Survivalist Forum - Reply to Topic
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

General Discussion Anything non-survival related - news and information, current events, general chit-chat stuff.

Advertise Here
Thread: Is A Civil War Brewing in America? **Official Merge Thread** Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
12-14-2019 06:28 PM
Lagnar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad Tepes View Post
Antifa with Masks and Blue Helmets at 1,000yrds???, I`m IN!!!.
Since the normies™ all look the same they won't know who is their blood enemy. If they get it wrong a few times, EVERYBODY will be their blood enemy.

Blue helmets and antifa masks kind of marks them; antifa gangs harassing and beating on people kind of marks them.

I'll refer once again to a favorite piece of fiction by Matt Bracken called "When The Music Stops".

https://westernrifleshooters.wordpre...e-in-violence/

Quote:
And there are a far greater number of scoped bolt-action hunting rifles in private hands in the United States. Keep this number in mind: based on deer stamps sold, approximately twenty million Americans venture into the woods every fall armed with such rifles, fully intending to shoot and kill a two-hundred-pound mammal. Millions of these scoped bolt-action deer rifles are quite capable of hitting a man-sized target at ranges out to and even beyond a thousand yards, or nearly three-fifths of a mile.
12-14-2019 06:08 PM
Vlad Tepes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig+28.5 View Post
^^^^^
Your right.
Things will get ugly.
They will start with soft targets( isolated and sheeple) first. Buy the time they start coming after the guns on a large scale the people will be hopefully ready and organized. Things will get bloody. But I don’t see the government using much in the way of law enforcement or our military, I see more of a handpicked army of so called fanatical left (antifa) for one to do their bidding. When that fails martial law with UN troops enforcing it. That’s when the SHTF


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Antifa with Masks and Blue Helmets at 1,000yrds???, I`m IN!!!.
12-14-2019 12:56 PM
Optimist We've had plenty of practice holding our passions in check, Sky1950.
12-14-2019 10:05 AM
Sky1950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caseyboy View Post
..........That isn't a discussion point, it is a demeaning slam as if you're talking to a child that isn't paying attention in my humble opinion. I would suggest you lighten up. Nobody in this conversation is completely right or wrong. We as a group of reasonably intelligent adults are discussing current and past events. Most of us are contemplating what we will do if things accelerate. Nobody is attacking or putting anyone down. I appreciate your diligent research, but talking down to someone who doesn't share or agree with your points of view accomplishes nothing.....
Caseyboy
I agree. This group is an example of both the strengths and weaknesses of our side of the political spectrum. Mainly comprised of strong independent individuals, this also means some conflicting views on minor subjects. By definition, the collectivists are always in lockstep, no matter how ridiculous the subject, and therefore have no problem with unity.

We seem to be approaching the point where our side will need all the unity we can muster. Free flow of conflicting ideas are what our side is all about, but let's keep the passions in check.
12-14-2019 09:42 AM
Caseyboy The next American Revolution has started. It began in earnest when Obama was vetted by Nancy Pelosi. She knew he wasn't eligible to be our POTUS but they saw the opportunity to impose the New World Government. Fortunately for all Americans it didn't succeed. It did in part but not to the extent that was hoped for as I see it.

As an aside to this discussion I want to address the dialogue between Ghost863 and Jetgraphics. I am fully aware we as a group don't always agree on many things that get bantered around here on this forum. However, trying to shove something down a person's throat at the futile attempt in trying to convince someone your particular slant on an argument is the only correct path is in effect ludicrous. Jet makes some good points and they appear to be well researched but presenting an arrogance in terms of a discussion serves no purpose toward any discussion and only serves to belittle someone simply to assert some sort of dominance over the topic. Or, to attempt to prove you have the the only valid point. When someone talks down to another person, the hackles go up and the defense mechanism kicks in. I've observed this in other discussions as jet tries to express a thought. To jet I say this, you may have some valid points, and I wonder if you practice what you preach.

