I saw the thread "100 Years of the Income Tax" and started to respond.
But I realized this response needs its own post.
So, here goes ...
Several SCOTUS decisions have defined what the word "income" means, as it relates to the income tax, per the Constitution.
Congress has NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY to define the word "income," which is why there is no definition of "income" anywhere in the tax code.
This is because Congress has no authority to define what the Constitution means. They can only follow it, not define it.
Title 26 of the United States Code (26 USC) is where we find the "internal revenue laws," which includes the income tax ... AND OTHER TAXES, as well.
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to tax "income." But that is NOT what Congress taxes. Read 26 USC 1 (the very first section of the tax code). It says:
There is hereby imposed on the TAXABLE INCOME of ...
You see the subtle deception? The tax is NOT imposed on "income," which is what they have autority to tax, per the Constitution. Instead, the tax is imposed on "taxable income."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1
This is a DIFFERENT thing. It has its own definition (which Congress can define, because they are NOT taxing "income" -- they are taxing a DIFFERENT thing which they call "taxable income").
One more time, to drive home the point:
(1) The Constitution grants Congress the power to tax income.
(2) Congress has chosen instead to impose a tax on something they call "taxable income," not "income," and they define what that means.
(3) These are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS -- because they MUST be.
Congress HAS NO AUTHORITY to define any of the terms in the Constitution (as that would mean they have sole authority to determine their own authority). So, they do not define "income" in the tax code (because they can't). And they do NOT actually tax "income." Instead, they tax something else entirely.
This is the deception of the income tax.
It IS a constitutional law. it is NOT unconstitutional. It's just that deception is used to trick people into believing they have a tax obligation, which they may or may not have (some people DO have to pay an income tax; others do not).
Congress has ONLY imposed a tax on "taxable income."
They define "taxable income" as "gross income, minus deductions."
OK, so what is "gross income?"
"Gross income" is defined at 26 USC 61 as "All income, from whatever source derived ..." [giving examples, such as salaries, etc.].
This is language taken direction from the 16th Amendment ... BUT TO DEFINE "gross income" and NOT to define "income," which is what the 16th Amendment actually authorizes.
Notice, the word "income" is used in the definition of "gross income," BUT they do not define what "income" is -- anywhere in the tax code. This is because they cannot determine what the Constitution means. Only SCOTUS can.
So, they do not tax income. Instead, they tax "taxable income," and define it as "All income minus deductions," but without defining "income."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapter-1/subchapter-B/part-I
Now, what is REALLY interesting is taking a look at what the regulations say about "gross income." No government agency or department (or even private organization acting like a government agency) can enforce ANY law passed by Congress unless it has a regulation spelling out what it can do, and what the statutes MEAN, according to the enforcing agency.
The regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR").
If you look up the regulation related to the definition of "gross income," you will find it at 26 CFR 1.61-1. It says:
Gross income means all income, from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.61-1
The first part is directly taking from the 16th Amendment, but is used to define "gross income" and NOT "income," which is the ONLY thing Congress has the power to tax.
That's because this regulation is a direct copy of the statute that the regulation is to enforce (26 USC 61).
BUT ...
What does "unless excluded by law" mean?
Notice: That wording is NOT in the statute. It is ONLY found in the regulation.
Your average accountant, or even most tax attorneys, will NOT look up the regulation, but only the code.
So, MOST OF THE DO NOT EVEN KNOW THIS EXISTS, but it is PART OF THE LAW !!!
In fact, it is REPEATED in the regulations, several times:
26 CFR 1.61-1 Gross Income:
Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law.
26 CFR 1.61-2 Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items.
Wages, salaries, commissions paid salesmen, compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits, commissions on insurance premiums, tips, bonuses (including Christmas bonuses), termination or severance pay, rewards, jury fees, marriage fees and other contributions received by a clergyman for services, pay of persons in the military or naval forces of the United States, retired pay of employees, pensions, and retirement allowances are income to the recipients unless excluded by law.
26 CFR 1.61-14 Miscellaneous items of gross income.
In addition to the items enumerated in section 61(a), there are many other kinds of gross income. For example ... unless excluded by law.
To understand what it means, it is helpful to go all the way back to the 1939 revised tax code. The 1913 tax code has been revised several times, and also amended. Every so often, they do a major revision, where things are re-organized. They then amend it each year when they tweak it this way or that way (to continually make it more and more difficult for most people to understand, and to use it for political campaign rhetoric).
I suspect that most members of Congress also have no clue what the tax law REALLY says.
Today's section 61, "Gross income defined" was the same thing but in a different location in the 1939 revision. In that revision, it was section 39, "Gross income defined" and gave the same definition.
In 1954, there was a major revision, and section 39 was changed to section 61. There was another major revision in 1986, keeping this section as 61.
Today's tax code is the 1986 revision, as amended each year up until 2024.
But that 1939 revision is still part of the law, except where changes have been made via amending it over the years.
Anyway, the regulation for section 39 back then said:
Gross income means all income, from whatever source derived, unless excluded by fundamental law or otherwise not taxed.
What does "fundamental law" mean? Or "otherwise not taxed?"
It means ... the CONSTITUTION !!!
In the 1954 revision, they removed this word, but it still today in the regulations says, "unless excluded by law." It means the same thing today as it did in 1939. "Excluded by law" means anything that the federal government is powerless to tax due to constitutional restraints.
But the statute does not say it. Only the regulations do.
