Why Are We Being Taxed On Our Labor?

Posted in Government Watch on January 29, 2007 by blindnation

Political Resources. com | January 29 2007

The crime uncovered by Banister is summarized as follows.

As a fundamental starting point, it must be stipulated that the U.S. Constitution does not, and more importantly can not — authorize Congress to impose a direct tax on human labor.

If a 1% tax on a persons labor were to be held constitutional, a 100% tax on labor would also be constitutional, subject only to the whim of the political majority or the desire of government bureaucrats. In other words, the Constitution does not, and cannot, authorize Congress to use its limited taxing power to force the People to labor for the government.

In 1909, the meaning of the word “income” did not mean money received by a worker in direct exchange for that person’s human labor. It meant money derived from capital or labor or both, as, for example, money (profit) derived by Wal-Mart or Merrill Lynch from the labor of its workers. At the turn of the previous century, it was well understood that the legal term “income” did not mean the wages or salary earned by the worker for his own labor.

Today, due to the well-packaged web of lies that has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, most people today incorrectly believe “income” means not only money derived from someone else’s labor, but also money earned by workers in direct exchange for their own labor. 

In 1909, the U.S. Congress passed a proposed income tax Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of which was simply to clarify the fact that Congress had the power under the existing clauses of the Constitution to tax income derived from real estate, stocks, bonds and other forms of capital, without apportioning the tax among the taxpayers — that is, without requiring every taxpayer to pay the exact same amount.

So far, so good. There was nothing untoward about Congress proposing an Amendment to the Constitution for clarification purposes. 

The crime and the cover-up began in 1913 with actions taken by both the Executive and Legislative branches.   

In 1913, just thirty days before he was set to leave office, the U.S. Secretary of State, Philander Knox, declared by his certification that the proposed Amendment had been legally and properly ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures, despite the well documented fact that he had been informed by his solicitor general that the Amendment had not come close to being ratified.  The Congress adopted the Amendment as the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

Within months of the fraudulent declaration by Knox, Congress crafted and passed the Income Tax Act of 1913, which included a definition of income, that stretched the meaning of the legal term income well beyond the constitutional meaning and well beyond the documented intent of the framers of the Amendment, as recorded in every official and professional document of the era: the Congressional Record, congressional committee reports, law reviews, journals of political science, newspapers of record and so forth.  

With its statutory, unconstitutional definition of income, Congress improperly broadened the definition of income to include money received by a person in direct exchange for that persons labor. In technical terms, Congress included a non-apportioned, direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of all American workers.

Even though the Act exempted from the tax those workers earning less than $4,000, the government soon began to receive so much money from the income tax that its revenue increased from about $380 million in 1914 to more than $3.7 billion by 1918. 

The Income Tax Act of 1913 also instituted withholding at the source and the tax return, Form 1040. 

With these features, the Income Tax Act of 1913 provided the government with a stream of revenue that enabled it to spend large amounts of money before it had it. The central government not only had much more money to spend, it could now do whatever it wanted to do, even if it did not have the money to do it.

At its heart, the Income Tax Act of 1913 enabled the government to pledge, as collateral, the labor of its citizens to secure its debt. The government could now guarantee the repayment of borrowed money by forcefully taking bread from the mouths of labor. Slavery has always been the ultimate form of lender security.

However, the still-standing Constitution prohibited a tax on labor. The Income Tax Act of 1913 was soon tested in Court. In 1916, the Supreme Court brought the unconstitutional labor tax to a screeching halt.

The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific, 240 U.S.1 (and the cases bundled with it, including Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103), that wages are not income within the meaning of the income tax Amendment to the Constitution, or any other provision of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Brushaber soundly rejected the government’s self-interested interpretation of the definition of “income” within the meaning of the Constitution, and specifically limited “to whom” and “where” the income tax could apply.

The Brushaber court explicitly concluded that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation, meaning that direct taxes on wages, salaries and compensation received by workers in direct exchange for their labor fell outside of the meaning of the 16th Amendment, and still must satisfy the fundamental requirement of apportionment as a direct tax, if, indeed, the government could overcome the slavery issue.

The Brushaber decision forced Congress to consider changing the statutory definition of “income,” to bring it in line with the Constitution.

However, true to form and consistent with the nature of governmental power, the government was loathe to relinquish the spoils and booty that flowed from its direct tax on labor, and the power and control that came with the tax (and its enforcement mechanisms).

