This was posted last year by Stormbringer. Excellent blog. I suggest that all put it on their favorites list.
All Posts (30506)
Sort by
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:22 PM
I of all people am for independent thinking and action on the part of people, but we have been sooo brainwashed by the government and U.S. press most people don’t have a clue as to what is happening.
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
—————————————–
—————————————–
And that matters. Because by definition, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is not frivolous. Even by the interpretations of the IRS.
God Bless America.
Copyright July 4th, 2012. All rights reserved. Permission given for non-profit distribution only.
A FURTHER COMMENT
You should certainly do what you want, but I HIGHLY suggest you DO NOT sign up for Obamacare until you read this CAREFULLY. Chief Justice Roberts carefully worded his ruling and left out any requirement to participate for 95% of Americans.
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
“So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand, he struck down the Philistine and killed him.” – 1 Samuel 17:50
—————————————–
Many people are very angry at Chief Justice John Roberts for his ruling that Obamacare is Constitutional as a tax. They are outraged at what they see as his validation of the complete usurpation of Constitutional protections, and terrified that America has been effectively destroyed. Some of them are even talking “revolution,” and asking each other in person, and in print, “what are you prepared to do”?
Well this analysis of the Roberts ruling asks the same thing, but in a different context. What are you prepared to do? Are you, for example, prepared to read? Are you prepared to learn? Are you prepared to entertain the concept that you might be wrong about Roberts – about what he actually ruled, about what he actually meant, about what he actually did, and why the rest of the Court would not stand with him?
Because if you aren’t, then don’t bother reading any further. Beware: this analysis pops bubbles - hard. Here’s a taste of what I mean:
You know all the yowling and screaming about how Roberts changed a penalty into a tax? In his ruling, Roberts quoted Obamacare itself, at Title 26, § 5000A (g) (1), which reads:
The penalty provided by this section … shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.
Then Roberts did this amazing, totally judicial thing that no one else can possibly do except someone with his vast power at their fingertips – he actually looked up the law that Obamacare quoted. And when he did, he found that subchapter B of chapter 68, specifically at § 6671 (a), says:
The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be … assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. …any reference in this title to “tax” imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.
Then, after reading these actual laws cited by Obamacare itself, Roberts made this blockbuster observation: “The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which-as we previously explained-must assess and collect it “in the same manner as taxes.”
Let’s see, Roberts said the penalty must be assessed and collected “in the same manner as taxes” after reading that Obamacare itself invokes § 6671 (a) – which literally and specifically states the penalty must be assessed and collected “in the same manner as taxes.”
Wow, that’s a radical ruling.
And what exactly is § 6671 (a)? It a part of the Internal Revenue Code that was there before Obamacare was even created! All Obamacare did was point to it, and say “use that.”
So why weren’t Americans enraged about how § 6671 (a) equates the treatment of penalties as taxes before Obamacare?
People can disagree with him if they want, but how the hell can anyone say Roberts is “legislating from the bench” when he simply repeats back pre-existingtax law that Obamacare references for itself? Of course, the answer to that question is simple – no one actually looked up the laws before they decided that their country had been “destroyed.” Yet they’re ready to fight a “revolution” over it!
A revolution for what - to make new laws that they still won’t read?
If you want to get angry, get angry about how the other eight Justices didn’t point out this simple fact about penalties already being treated as taxes. After all, that’s what judges are supposed to do - right? Point out what the law is, rather than what anyone wants it to be? Right? And isn’t that exactly what the Chief Justice did here?
Maybe that’s why he’s Chief Justice – he gets to read the actual laws. Maybe all the other Justices have to listen to the media to find out how they should rule.
So you’re warned: this analysis is not for the squeamish. But if you really want to learn what Roberts did, and why he did it, and what the Obamacare tax lawsactually mean (as opposed to what you thought they meant), read on.
And you can start by understanding this:
• Chief Justice Roberts limited the Constitutionality of Obamacare to ONLY those statutorily-defined “persons” upon whom the income tax is imposed.
• 95% of the American population are NOT those statutorily-defined “persons.”
• Therefore, Obamacare does NOT apply to 95% of the American population.
Don’t believe me? Then like I said, read on.