When my last son was born, my wife and I were told in no uncertain terms we had to register him upon his birth with SS. He was assigned a number at birth. I wonder, do you confront any governmental agency with your assertions such as you aren't compelled by the law to have a SS number, or you do not pay taxes, or perhaps you just talk the talk and don't necessarily do the walk? Arrogance in a discussion slams doors shut when it comes to a conversation or a discussion. I try not to do that, but there are times I'm sure when my ego interferes with my train of thought.

"Again, you confuse a personal belief with law.
Mason might believe that but no law supports that belief.
Why?
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

That isn't a discussion point, it is a demeaning slam as if you're talking to a child that isn't paying attention in my humble opinion. I would suggest you lighten up. Nobody in this conversation is completely right or wrong. We as a group of reasonably intelligent adults are discussing current and past events. Most of us are contemplating what we will do if things accelerate. Nobody is attacking or putting anyone down. I appreciate your diligent research, but talking down to someone who doesn't share or agree with your points of view accomplishes nothing.

I just thought I would throw that out there because a condescending attitude is a major turn off. I'll say it again, you appear to have done extensive research and I've learned from your efforts because the information is condensed and to the point. I didn't have to do the research myself. I do a lot of research and I appreciate the effort it takes to search out factual information in a world where half truths and innuendos reign supreme. Just a friendly word of advice, lighten up. None of this is intended to put you down it's just how I read what you're saying and it flows a little erratic. It bothered me so I expressed my opinion. No slam intended.

Caseyboy
12-13-2019 08:42 PM
Vlad Tepes [QUOTE=Lagnar;19926276]Recall the patriot response to the Cliven Bundy debacle.

Now imagine the response should the Virginia patriots put the call out.[/QUOTE

The Clive Bundy Horror was Again shut down by the "Media" AND Yet Again America has NO Truthful Media!. This "Impeachment" will be the start of the Next American Revolution,Watch!!!!.
12-13-2019 08:01 PM
Lagnar Recall the patriot response to the Cliven Bundy debacle.

Now imagine the response should the Virginia patriots put the call out.
12-13-2019 06:47 PM
Vlad Tepes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagnar View Post
That would indeed be the unforgivable act. Violating a person's 2A constitutional rights by confiscating their guns and then robbing them of their life, liberty and property would mean the government was illegitimate, and CW2 would kick off in earnest.
After the Police and the Nat`l Guard refuse, this Lame Gov will probably hire some Contractors and Deputize them for the dirty work {Mercenaries}. I would Not put Anything past Bloomberg and his Puppets!. Virginia is in Peril as the takedown of the 2A there will just give the Dumo`s the idea the rest of America will follow...That`s when the SHTF Bigtime!. Organize Up Virginia, Real America is with you!!!.
12-12-2019 11:18 PM
jetgraphics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost863 View Post
Jet I will read the rest when I get back, I have to leave for a few minutes but to answer one of your questions here is you answer:
Again, you confuse a personal belief with law.
Mason might believe that but no law supports that belief.
Why?
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL


Here's a state statute on the state militia:

Pennsylvania General Assembly
Title 51, Part II, Chapter 3
The Militia
§ 301. Formation.
(a) Pennsylvania militia.--The militia of this Commonwealth shall consist of:
(1) all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this Commonwealth, who are at least 17 years six months of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age;
- - - -
If you can find a state or federal law that compels "all Americans" into militia duty, please present it.


I only wish to point out that all this fomenting of civil war is driven by the propaganda ministry, that is feeding us all disinformation so that we have no clue as to the guilty parties.

A source for more info:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/RepFormGov/
(until FB censors shut it down)
12-12-2019 11:13 PM
jetgraphics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost863 View Post
Personally Jet, I believe that income tax is illegal for two reasons. The first is that it was designed to fund the war effort of WWII and was supposed to be abolished as soon as the war ended.
Well, your beliefs are not based on facts.
The FIRST income tax was in 1861. . .
The Revenue Act of 1861, formally cited as Act of August 5, 1861, Chap. XLV, 12 Stat. 292
Sec. 49
And be it further enacted, that, from and after the first day of January next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, upon the annual INCOME of every PERSON RESIDING in the United States, whether such INCOME is derived from any kind of property, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, if such annual income exceeds the sum of eight hundred dollars, a tax of three per centum on the amount of the excess of such income above eight hundred dollars....