The 1939 regulations also said, at 26 CFR § 39.22(b)-l (1956):
No other items may be excluded from gross income except (a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government ...
Pretty clear, huh?
But they took that language out when they moved the "Gross income" definition in 1939 from section 39 and moved it to section 61 in the 1954 revision.
They ALWAYS tell the truth somewhere in the code or regulations, but they do not promote it, and IRS will blatantly deny what the clear language says, because they WANT to violate those constitutional restraints.
But they can't. So instead, they use deceptive wording.
So ...
What type of "income" is exluded by law from "gross income" (which is the starting point of arriving at "taxable income," which is the ONLY thing that Congress has passed ANY laws to tax, as it relates to income?
Several SCOTUS cases, combined, tell us. Though reading through them and getting at what they mean is not easy.
The biggest thing to understand is that "income" is NOT the money you receive -- for anything. The money you receive in exchange for services or buying and selling things (i.e. business and investment) is PROPERTY, and not INCOME.
The federal government is PROHIBITED by the Constitution from directly taxing your property. That would be a direct tax, which the Constitution allows, but ONLY by apportionment to the states.
There are only TWO types of taxes that Congress can enforce: Direct and Indirect.
A tax on property is a direct tax, and Congress can only do that by sending a bill to the states for the states to pay -- NOT to the People directly.
BUT ...
An excise tax is an indirect tax that Congress CAN enforce on the People.
An excise is a tax on some ACTIVITY, not on property.
When you buy gas at the gas station, the price includes a "federal gasoline excise tax" on the privilige of the ACTIVITY of buying gas, which is regulated by the federal government, per the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
BUT you do not pay the government DIRECTLY. Instead, the government imposes the tax on the gas station (really, the state which imposes it on the gas station). The gas station collects the tax and pays it to the government.
Thus, it is an INDIRECT tax to you, and not a direct tax.
The income tax is an excise tax on the activity of engaging in some federal privilege. THAT is what it is. That is what all the SCOTUS decisions point to, though they never spell it out that clearly in any particular case.
Each case is based on the facts and circumstances of THAT case only. So, they rule on that, and not on what "income tax" means, as a whole. So, you have to piece it all together to understand it.
There are SCOTUS cases that say that if you receive money as compensation for your labor, then that is NOT income, and therefore Congress cannot tax it.
BUT ...
Those cases had to do with private labor. Exchanging your labor for money is a COMMON LAW RIGHT, or a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that existed long before the government existed, and you STILL HAVE THAT RIGHT TODAY.
See: 9th Amendment.
UNLESS ...
Your labor is some sort of federal government PRIVILEGE.
In that case, Congress CAN tax it.
Congress would be taxing the ACTIVITY of working and receiving a "gain" by engaging in a government privilege.
Examples:
(1) Husband has a job working for General Electric, and receives money as compensation for his services. His wife is a federal judge, and receives money as compensation for her services. His salary is NOT "income" under the Constitution because he has a common law right to work for a living. But his wife's salary IS "income" under the Constitution, because nobody has a RIGHT to work for the government. That is a privilege.
(2) They own stock in IBM and in Fannie Mae. They receive dividends from both companies. The dividend from IBM is NOT "income," consitutionally, because they have a RIGHT to own property and receive a benefit from owning it. But the dividend from Fannie Mae IS "income," constitutionally, because Fannie Mae is a corporation that was created by Congress and would not exist if the federal government did not exist. So, they can tax it.
(3) Grandpa receives a pension as part of his compensation for working for Boeing for 40 years. He also receives Social Security. His Boeing pension is NOT "income" because he has a common law right to work and receive compensation, as well as retirement benefits, from his work. But he does NOT have a RIGHT to receive ANY money from the federal government in the form of a retirement handout (it is NOT a return on investment, legally, no matter how many politiicans lie about that -- it is legally a welfare benefit). The government CAN tax it, or they can choose not to. But even if they choose not to, they can if they decide to change the law.
THIS is why the Secretary of the Treasury, who is the head of the IRS, ultimately, put into the regulations (many years ago) something that was not and is not in the actual statute. Namely, that "gross income" includes ALL income, but does NOT include ANY income that is EXCLUDED BY LAW (i.e. the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions that define what the word "income" means).
The famous SCOTUS case that ruled that the 16th Amendment is constitutional was Brushaber v. Union Pacific (1916). SCOTUS ruled that the 16th Amendment "confered no new taxing power" because the NATURE of an income tax WAS ALWAYS an indirect, excise tax (which is a tax on the ACTIVITY of engaging in a government privilege).
The tax is NOT on the income. It is a tax on the ACTIVITY that produces monetary compensation, and that monetary compensation is the MEASURE used to determine the AMOUNT of tax to pay.
However, what most people miss about that case is that "Union Pacific" was the Union Pacific Railroad, which was a special corporation CREATED BY CONGRESS for the purpose of building out the railroads in the 19th century.
Therefore, Congress COULD tax the dividends to Mr. Brushaber, as his ownership in that government corporation was a privilege and not a common law right.
Other SCOTUS cases have always distinguished between right and privilege, which allows them to make constitutional rulings, even though they also engage in deception.
Remember all the 2020 election challenge cases that were not heard by courts?
SCOTUS has the constitutional authority to CHOOSE which cases to hear and which to ignore. So, they WAIT until they get just the right case, with just the right facts and circumstances with the ISSUE they want to rule on ... and ONLY take that one or a few cases that will allow them to rule they way the want to.
