Tuesday, January 17, 2012

"Zero" Income Tax? Ron Goes Further Off the Edge

Ron Paul now wants a "zero" income tax.

Cute rhetoric. 

That goes along with his "yes/no" on taking out Bin Laden and his anti-gun votes--not to mention his profligate earmarking (which is paid for by.......yup.......income taxes.)

OK, Ron.  Whatever.


J. Strup said...

Doubling down on crazy keeps his cult entertained.

Anonymous said...

This one is pretty good, go to the link...


Anonymous said...

I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but in this particular case, his assertion that we don't need an income tax is absolutely correct. The fact is that prior to 1913 we didn't have an income tax, and if you look at the numbers, present day income tax accounts for less than 50% of Federal receipts. If we can cut the budget by the numbers Paul is indicating (not saying we can, but it is possible), then we could absolutely eliminate the income tax.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dad29 said...

I have no problem with imposts and tariffs being increased.

But those budget reductions simply will not happen, at least in the next 5-10 years.

He's talking just like the other Utopians.

Saint Revolution said...

It seems no secret that Santorum is Dad29's "man".

...and for many many good reasons. Santorum works well for what WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE need...now and for the future.

The two best GOPers are Paul and Santorum. It IS a tough choice.

Once again, however, let us explain the REAL story of Ron Paul...not the twisted concoction.

The UNRATIFIED UNAPPORTIONED income tax was, has been, and is illegal back to its inception.

It is simply theft from WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...forced oppression born to pay the "debt" to the freemason fed for the "privilege" of using their "backed-by-absolutely-nothing" fiat illegal tender.

IRS employe have quit because they cannot find nor get an answer from superiors RE: answering countless telephone inquiries from WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE RE: where is the ratified income tax law? NOT the income tax law...the RATIFICATION of the income tax law.

There is no ratified law. There is nothing to find. It doesn't exist. The law was never ratified. The income tax is an illegal "dupe" on WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

How is it that the fine for using non-ratification as a defense in tax litigation is levied at $25,000...jacked up from $5,000 over the course of only one year?

How is it there is a fine at all...in WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S "day in court" in the courts that WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE own run by the civil employe WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE own?

Can you say tax oppression, legal stifling, and corruptive use of public office?

How is it that Ron Paul's policies continue to be completely misinterpreted?

There is no long view in political theatre. Ron Paul's stances on mostly everything are simply ideals that have been around for decades that either no one was listening to or most remained blissfully ignorant of.

Ron Paul's stances are nothing new.

They're just new to the, up til now, PaulBot-ignorant.

Paul is right.

Get rid of the fed.

Get rid of the incoome tax.

Give America back to its citizenry.

Some say the reality of this is impossible..."things have come too far".

If you don't want your complete US citizenry AND want to fight for such...if you accept the bullshit that's been fed for decades to WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE by the freemason one-world-order present US government circumstance...then you deserve everything you get and already have...a completely broken government self-serving to its own bourgeoisie at the expense of the proletariat.

Reality is only the ideaology you decide.

Americans are a bunch of apathetic robotic automatons accepting of whatever is "fed" to them.



Fight for your true freedoms.

Stop being a robot.

Danger, Will Robinson.

Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.

Jim said...

The UNRATIFIED UNAPPORTIONED income tax was, has been, and is illegal back to its inception.

Guess you never heard of the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

neomom said...

There is a growing movement for the repeal of the 16th amendment and to repeal the income (production) tax with a consumption tax.

Saint Revolution said...

TO: Jim:

The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified both by the proper NUMBER of States and ratified properly WITHIN each and every State's legislative voting body to be able to aggregate ratify at the federal level.

Guess YOU NEVER READ the HISTORY of The 16th Amendment to The US Constitution:
The Law That Never Was, and,
How Some States Did Not Legally Ratify The 16th Amendment, and,
The 16th Amendment Was Not Ratified! The Income Tax Is Therefore Illegal, and,
Is U.S. Income Tax InValid Because Ohio Wasn't Legally A State When The 16th Amendment Was Ratified?
EXCERPT: "...but, if you're a parent, you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge...".
The, oh so lovely, "I'm government and you're not so do what I say because I'm above the law and you're not" argument...,
Defects In Ratification Of The 16th Amendment,
...and on...,
...and on...,
...and on...

When you STUDY this topic, you will find the sheer volume and complexity of tax code is the tax codes' own worst enemy. Proper parliamentary procedure, proper legalise, proper legal manifesting, and most every other kind of proper legal proffering all have been usurped over time by everyone from judges to politicians, from courts to the IRS.