Upon the income, rents, or dividends accruing upon any property, securities, or stocks owned in the United States by an citizen of the United States residing abroad, there shall be levied, collected and paid a tax of five per centum...
: : : : : : : :

The infamous 16th amendment (1913) didn't begin the income tax - only removed the requirement for it to be apportioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost863 View Post
Unfortunately Federal government said why should we let this opportunity go to waste? Let's keep this going to line or pockets. The second reason I disagree with it is because of or founding fathers remark about taxation without representation.
You may be confusing the objections of the COLONISTS with Mother England.

There is no similar argument in the American law references, partly due to the fact that only people who CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED, become taxpayers. It hardly matters if they're "represented" or not. IF they have a problem - WITHDRAW CONSENT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost863 View Post
That surely applies to today's standards as you and I neither one are represented by our government, the only ones that are is big business and those with deep pockets. As I said, I don't believe yo are incorrect, but truthfully how long do you think they will allow one to get away with this? After all it is how they earn their living.
Here you go, taking one false premise to generate ire at something else.
As I have pointed out, your CONSENT to be governed is behind their authority to compel you to do mandatory civic duties that involve paying taxes, serving in the military, and appearing for jury duty, among others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost863 View Post
and for the record Jet, I don't like football. Never have. And I also do not have television. I am having to file bankruptcy because of an illness and I had my cable turned off and have not had it in more than 6 months.
I am sorry to hear you are facing bankruptcy.
I suspect you are unaware that 99% of all bankruptcies involve usury, the abomination.
I can relate a tale of woe that might cheer you up.
A correspondent, who lived on the shores of Lake Michigan, innocently went to his mortgage holder and explained thusly:
"Dear sirs, I have recently repented my sinful ways, and as a good Christian cannot engage in contracts for usury (interest). Since fraud was used to induce my consent, I hereby vitiate any all agreements. As a good Christian, I wish to restore to you anything of value that was extended to me under the mortgage contract."
"In other words, did you ever loan dollars to me, as defined by the Coinage Act of 1792?"
Banksters : [silence]
"Did you ever extend credit in worthless IOUs, repudiated by Congress in 1933, and have no par value, at usury?"
Banksters : [silence]
"I hereby give notice that any Promissory Note is null and void with respect to the property attached to this mortgage, as fraud was involved."
Banksters : [silence]

He never received another notice from the bank, and he kept his lakefront property.

The 'other side of the story.'
Six months later, I tried to call him and his line was disconnected. I tried to contact friends, and they said, he was found brutally beaten, both arms broken, and somewhat brain damaged. His wife and children disappeared with no forwarding address.

Moral of the story - contracting with usurers is a risky business. There's a good reason why usury has been condemned as an abomination for "only" 3500 years.
Coincidentally, the only religion that still bans usury is ISLAM. And for some reason they claim "the world" is attacking them?
= = = = =

= = = = =
Geo.Wash. Sums it up nicely in 1783 - long before the constitution
. . .
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (estate) (taxes, etc). .. by his consent to be governed.
Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.

However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the sovereign American people (noncitizens / free inhabitants) who did not consent to be governed.
. . .
Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.

If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.

The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.). Citizens, like the Founders, have pledged their lives, property and sacred honor in service to others and to the government.
ONLY Non-citizen nationals (people) retain their endowed rights.