That's why they used Brushaber, and not some other case. They could rule the 16th Amendment constitutional, without directly mentioning that ownership of stock in Union Pacific Railroad was a privilege, not a right.
NOW ... HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT ...
Even if you do not engage in any federal government privilege, you CAN VOLUNTEER to do so, if you want (or if you are deceived into believing that you must).
If you volunteer to engage in the privileged activity, then you MUST comply with the laws that govern that activity.
HENCE ...
Voluntary compliance.
Make sense now?
Finally, take a look at another tax that is imposed by Title 26, the Internal Revenue Laws:
26 USC 5001:
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof gallon.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5001
Do you see that THIS tax is IMPOSED within Title 26, just like the income tax is imposed in Title 26, as well?
Do YOU have to pay this tax?
Do YOU produce or import distilled spirits?
Part 1 of 2
Elon knows math.
In math (algebra), "x" is a variable or place holder.
I would not be surprised if "X" returns to the name "Twitter," and then Trump makes his announcement, as predicted by Q.
The FBI reportedly utilized advanced, unreleased technology from digital intelligence company Cellebrite to access the phone of Thomas Matthew Crooks, the man identified as the shooter in the recent attack on former President Donald Trump.
... the FBI faced a critical challenge in accessing the shooter’s phone. The device, identified as a newer Samsung model running Android’s operating system, proved resistant to the FBI’s initial attempts at data extraction using their existing Cellebrite software license.
... The urgency of the situation reportedly prompted FBI agents to make a direct appeal to Cellebrite, an Israel-founded digital intelligence company that provides technology to various U.S. federal agencies. The FBI’s goal was to extract data from the device to help uncover the motives behind the attack carried out by Crooks, who was killed during the incident.
... In response to the FBI’s request, Cellebrite swiftly provided additional technical support and transferred new, unreleased software that was still in development to the FBI in Quantico, Virginia.
The system works by way of the golden rule:
He, who has the gold, makes the rules.
Nobody has to follow the rules. But those who do not follow the rules, do not get any gold. Those who do follow the rules, can get some of the gold. The more rules they follow, the more gold they have a chance to get.
Stop following the rules, and the gold stops flowing.
Violate the rules openly, and all those dirty secrets that the gold paid for, come out into the open. Bye bye.
I came across some interesting court cases recently.
1787 -- The Constitution for the United States of America is written.
1819 -- Just 32 years later, while James Madision, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were all still alive, the Massachusetts Supreme Court said there were only citizens of the states:
The term, “citizens of the United States,” must be understood to intend those who were citizens of a state, as such, after the Union had commenced, and the several states had assumed their sovereignties. Before this period there were no citizens of the United States. Manchester v. Boston, Massachusetts Reports, Vol. 16, Page 235 (1819)
1821 -- Two years later, a federal court said a citizen of one state is a citizen of the other states, as well:
“A citizen of one state is to be considered as a citizen of every other state in the union.” Butler v. Farnsworth, Federal Cases, Vol. 4, Page 902 (1821)
1855 -- No such thing as “citizen of the United States”
“A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions.” Ex parte Frank Knowles, California Reports, Vol. 5, Page 302 (1855)
1868 -- 14th Amendment adopted. In the main body of the US Constitution, anyplace where “Citizen” was written, the word was capitalized. Starting with the 14th Amendment, and all amendments thereafter, the word “citizen” was lower-case. Interesting.
1873 -- Just 5 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, federal courts said this:
The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress. U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
1875 -- 2 years after that, we have the US Supreme Court stating:
We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
1883 -- 8 years later, the Indiana Supreme Court said:
One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)
1906 -- US Supreme Court (this case has never been overturned, and has been cited by other courts over 1,600 times, making it one of the most authoritative court cases in American law):
The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)
1908 -- Florida Supreme Court, citing previous US Supreme Court rulings:
It is the duty of all officials whether legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, or ministerial to so perform every official act so as not to violate constitutional provisions. a. Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54; and, b. the contracts between them involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities: c. Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an individual entity, Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773 Montgomery v State 55 Fla. 97
1927 -- California Supreme Court:
there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,” Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)
1953 -- Federal Court:
A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383 (1953)
1958 -- US Supreme Court:
The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
1968 -- District Court in Puerto Rico, citing US Supreme Court (natural, fundamental rights do not belong to US citizens):
Defendants’ error lies in assuming that the right to vote is an essential right of citizenship. The only absolute and unqualified right of citizenship is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States. US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957 [see: Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 US 298]
1993 - District Court case:
The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226
How to make sense of it all?
1776:
When the Declaration of Independence was signed, the 13 British colonies in America became free and independent States, on equal footing with all other countries of the world.
The People in each of these 13 States/countries wrote their own constitution, identifying the powers of their State governments, and limiting the authority of their government, while also prohibiting their government from violating the fundamental rights of the People in the State.
1787:
The People, via their representatives in Congress, assembled, wrote a new constitution to create a 14th government (“federal government”) to grant certain powers to it for a more efficient overall government experience. This federal government was granted certain powers that would apply within the States, such as regulating foreign commerce, but only the powers enumerated. In addition, this document had a clause giving the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over the federal territories (powers beyond what was enumerated). So, the enumerated powers apply to the States, but all other powers ONLY apply to the federal territories and enclaves (military bases).