The crime continued in the halls of Congress and in the White House with the adoption of the Income Tax Act of 1916 (amended in 1917).  Although the 1916 Act ended withholding of wages, salaries and compensation, and ordered the money that had been withheld from workers to be returned to those workers, and the Treasury Secretary issued Treasury Directive 2635, and saw to it that the money withheld was returned, the 1916 Act failed to define the legal term “income.”

While the act carried over the definition of “income” from the 1913 Act, Congress specifically qualified in Section 25 of the Act that the “income” subject to the 1913 Act was not the same “income” to be taxed under the 1916 Act. No further explanation was provided in the Act.

In other words, after the Supreme Court’s explicit ruling in Brushaber, the government adopted a revised tax law that said, in effect, “the meaning of the word ‘income’ has changed, but we are not going to tell you how.”

Confused or ignorant of the law, and too patriotic and engaged with World War I to question their government, workers toiling above the $4,000 exemption level kept sending in their Form 1040’s and paying a tax on money earned by them in direct exchange for their own labor. As the years went on, the tax rates went up, the exemptions dropped, and more Americans succumbed to the popular belief that the law required them to file and pay.

During the great Depression, the crime deepened.

While the more wealthy workers were unwittingly continuing to pay a tax on money earned in direct exchange for their labor, not just on their passive income, Congress and the President, again acted without constitutional authority, and in defiance of the now numerous (and consistent) rulings of the United States Supreme Court (the latest ruling coming in 1920 in Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189).

In 1933 the government adopted a law forcing all workers to pay an “income” tax by another name, on money earned in direct exchange for their own labor. The new labor tax was called a “Social Security” tax. Along with this new unconstitutional labor tax, withholding was re-instituted in America.

During World War II, the crime deepened further.

Once again, in defiance of the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court, the Congress and the President instituted still another labor tax on all Americans, not just the wealthy, calling it a, “Victory Tax.” Along with the “Victory Tax” came withholding of the “Victory Tax” at the source.

Drunk with power, taking advantage of the People during times of strife, the government was “piling on” one direct labor tax after another, calling them “income” taxes, without ever statutorily defining the term “income.” The “Victory Tax” was a tax on the money people earned in direct exchange for their own labor. The People were told that “Victory Tax” would expire with the conclusion of the War. It didn’t. Neither did withholding. The Victory Tax continued unabated, becoming the Federal Income Tax of today.

In 1965, the crime deepened even further.

Once again, in defiance of the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court, the Congress and the President piled on yet another direct tax on the labor of all working men and women, calling it a “Medicare Tax.” Along with the “Medicare Tax” came withholding of the “Medicare Tax” at the source.

The Bottom Line

Since 1916, Congress and the Executive, with the cooperation of the lesser courts, have been relentlessly tightening the yoke of slavery on all Americans as they have imposed, and enforced an increasing number of unconstitutional direct taxes on the salaries, wages and compensation.

Beyond this, our institutions of government have, by duplicity, threat and force,  coerced the businesses of America into collecting these labor taxes by withholding them at the source i.e., from the paychecks of American workers.

As the final interpreter of the Constitution, we, the People believe the Supreme Court got it right – a tax on labor – regardless of its label or beneficent intent — is a “slave tax,” and is a violation of not only fundamental, human Rights, it is patently unconstitutional.

Most Americans, covered with a blanket of propaganda, believe they are free as they pledge allegiance to their country, a Republic, but follow the dictates of a government run by elected and appointed officials whose first allegiance is to their Party.

Make no mistake: money earned in direct exchange for labor is being seized by the government, without rightful authority, from the workers of America by force — that is, by violence — to be distributed, with its opportunities for profit, influence and corruption among our elected and appointed public officials — political henchmen and party workers, and those that seek to keep them in office for their own benefit.

Anatomy Of A False Story. Fox News… The Media Outlet For Fascists.

Posted in Media Misses on January 29, 2007 by blindnation

The Chicago Tribune | January 28 2007

For quite some time, media critics and those on the left have argued that Fox News is an ideologically driven propaganda network.

This is the same kind of argument one makes about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Believers have the answers. Skeptics can’t even begin to count. Agnostics say it’s irrelevant.

The fact is, the Fox formula works with its audience, good folks who believe the rest of media is dominated by closet liberals. It’s a big, dedicated choir.