—————————————–
Point #1: Imposed Means Enforced – Part 1
Taxes, whether “voluntary” or not, are subject to enforcement. If a tax can’t be enforced, it’s not a tax.
That’s why the income tax law, Title 26, Chapter 1, Section 1, starts out with: ”There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual…”
And the Obamacare law, Title 26, § 5000A, (b) (1) starts out with: “…there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer who is an applicable individual a penalty…”
Notice the mutual use of the word “imposed”? It means enforced by the government.
Point #2: Obamacare is Part of the Income Tax Laws
Obamacare, at Title 26, § 5000A, (b) (2) states: “Any penalty imposed by this section … shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1…”
Chapter 1 of Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) is where the income tax is imposed. Title 26 is also where Obamacare is found. So when Obamacare penalties (which enable it to be imposed and therefore enforced) are specified within Obamacare itself to be part of the income tax return, they are also thereby making those penalties subject to the income tax enforcement laws of Title 26.
Point #3: Obamacare is Written to Deceive
In his ruling, Roberts observed that Obamacare specified that it’s penalty “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68,” which in turn specifies that those penalties “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes.” Then he notes that the authority for those acts are found in “§6201 (assessment authority); §6301 (collection authority),” which are the same authorities used for assessing and collecting income taxes.
Then Roberts says something very curious. He says: “That interpretation is consistent with the remainder of §5000A(g), which instructs the Secretary on the tools he may use to collect the penalty. See §5000A(g)(2)(A) (barring criminal prosecutions); §5000A(g)(2)(B) (prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies).”
Look what stands out – what Roberts is saying are “tools that may be used to collect the penalty” are actually, if you look at his parenthetical descriptions,denials of the tools necessary to collect the penalty. The first refers to “barring criminal prosecutions,” and the second refers to “prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies.”
So how are they “tools that may be used to collect the penalty”? And besides, just how is the Obamacare tax penalty going to be collected, if both criminal prosecutions and liens and levies cannot be used to go get it?
Roberts is drawing our attention to these statutes. Let’s look at them.
Title 26, § 5000A (g) (2) says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law-
(A) In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) The Secretary shall not (i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
Section (A) has to do with “barring criminal prosecutions.” Sounds nice – but what does it apply to? A failure to “timely pay” a penalty.
Guess what? Failure to timely pay a penalty is NOT a criminal act. Usually, it invokes further penalties and interest. Only if you fail to pay altogether could the situation reach criminal status, and even then, it would have to be willful. Otherwise, the penalties and interest would just continue to pile up. “Willful failure to pay” is not ”failure to timely pay.” So since the ONLY criminal charge that § 5000A (g) (2) (A) protects a taxpayer from doesn’t exist, the entire statute is a fraud. It’s meant to make people think Obamacare is harmless, and that deliberately putting off paying its penalty won’t make anyone subject to criminal charges. But this isn’t true.
How about Section (B)? Well, a levy is a seizure of property. For that to happen, a lien has to be filed first, specifying what property is to be seized, and that due process has been followed. After the lien has been filed, but before the levy is made upon the property, a notice of lien is sent to the taxpayer who owns the property the government intends to seize through levy, to let them know that the lien has been filed against them.
Now what does (B)(i) say? That a “notice of lien” shall not be filed. Well, notices of lien aren’t filed, except as copies of the mailing that was made to the taxpayer. Liens are filed - that’s the functional act. Not “notices of lien.” Filing a “notice of lien” is NOT the same thing as filing a “lien,” because it does NOT legally enable a levy. It’s literally just a “notice” that an actual ”lien” has been filed. And it’s supposed to be mailed, not “filed.” So when (B)(i) forbids it to be filed, well good – because it’s not supposed to be anyway! Yet this was obviously written to make you to think it’s talking about actual liens, when it says “notices of lien” – when it’s not.
How about (B)(ii), where it is specified that no “levy on any such property” shall be made. Well, what ”such” property? None other than the property in (B)(i) of course, that was specified in the “notice of lien.” But wait a second – you can’t legally levy property from just a “notice of lien” anyway! You need a real lien to levy property! So this section, once again, is saying that something illegal will not be done by the government – specifically, that no property will seized with just a “notice of lien” to back up the levy. Hey, thanks a lot.