Laws exist on HOW to legally do something...yet WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to "look the other way" when proper procedure is NOT followed and powers-that-be tell us to, "just forget about it...it's not important".

Judges cannot, yet have, thrown out resistance cases to The 16th Amendment that have PROVEN, either through legal logic OR proving technicalities blundering, the falsehood of the ratification of The 16th Amendment.

"Spoon-feed" enough bullshit through the ages and the people will actually start to believe it.

There is an "judiciary and legislative incestuous wall" with and within all goverment employe...from janitors to judges, from police to politicians...that, they think anyways, puts them "above the law".

At the end of all legal decision-making, in direct conflict of interest, the tax code AND its "overseeers", the SCOTUS, are all part of the same "family"...government. Yeah...you're gonna find unbiased justice there...as well as great competence and experience...like Kagan.

The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.

When STUDIED further, you find arguments against this fall into categories such as:
"don't sweat the small stuff", or,
"don't worry about it", or,
"don't tell us what to do...we're government", or,
that kind of ilk.

Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.

Saint Revolution said...

"If you...examined [The 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of States never ratified that Amendment.".
-- U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, 2003

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as The State can shield THE PEOPLE from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for The State to use all of its powers to repress dissent...for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie and thus, by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of The State.”. --Joseph Goebbels

Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.

Anonymous said...

Was the Sixteenth Amendment ever ratified? Yes. Was it ratified properly? From the information the links provide, apparently no.

Regardless, in the REAL world, nothing will ever happen regarding this issue. So we can stomp our feet and hold our breath all we want!

Besides, the question of fraud involved in the ratification of the 16th Amendment would seem to be a POLITICAL issue, not a LEGAL issue. Congress and/or the states, NOT the Supreme Court, appears to be the proper venue to address this issue. I have a better chance of being hit by an asteroid than having members of Congress take on this responsibility. Yes, let's overthrow our government entirely and start anew. St. Revolution can be our leader in the New World Order. Hip, hip, hooray!

It was explained that the amendment as written by Congress is dissimilar compared to the amendment passed by numerous states. These versions were rife with grammatical errors, words moved and changed, etc.

Yet, the changes noted do NOT change the meaning of the amendment! Moreover, the 14th and 15th Amendments would also be called into question if this challenge to its legitimacywas upheld. That is, these two amendments also underwent a “sloppy” process.

Here is how the Secretary of State attempted to address these issues in 1913 regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment.


Imagine the chaos and controversy if, magically, St. Revolution's dream came to life. Poof! The 16th Amendment is gone! But I live in the REAL WORLD.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to tax. So it did NOT take an amendment to entitle Congress to impose an income tax. An 1895 Supreme Court decision stated that a tax on income derived from property that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The 16th Amendment removed that barrier. However, it can be argued that the types of taxes imposed by Congress must be directly related to the intent of the Framers.

Now, it can be argued that an income tax would have been an affront to the Founding Fathers. However, the courts have made it clear that the federal government may lay and collect income taxes.


And there are these cases, which to St. Revolution are tantamount to treason.

Field v. Clark (1892)
Leser v. Garnett (1922)
Coleman v. Miller (1939)
United States v. Foster (1986)
U.S. v. Thomas (1986)

Must be a conspiracy! And, of course, poor Mr. William Benson is being persecuted by the federal government for uncovering the “truth”!


Jim said...

Thanks Saint for providing a reason to look up and learn a few things (even if Wikipedia is dark). Among the things I learned:

Ohio wasn't technically a state when they ratified the 16th amendment, but it was basically a clerical error and Congress declared their statehood in the 1950s retroactively.

Apparently each and every state could have "written" the amendment as a copy of a chapter of the Iliad. It wouldn't have mattered. The states pass a resolution to adopt the congressional amendment. That's the verbiage that counts.

Judge Fox's 2003 quote is not a law or a decision to overthrow the amendment. It is an anecdote in a case in which he decided that "I think it's fair to say that it is part of the constitution of the United States and I don't think any court would ever set it aside."

If you try to not pay your taxes by claiming that the 16th Amendment is invalid, you will go to jail.

jakk said...

"anti-gun votes"
Don't listen to this blogger. He obviously has no idea what Ron's ideology is.
Read it for yourself:

Anonymous said...

This is off topic, but have you read this one?
I find it encouraging.

......Zhao first gained attention for arguing that China’s economy would benefit from the spread of Christianity. In 2002, he published a paper titled “Market Economies With Churches and Market Economies Without Churches”, which argued that the key to America’s commercial success was its churches..........


Saint Revolution said...

