Free Dating Site    

How exactly does that relate to my response to the other poster?

Uh, actually, he failed... See below.

US vs Jones

If you should ever actually listen to Ron Paul I think you will find he knows more about the constitution than you do

has upheld his beliefs for the last 20 years or so he has been in congress

The courts have consistently ruled that the argument that Section 861 excludes income of U.S. citizens and resident aliens from taxation is without legal merit. See Aiello v. Commissioner;[94] Williams v. Commissioner;[95] and United States v. Bell.[96]

Many Appeals Courts have made blanket statements repudiating tax protester arguments. For example, see the Seventh Circuit case of United States v. Buckner[23]:

For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered “objectively reasonable” in this circuit:
(1) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being;
(2) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional generally;
(3) the belief that the income tax violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment;
(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional;
(5) the belief that wages are not income and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;
(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and
(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income.

You don't really have any idea how much I know about the Constitution, so this statement is entirely irrelevant.

Are you aware of the fact that you no longer have a consitution?

As the Club for Growth describes here, Ron Paul has opposed virtually all free trade agreements. Few ideas are more fundamental to libertarianism than free trade. As the Club has documented, Paul also has opposed school voucher programs.

Perhaps worst of all, Paul has bought into the conservative nativist line on immigration. He not only favors a massive crackdown on illegal immigration but even seems to endorse the view that immigration should be “reduced, not expanded” whether legal or not. To my mind, the freedom to choose where you live and the right to move to a freer and more prosperous society are among the most important of all libertarian principles. From a libertarian perspective, our relative openness to immigration is one of the most admirable aspects of America.

Lastly, like David Bernstein, I am troubled by Paul’s refusal to repudiate the Stormfront neo-Nazis, racists, 9/11 “Truthers,” and other assorted wackos who have endorsed him. Paul is not responsible for the views of these people, and I do not believe that he personally agrees with them. However, his apparent unwillingness to distance himself from them suggests that he is insensitive to the despicable nature of their views, and the significant damage that association with them could do not only to his campaign, but to libertarian causes more generally.

Left-libertarian Ron Chusid is dismissive of the idea that Ron Paul is a libertarian at all: “Confusing Paul’s social conservativism with libertarianism reinforces the view that libertarians are just Republicans who have tried marijuana.”

Wake up to the well-documented truth! Some bills Ron Paul has authored: Anti-abortion, anti-flag burning, pro-electoral college, no funding for Iranian students, wants to withdraw America from the U.N. completely. Plus the usual Gold Standard crazy, AND he's in the pocket of the shrimping industry.

Paul markets himself as an ideologically pure libertarian—a capital “L” libertarian of the sort that people who refuse to carry driver’s licenses or pay federal income taxes can admire. So committed to a strict interpretation of the constitution, he’s something of a caricature in a Congress full of big-spenders, earning the title “Dr. No” for voting against each and every federal spending bill. He supports unfettered free trade and a non-interventionist foreign policy. He supports the abolition of a variety of cabinet-level federal agencies. But, in actuality, Paul is a selective libertarian. On the issue of gay rights—a cause that intellectually consistent libertarians ought to support – Paul is no better than his socially conservative primary opponents like Sam Brownback or Tom Tancredo.

In the June 5th Republican primary debate in New Hampshire, a member of the audience asked the candidates if they supported lifting the military’s ban on open homosexuals serving in the military. After all, our allies Great Britain and Israel allow gays to serve openly. The disastrous policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which has led to the expulsion of thousands of gay soldiers (not to mention about 60 sorely needed Arab linguists), is not only discriminatory but weakens the country’s national defense. From a libertarian perspective, any policy that treats two individuals unequally, as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” does, is in the wrong.

The response from Paul was quite stunning: “I think the current policy is a decent policy,” he said. Why? “If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with,” Paul continued. No one can argue with this contention, after all, the Uniform Code of Military Conduct bans sexual relations between service members, of either sex. Paul recognized this fact and continued his answer by qualifying: “But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.”

But “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” is an issue of homosexuality, a painfully obvious one at that. It would be nice, as Paul himself expressed, if people in this country viewed gays as individuals rather than as one monolithic group (and, in some sense, it would be nice if gay activists did the same), but gays are discriminated against as a class of people. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” does not even discriminate against gay sexual conduct, it discriminates against gay individuals who identify themselves as such. A gay male soldier who merely mentions a boyfriend back home could face discharge from the service. This is a double standard and yet another example of how gays are not equal before the law.