So what are we left with here? What did Roberts draw our attention to, when he specified laws in Obamacare that he said are tools to collect the penalty, when they seemed to be tools to prevent the collection of the penalty? He did nothing less than to indicate that these prevention tools are no such thing – that they block nothing, and that the only actual tools that are indicated enable the full collection powers of Title 26 tax laws to be used (i.e., it’s a fully functional Death Star). And not just those directed by “subchapter B of chapter 68,” but also criminal penalties, and lien and levy powers. Even worse, both of these were cited by Obamacare not only to mislead the public, but also to establish a judicially noticeable reference to legitimize their usage against the public.
Roberts deliberately drew attention to this. And in doing so, he effectively said, “watch out – read carefully, this ruling is dealing with a law that was written to deceive. You have to be very careful in your reading of both it and my ruling if you want to understand what everything means.”
Then, concerning enforcement, he showed that nothing in Obamacare blocks the usage of Subchapter B of Chapter 68, Criminal, or Lien & Levy powers against taxpayers to collect Obamacare penalties.
And most importantly, Obamacare is written to deceive.
Point #4: “Person” has Different Legal Definitions for Different Purposes
So what else is Obamacare being deceptive about?
Well, when Chief Justice Roberts referenced Obamacare’s use of “subchapter B of chapter 68,” he cited a statute from within that subchapter to support his interpretation of its usage – specifically, he cited §6671(a).
If you look up §6671(a), you’ll find that it does, indeed, support Robert’s interpretation.
You also find, underneath it, §6671(b) – right where the Chief Justice wanted you to find it.
Title 26, Chapter 68, Subchapter B, § 6671 (b) states:
• The term “person”, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
That’s a very important definition of “person.” But before we get into that subject – remember those other two enforcement tools that were supposedly banned from use, but actually were not, discussed above in Point #3? The first was criminal enforcement. The second was lien and levy powers.
Criminal enforcement is found in Chapter 75 of Title 26. Thus, the definition of “person” for the purposes of criminal enforcement is found in that chapter. Specifically, it is found in Title 26, Chapter 75, § 7343, which reads:
• The term ‘”person”‘ as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
Finally, lien and levy powers are found in the chapters 63 and 64 specified by Chief Justice Roberts in his ruling, where he references them as the “assessment § 6201 (a)” and “collection § 6301″ chapters, respectively. Now, liens are only useful to enable levies, so definitions for levy powers also reference lien powers. And in the levy chapter (64), at § 6332 (f), we find the following definition of “person”:
• The term “person,” as used in subsection (a), includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to surrender the property or rights to property, or to discharge the obligation.
Take a moment at this point, to compare the three definitions of “person” cited from references from Robert’s ruling listed above, that are found in three different enforcement sections of Title 26.
They are identical.
Yet, if you look up the general Title 26 definition of “person” in § 7701 (a) (1), you’ll find:
“The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”
Notice that generally speaking, for the entirety of Title 26, the term “person” also means the term ‘individual.’ That’s why when the income tax laws and Obamacare laws address ‘individuals’ and ‘persons,’ they have identical meanings.
But compare: the general definition of “person” in § 7701 (a) (1) above says it’s just “an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.” That’s it – no fine print.
But the definition of “person” for enforcement purposes in the above cited §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) are way, way, way more narrow. To be that ‘person,’ you have to be:
1) An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occurs.
That’s a lot more specific than just being an “individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”
So what does this difference in the definitions of the term “person” mean? It means that the definition of “person” the government can punish for tax violations, is NOT the same definition of “person” that is used in the rest of Title 26.
More specifically, it means that the only ”persons” the government can impose tax violation enforcements against, are officers or employees of a corporation, who have a duty to act in some way regarding tax laws on behalf of their corporation, and who violate those tax laws on behalf of the corporation they officially represent.
Do you represent a corporation in an official capacity to the government, on behalf of that corporation’s tax obligations? If not, then you are not a §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) “person” who can be liable for violating the tax enforcement laws.
And by direct reference through Obamacare itself, the enforcement laws that the government would use to go after “persons” it claims are violating Obamacare taxes OR penalties OR fines are also found in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f).