Sometimes, though, something pops up that carries the conversation beyond questions of ideology, beyond finger pointing, beyond even bitter recriminations from competing TV networks full of envy of “The Simpsons” and the powerful Fox News position in the TV marketplace.

The “Hillary-Clinton-is-trying-to-smear-Bara ck-Obama-as-a-latent-Islamic-fundamentalist” story (Pardon the profuse hyphenation, but we can’t think of anything else to call it at this stage.) is a case in point.

A high-speed recap: The Washington Times Insight Magazine online edition reports the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate attended a madrassa, a conservative Islamic school, when he was a kid and his family lived in Jakarta for a time.

The source of this revelation, the Web site said, was “researchers connected to” the Clinton camp. Fox News discussed the Insight article on two of its programs. The story spread far and wide through Web sites and e-mail chains.

The juicy tidbit at the heart of the story, the hint that Obama’s primary-school education set him up to embrace radical Islam should he become president, was wrong. He’s a Christian. He didn’t attend a madrassa in Jakarta.

The Clinton folks say the story is “scurrilous” and the product of a “right-wing rag” and that they had nothing to do with it.

Actually, none of this touches on the heart of the problem.

It took a few hundred years for journalism to reach the stage at which the best truth one could find was the force behind what was published, broadcast, put before the public. Critics find it hard to believe, but much of what is called “mainstream media” agonizes every day over what is true and what is not, because it is wrong to print what is not provably true.

In that context, what Insight did on its Web site, and what Fox News did in repeating the report, was not ideological at all. It was unethical, unprofessional and shabby, a trifecta, if you will, in the world of journalism.

It also is a sign of the growing indifference Internet “journalism” presents on the question of truth. Rumor is good enough. Bibles of blogging are created based on nothing more than rumor.

So sure, scan it, scroll through it, read it. But, also, ask yourself: Do you know who’s giving you your news?

Wonder Why They Hate Us? Fox Guest Says the U.S. Should Destroy Venezuela’s Economy

Posted in Uncategorized on January 29, 2007 by blindnation

News Hound | Reported by: Melanien | January 26 2007

Lawrence Eagleburger, the Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush, was the guest during the first segment today (January 26, 2007) on Fox’s “business news” show, Your World w/Neil Cavuto. Substitute host David Asman introduced Eagleburger, who was on to talk about Hugo Chavez, over a graphic that read, “Declaring War?”

In his intro, Asman said that (the democratically elected) Chavez is “stepping up his anti-American talk,” and asked, “Does he want all-out war with us?” He said Chavez was, “going wild” (i.e. he wasn’t kissing our ass) on “state run radio last week” (Asman should know about state run media), telling the American government to “go to hell.” Now he, “might kick the U.S. ambassador out of Venezuela. Is Chavez planting the seeds of war with the United States?” Turning to Eagleburger, Asman asked, “How much of a threat is Mr. Chavez?”

Eagleburger said, “It depends on what you mean by a threat…he could make life difficult for us in that part of the world…but in the end it’s much more gas than it is reality.”

Asman and Eagleburger went on to talk about the possibility of Venezuela becoming a “forward operating base” for Iranian nukes, which Eagleburger said was a “real possibility,” and about how the decline in the price of oil is probably hurting Venezuela’s ability to “pay its bills.” Asman then asked Eagleburger whether that puts Chavez “at risk?”

Eagleburger said, “Sure it does, but he can last for some period of time.” His ability to appeal to the Venezuelan people, “only works so long as the populous of Venezuela sees some ability for a better standard of living [as is the case everywhere]. If at some point the economy really gets very bad, Chavez’ popularity within the country will certainly decrease and it’s the one weapon we have against him to begin with and which we should be using, namely the economic tools of trying to make the economy even worse so that his appeal in the country and in the region goes down.”

Asman said we might be able to “cut him off at the knees financially,” but “you know, there’s that old charge, there go the Gringos, trying to interfere with our internal affairs again. Might that not hurt us?”

Eagleburger said, “Sure it will hurt. Well, he’ll make that claim at least…he can use it to try to defend himself against an economy that’s going downhill, but in the end I don’t think that would counteract the fact that the economy had become a real problem for him.”

Asman: “Do we just wait for the economy to collapse or do we push it in that direction?”