1819:
The courts were already recognizing that there could be a confusion with the term “citizen of the United States.” They were clarifying that this term meant a “citizen of a particular State, and by means of that, also a citizen of THESE States, united.” But, there was NO SUCH THING as a “citizen of the United States, as in the federal government.”
1868:
The 14th Amendment had a tricky clause, which created (or became construed as creating) a new class of citizenship, which was federal and NOT state.
Early 20th Century:
The courts were still recognizing that We the People, as individuals, have natural rights that the government (state or federal) cannot violate. But there was also a movement hidden in the shadows trying to pervert this idea. This was the time of the income tax and Federal Reserve creation (unconstitutional, btw).
Mid-20th Century:
The courts were recognizing these two competing ideas. There were those who were trying to trick everyone into thinking they were “US citizens” and at the same time not revealing that to be one of these, one would give up their natural rights. At the same time, some courts were reasserting the original concept, so as to remind Americans who they are (members of the sovereign class, and not subjects of the government, ruled over by a higher class -- which does not exist, in reality).
Current times:
Only people who have familiarized themselves with the REAL LAW of the United States of America (meaning, all the case law about this subject) understand that they are not citizens of an inferior class. However, the propaganda has been so strong, that these people are looked at by everyone else (myself included, until recently) … as crazy.
But really, who is crazy? Those who understand they are of the class of people who created the government, or those who believe they are inferior subjects who must do anything a government employee demands of them?
Food for thought.
Saw a story about the Google AI bot doing something stupid (again). Said the AI computer scraped data from Reddit and got "misinformation."
The most interesting part was they said that Google signed a deal with Reddit to "access its content."
This is what I have been saying about the AI scam: These news bots will ONLY access "approved" data sources (websites, databases, etc.) that the computer is PROGRAMMED (by humans) to access.
This will be the ONLY approved source of "truth" for the so-called "artificial intelliegence" machine.
Never forget: An AI computer is a MACHINE. It processes 1's and 0's, and will NEVER have actual intelligence like a human does (well, some humans).
It will be PROGRAMMED to access data from APPROVED SOURCES, and will ONLY spit out responses based on that limited set of data.
Imagine programming it to access GAW or a JFK conspiracy site, and THEN asking it questions.
It will ONLY spit out answers that it was PROGRAMMED to compile and spit out.
This story confirms that Google makes deals with only certain sources for its AI output. The AI computer does not "go out and find" the truth. Instead, it finds "truth" that it is programmed to find.
BTW: There is no getting around this because utilizing data that has not been agreed to by the owner of a website or database would be copyright infringement, so the ONLY option is to make deals -- and that will mean a LIMITED set of data for the AI to spit out.
Clips from C-SPAN back in early 2002, where callers ask questions about Fox News reporting of Israeli spying and possible involvement/foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and then the coverup right after that:
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/161/695/989/playable/a04339c24a25a751.mp4
https://rumble.com/v3wsj6g-freemasonry-part-1.html
https://rumble.com/v3wskds-freemasonry-part-2.html
Interview by Stew Peters of Kyle, who made the hidden camera videos:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/5uxHoR2560ZC/
Notice: Freemasons are orderd to worship the Jewish Talmud, not the Christian Bible.
I decided to create a new thread on this topic, so it would not get buried in the other thread.
First off, it is blatantly false that the income tax was created to pay for World War 1.
The tax was passed in 1913. The war did not start until 1914, and the US did not get involved until 1917.
So, there is no evidence that it was created to pay for the war.
But it WAS passed in 1913, and just before the Federal Reserve Act, which was passed in the dead of night two days before Christmas.
Regarding the income tax, I decided to go to the ONLY official source of the original statute.
This is found at the Statutes at Large. The SAL are the chronological documentation of ALL bills passed by Congress, starting with the first one by the First Congress, and going through to the most recent one (that has been published -- they are behind a little of the SAL publications).
This is the ONLY official source for ANY statute passed by Congress.
Here is the SAL publication for the 63rd Congress in 1913:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llsl//llsl-c63/llsl-c63.pdf
Now, regarding the income tax ... this is REALLY WEIRD:
It looks to me like there was never an official "Income Tax" passed by Congress.
Instead, it was a GENERAL tax, which covered hundreds of things to be taxed, and then the income tax was inserted WAY, WAY, WAY down and buried inside all the legalese of these other taxes.
Starting on page 114, you see under "Chapter 16," the words of introduction to this piece of legislation:
An Act To reduce tariff duties and to provide revenue for the Government and for other purposes
Notice: It does not say an act to impose an income tax. The purpose was to reduce tariff duties and provide revenue.
The next paragraph says:
... there shall be levied, collectd, and paid upon all articles when imported from any foreign country when imported into the United States or into any of its possessions the rates of duty which are by [the following rules].
Notice: There were certain ARTICLES (i.e. types of actions for which a tax would be levied), AND ... ONLY ... for IMPORTING something into the US or its possessions (territories).
This is CRUCIAL, because the federal government does NOT have ANY authority to pass GENERAL LEGISLATION WITHIN THE STATES, except for those items specifically enumerated in the Constitution. One of those enumerated powers if FOREIGN COMMERCE.
When YOU go to work at the office or factory, YOU are NOT engaging in foreign commerce. Only the companies and individuals who BRING FOREIGN GOODS INTO THE USA are engaged in foreign commerce.
So ... this was constitutional, as it was originally written (but NOT as it is currently implemented).