So if you are not that definition of “person,” (which is repeated three different times in Title 26 to make absolutely clear exactly who it is talking about), then you are NOT liable for any other taxes which make use of the enforcement provisions linked to that definition, including income tax OR Obamacare.
And in his ruling, Chief Justice Roberts deliberately cited a law which, if you actually look it up, is right next to the enforcement definition of “person” for Chapter 68, Subchapter B, and he also indicated that further enforcement definitions should be sought for the fully applicable criminal, and lien and levy, chapters of Title 26 – all of which turned out to be identical enforcement definitions for the term “person.”
That extraordinary sequence of events is no accident – it is a communication.
Point #5: Taxpayers are Individuals are Persons
So if the definition of “person” is so important, why do both the income tax laws and Obamacare laws refer to individuals?
To confuse you, of course!
And in any event, they both refer to taxpayers.
Think of it this way – persons or individuals may be subject to the enforcement of a particular tax, depending on a lot of things. Taxpayers, however, are persons or individuals who are subject to the enforcement of a particular tax.
That’s why Title 26, § 7701 (a) states: The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
So it’s clear that both individuals and persons may be subject to tax, depending on what definitions of those terms apply to them.
IF they are liable, THEN they are referred to as “taxpayers.”
That’s why both the income tax statutes and the Obamacare statutes make so much use of the term “taxpayers.” When they are talking about someone whomight be subject to the tax, then they use the terms “person” or “individual.” But when they are talking about someone who absolutely is subject to the tax, then they use the term “taxpayer.”
Point #6: Imposed Means Enforced – Part 2
Both the income tax, and Obamacare, start out by saying “a tax is imposed.” Not “a tax is made,” or a “tax exists,” or just “a tax.”
And imposed means enforced: If it can’t be enforced, it can’t be imposed.
So if it can’t be enforced against your definition of “person,” it can’t be imposed on you.
Even (and especially), if you fit the general definition of “person” or “individual,” but not the enforcement definition of “person.”
And if it can’t be imposed on you, you can’t be a taxpayer for it.
And if you’re not a taxpayer for it…
… it doesn’t apply to you.
Point #7: News Flash – The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Knows All of This
But if he knows it, then why didn’t he say it?
Well, he did say it. Specifically, Roberts wrote: “The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”
Did you catch it?
This is the paragraph that drives everyone crazy. This is the paragraph that makes everyone scream that Roberts is crazy. But apply what has been explained above, to what Roberts wrote. He’s talking about what “The Federal Government” has “the power” to do. And as has been explained, you have to ask yourself: do what, to whom?
He says: “the power to order people to buy” Then he says: “the power to impose a tax on those”
He’s differentiating! “People” are not the same as “those!”
Order people - the government does NOT have the power to “order” a free people.
Impose tax on those - the government DOES have the power to “impose” on “those,” because: “THOSE” are TAXPAYERS!
Taxpayers are – literally by triple definition - imposed persons subject to enforcement via the detailed descriptions provided in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) of Title 26, specifically: 1) An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occurs.
And, regarding “those ‘persons,’” – and ONLY “those ‘persons,’” – Chief Justice Roberts ruled that Obamacare IS Constitutional:
“The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.”
HOWEVER, he also specifically ruled that against the people (as in We The People), Obamacare is NOT constitutional:
“The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance.”
Roberts specifically protected the constitutional freedom of the American People, right in front of their eyes, according to the actual meaning of the actual tax laws…
…after ruling against any other constitutional clause that could serve to confuse the tax issues.
And THAT is why no other Justice would support him -
Because in Doing So, He Isolated and Exposed The Secret of LIMITED Tax Liability!
Point #8: The Two Powers
If you’ve come this far, and didn’t know this material beforehand, you might be in a bit of a shock at this point. Basically, the reason that Obamacare doesn’t apply to 95% of Americans is because it can only be enforced against people responsible for running corporations – not normal people simply working and living on their own personal behalf. And more, those limitations on the enforcement laws don’t come out of Obamacare. Rather, they’re a part of the income tax laws that have been there all along, and that Obamacare has attached itself to, in order to make use of them.