I betcha that 99% of "educated" Americans have never heard of this before. Which goes to show the success of the world's greatest propaganda ministry hiding the truth from 320 million people in order to perpetrate a gigantic CON and SWINDLE.
12-12-2019 10:58 PM
Ghost863 Jet I will read the rest when I get back, I have to leave for a few minutes but to answer one of your questions here is you answer:


Quote:
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
12-12-2019 10:52 PM
jetgraphics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost863 View Post
and while I am on the subject, Jet, let me point out another flaw in your theory that we are subjects and not citizens. Yo claim that by having citizenship subjects s to unconstitutional laws and that is not what the founding fathers said. [Neither did I] They were asked what the militia was and they answered that the militia comprised of the whole body of the people. The people in which they refer to are the citizens of this country, So I do not buy into your "don't pay your taxes and they can't do anything to you routine."
No theory involved. Law.
The law, starting with the Declaration, states that all men have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - and only govern those who consent.
If you carefully read the USCON, when powers and rights are mentioned, it uses the term "PEOPLE". When privileges and immunities are mentioned, it uses the term "CITIZENS."

Citizens, by definition, are subjects, because of mandatory civic duties. So as not to tire you out with legal definitions, here's a mundane one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
"The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft."
Who were liable for the draft? CITIZENS. Ding ding ding.

I never wrote that citizenship involves unconstitutional law. That sounds like disinformation by the "paytriots."
FYI - there is no LAW that states the militia are the whole body of people in a country.
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of ALL ABLE-BODIED MALES at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States ...
Do you see militia = whole body of people?
- - -
Again, putting words into my mouth, and then denouncing me is not wise nor persuasive.

YOU write: "don't pay your taxes and they can't do anything to you routine."

I point out that endowed rights are not subject to taxation. This is not news. It's been part of the law since day one.

Need citations?
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are NATURAL RIGHTS for the enjoyment of which an excise [tax] cannot be imposed."
- - - Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.

" The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry."
- - - 48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, p. 80

‘The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right…’ And ‘It has been well said that ‘the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his owns hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.’’
- - - U.S. Supreme Court, Butcher’s Union Co. v Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)

‘Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property- partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property.’
- - - Coppage v Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)

" Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the POWER TO TAX A RIGHT, this would enable the state to DESTROY RIGHTS guaranteed by the constitutions through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the right of travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legitimate object of state taxation. The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of the taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the High Court. The right of the states to impede or embarrass the constitutional operations of the the U.S. Government or the Rights which the citizens hold under it, has been uniformly denied."
- - - McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheat 316.

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
- - - Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, at 113 (1943).

"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 491.
{Technically speaking, no constitutional government grants rights. They were instituted to SECURE endowed rights.}


THE $64,000 QUESTION

If you look into the typical new paytriot anti-tax diatribe, the first point they will raise is that WAGES are not income!
True.
But as I previously pointed out, the income tax is not a tax on income, but upon PRIVILEGES, and the amount of the tax is determined by the income derived from said privileges.

So how does government "tax wages" - it doesn't. But the privilege that gets one into owing a tax on wages is ...
Wait
For
It.
:
:
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act of 1935 (aka SocSec).

Wages are treated as if taxable income because of FICA.
Title 26 USC § 3101. Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))
FICA is 100% voluntary. Ergo, there is NO LAW compelling the payment of the tax. It's YOUR CONSENT via FICA that makes your wages taxable.
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ScottSSNLetter.pdf
Get your own personalized letter from the SocSecAdmin . . .

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935 FULL TEXT
http://library.clerk.house.gov/refer...alSecurity.pdf

Too tired to read it?
Ask your congressman to send you a copy of the law that :
1. compels all Americans to sign up with FICA;
2. punishes any American who does not sign up;
3. punishes any American employer who hires an unnumbered American;
4. and while they're at it, what's the official procedure to cancel one's account with the SocSecAdmin?

Their usual response is "We'll get back to you when we find the law..."

(I've been waiting over 26 years for a reply)

More fun - contact your local Eye Are Us office and explain that you have no SocSec number and wonder what privilege would incur an income tax on wages.
They'll be glad to issue you a "Taxpayer ID" number, but for some strange reason cannot answer to which privilege is the basis of the tax. (And if you never "asked" for a number, you cannot be held liable for "willful failure to file" since they won't accept unnumbered forms.)