Next, it goes on to list HUNDREDS of "items" that would be subject to this new tax "to REDUCE tariffs and to provide revenue."
A few of these are taxes on:
(1) Boracic acid, citric acid, formic acid, and other acids.
(2) Acetic anhydrid.
(3) Acetone
(4) Dried egg albumin
(7) Ammonia
(10) Barium chloride
(12) Bleaching powder
(13) Caffein
(15) Chalk
(41) Lime citrate
(43) Menthol
(44) Oils of various types
(47) Opium
(68) Sponges
(69) Talcum
(84) Glass bottles
(93) Opera and field glasses
(106) Iron or steel anchors
(119) Automobiles, valued at $2,000 or more
(129) Sword blades, and swords and side arms
(136) Fish hooks, fishing rods and reels
(201) Pickles
(202) Cider
(213) Straw
(217) Apples and other fruits
(237) Brandy and other spirits
(243) Champagne
(300) Carpets
(305) Hair of the Angoran goat
(311) Silk
(351) Human hair
(354) Hats, bonnets, or hoods
(402) Arrowroot in its natural state
(403) Arsenic
(424) Books, engravings, photographs
(477) Drugs, such as barks, beans, berries, buds, bulbs ... [interesting that these were "drugs" back in 1913]
(500) Gum
(501) Gunpowder
(503) Hair of horse, cattle, and other animals
(602) Skeletons
(605) Soda
(614) Stone and sand
In all, there are a list of 657 items that would be considered "articles" for which a tax would be levied ... IF (and only if) ... they were IMPORTED INTO THE US OR FEDERAL TERRITORY ... because Congress had the constitutional authority to regulate FOREIGN COMMERCE.
Now, I will break it down even further, but keep in mind THESE IMPORTANT POINTS:
-
The way the statute was structured was that "Section I" would be a list of all these items that would be "articles" that could be taxed by this new legislation. (The words "Section I" is not there, but the next sections (Sections II, III, and IV) are, and that is very important. So, keep in mind how this statute was structured.
-
ALL of these items/articles are for FOREIGN COMMERCE by way of IMPORT under the foriegn commerce clause of the Constitution ... OR (also VERY important) ... for anything that has to do with these items/articles WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES (Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.). ... but NOT the States.
-
The US federal government has TWO constitutional authorities: (1) the subjects that are ENUMERATED in the Constitution, and these apply within the States, such as post offices and foreign commerce, and (2) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION over everything that goes on WITHIN the federal territories (Washingon DC is treated like a State, in that the Congress is like the State legislature for that and the other federal territories).
Again, this all starts on page 114 of the 63rd Congress for 1913:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llsl//llsl-c63/llsl-c63.pdf
NOW ...
At page 166, under "Section II," we have the "Income Tax," although it is NOT OFFICIALLY called that (there is merely a footnote in the margin).
Under Subdivsion 1:
That there shall be levied, assessed, levied and paid annually upon the entire net income ...
This is where they stuck in the "income tax" in the middle of a foreign commerce tax bill. Very sneaky and underhanded -- to say the least.
It then goes on to Section III, which once again goes back to amend a previous law about foreign commerce.
Section IV continues with the foreign commerce authority.
This was a MASSIVE piece of legislation, passed October 3, 1913.
I am not going to read through the entire thing, looking for the "this is only temporary" clause. I doubt it is there because, again, this was a MASSIVE piece of legislation.
I doubt more than a few members of Congress had any real idea what they were voting on.
It was the setup for the Federal Reserve Act, which was passed December 23, 1913.
There is ZERO chance that it was meant to be temporary, though I would not be suprised if the people behind the scenes who pushed both laws were planning on also pushing World War 1 on the Europeans, but the members of Congress probably had no clue (most of them), if that was the case.
Now ... let's dig further.
This legislation was all about taxes on (a) foreign commerce and (b) activities connected to the federal territories (such as Washington, DC).
Who was considered liable for the income tax?
Page 166, A. Subdivision 1:
... every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof ...
Now, are YOU a "citizen of the United States?"
Let's set aside what that definition means in legal terms. If YOU state, and sign under penalty the truth of the statement, that YOU ARE a "citizen of the United States," then this law APPLIES TO YOU.
Abracadabra ... YOU have volunteered that YOU are one of these people subject to the tax.
This is WHY the US federal government constantly TRICKS you into claiming that you are a "citizen of the United States," because that pushes you into this box.
Checkmate.
Sort of.
That is WHO. But what about the WHAT?
WHAT exactly is taxed?
... a tax ... upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere.
That was the original language, that is more or less similar to today's language, which we will explore, but first, let's talk about the US Supreme Court case that declared this statute as constitutional.
That was Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916).
Frank Brushaber was a citizen of New York. He owned stock in Union Pacific Railroad, which was a FEDERAL CORPORATION, created by Congress to build the railroads.
He received a dividend, which is covered on page 167:
B. ... dividends ...
So, Frank challenged the income tax on his dividends, but SCOTUS ruled that he had to pay. The real reason for this is that the company paying the dividend was a federal corporation, and receiving a dividend from a federal corporation was a PRIVILEGE and not a right. Therefore, since the Congress created the corporation, it could tax the dividends paid.
But this has morphed into Congress taxing dividends from ALL (non-federal) corporations. BUT ... they have done so by subterfuge, not by honest legal means.
Let's go to the current "Income Tax Code" found at 26 USC, and look under Subtitle F, Chapter 79, "Definitions."
