George W. Bush

---

No. As I said, the Supreme Court is not irrelevant. Any ruling on the subject of not having to pay income tax that entered the federal court system (as it would have to), and that was decided in favor of the defendant, would certainly be appealed by the executive branch to the Supreme Court. There certainly have been cases decided in favor of people who claim certain exemptions, for instance, or that certain organizations shouldn't have to pay taxes. But state court rulings on matters of federal taxation are irrelevant to whether the federal government can compel people to pay income tax.I'm not aware of anyone winning a case where the Supreme Court ruled that they didn't have to pay income tax in general. As far as I know, each of these people has wound up in federal prison. If you can find me a case where the Supreme Court has ruled that, yes, the income tax is illegal and you don't have to pay, I'd like to know. Frankly, I'd rather give the money to the charity of my choice, rather that to be spent by the folks who've been speniding it for the past six years far more rapidly than I can send it.

"Don't believe unsupported outrageous claims just because they fall into line with your pplitical beliefs."Nor I yours.

In reply to: No. As I said, the Supreme Court is not irrelevant. I didn't say that the Supreme Court was irrelevant, nor did I say that you did. I was quoting the dictation of the Schiff case. The judge did not allow Schiff to quote the Supreme Court as part of his defense, and it is now common place in the lower courts, especially in tax related cases."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, 2003The Federal Reserve is a private bank, not a government agency. The Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve System is chosen by the president from a list that is prepared by the bankers themselves.The Federal Reserve Act was passed without the required Constitutional Amendment. It was done during Christmas vacation, when many senators were at home celebrating the holidays with their families.Government gave bankers one of its most important powers, the power to print their own money and now had to borrow money from them and pay interest to finance the government. Income tax is used to pay the interest owed by the government to the Federal Reserve."The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency. Creating and issuing money is the supreme prerogative of the government and its greatest creative opportunity. Adopting these principles will save the taxpayers immense sums of interest and money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity." ~Abraham Lincoln"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." ~Thomas JeffersonPresident Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, later said in regret, "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominuent men." (1919)John Turner, a former IRS Agent, said he was obligated to resign after researching for over 3 months and was unable to find the statute that clearly requires the average American to file an Income tax return.Joe Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigator, presented evidence that he had accumulated that the agency was violating the law and violating people's rights. When he asked the agency for a response to his sincere concerns, the answer he got was that they would not respond to his concerns and that they would provide him with the paperwork necessary to tender his resignation.Sherry Jackson, a former IRS Agent, saw a full page ad in the USA Today on July 7, 2000 by the We The People Foundation, and within the body of the ad there was a $50,000 dollar challenge for anyone that could show the law that required people to file an Income Tax return. So she went after it and did the research because she saw this as easy money and a way to put all the rumours she had been hearing to bed, killing two birds with one stone. But based on the research that she did throughout the year 2000, and that she is still doing, she has not found that law.These are highly trained and decorated IRS agents who say that there is no law requiring American citizens to file a 1040 or to pay an income tax on their labour.On July 19, 2004 the We The People Foundation served a class action lawsuit on the IRS, signed by over 3,000 people, because the IRS has refused to show the law that makes Americans liable to file a 1040 or to pay an Income tax on their labour. On August 31, 2005 federal judge Emmet Sullivan ruled the government does not have to answer the American people's questions, even though it is guaranteed in the First Amendment.Your courts have made a decision that your government does not have to show you the law that it enforces, and the press never reported on this.When President Reagan was elected, one of the first things he did was appoint a blue ribbon panel of business people headed by Peter Grace, and is commonly referred to as the Grace Commission, and their job was to research all of the various areas of the federal government and make a report. One of the quotes from the Grace commission is "100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt. All individual Income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services tax payers expect from government." People have been brainwashed to believe that you need Income tax to fund government but this is ridiculous. If this is true, then how was the American government funded between 1776 and 1913?Many people think that if they don't pay their Income taxes then what will happen to their children's education or the road systems.Education is paid, for the most part, by state and local taxes such as your local property taxes.The tax on gasoline pays for America's highways.The amount of money spent on defense is exactly equal to the amount of Corporate Income tax, which is quite legal and constitutional.Every year you give the federal government a financial statement that, under the force of law, could put you in prison if its not impeccable. Under the law, they are supposed to do the same. They are supposed to give you back a financial statement that tells you what they did with your money. You comply, but they don't.