And if you withdraw from FICA because it is against your religious beliefs, no instrumentality of the Federal Reserve will allow you to open a personal, interest bearing bank account - bless their hearts. And it's no coincidence that EVERYONE I personally know who were left alone by the EYE ARE US had two things in common : [] NO SSN / Account and [] NO personal bank account.

(And many of us did stoofid things - like protest IRS offices - file nonsensical boilerplate - serve "notices and demands" - and so on. But the NEXUS of privilege is national socialism, via FICA, and secondarily, your "signature card" wherein you agree to abide by the rules of the "Bank" - whose U.S. governor is the Secy of Treasury, yada yada yada. Hmmm, ask for a copy of the rules, next time!)
12-12-2019 10:25 PM
Ghost863
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
I say "dog" and you argue felines. We will not connect if you refuse to pay attention.
The folks who exercise revenue taxable privileges and owe a tax - but refuse to pay - for whatever reason - are "tax protesters" and they have a problem.
As the citations point out - the "income tax" is based on privileges. In fact, the first income tax was enacted in 1861, during the Civil War.

However, the folks who have not exercised any privilege are not subject to an excise tax on their income / wages. This is the law. It's available at any county courthouse law library.

What Mr Snipes and many who are fooled by the "New Paytriots" involve arcane and convoluted explanations that avoid the obvious - consent to be governed.
Back in the 1990s, I personally met many of them. I cannot determine who were genuine, and who were plants and disinformation agents. But the fact that so few of them bothered to READ LAW, yet get into arguments with government lead me to question the leadership.

As I have repeatedly urged, DO NOT BELIEVE ME - GO READ THE LAW FOR YOURSELF.
I am not infallible.

Even better, when you have a question, politely ask the public servants for an explanation. Write to the state attorney general, the sheriff, the representative, etc.

(When I queried a court about an order to pay, I asked: if involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, what is your authority to compel me? The handwritten reply was : "The Social Security Act of 1935". Bingo. 100% voluntary. Consent of the governed.)

What is scary is that folks come out of the woodwork to WARN OFF people from inquiring into the law. What can be so frightening in actually reading the law?

So what if you discover that the 1933 socialist revolution involved fraud, a bogus state of emergency, enacted into law as title 12 USC Sec. 95a, b (and now mysteriously erased), a transfer of powers to the Secretary of Treasury aka "U.S. governor of the IMF, World Bank, yada yada yada" and wholesale robbery of gold money from "free" Americans - who were then liable to go to prison for the audacity to "own" lawful money. So what if FICA makes you into a status criminal and an excepted class. Or find that the big Con and Swindle has been in charge for 87 years partisanship notwithstanding. Or that the 23+ trillion DOLLAR national debt cannot be paid with "dollar bills" (worthless IOUs) and that it would take over 7000 years to mine the gold bullion necessary - IF the debt and interest were frozen right now.

IT IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP.
[/sarcasm]
Personally Jet, I believe that income tax is illegal for two reasons. The first is that it was designed to fund the war effort of WWII and was supposed to be abolished as soon as the war ended. Unfortunately Federal government said why should we let this opportunity go to waste? Let's keep this going to line or pockets. The second reason I disagree with it is because of or founding fathers remark about taxation without representation. That surely applies to today's standards as you and I neither one are represented by our government, the only ones that are is big business and those with deep pockets. As I said, I don't believe yo are incorrect, but truthfully how long do you think they will allow one to get away with this? After all it is how they earn their living.

