the hard part, stumping them before it gets to the court. an audit is the best opportunity to do so.
if you cant argue against their audit, you'll certainly lose in court.
by changing his w2, he has now admitted to it being wrong when he should have made them prove its wrong.
i get it though, not everyone wants to take on the IRS. even i have self-doubt sometimes
If it's in the Constitution, then it's constitutional. That's how that works.
Yeah, there are a lot of people here who don't understand how constitutional amendments work.
Anybody else remember this license plate series out of DC?
Before they revised it because it hit too close to home
Hell yeah! Statehood for DC all the way. No more taxation without representation.
In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, in his complaint to the Supreme Court, Frank R. Brushaber swore to being "a citizen of the State of New York”, and this fact was not disputed. Not long after the case was decided, the Treasury Department issued Treasury Decision (TD) 2313 gave their decision relating to nonresident aliens.
Brushaber brought the case because he was taxed on dividends from Union Pacific, which had offices in Utah. It turns out that UP was chartered by Congress, and therefore a company "within the United States".
Right, citizenship, residency, and alienage are not the issue (and are nowadays smokescreens), the issue was the federal nexus by getting income from a nationally chartered corporation. (Interestingly, Railroad Retirement was a parallel program to Social Security, but the one had a clear federal nexus and the other just assumes it and goes unchallenged.)
Each person who is alleged to have income according to an information return received by the IRS is responsible for determining if that is truly income (federal nexus) or not, and correcting the record if needed.
No shit Sherlock
No, they are constitutional, but ONLY people who live in District of Columbia, work for the government, collect a government pension, or are an entity that does business with the government. The rest of us DO NOT have to file and pay income taxes. There is no law on the books that requires regular citizens to file a document that declares that you OWE the government money.
Sorta close, but there are laws that permit the government to presume you have a federal nexus if you do not challenge and rebut the presumption that is made by the information returns they receive. Eventually if unresolved this gives them power to assess you (in lieu of your correcting self-assessment), making them the ones to file the document declaring you owe them. Thus correct filing is essential and everyone's responsibility if there is a claim of income.
Yea maybe, but if took them to court with argument I've presented you'd win. At least according to the way the law is written, and according to IRS special agent Joe Bannister.
I respect Bannister! The problem is, as others are saying here, that it's not useful to speculate about who would win according to whom. What we actually have is a bunch of false theories without basis in law, and the words of the law themselves, and the IRS is incentivized to have you prefer the false theories because they have power to enforce against them.
Your statement was that "ONLY people" in four categories "have to file and pay". The situation calls for exact language, and there are many others who may have to file and pay because of other federal nexuses (of which there are many), such as participants in socialized medicine, workers for a federal contractor, recipients of federally insured interest, etc. So the argument as you stated it would be defeated immediately.
If the argument was "ONLY people with federal nexus have to file and pay", that generic statement should stand, but it would be ignored in court because the other side would say you had a federal nexus, in hidden language, and unless you find the language and correct that presumption your theory is useless. For all Bannister's educational work, he was in enforcement and not administration and so he doesn't seem to have gotten successful consistent remedies, so I'm not sure exactly what his work is about nowadays.
Of course we have no need to take the government to court, in theory if you give a correct filing and they take you to court, that's when you'd present the argument, but you'll have needed to be perfectly consistent with the argument before then. So accurate action must precede court presentation.
If you stand upon the law as written, and work to understand the salient points of it, you can achieve remedy for any failure, or you can (like the occasional principled patriot) go to jail with a clear conscience knowing that your standing on the law will be recognized by others later, which is a remedy in the court of public opinion. Taking on trillionaires is not for the skittish.
So you're on the right track but you can't stop with those who say "DC only" and the rest because you need to determine where the nexus is alleged and how to correct that presumption if incorrect.
Nobody agreed to have income taxes taken out. The government scammed us and did it without public approval. If its unconstitutional we can't verybwell agree to it can we.
Yes, corps are afraid to stop withholding because the forms they receive make them think there's a federal nexus and everyone else does it that way, and that means they don't offer their "employees" real means to challenge the nexus directly; and most workers aren't in a position to do so. A few have enough negotiation leeway to as for contract work. But even if a workplace thinks your earnings are income you still have the power to read the laws for yourself and rebut incorrect presumptions.
Taxes are less important than the demographic destruction of the country.