"Don't believe unsupported outrageous claims just because they fall into line with your pplitical beliefs."> Nor I yours.I'm not making any claims here. I'm asking you to support your conspiratorial ideas about WMDs being moved from Iraq to Syria, and its being kept a secret. I ask you to support your claim with real evidence. A list of claims is not evidence. I haven't seen any pictures of trucks moving into Syria, and if I did, for all I know, the trucks were filled with the currency Saddam looted from the Iraqi treasury -- they might be stacks of $20 bills.You seem to think that my not believing your crazy nonsense is on equal footing with your believing your crazy nonsense. It is not.

You know, that Web page I pointed to really does refute some of the anti-income-tax claims, such as the legality of the ratification of the 16th amendment. There are also sources beyond that Web page.The fact that the Supreme Court keeps saying that you have to pay your taxes is the important thing. The other branches of government could easily fix the "problem" if they wanted to, and stop levying the income tax.It's just amazing how all those smart rich people just don't get it, and keep paying their income taxes. It's funny how the tax-hating Republicans who have controled the legislative branch and executive branch for all these years haven't given us a break and pulled the plug on the IRS. You ought to lead those guys by the hand and show them the light.It's too bad about all those people who have appealed their refusal to pay taxes through the federal appeals court system and wound up in federal prison.So, how did the U.S. federal government pay for its operations before income taxes were collected? From my recollection, the idea of the income tax was to have rich people pay for a good part of the cost of the first World War.

In reply to: You know, that Web page I pointed to really does refute some of the anti-income-tax claims, such as the legality of the ratification of the 16th amendment. Sorry I overlooked those. I didn't mention the ratification issue in my original ultra-long post because I wasn't 100% certain on it, so I passed over the question in the link you gave me. In reply to: The fact that the Supreme Court keeps saying that you have to pay your taxes is the important thing. Paying taxes is very important, for example:Accounts Receivable TaxAutomotive Registration TaxBuilding Permit TaxCapital Gains TaxCDL License TaxCigarette TaxCorporate Income TaxCourt Fines (Indirect Taxes)Dog License TaxEstate TaxFederal Unemployment TaxFishing License TaxFood License TaxFuel Permit TaxGasoline TaxHunting License TaxInheritance TaxInterest Expense (Tax on the money)Inventory TaxIRS Interest Charges (Tax on top of tax)IRS Penalties (Tax on top of tax)Liqour TaxLocal Income TaxLuxury TaxesMarriage License TaxMedicare TaxParking MetersProperty TaxReal Estate TaxSeptic Permit TaxService Charge TaxesSocial Security TaxRoad Usage Taxes (Truckers)Sales TaxesRecreational Vehicle TaxRoad Toll Booth TaxesSchool TaxState Income TaxState Unemployment Tax (SUTA)Telephone Federal Excise TaxTelephone Federal, State And Local Subcharge TaxesTelephone Minimum Usage Subcharge TaxTelephone Recurring And Non-Recurring Charges TaxTelephone State And Local TaxTelephone Usage Charge TaxToll Bridge TaxesToll Tunnel TaxesTraffic FinesTrailer Registration TaxUtility TaxesVehicle License Registration TaxVehicle Sales TaxWatercraft Registration TaxWell Permit TaxWorkers Compensation TaxAfter all that, it just is not moral, nevermind legal, to be taxing wages. In reply to: So, how did the U.S. federal government pay for its operations before income taxes were collected? Well, back before 1913, the paper that you all trade for goods and services were receipts that represented the gold held by the Treasury. This limited the amount of money that could be printed thus protecting the purchasing power of your money. On old American paper currency they used to have printed on them "Redeemable In Gold Coin". But when the Federal Reserve began printing the money, the assossiation between the paper and the tangable currency was lost. If the government needs $200,000 then the Federal Reserve can just print new notes and the money is created out of thin air. But the purchasing power of the dollar has dropped enormously since then. The dollar today is actually only worth about 4 cents when compared to its value in 1930.I throw this last bit of information at the end because altho it is highly suspected, it has of yet not been proven. It is believed that the Federal Reserve currently possesses the U.S.'s gold as collateral. Whether the main collection of gold is still in Fort Knox or not is unknown, but it is believed to be under the control of the Federal Reserve.