Eagleburger said, “I think we have to push…anything we can do to make their economy more difficult for them at this moment [screw the poor citizenry] is a good thing [for U.S. corporations] but let’s do it in ways that do not get us into direct conflict with Venezuela if we can get away with it.”

Comment: I read an article last week but unfortunately the name of the author escapes me. My apologies. Anyway, it was about Iraq and the citizen-“terrorists” there who want us out and who are tired of decades of U.S. meddling in the Middle East. A line that struck me, and that applies here, was (paraphrasing), that the people want freedom, freedom from us.

While You Were Sleeping Bush Took Over The Government.

Posted in Media Misses on January 29, 2007 by blindnation

Press Esc | January 29 2007

President ruling by decree 

United States President stealthily took over the Federal Government last week through a new executive order last week that takes away all autonomy from Agencies, according to public interest organizations.

The order amends a series of previous executive orders that culminated in Executive Order No. 12,866, which the White House has used to give itself the power to review regulations before they can be officially published in the Federal Register.

The new order applies the review power not just to regulations but also to what it calls “significant guidance documents.”

“This order is just the latest in a series of unacceptable power grabs by the Bush administration,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “President Bush is asserting the right to change the law by executive fiat.”

The group identified three major problems with the new executive order:

First, it requires agencies to get White House approval of many important kinds of guidance for the public, which would allow the White House to create a bureaucratic bottleneck that would slow down agencies’ ability to give the public information it needs.

Agencies use guidance to let the public know how they intend to enforce the laws and regulations on the books.

“By requiring White House approval of important guidance, the White House will insert its political agenda and pro-business bias into every level of agency policy, so that our federal government will handcuff itself instead of the companies that violate the law and put the public in danger,” Robert Shull, Public Citizen’s deputy director for auto safety and regulatory policy, warned.

Second, the new order stresses the concept of “market failure” in its revised command for agencies to state justifications for new regulations for public health, privacy, safety, civil rights and the environment. Market failure is an economics term describing situations in which private markets, left to themselves, fail to bring about results that the public needs.

This order will be enforced by Susan Dudley, a controversial figure the White House is setting up for a recess appointment to become the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and Budget.

She calls herself a “free-market environmentalist,” who wants to protect the environment through “market-based incentives.”
Based on an evaluation of Dudley’s record in a report released last year, Public Citizen has concluded that in her hands, the market failure provision will become a barrier to the protections that the public needs.

Third, the order requires agencies to develop annual plans for upcoming rulemakings that identify “the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all … regulations planned for that calendar year to assist with the identification of priorities.”

This new requirement will make cost/benefit analysis the central factor in setting priorities for needed protections of the public interest.

“These cost/benefit analyses are notoriously biased against regulation, especially long-term goals such as preventing global warming or cancers that manifest years after exposure to toxic substances,” said Claybrook. “The upshot of this whole executive order is that the White House is already working to undermine not just agencies but also the new Congress’ ability to protect the public.”

“The White House is amending the Administrative Procedure Act by decree, claiming power that belongs to Congress alone. It is an appalling arrogation of power and a slap in the face to the new Congress,” said Shull. “Congress must immediately arrange hearings to hold the president accountable for this affront to the rule of law.”

Barack Obama a Sex Offender?

Posted in Uncategorized on January 17, 2007 by blindnation

This is total BS! This has happened before. First, CNN’s Jeff Greenfield’s hit piece on Obama, trying to link him to Saddam and the Iranian president. Then CNN’s “Where’s Obama?” and showing footage of Osama. Then Yahoo’s posting a picture of Obama with the caption “Osama”. Now this video of a Barack Obama rally during a story about a sex offender!

read more | digg story

Defense Dept. Characterized Protesters as “Threats”

Posted in Uncategorized on January 17, 2007 by blindnation

Titled “Review of the TALON Reporting System,” the four-page memo produced in February 2006 summarizes some interim results from an inquiry ordered by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld after disclosure in December 2005 that the system had collected and circulated data on anti-military protests and other peaceful demonstrations.

read more | digg story

BREAKING: Senate Threatens Bush Administration on Iran

Posted in Uncategorized on January 12, 2007 by blindnation

Sen. Joe Biden (Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee) just informed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that, should the Bush administration attempt to cross over into Iran without Congressional approval, such action will provoke a “constitutional confrontation.”” Spread this around. Email Sen. Biden to SHOW YOUR SUPPORT (emails, #s, inc.)!

read more | digg story