This is a very interesting topic. Are we American Citizens? or are we American citizens? Read from the link below to see what this is all about!
http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap6.html
Before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, Americans were called Citizens (with a capitlal "C") of the united States of America. (American Citizen, or American, for short) If you were born in America, you were born a sovereign with inalienable rights. It was a common understanding among the people. Up until then, slavery was still accepted in America. Slaves were not Citizens, state or national, but were merely considered the personal 'property' of the slave holders. The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, just 3 years before the 14th. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. But that created a new problem. The newly freed slaves were not citizens of any state or country, because they were just property, and property did not have citizenship. To solve the problem, the 14th amendment was passed. This amendment created a new class of citizenship. This new class was legally called: 'United States citizen', (with a small "c"). NOT 'United States of America Citizen', but just 'United States citizen'. Notice that the U.S. citizen is spelled with a lower case 'c'. This is to show a lower class of citizenship. This class of citizen (U.S. citizen) is a privilege granted by the federal government, and not a sovereign inalienable right.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Class Is In: A Study On The 16th Admendment
And to think the highest tax bracket at one time was 91%! Some hardworking folks had to give the feds 91 cents of every dollar they earned! That is immoral; unless you are a typical lib or politician.LOL!
http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap5.html
The 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court says, was suppose to clarify the limitation on the taxing power. It apparently didn't, so the Supreme Court is. Mr. Brushaber was arguing that the income tax was a 'direct' tax, and therefore unconstitutional because not apportioned. The court was correcting his erroneous contentions. We continue with the court clarification in this Brushaber case:
There it is! The 16th Amendment left the income tax as an indirect excise tax and is to be enforced as such. It is a tax on corporate incomes not requiring the tax to be apportioned! On privileges! This is not my opinion, but a Supreme Court ruling. An important point to remember, is that the Supreme Court rulings must be followed by all lesser courts in this country. That is why I rely almost exclusively on Supreme Court decisions. They cannot be overruled by lower courts!
For further confirmation, let's looks at another Supreme Court decision.
So the 16th Amendment did not confer any new power to Congress, but simply reestablished and clarified the fact that income taxes belong in the category of indirect taxes. The income tax was not a new tax, but was a power possessed by Congress from the beginning. It just had to be levied as an indirect excise tax. It is the "without apportionment" wording of the 16th Amendment that keeps the income tax in the class of indirect taxes. It is also these words that create the confusion. The income tax is only entitled to be enforced as an excise; (a tax on privileged taxable activities.)
So, is the IRS collecting tax illegally? No. It is collecting it legally because you have been tricked into giving up your inalienable rights for a privilege. More on this later
http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap5.html
The 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court says, was suppose to clarify the limitation on the taxing power. It apparently didn't, so the Supreme Court is. Mr. Brushaber was arguing that the income tax was a 'direct' tax, and therefore unconstitutional because not apportioned. The court was correcting his erroneous contentions. We continue with the court clarification in this Brushaber case:
The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax, although it is relieved from apportionment, and is necessarily therefore, not subject to the rule of uniformity, as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is wholly without foundation..." Brushaber at page 18
Continuing: " The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income, was in its nature, an excise, entitled to be enforced as such..." pg 16-17
There it is! The 16th Amendment left the income tax as an indirect excise tax and is to be enforced as such. It is a tax on corporate incomes not requiring the tax to be apportioned! On privileges! This is not my opinion, but a Supreme Court ruling. An important point to remember, is that the Supreme Court rulings must be followed by all lesser courts in this country. That is why I rely almost exclusively on Supreme Court decisions. They cannot be overruled by lower courts!
For further confirmation, let's looks at another Supreme Court decision.
Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103, at 112 (1916) "By the previous ruling, it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation, possessed by Congress, from the beginning, from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged..."
So the 16th Amendment did not confer any new power to Congress, but simply reestablished and clarified the fact that income taxes belong in the category of indirect taxes. The income tax was not a new tax, but was a power possessed by Congress from the beginning. It just had to be levied as an indirect excise tax. It is the "without apportionment" wording of the 16th Amendment that keeps the income tax in the class of indirect taxes. It is also these words that create the confusion. The income tax is only entitled to be enforced as an excise; (a tax on privileged taxable activities.)
So, is the IRS collecting tax illegally? No. It is collecting it legally because you have been tricked into giving up your inalienable rights for a privilege. More on this later
Barry Hussein's Continued Attacks On Israel
Thanks to Jihad Watch for this. Barry Hussein has left no doubt that he is anti Israel, and no friend to Jews. Jimmy Boy Carter must tear up when he hears Barry's hateful words towards Jews and Israel.
At the Arab League summit last week, Abbas said to the Arab states: "If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it."
And now this (thanks to Ken).
Just after Abbas calls on Arab states to war against Israel, Obama calls him and expresses "strong support" for his "commitment to peace"
At the Arab League summit last week, Abbas said to the Arab states: "If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it."
And now this (thanks to Ken).
The White HouseOffice of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 09, 2010
Readout of the President's Call with President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority
The President spoke with Palestinian Authority President Abbas today. The President expressed strong support for President Abbas's leadership on behalf of the Palestinian people and his commitment to peace. The President noted the positive momentum generated by the recent improvements on the ground in Gaza and in the West Bank, the restraint shown by both sides in recent months, and progress in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian proximity talks. He and President Abbas reviewed ways to advance to direct talks in the near term, in order to reach an agreement that ends the conflict, and establishes an independent and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel. The President noted that Special Envoy Mitchell would travel to the region soon and meet with President Abbas to build on this momentum to advance our common goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)