*** and for the record Jet, I don't like football. Never have. And I also do not have television. I am having to file bankruptcy because of an illness and I had my cable turned off and have not had it in more than 6 months.
12-12-2019 10:18 PM
jetgraphics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost863 View Post
I am not trying to be "snarky" as you put it, just pointing out the obvious. If you choose not to pay taxes and they arrest you, that is on you and then what will your defense be. I learned about what a sovereign citizen is when My step dad was arrested, and how the police view such people. The detective that arrested my stepfather asked me if he was a sovereign citizen and I said I don't know what is it. He then said that of you have to ask then he probably isn't one. To which I said seriously what is a sovereign citizen, I might want to be one. He told me that they think that the law does not apply to them and he explained how law enforcement handles such people. So go ahead and try to get the movement going. I am not saying that you views are not right, I am just telling you what happens when you try to enforce that lifestyle.
I say "dog" and you argue felines. We will not connect if you refuse to pay attention.
The folks who exercise revenue taxable privileges and owe a tax - but refuse to pay - for whatever reason - are "tax protesters" and they have a problem.
As the citations point out - the "income tax" is based on privileges. In fact, the first income tax was enacted in 1861, during the Civil War.

However, the folks who have not exercised any privilege are not subject to an excise tax on their income / wages. This is the law. It's available at any county courthouse law library.

What Mr Snipes and many who are fooled by the "New Paytriots" involve arcane and convoluted explanations that avoid the obvious - consent to be governed.
Back in the 1990s, I personally met many of them. I cannot determine who were genuine, and who were plants and disinformation agents. But the fact that so few of them bothered to READ LAW, yet get into arguments with government lead me to question the leadership.

As I have repeatedly urged, DO NOT BELIEVE ME - GO READ THE LAW FOR YOURSELF.
I am not infallible.

Even better, when you have a question, politely ask the public servants for an explanation. Write to the state attorney general, the sheriff, the representative, etc.

(When I queried a court about an order to pay, I asked: if involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, what is your authority to compel me? The handwritten reply was : "The Social Security Act of 1935". Bingo. 100% voluntary. Consent of the governed.)

What is scary is that folks come out of the woodwork to WARN OFF people from inquiring into the law. What can be so frightening in actually reading the law?

So what if you discover that the 1933 socialist revolution involved fraud, a bogus state of emergency, enacted into law as title 12 USC Sec. 95a, b (and now mysteriously erased), a transfer of powers to the Secretary of Treasury aka "U.S. governor of the IMF, World Bank, yada yada yada" and wholesale robbery of gold money from "free" Americans - who were then liable to go to prison for the audacity to "own" lawful money. So what if FICA makes you into a status criminal and an excepted class. Or find that the big Con and Swindle has been in charge for 87 years partisanship notwithstanding. Or that the 23+ trillion DOLLAR national debt cannot be paid with "dollar bills" (worthless IOUs) and that it would take over 7000 years to mine the gold bullion necessary - IF the debt and interest were frozen right now.

IT IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP.
[/sarcasm]
12-12-2019 09:41 PM
Ghost863 and while I am on the subject, Jet, let me point out another flaw in your theory that we are subjects and not citizens. Yo claim that by having citizenship subjects s to unconstitutional laws and that is not what the founding fathers said. They were asked what the militia was and they answered that the militia comprised of the whole body of the people. The people in which they refer to are the citizens of this country, So I do not buy into your "don't pay your taxes and they can't do anything to you routine."
12-12-2019 09:38 PM
Ghost863
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
And the gentleman in question FILED A FORM WITH HIS NUMBER ON IT, establishing that he had CONSENTED. (Dumb) (BTW - he didn't serve 9 years in prison - keep throwing lies and they may stick. Actor Wesley Snipes has been released from a federal prison where he was serving a three-year sentence after being convicted on tax charges in February 2010.)

But using "sovereign citizen" is a sure fire sign you're a defender of the status quo. Despite the FACT that the supreme court says Americans are sovereigns without subjects, and citizens are subjects of sovereigns, you keep snarking "sovereign citizen," as if that makes your rebuttal any more accurate than before.