I've never seen a non-American take such an interest in the American tax system. I'm flattered.

I don't mean to just discount what you're saying, but the thing about the federal income tax, the gold standard, communists hiding under one's bed, and that there's a grand conspiracy among all media to keep the public in the dark have been obsession of a fringe element for many years. And now there's the idea that the World Trade Center was taken down by the U.S. government (because, after all, the jet fuel on the planes couldn't melt all that steel). And then there's the Loch Ness monster...

Its a simple case of being concerned for my own future and the future of my children. There is no question that America is the most powerful nation in the world, has one of the most powerful armies in the world, has more nuclear weapons than anyone else in the world and is the only nation to have ever used one to attack an enemy. If I can do anything to help keep control of that country in the power of the people, then I'm happy to do so. Your Bill of Rights seems to mean nothing anymore, have you noticed how many Amendments are being broken by your government? (Anyone who watches Countdown with Keith Olbermann may recognise this, it gave me the idea altho I have expanded many of his points.)1st Amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Being arrested and thrown in jail without a trial and being unable to even ask why you've been arrested.2nd Amendment:A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. An example would be the confiscation of arms in New Orleans, which was illegal.3rd Amendment:No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. OK, this one seems to have been left alone. But of course there would be no reason for this to be broken, the only reason would be if there was a land based attack on American soil, and that will never happen.4th Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. A nice example of this is when General Michael Hayden held a press conference on January 23rd this year about the NSA and the legality of wire tapping and searches and seizures. I believe a quote from journalist Jonathan Landay from the press conference will show my point: "You(Hayden) used the terms just a few minutes ago, “We reasonably believe.” And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say “We reasonably believe.” You have to go to the FISA court or the Attorney General has to go to the FISA court and say, “We have probable cause.” And so what many people believe... is that what you have actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of “reasonably believe” in place of “probable cause,” because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief."5th Amendment:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.People being arrested and thrown in jail without a trial or knowing why they're there also covers this Amendment. 6th Amendment:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.Again, no trials or counsel, nevermind a speedy or public trial.7th Amendment:In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.More issues with trials that don't count if there isn't a trial.8th Amendment:Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.With Bush's new law, anyone he wants can be arrested as a terror suspect without presentation of evidence and they can be tortured, as we believe they have been in Guantanamo Bay.9th Amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.I think Keith Olbermann said this best, "If you can name them during your waterboarding, then we'll consider them."10th Amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.I am not aware of any situations dealing with the 10th Amendment, apart from an attempt to modify Oregon's 'Death With Dignity Act'. I'll quote Olbermann on this point, "Powers not deligated to the federal government? Well they seem to have ended up there anyway." If somebody has any information that they can share with me on this point, I'd be happy to hear it.

10 amendment issues: the federal government forces states to do things (like set they're speed limits to a maximum of 55 MPH, way back when) by threatening to withold funding (for things like interstate highway maintenance) if the states don't do what they're told.Some of the wrongs mentioned apply to non-citizens; there are no U.S. citizens (supposedly) in Guantanamo, and the Supreme Court has ruled that U.S. citizens cannot be deprived of due process (i.e., a trial).The main problem is that the current administration has aggregated a lot of power in the executive branch. They must think they'll be in power forever, because they're not going to be happy if Hilary Clinton or Al Gore inherits that power.Shifts in sanity have happened frequently in American history, and things always shift back to equilibrium. There are some pretty bad precedents going into effect now, though.

In reply to: They must think they'll be in power forever Well, there are possible explanations but they all are firmly rooted in conspiracy theories.I have a question for you or anyone who knows: If Bush declared Martial Law, would the presidential election still go ahead as usual?

I'm not sure what it would mean to declare martial law. If the Constitution were suspended, I suppose anything would go.It was a big deal last year, when the issue of having to delay some elections came up because of hurricane devastation. They couldn't run elections under water, though.

Just jumpimg back to the issue of iraq for a second.I was watching sky news this last week and they had a guy on that had done a study on the death toll in iraq since the war and concluded that 650000 more people have died since the war started than would have had the normal death rate continued as usual.Paints a pretty grim picture.For the ones who don't care about people dying and you know who you are just please shut it.