In response to many requests, not only from Americans, The Political Compass™ has charted the most prominent names in the 2008 US Primaries. They have been evaluated through scrutiny of public statements, manifestos, interviews and, crucially, voting records. Our apologies for those not included.

It is important to recognise that The Political Compass™ is a continuum rather than consisting of hard and fast quadrants. For example, Ron Paul on the social scale is actually closer to Dennis Kucinich than to many figures within his own party. But on the economic scale, they are, of course, far apart.

When examining the chart it is important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a moderate conservative.

Now you live under a government as slaves. They covered all the bases and noone batted an eye to it. It's the old bait an switch.They had you looking the other way and pulled the rug right out from under you. I still can't understand how they fooled so many people into going to fight in a country that didn't do anything? I guesss they just count on your gullibility.

what is your obsession with gays in the Military

I really didnt know much about him

Okay so night owl am i to assume that you are gay ?

it'snot biologically sensable

: US vs Jones..................................Source?

NOT ONE SINGLE CASE AGAINST PAYING INCOME TAX HAS EVER SUCCESSFULLY BEEN ARGUED IN THE UNITED STATES.

This story appeared in the "Independence Newspaper" Jan. 1994
(257 Ringwood Drive, Winter Springs Florida 32708).

In a blatant example of governmental corruption, and in direct violation of the People's Right to freedom of Speech, the federal government issued a "gag order" on this case. However, as Lila Buchanan, the publisher of the Independence Newspaper stated, "fortunately a transcript of the trial was whisked out of the Courtroom prior to the gag order!" We the People have a complete copy of this transcript available.

Here is one

Why does it not surprise me that another Canadian is talking bad about the United States of America?

Why do you people give a crap about what goes on here?

The next several years are going to get REALLY bad in the US

Fox News has decided to exclude Ron Paul from the January 6, 2008 Republican candidates forum in New Hampshire. Even though he is polling higher than many others they have invited.


You know.... there is something that smells here.

NOT ONE SINGLE CASE AGAINST PAYING INCOME TAX HAS EVER SUCCESSFULLY BEEN ARGUED IN THE UNITED STATES

Read the sources I have already provided. I didn't make this sh|t up...

here are Thousands every year,..that realize, that we, as American Citizens,...are not required to pay taxes,..and refuse to do so

Arguments for tax resistance
There are a variety of arguments made for tax resistance. Some of the arguments are as follows:

The government has no legitimate claim to the fruits of one’s labor and so taxation is tantamount to theft or slavery.

The government engages in immoral, unethical and destructive activities, such as war or capital punishment, and paying taxes inevitably funds these activities.

The government is non-legitimate i.e. the rulers did not come to power in a legitimate manner.

The government regime in power is corrupt, serving mainly their own needs and wants.

The size and scope of government has reached levels far beyond that required of the state.

The wealthy, or those in power, do not pay their "fair share."

The government is inefficient and wasteful, providing inadequate return on the tax collected.

The destitute should be helped through voluntary giving and charities, not funds obtained from compulsory taxation.

Individuals who chose to take nothing out of the government system (no state pension, healthcare or police protection, for example) need not pay into the system.

Some taxpayers are non-citizens and are therefore subject to taxation without having a voice in the government.

Arguments against tax resistance;

Many arguments can be made against the tactic of tax resistance.
Most basic, of course, is from those who support the entity collecting the tax and feel that other people should as well.
But even those who are sympathetic with the tax resister’s complaints may question the methods.

Some common arguments against tax resistance are:
In a majoritarian democracy, if everyone funded only those decisions with which they agree, the government would be undermined.
If taxes are left unpaid, the government will take the money from someone else, which is unfair to them.
Individuals who evade taxes are free riders, benefiting from government services like road infrastructure and security without paying their share of the bill.
Tax resistance is too passive and ineffective a way to gain political change.

As of 2006, a third of those Americans who file tax returns and 41% of all Americans, pay no federal income tax.


[4] If the U.S. government can thrive with so many people avoiding the income tax, it would require an unlikely number of tax resisters to have any effect, either as a protest or as an actual curb on government policy.