The original act said that an income tax would be imposed on NET income of every "citizen of the United States," and to every "business, trade, or profession" of non-citizens.
But what are these definitions?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701
(a)(30) United States Person:
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States
What is the definition of "United States?"
(a)(9) The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
What is a "State?"
(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
So ... this whole thing is ONLY for the things that the federal government has CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for: (a) foreign commerce and (b) exclusive legislation for FEDERAL TERRITORIES, and NOT that 50 States. They had to RE-DEFINE the word "State" to mean something OTHER THAN the 50 geographical States, in order to stay within the constitutional confines of the Constitution.
What is the definition of "Trade or Business?"
(a)(26) The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
AGAIN ... staying within the CONFINES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The way the law is WRITTEN is constitutional. BUT ... it is not promoted the way it is written.
What is the definition of "employee?"
There is only a specialized definition in Subtitle F, and that only applies to something specific that does not apply to most people:
(a)(20) ... For the purpose of applying the provisions of section 79 with respect to group-term life insurance purchased for employees, for the purpose of applying the provisions of sections 104, 105, and 106 with respect to accident and health insurance or accident and health plans, and for the purpose of applying the provisions of subtitle A with respect to contributions to or under a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, or annuity plan, and with respect to distributions under such a plan, or by a trust forming part of such a plan, and for purposes of applying section 125 with respect to cafeteria plans, the term “employee” shall include a full-time life insurance salesman who is considered an employee for the purpose of chapter 21.
That is the only definition of "employee" found in Subtitle F.
But ... the definitions in Subtitle F apply to ALL of Title 26 ... UNLESS ... a different definition is found elsewhere that applies more specifically to a particular section of Title 26.
So, let's look at Subtitle C, "Employment Taxes" --
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-C
Notice: There are are 6 chapters within Subtitle C.
The employment taxes are collected by the employer, right?
Chapter 24 -- Collection of Income Tax at Sourse on Wages, Section 3401 ("Definitions"):
What is "Employee?"
(c) Employee. For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.
So, elected officials of the United States or "a State" (which means Washington DC and federal territories, based on general definitions, and constitutional prohibition from the federal government taxing the States, other than via apportionment), any AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY of Washington, DC, such as Union Pacific Railorad, or Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association), a corporation created by Congress for buying mortgages, or an officer of such a corporation.
What you will find about the income tax is that it was originally passed as part of a tax bill for foreign commerce and taxes related to the operations of the federal territories, and the modern day definitions still agree with this concept ... BUT ... it has since been fraudulently promoted and unconstitutionally applied and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, which is NOT a federal agency and its agents are NOT federal employees.
It is a clever con game.
Do I file tax returns? Yes, because I understand the game and I know where to find the "hidden" aspects that are often only found in the federal regulations and only hinted at in the actual statute or code.
But we would all be better off if we just got rid of it, along with the privately owned (and more important: privately controlled) central bank, which has never had a meaningful public audit of what it REALLY does with all of its fake money creation.
TLDR: Speaker Johnson has become a problem. He has done a 180 flip on this issue. This vote was procedural to bring this bill to the floor, and it was defeated. That is good. This bill is a very bad bill, but Johnson is trying to push it through. Meanwhile, there is another bill, which Gaetz supports, which would have some real FISA reforms, but Johnson is stopping that one from getting to the floor for a vote.
Matt Gaetz --
FISA authorities have been used to violate the law more than 278,000 times by the national security state, and there has yet to be any consequences for this illegal activity by our government. Therefore, I voted against the rule this afternoon to bring the FISA Section 702 reauthorization bill to the House floor.
The reauthorization lacks essential reforms to protect Americans' Fourth Amendment rights, such as requiring the FBI to obtain a warrant before searching Americans’ data and a prohibition on the government purchasing Americans’ data from third-party data brokers.
Last year, in the House Judiciary Committee, I voted for a bipartisan bill that contained necessary reforms to protect Americans from unconstitutional searches. Unfortunately, Speaker Johnson has sided against holding a House vote on that bill and is instead trying to rush legislation drafted in a way that could expand authorities for the FBI to violate Americans’ right to privacy.
If Speaker Johnson is unwilling to fix #FISA Section 702, we are left wondering what he is indeed willing to fix. We didn't fix the budget or the border. Now, the very authorities that we saw weaponized against President Trump and the American people are poised to get enhancements under this reauthorization, rather than any of the reforms that are so desperately needed.
https://gab.com/RepMattGaetz/posts/112248346653907286
Rep. Dan Bishop BLASTS Speaker Johnson for his reversal on FISA reforms
"It’s hard to have a lot of sympathy for this one. And I fear that it really jeopardizes his support out in the country among conservatives who are counting on him…it’s disheartening to me.”
Video --
https://gab.com/RepMattGaetz/posts/112244531842805468
Rep. Warren Davidson CALLS OUT Speaker Johnson for attempting to reauthorize #FISA without any reform
“The idea that we would allow something that is known to be abused to continue to exist without real reform…it’s simply a placebo. What you did is actually make your condition WORSE, because you didn’t even treat the underlying problem!”
Video --
You heard it here first.
Stocks putting in a top, at least for now, and ready to go lower.
Bonds going lower, too (interest rates headed back up).
Metals (gold, silver) had a big move up, but also topping.
US Dollar getting stronger.
Oil moving higher (expect higher gas prices at the pump).