TO: Anonymous 1/18/2012 8:21 PM:
TO: Jim:


It is exactly that kind of apathetic citizenry "interpretation" that allows corrupt government to continue to flourish in corrupt government's complete nefariousness.

If I "meant to" but failed to pay the cashier before I drove off with the new car, it wouldn't matter...I would be guilty of grand theft.

You cannot be half pregnant. Legislative procedure relative to lawmaking is completely explicit.

A law not ratified properly is not ratified at all. There is no, "ratified...but not ratified properly". There is no separating the two. A law is either properly ratified or it is not a law.

Everything is the REAL world. Anonymous...you write a nonsensical statement. The government is wrong and corrupt RE: the income tax. There are no multiple "worlds". This is not Night Gallery nor Star Trek!

Fraud, by definition, is a legal issue. The word fraud is a legal term. There is no "politicking" a law into existence. Fraud is addressed criminally...not legislatively.

Yes, it IS Congress' RESPONSIBILITY to properly re-address this issue...it is the apathetic ignorant American public that hinders due responsibility.

14, 15, 16...if they are all illegitimate, they are all illegitimate. Where does the "look the other way" end? If there is no solidarity of legislative practice relative to lawmaking, how can we call America "a nation of laws"? What does any law or any legislative process matter if they all can be usurped by lazy, sloppy, erroneous, and corrupt proceduring?

All taxes were supposed to be only APPORTIONED taxes, i.e., assigned to something before levied. The illegal unconstitutional 16th granted Congress and government "a license to steal" and "throw it all" in a "bottomless pit" of money from which unapportioned financial delegations could be "stripped" without purpose nor merit...and, thus, fast forward to the spending catastrophe of today's completely corrupt governement...all based on no accountability born from unapportioned spending.

The 16th Amendment cannot change apportioned to unapportioned if, endemically, the 16th is illegal. Anonymous, you argument holds no logical flow here.

"...however, it can be argued that the types of taxes imposed by Congress must be directly related to the intent of the Framers...now, it can be argued that an income tax would have been an affront to the Founding Fathers..."

...these are very ponderous interesting statements for a separate discussion...very interesting angles, nonetheless.

Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.

Saint Revolution said...

TO: Anonymous 1/18/2012 8:21 PM:
TO: Jim:


There is no MEANING of the law...there's only properly executed legislation or there is not.

Why is it that, if I am stopped for speeding, I'm held accountable. If a cop gets stopped for speeding, it's a great story around the Monday morning water cooler.

WE THE PEOPLE are held to task according to the letter of the law. However, the legislature can "slop" something through the process and we are supposed to accept the MEANING of the law?!


The 16th Amendment, no matter how considered, was NEVER ratified bcause it was never ratified properly. The courts won't accept arguments RE: this for two reasons: the loss of illegal tax revenue and the fact that the courts are in direct conflict of interest to representing WE THE PEOPLE RE: this topic in that the courts and the government CANNOT be allowed nor trusted to properly police themselves...this is historically evidentiarily accurate.

Ron Paul will continue to work towards a 0% income tax simply because it has been an illegal imposition "scammed" upon WE THE PEOPLE for a century now.

Although the research links are appreciated, Anonymous and Jim, you are both wrong in your interpretations.

I am surprised anyone would defend the income tax. It's your wallet, too.

No matter which way it is dissected, the 16th is completely illegal...constitutionally and legislatively. It is Congress' responsibility to legislate properly...or not at all. Another example of a completely corrupt government way out of control.

Field v. Clark (1892):
I fail to see what nondelegation RE: separation of powers of government has to do with this.

Leser v. Garnett (1922):
again, an instance of a decision handed down by an incestuous SCOTUS in the position of direct conflict of interest. SCOTUS, by its position within the hierarchy of government, cannot be unbiased and, thus, cannot render fairly.

Coleman v. Miller (1939):
why would I be averse to States exercising their sovereign rights to take as long as they deem necessary to address anything imposed on them from the feds?!...even if this means decades of pending pondering...?! As long as the feds aren't screwing it up autocratically....

United States v. Foster (1986):
you're right here...in my view, Foster was fucked over.

U.S. v. Thomas (1986):
here, again, you are correct...I am on the side of Thomas.

RE: Benson:
I simply do not have the time to study the case.

However, the income tax is an illegal unapportioned unratified unconstitutional tax.

Enough said...for the thousandth time...already.

Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.

Anonymous said...

Arguments that run counter to St. Revolution’s claims.


