Slashdot Mirror

The brainwashing runs deep with this one.

Show me proof that the 16th amendment was ratified by the several states, (3/4ths or 38 states) and I will gladly pay federal income tax. The problem is you can't.

So until you can, the parent relating taxes to mafia protection money is dead on.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/

Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)

Not to mention that the 16th Amendment's ratification by the States is a fraud. And no, it has nothing to do with irregularities in Ohio's statehood process.

Of the 36 states required (of 48) to ratify an Amendment in 1913, 11 didn't vote and 33 changed the language. Examples:

• California's legislature never recorded a vote.
• The Kentucky House ratified it and sent it to the State Senate, where it was defeated 9-22.
• The Oklahoma House ratified it, but the State Senate passed a version with an amended, opposite meaning.
• The Minnesota legislature never sent any documentation of its vote to Washington.

None of these stopped Secretary of State Philander Knox from declaring the Amendment ratified on Febuary 3, 1913.

No, but WV and NV were not Constitutionally created States either; that is historical FACT. And yes there have been court cases that have ruled that filing an income tax form is voluntary unfortunately no one pays attention to those rulings. See: http://www.anti-irs.com/ and http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp although

After a stint doing politics, testifying before Congress, and successfully getting a law put on the books (PL101-611) forcing NASA to procure launch services from the private sector, I had gotten interested in the tax system as a source of market failures in high technology investment and, as a consequence, was researching some fringe ideas related to the income tax. So I ordered the two volume book "The Law That Never Was" by Bill Benson via mail. Literallyl, the very I sat down to read the book, I heard, quietly but quite distinctly a female voice say just the 3 words: "It's too late."

It was quite an experience, unique in my life.

When I mentioned it to a friend who was somewhat well connected politically, he said that he had heard of microwave devices that could project sounds into people's heads, and that this seemed like a good candidate for such a use.

I don't know, but it sure was spooky -- and keep in mind it was a one time event some time ago. I had done work for secret government projects in secured facilities with electromagnetic shielding but it was always with the understanding that there were ways of gathering data both passively and actively from within such facilities via microwaves as well as other frequencies. It really never occurred to me there might be some further purposes to such shielding. Now I'm not so sure. You have to wonder how many of the neocons are literally hearing "the voice of God"...

Wow look at this USA, FUD from the most oppressive, government sponsored terrorist, warmongering country on the entire planet!
did you know that your income tax is against your constitution and was never ratified?

Income Tax is fake: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp


remember waco don't let it be lost in history:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4298137966377572665&q=WACO%3A+THE+RULES+OF+ENGAGEMENT&total=31&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

What are FREE SPEECH zones? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

There are those who say that the states didn't ratify the amendments. But when the Civil War is still in the memory of most of the people alive then, who is going to argue when the FedGov says that's how it's gonna be? Standing up against the FedGov has a way of being hazardous to your health.

Honestly, I don't see any rationale for ratifying the 16th. It just makes no sense. The FedGov simply wanted more money. They'd been trying to impose direct taxation for several decades, but the courts had always intervened.

The 17th was purportedly to correct a procedural problem that occurred when Senate vacancies would go unfilled because of partisan squabbling in the state legislatures. It seemed unfair to let a state be underrepresented in the Senate, so direct election (to bypass the legislature) seemed the best answer. (Remember that the populist movement was in full swing in the early 20th c.) A better solution would have been to expand the governors' power of recess appointment, to allow him to do so if the legislature didn't take decisive action within X number of days (while in session), and have that temporary senator hold the position until the legislature did get off its butt. So to correct a relatively minor procedural problem, they broke one of the three crucial balance systems built into the FedGov. No small wonder that power has been lopsided ever since. And small hope of ever undoing it, because most people simply can't comprehend that you have less sway over your Senator when you elect him directly - when your direct constituency is millions of people, can you hear any one particular voice? Heck, even congressional districts have gotten way too large since they froze the House at 435. By the original reckoning we'd need 10k representatives!

Way back when, when they were proposing an income tax "Well, the tax would only be on the rich folks, and not on the poor folks. After all, poor folks don't have money."

Nowadays, the loopholes are all in place, rich folks *don't* pay the tax, quite legally, while poor folks carry a gigantic burden that gets larger every year.

So in ten to twenty years, when the copyrights and patents are *only* for those who can afford the yearly $2000 filing fee from the get go, and they are abused more than ever... ... we're going to wonder why our system is so messed up.

That said, people *didn't* fall for that scam regarding the income tax. Most states voted it down, in some cases repeatedly.

I, for one, do not favor this law. I favor repealing all patents and copyrights, or reducing their term to a much shorter period.

Technically, we already have the precident that if more than 2/3 of the states pass similar-sounding but not identical versions of an amendment, they *call* it a constitutional amendment, and claim it passed.

But I think that only works if you're a cartel of banks. I'm not really sure.

Start here, and there are other sites as well. This is the guy who did the research on the 16th and 17th, and sells his findings in a pair of books. There are also people who claim that there was a different amendment originally passed as number 13, but it's been covered up. I don't know much about that, and it sounds too much like paranoia even for me. :)