The government responds to tax resisters by assessing fines, interest, and/or penalties against them, which may mean they end up with more money in the end

Inside the Tax Honesty Movement: An Interview with Dave Champion
http://www.originalintent.org/commentaries/insidethetaxmovement.pdf

BR: What is your view regarding how the U.S. tax law is being administrated?
DC: The U.S. tax law is not being applied and administrated honestly and in accordance with the written law.
That reality is not a matter of opinion or wishful thinking; it is as real as our salvation through Christ.
The evidence is irrefutable and the government has consistently refused to send representatives to debate legal researchers about what the law really says, versus how the laws are being enforced.

Of course I understand the government's position
completely; if I was defrauding millions of American citizens to the tune of hundreds of billion dollars a year, I'd be wary of attending a debate too.

There are quite a few organizations that have standing offers to pay tens of thousands of dollars to anyone who can bring forth the law that makes the average Americans liable for income tax.

BR: You said that most Americans are taxpayers simply because they do not know what the laws really say.
In your view, what does tax law really say?

DC: At more than 7,000 pages, the Internal Revenue Code is too lengthy to dissect during this interview, but I'll give you a few poignant and shocking realities of the tax code and its regulations. If your readers want to verify the
information, they can go to Original Intent's website or they can contact me at Nontaxpayer.org.

1. The exchange of labor for compensation in the private sector, in a state of the Union, in an occupation of common right, is not now, nor has it ever been, subject to any form of income or employment tax.

2. There is no provision within the Internal Revenue Code that requires payroll withholding from workers in the private sector.
The Form W-4, which most companies force their workers to sign, is not intended to be executed by private-sector workers, but only by government workers.

3. There is no requirement in law for a private sector firm to acquire an Employer Identification Number (EIN).

4. Private companies that don't engage in payroll withholding are not required to file Forms 940 or 941.

5. An SSN/EIN/TIN is not required to open a bank account if the party opening the account is a nontaxpayer.

6. Form 1099 is not required for every payment over $600.00, but only for those payments made in connection with transactions for which the payer has received a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).

7. There is no provision in law that requires an American citizen to provide a SSN/EIN/TIN for a privatesector domestic financial transaction.

BR: Wasn't there a Congressional hearing scheduled a few years ago to get troubling tax law questions answer? Whatever came of that?

DC: You're right. In 2001 the IRS and the Department of Justice had signed a document agreeing to appear onCapital Hill and answer 299 questions put forth by the Tax Honesty Movement.
This was brought about by the efforts of We The People Foundation and Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD).

I can only assume that the IRS and DOJ attorneys believed their own propaganda and figured that everyone in the Movement was inbred and illiterate.
Their only requirement was that they received copies of the questions at least two weeks before the hearing.
Their request was honored and 299 questions were presented to them two weeks before the scheduled hearing.
Shortly thereafter the DOJ and IRS pulled out of the hearing and have never been willing to answer the 299 questions.

We The People Foundation had arranged to have the hearing aired over the internet, via Webcast, which would allow anyone with Internet access to view the hearings for a nominal fee—sort of like "pay per view."
This would have allowed millions of Americans to see the hearings live while the government attorneys made mincemeat out of the Tax Honesty advocates.

But alas, apparently not, because after the government attorneys reviewed the 299 questions, they decided that they would not attend the hearing.

What would cause the government to forego such a wonderful opportunity to publicly
humiliate and destroy a growing opposition?

I think the answer is obvious—once the government reviewed the questions,
they realized that their goose was cooked.

It would not be the Tax Honesty Movement who would suffer a crushing defeat,
but the government itself.

A few Links, for more readeing

http://www.originalintent.org
http://www.nontaxpayer.org
http://www.taxableincome.net
http://www.givemeliberty.org

Legality-of -Income-Tax
http://www.givemeliberty.org/projects.htm

Can you name any of these losses of freedom? I would like to hear some of them? ~ MaxxRonin

Do you ever get tired of trying to talk to people? Maybe it's just better to stick your head in the sand. It's warm and it blocks out all the noise. I'm seriously getting to the point where it just seems futile . . . ~ triple threat

16th Amendment - The Sixteenth Amendment Bill Benson Litigation

In 1894 Congress passed an income tax act very similar to the current income tax law. That law was challenged on the basis that a tax on income is a direct tax, the United States Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned, and the act passed by Congress was not apportioned. The United States Supreme Court agreed and held the income tax act was unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895).

In 1909 President Taft called a special session of Congress. Taft asked Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to overcome the Supreme Court's Pollock decision. Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment, which was then sent to the states for ratification by Secretary of State Knox. Certificates of Ratification were sent back to Knox, but the language on the certificates differed from the 16th Amendment language passed by Congress. Knox sent the certificates to the Solicitor of the United States and asked for a legal opinion as to whether the states had ratified the proposed Sixteenth Amendment.