Summary--The allegations surrounding the controversy in the ratification process were brought forth in 1913. The State Department provided a detailed explanation why the text variations found in the state legislatures’ version of the 16th Amendment should be disregarded. The applicable precendent--one used repeatedly by Congress--is that when a state legislature votes to ratify a proposed amendment to the Constitution, textual errors of the amendment in a state’s ratification process are to be disregarded. Similar textual problems had occurred in the state ratifications of other amendments, chiefly, the 14th and 15th Amendments. The INTENT of the state legislatures was to RATIFY the amendment as proposed by Congress. Therefore, this process, by itself, is not fraudulent and not a LEGAL matter. To review the process, a POLITICAL investigation is conducted if there are any challenges made after the fact to this process.

The courts, historically, are NOT designated to question whether the process was compromised, i.e. they will not inquire whether the House, Senate, or state legislatures voted on the proper text. Refered to as the “enrolled bill rule”, the Supreme Court has held that when the Secretary of State certifies that a constitutional amendment has been ratified, No court has the authority to determine whether or not the amendment was ratified. Whatever may have been the issues surrounding the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled it has NO authority to question that process because it falls under the juridiction of the legislative branch AND the arguments proferred have not met the evidentiary standards the Supreme Courts uses to overturn decisions.

Anonymous said...

So, it is exactly that kind of citizenry “revisionist history” that allows radicals who delude themselves into believing that the actors of our government have been continually conspiring against Americans for their own machinations.

Your supposition only holds true IF the state legislatures willfuly conspired, either individually or collectively, to evade the process governing how amendments are ratified. The federal government had addressed the controversy surrounding that process in 1913. The courts have ruled repeatedly since that time that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. That is, the justice system has ruled definitively on this matter that no “fraud” was committed. You scoff at their legal analysis by labeling these “decisions handed down by an incestuous SCOTUS in the position of direct conflict of interest”.

So, genius, ASSUME that a “fraud” was perpetrated against WE THE PEOPLE, that the state legislatures conspired to properly follow their own guidelines regarding the ratification process. Effective immediately, the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments are null and void. Who had made that determination that these amendments are “cast aside”? Under what jurisdiction? Under what precedent? What about the numerous court cases that derived out of these amendments? Are these past decisions “thrown out the window”? What ramifications or consequences would result?

You see, it is so easy to for you to yeel at the top of your lungs claiming that this conspiracy is valid, that this “fraud” was perpetrated and is now exposed, that WE THE PEOPLE must now demand justice. Have you even considered the aforementioned, monumental questions that would arise IF your allegations are true? Blame the “apathetic, ignorant American public”” all you want, but IF this came to fruition, we would have complete, utter anarchy, and the United States of America would cease to exist. Apparently, that is acceptable in your book. Well, fella, it AIN’T gonna happen! Get back into the REAL WORLD.

“Each year some misguided souls refuse to pay their federal income tax liability on the theory that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, or on the theory that the 16th Amendment lacks an enabling clause. Not surprisingly, neither the IRS nor the courts have exhibited much patience for that sort of thing. If, strictly for the purposes of this discussion, the 16th Amendment could be disregarded, the taxpayers making those frivolous claims would still be subject to the income tax. In the first place, income from personal services is taxable without apportionment in the absence of the 16th Amendment. Pollock specifically endorsed Springer's holding that such income could be taxed without apportionment. The second Pollock decision invalidated the entire 1894 income tax act, including its tax on personal services income, due to inseverability; but, unlike the 1894 act, the current code contains a severability provision. Also, given the teaching of Graves [v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 (1939)] -- that the theory that taxing income from a particular source is, in effect, taxing the source itself is untenable -- the holding in Pollock that taxing income from property is the same thing as taxing the property as such cannot be viewed as good law.”

Alan O. Dixler

Jim said...

Saint: Since you believe that you have justified not paying your taxes, I suggest you NOT pay your taxes. Better yet, sue the IRS.

Let us know how that goes.

Anonymous said...

Who cares whether or not the 16th Amendment was properly ratified? Regardless, most Americans are illegally forced to pay income tax, even if the income tax law is legitimate. How so? The Constitution recognizes only gold and silver as legitimate, legal tender with which to pay debts and perform commerce. Most people are paid with paper, fiat currency. As this is not constitutionally recognized as legal tender, technically, it can not legally be considered income. If you have no legal, constitutional income, you can not legally be made to pay an income tax. Likewise, as the Constitution states that government debts can only be paid in gold or silver (or, presumably paper or coin backed by these commodities), you can not legally, constitutionally pay income tax, or any tax for that matter, with fiat currency. Therefore, not only is it illegal to require income tax be paid by most Americans, it is illegal for most Americans to pay income tax.