Be careful out there, boys and girls.
There is a new scam out there that will destroy a lot of people.
It is the "Buy Now, Pay Later" (BNPL) loan scheme.
I bet you don't know how it REALLY works and who will get left holding the bag (hint: not the poor people taking out the loans).
It works like this:
-
Someone who can't afford to buy something, wants it and is offered a BNPL deal. They can just buy it now and pay it off in "4 easy installments" or whatever.
-
There is no credit check. There is no income verification. Just, "Do you want it? Yes? OK, you got it -- NOW!"
-
It can be for anything: groceries, clothes, furniture, whatever. This is not put on a credit or debit card. It is a separate loan. No collateral, just a signature.
-
It is not reported on any credit bureau, so other lenders do not know how much of this debt that a credit applicant for a regular loan might have.
-
Many of the people who are getting these loans have no ability and/or no intention of ever paying it back. They just want the stuff -- now.
-
The loan is arranged by an affiliate (Affirm is a company that is the big player in this). The affiliate operates the program, so that a bank can lend the money to the customer, with the retailer acting on behalf of the affiliate at the point of sale.
-
Once the purchase is complete, the loan is owned by the bank.
-
The bank immediately sells the loan to the affiliate, and the bank earns a fee. The bank takes no risk. The retailer also takes no risk, but does make a sale they might not have otherwise made.
-
The affiliate (i.e. Affirm) then packages these loans up into collateralized debt, just like they do with Mortgage-Backed Securities. And just like during the years leading up to the mortgage melt-down, ratings agencies are grading these BNPL Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO's) as "A paper." That is, these CDO's are rated as high-grade quality debt securities, even though the underlying assets are entirely made up of debt that was never underwritten by any standards whatsoever (no credit check, income qualifications, no collateral, etc.).
-
THEN ... these CDO's are sold via Wall Street to pension funds, mutual funds, and through investment broker advisors, who advise John Q. Public to buy these as a good investment because they earn an interest rate income that is slightly more than US Treasury Bills.
Unlike some Mortgage-Backed Securities, these BNPL CDO's have ZERO chance of ever paying off in full, since the debt can be easily ignored and never paid back.
These things WILL crash at some point. Not if, but when.
The middle class retirment system will get slammed with these, as they become more and more "attractive" by offering higher and higher interest income over time.
Excellent interview and discussion on this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms10ZU9qdd4
BTW, the man on the left doing the interview has a YT channel about all the overbuilding in new construction and all the reasons why the Federal Reserve has created a ticking time bomb that will explode at some point.
It is becoming more and more clear that the central bank has orchestrated this on purpose.
First, they found an excuse to push interest rates way down and keep them there for a few years. People adjusted to this as the "new normal." Real estate prices went sky high because people could afford it with very low interest rates.
Meanwhile, they also pumped $9 trillion of fake printed money into the system, causing the massive inflation we are now seeing.
Then, the Fed found an excuse to push interest rates up very high in a short time, and keep them there. This has caused financial chaos, with the full effects yet to come.
The federal government (Congress/President) have also played a role, especially in the past 3 years, with massive increases in spending and borrowing, with the complete elimination of the debt ceiling, and with much of that spending being pumped into areas of the economy that has caused a temporary illusion of prosperty that is hiding an otherwise economy on the brink of disaster.
My personal opinion is that this is all been done by design, to wipe out the middle class. The scum cabal plans to wipe out the middle class to destroy America, so that one world government can be achieved.
We need to talk more and more about eliminating the idea of a central bank. It is the evil root of all financial manipulation.
A jew who is/was connected to Dems (and probably RINOs) in Congress gets a tough sentence.
I bet nobody had that on their bingo card.
Justice finally becoming a thing?
Had a random conversation with a black guy I had never met before, and the conversation turned to politics. The key to me was the tone of his voice. It was as if he was absolutely shocked that he was just waking up to the reality that the Democrats have been decieving blacks all these years.
He was complaining about the laws they have passed, the degeneracy they promote, the utter lack of moral values, etc. Everytime I started talking, he would interupt and tell me more -- as if I was not aware of all this (LOL) -- and go on and on.
He said, "A LOT of [black] people are realizing how evil Democrats really are. 60%-70% of my family will NEVER vote Democrat again."
Could be a big surprise coming in November.
They actually did it. They completed the merger with Trump's company.
Starts trading tomorrow under the symbol "DJT."
I have not had any position, but I will consider buying it, depending on how the price action unfolds.
So, congrats to the holders who stayed with it.
GME also looks like it might be a company finally turning around, and will post their earnings tomorrow after the close.
Anyway ...
Congrats to those of you who held on. No idea what happens from here, and I don't think the current valuation will be justified, but it's Trump, and anything can happen when Trump is involved.
EDIT: I stand corrected. I watched it live and they were talking about the lawsuit with Sam Altman, but on further review it looks like Musk was specifically talking about Page in the "late nights" conversations.
But Larry Page and Sam Altman are from the same tribe and have similar backgrounds and beliefs.
Here is a short clip of a couple of times that Sam Altman (not Larry Page) joked about "AI will probably lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime [we will make a lot of money, or something to that effect] ..."
I think Altman demonstrates his disregard for any real danger of AI. Same as Larry Page.
https://twitter.com/ygrowthco/status/1760794728910712965
Musk has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, a company, and its founder Sam Altman.
Musk was instrumental in the foundation of OpenAI by donating $50 million.