If you are a nontaxpayer, having not exercised any revenue taxable privileges, you will not be arrested, nor convicted, nor hassled.
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their RIGHTS and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
--House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580.
SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z

In American law, PEOPLE are the sovereigns, served by government - not ruled by it - unless they consent - as citizens.
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
When Americans finally get ticked off at being "voluntary" slaves of the Glorious People's Democratic Socialist Republic and foment a revolt it will be too late. IF only they would have read their own laws and WITHDREW CONSENT, they could have averted the catastrophe.
I am not trying to be "snarky" as you put it, just pointing out the obvious. If you choose not to pay taxes and they arrest you, that is on you and then what will your defense be. I learned about what a sovereign citizen is when My step dad was arrested, and how the police view such people. The detective that arrested my stepfather asked me if he was a sovereign citizen and I said I don't know what is it. He then said that of you have to ask then he probably isn't one. To which I said seriously what is a sovereign citizen, I might want to be one. He told me that they think that the law does not apply to them and he explained how law enforcement handles such people. So go ahead and try to get the movement going. I am not saying that you views are not right, I am just telling you what happens when you try to enforce that lifestyle.
12-12-2019 07:53 PM
jetgraphics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost863 View Post
Sovereign citizen or not, If you do not pay your federal taxes, they will arrest you and put you in prison. Don't believe me, just ask Wesley Snipes. He did 9 years in club fed for income tax evasion.
And the gentleman in question FILED A FORM WITH HIS NUMBER ON IT, establishing that he had CONSENTED. (Dumb) (BTW - he didn't serve 9 years in prison - keep throwing lies and they may stick. Actor Wesley Snipes has been released from a federal prison where he was serving a three-year sentence after being convicted on tax charges in February 2010.)

But using "sovereign citizen" is a sure fire sign you're a defender of the status quo. Despite the FACT that the supreme court says Americans are sovereigns without subjects, and citizens are subjects of sovereigns, you keep snarking "sovereign citizen," as if that makes your rebuttal any more accurate than before.

If you are a nontaxpayer, having not exercised any revenue taxable privileges, you will not be arrested, nor convicted, nor hassled.
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their RIGHTS and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
--House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580.
SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z

In American law, PEOPLE are the sovereigns, served by government - not ruled by it - unless they consent - as citizens.
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
When Americans finally get ticked off at being "voluntary" slaves of the Glorious People's Democratic Socialist Republic and foment a revolt it will be too late. IF only they would have read their own laws and WITHDREW CONSENT, they could have averted the catastrophe.
12-12-2019 06:33 PM
Vlad Tepes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky1950 View Post
..............Further quote from the referenced article:

Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly told the Washington Examiner of local county police who may refuse to enforce future gun control measures. “The law is the law. If that becomes the law, you don't have a choice, not if you're a sworn officer of the law.”


I think they tried that "just following the law" defence in Nuremberg and it didn't turn out very successful......go Virginia!!

Also the Revolutionary War was initiated when the British tried to confiscate arms. The Texas Revolution started when Mexico decided to confiscate a cannon at Goliad, where the famous "Come and Take It" flag first flew. Seems like there is one specific line you shouldn't cross.
The State of Virginia is in True Peril at this moment!. Bloomberg and his New Puppet Governor are Determined to Make VA a "Gun Free State" and Millions of Dollars are being Pumped in there to Make it happen!. The Dumbo Agenda is to make Virginia the "Poster Child" of Bloomberg`s Agenda to Disarm America AND he now has Control of VA!. What State is Next????. He Needs to be stopped NOW or Real America is Lost! . For Money.
12-12-2019 06:20 PM
RichardinColorado Reading a very well done and interesting book:

The Coming Civil War, Tom Kawezynski, 2018. Available on Amazon. Well written and thoughtful. So far, recommended.
12-12-2019 03:35 PM
Sky1950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagnar View Post
..............Further quote from the referenced article:

Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly told the Washington Examiner of local county police who may refuse to enforce future gun control measures. “The law is the law. If that becomes the law, you don't have a choice, not if you're a sworn officer of the law.”


I think they tried that "just following the law" defence in Nuremberg and it didn't turn out very successful......go Virginia!!

Also the Revolutionary War was initiated when the British tried to confiscate arms. The Texas Revolution started when Mexico decided to confiscate a cannon at Goliad, where the famous "Come and Take It" flag first flew. Seems like there is one specific line you shouldn't cross.
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net