I don't accept that figure out-of-hand, but there is very good evidence that at least 50,000, and maybe 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the war, many of them in the most brutal manner imaginable.We know how many U.S. soldiers have been killed. What's not discussed as much is the number of lives that have been shattered by devastating injuries. Iraqis are probably mostly not surviving terrible wounds, but American soldiers are. Apparently over 20,000 American soldiers have been wounded.The irony is that many of the people responsible for sending people to their deaths (Bush and Cheney chief among them) were too cowardly to serve in a war that they supported (Vietnam). Apparently it's the job of other people to die for democracy (or whatever are actual interests were in Vietnam and are in Iraq).In the U.S., there needs to be a draft, without all of the exemptions and deferral that existed during the Vietnam War. That would have solved the problem of a draft-dodging Cheney, but a person (even an under-qualified one) from a rich and influential family might still be able to step over other people to get into a stateside unit that won't be deployed overseas. I don't know how you'd solve the Bush problem.That Bush's people were able to make an issue of Clinton's being a draft dodger was just...amazing.

There is no doubt that the country is more like a slaughter house than anything else.And it looks like the Lancet will be publishing the findings.Here is a link

[url=http://search.sky.com/search/skynews/results?QUERY=iraq+death+toll&CID=30000]

I know I'm a day late, but I've been busy. At last the Military Commissions Act of 2006 has been signed into law by George W. Bush, at last your freedom shall be protected.

I was watching Bush's speech, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. His continuous rambling about the September 11 attacks, as if he has done fuck all to bring that fella in the cave to justice. He is protecting himself and those that he has allowed to use techniques of torture that Americans prosecuted people for using in World War II. Its possibley one of the most horrific scenes that I have seen to date, claiming to save lives when he basically dismissed out of hands the number 650,000. For anyone who doesn't know, that is the estimated amount of people who have died as a result of the War on Terror.

Civillians are no dying in Iraq at the rate of about 100 per day. Many of them are horrible, torturous, execution-style murders.It Iraqis want us out of there; apparently they have no say in the matter.And now all of Bush's people are protected from legal action, no matter what they did. The law concentrates even more power in the executive branch. I don't see how it's constitutional. We might as well just shut down Congress.It didn't take much to get John McCain to cave in and go along with the bill. He's now in his political animal stage, getting ready to run for president. He's no different from all the others.

I love how he has suddenly turned around and blamed N.Korea on Clinton.

Everything is Clinton's fault. It rained last Saturday? Clintion's fault.From Oct. 11...In reply to:Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo rebuts the charge, repeated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, that the Clinton administration policy in North Korea was a failure. He writes: [L]et’s review the salient facts one more time. “Failure” =1994-2002 — Era of Clinton ‘Agreed Framework’: No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb. “Success” = 2002-2006 — Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated. Face it. They ditched an imperfect but working policy. They replaced it with nothing. Now North Korea is a nuclear state.I don't understand the rationale of not having one-on-one talks with North Korea. What the hell does the U.S. have to lose by doing it? Are Bush and Rice completely nuts?

The same is going on in just about every country in the world, Steve...only it doesn't get the same liberal spin.As for your list of amendments, bob, I will remind all that they apply to people in the US under peace-time. Inferring otherwise is tantamount to lying.

The same what is going on in the rest of the world? The trend toward dictatorship? The trend toward dismissing civil liberties, because they're in the way of our safety?Seriously, give the liberal spin conspiracy nonsense a rest. If you have specifics, then present them. Do you get your "unspun" news from Fox News, the Boston Herald, amd talk radio?Bush certainly did get a free ride for a while after 9/11, which he cynically used to push through lesgislation that would not have had much of a chance of passing before that even. I'm talking about things that didn't have anything to do with national securty.On another subject, since the president is an evangelical Christian, can you explain the connection between evangelical Christian beliefs (and other strong religious beliefs), and the tendency toward being judgmental and rigid? The president has some fixed ideas that no amount of evidence will affect. What causes this? (You asked in another thread why people argue about religious belief. I've just given you one reason. There are many others. The people in the majority tend to be oblivious to the issues, though.)