He recently had an interview on CNBC where he said that when the company was founded, it was supposed to be a non-profit foundation with the source code open to the public.
But Altman has turned the company into a for-profit company with the source code kept secret.
Thus, the lawsuit.
Musk also said he had many conversations into the late night with Altman about what AI could and should do, and Musk brought up the issue of potential dangers with AI.
Musk says that Altman had no concern at all about the dangers and was cavalier about any possible danger.
Altman called Musk a "specie-ist," which I guess was a reference to Musk being concerned for the human species, and apparently Altman didn't think that was important. Seems like Altman thought computers should be on an equal level with humans.
Is there a reason why Altman would not give a damn about the possible dangers of AI to humanity?
From Wiki about Sam Altman:
Samuel Harris Altman was born on April 22, 1985, in Chicago, Illinois, into a Jewish family ...
He attended John Burroughs School, a private school in Ladue, Missouri.
Also from Wiki:
John Burroughs School (JBS) is a private, non-sectarian college-preparatory school ...
John Burroughs has long had a school philosophy of liberal and progressive education.
Again, on Altman:
In 2005, at the age of 19, Altman co-founded Loopt,[14] a location-based social networking mobile application. As CEO, Altman raised more than $30 million in venture capital for the company ...
Does that sound like your average 19-year old flipping burgers or hanging dry wall?
These are the types of people who are hiring the types of people who program AI computers, and the result is the shit show we have seen with Google and other woke results.
On a side note, I met a woman who wanted to talk about how great AI is. She had some sort of business conference to attend and they wanted a head shot photo.
Apparently, she didn't like what she had, so she had an AI app create a picture.
She showed it to me.
It did look a lot like her -- she had to input parameters, such as female, asian, age, height, weight, etc.
It did look something like her. But it was NOT her.
I started laughing, thinking that within 5 years, all the dating apps will be profiles of people who don't really exist -- because the AI app creation looks better than the real thing.
LOL.
I asked her what she thought about the dangers.
"Dangers?" she asked. Clueless.
HIAS congratulates Myorkas on his role in Obama/Biden administrations.
HIAS welcoming Myorkas to their own Board of Directors:
https://hias.org/statements/hias-welcomes-five-new-members-national-board/
Alejandro (Ali) N. Mayorkas
Ali Mayorkas is a partner at the law firm WilmerHale, where he leads the firm’s COVID-19 Task Force. Prior to joining Wilmer, Mayorkas was the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, where he coordinated DHS’ response to Ebola and Zika, and was the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services where, among other things, he helped to develop and implement the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. In his 30+ year career as a litigator and public servant, he also served as the Chief of the General Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice (1996-1998) and as a U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California (1998-2001).
A Cuban-American born in Havana, Ali is a former refugee himself. He is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley and received his J.D. from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
What does HIAS do?
They "resettle refugees."
Through our network of local resettlement partners, HIAS welcomes resettled refugees and helps them build their lives in communities across the United States.
Never mind that a "refugee" MUST seek refuge in the FIRST country they can reach (which means NEXT DOOR -- not fly across the world to Mexico and then cross into the US illegally). ALL of these so-called "refugees" belong in Mexico, or somewhere in Africa.
History of HIAS:
Originally set up by Jews to help fellow Jews ...
https://hias.org/who/our-history/
Myorkas has an agenda -- and it is NOT to promote American ideals.
Constitution for the United States of America:
Article 6, Section 2 and 3:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
Translation: No law is above the Constitution, and every federal and state legislator, executive branch officer, and judge -- including those of the US Supreme Court -- are required to be bound by the Constitution.
Article 4, Section 4:
The United States shall ... protect each [State] against Invasion;
Texas and other States have been invaded by foreigners, who have not been vetted and processed by a lawful immigration process.
Therefore, the US federal government has failed in its duty.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State ... or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay
The Governor of Texas has invoked this provision of the Constitution because Texas has been invaded, and is in imminent danger.
Therefore, the US goverment -- including ALL judges -- have NO JURISDICTION to determine otherwise.
Furthermore, any other State is free to join in an agreement or compact with Texas to join forces with Texas, without regard to whatever the federal government thinks.
Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
There is an invasion of the States, and anyone giving aid and comfort to them has engaged in treason. This applies to anyone, whether government employees or non-government organizations (think: the executives and employees of the Red Cross and similar who are funding the invasion). It is not merely "funding immigrants." It is giving aid and comfort to foreigners, who are engaged in an invasion. IOW: It is treason.
14th Amendment, Clause 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Put it all together, and the executives in the federal government who are responsible for upholding the Consitution and the laws on immigration, have failed to uphold their oaths of office -- willfully. Five Supreme Court justices have failed to uphold their oaths of office -- willfully. Some members of Congress have blocked legislation that could solve this invasion problem and, therefore, have failed to uphold their oaths of office -- willfully. Many State officers and judges have also failed to uphold their oaths of office -- willfully.
All of these people, along with individuals who run non-government organizations (which receive donations from government taxpayer funds) have all given aid and comfort to the enemies of the American People by instigating and facilitating a foreign invasion.
All of these people must be arrested and prosecuted for treason, and in addition to their punishment for treason, if they are convicted, also be barred for life from ever serving in any public office.
If "military is the only way," then this is the reason why.
QUITE a statement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHbgnt6iEgc
Note: He is pointing at the media, so maybe not criminal investigation. Not sure.