The Solicitor noted the differences between what Congress proposed and the states ratified, and presumed, that because states do not have the authority to alter a proposed Constitutional amendment, that none did. He concluded, therefore, that the differences in language were nothing more than minor clerical errors in the preparation of the Certificates of Ratification. Knox then declared the 16th Amendment had been ratified.

The legislative journals conclusively establish, that despite not having the power to do so, several states intentionally modified the language of the proposed amendment. The presumption relied upon by the Solicitor was wrong! Benson discovered other discrepancies too. He wrote and published a book on what he discovered, The Law That Never Was, available on his web site at www.TheLawThatNeverWas.com. Benson contends that less than thirty-six states actually ratified the proposed Sixteenth Amendment.

In the absence of the 16th Amendment, the current income tax is an unapportioned direct tax, and is just as unconstitutional today as it was in 1894. Since 1985 Benson tells everyone who will listen about what he found, and urges people to exercise their First Amendment rights to rectify the situation. Benson's message is gaining acceptance in the marketplace of ideas. The Government now seeks to silence him.

Many people ask why, if the 16th Amendment created no new taxing power, as stated by the Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), it is necessary to litigate whether the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified?

The decision wasn't unanimous. The court was split five to four. Those in the minority believed a tax on income was not a direct tax, but an indirect, excise tax. One of the dissenters was associate justice White. Notwithstanding the decision was split five to four, the result was that the constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned was upheld. To overcome the holding of Pollock, Congress proposed the 16th Amendment. It was allegedly ratified in 1913.

The issues in Bill Benson's case, however, transcend whether or not the 16th Amendment was ratified.

More important is the issue that the government believes it can take a position and punish someone who disagrees with that position, without affording the person any opportunity to prove the government's position is wrong.

The government, unable to refute Bill Benson's facts conclusively establishing less than three-fourths of the states voted to ratify the proposed amendment, objected to the facts on the grounds they were irrelevant, immaterial and scandalous.

The court agreed, and issued an order that Bill Benson is not to be allowed to defend based upon the truth.

If this posture is allowed to stand, every semblance of justice in America will be trashed.

It is inconceivable that the Star Chamber becomes again the type of court justice to be utilized to resolve disputes between the people and the government.

Equally disturbing is the position of the federal government that it has the unfettered right to obtain the names and addresses of any person who so much as ordered Benson's material, read it or possesses it.

The pleadings, filed by the government, make it perfectly clear the government intends to obtain the names and investigate any person whose name they obtain

The issue of taxation and the Sixteenth Amendment is a political question.

We, as Americans, supposedly have an inalienable right to the free debate of these issues without government interference.
We, as Americans, supposedly have the right to require the government to answer our questions.
We, as Americans, supposedly have the right to require the government to prove its allegations against us in Court.
We, as Americans, supposedly have the right, when charged with a crime, to present a defense.

To counter the government's efforts to destroy our First Amendment rights, three people have intervened in the Benson litigation.
They intervened as John Doe I, John Doe II and Jane Roe to protect their names from the government.
They are demanding a protective order preventing the government from obtaining their names, as well as, the names of anyone else involved in this important political debate on the Sixteenth Amendment.

Whether you agree with Bill Benson or not, this litigation is not about one of us being right or wrong. This litigation is about preserving YOUR freedom. It is about your right to even have an opinion and express it without fear of government retaliation. Our country is in serious distress, as we now have East German like checkpoints at our airports, and wholesale government disrespect of, and contempt for, our Constitution

Ben Franklin said during another time of intolerable governmental action:
"We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

AMERICA FREEDOM TO FASCISM
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

Dear Lovers of Liberty, the struggle is underway! Join us!

Are you aware by May of 2008 the law will require you to carry a national identification card?

Are you aware that there are plans being developed to have all Americans embedded with a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) computer chip under their skin so they can be tracked wherever they go?

Are you aware the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no authority to impose a direct unapportioned tax on the labor of the American people, and the 16th Amendment does not give the government that power?

Are you aware that computer voting machines can be rigged and there is no way to ensure that vote is counted?

Say what you will,...but believe me when I say,....Americas Freedoms, that we all take for granted,...are being taken away from us,..at an alarming rate.

5. An SSN/EIN/TIN is not required to open a bank account if the party opening the account is a nontaxpayer.