Can this really be possible? It would mean that there are two separate enforcement powers held by the Federal government – one for corporation “persons,” and one for non-corporate, regular human-being-type, natural persons. And that a giant scam has taken place by the government using legally defined terms such as “person,” and “individual,” and “taxpayer,” in order to confuse these identities, and especially to hide the two different powers of government.
Well, let’s look at Chief Justice Roberts again, and see what he said about this subject. In his ruling, Roberts wrote:
“This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power.”
Now that’s a hell of a thing to say, isn’t it? “This case concerns two powers.” If you disregard the analysis presented above, then ask yourself - what two powers?
After all, isn’t that why the country has been ripping itself to shreds over Robert’s ruling, because it’s only taking into account a single power – that of the Federal government? You might say, well, there’s the powers of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause that Roberts threw out, when he kept the taxing power in. But that’s three powers total, not two. So what’s the difference between them? How do you turn three powers into two? And for that matter, why should there be multiple powers in the first place? Don’t we have only one government?
No, we don’t. We have two “governments,” in fact. Two completely separate ”governments,” under one Constitution.
The first ”government” is the original one. It deals with human beings acting as human beings and nothing else. That government has to deal with a position derived from those human beings. And those human beings are acknowledged as possessing God-given natural rights, that existed before the “government” was created, and which cannot be removed by that “government,” because it simply does not have the authority.
The second ”government,” however, is exactly the opposite of the first one. The second “government” creates, controls and runs corporations. The very word “incorporate” means “give body to,” or “bring into existence.” And because that “government” creates corporations, it owns those corporation completely -because of the fact that it is their creator.
Thus legally, corporations are slaves to the “government” that created them, by definition. They are created, live in obedience to, and die at the command of that “government” – including paying taxes to that “government.” And the rules that that “government” can make for those corporations are literally unlimited,because those corporations have no rights. They only have privileges that are granted to them by their creator “government,” privileges which can be changed or terminated at any time, solely at the pleasure of that “government.”
Functionally, those are the two “governments” which comprise the two main Federal jurisdictional powers of our one constitutional Republic. And thus, they are the “two powers” to which Roberts is referring. And he acknowledges them both as constitutionally legitimate.
But he also warns that it is extremely dangerous to mix them up. In fact, he points out that if you mix them up, you can end up with what he calls ” a general federal authority akin to the police power.”
But isn’t that exactly what everyone is afraid Roberts has actually done with his ruling?
Yet here he is specifically warning everyone against making that interpretation of his ruling, and teaching that the way to avoid that terrible mistake is to “read carefully.”
So that’s what this analysis is – a very, very careful reading. It is not my interpretation of Roberts. It is my careful reading of what Roberts actually said, per his specific instructions.
Two governmental powers exist. Roberts said so, and warned against confusing them. For the Chief Justice said that if we mix them up, WE will create – by our very ignorance - “a general federal authority akin to the police power.”
So what does that mean? It means enabling the Federal government, through Obamacare, to start treating We The People of inalienable human rights, like wholly-owned government-privileged corporations, for everything.
Point #9: Bait and Switch and Presumption
But wait a second, (I imagine you say again). What about forcing everyone to pay income tax already? If Obamacare doesn’t apply to 95% of Americans because it is imposed by corporate income tax enforcement laws, then how the hell does the government get away with applying those same corporate income tax enforcement laws to non-corporate, regular human people-persons for the income tax?
Answer: You volunteer to be treated as a corporation.
Remember in his ruling that Roberts said that “without a careful reading” you can create “a general federal authority akin to the police power” concerning Obamacare?
Well concerning the income tax, most Americans have NOT made a “careful reading” of the tax laws, and therefore HAVE created a specific ”federal authority akin to the police power” concerning the subject of income taxes.
You see, as free human beings, we have the right to make contracts. And there is such a thing as a presumed contract. What the government has done is argued to the courts – and the courts have agreed – that the government is not responsible for people’s legal ignorance, and that if they act in such a way as to functionally volunteer to be treated as a corporation, then the government gets to treat them like a corporation.
Even worse, courts have agreed that neither they, nor other government officials, have to tell you you’re being treated as a corporation, under the interpretation that you don’t need to be told, since you volunteered in the first place.
Even worse, courts have agreed that neither they, nor other government officials, have to tell you you’re being treated as a corporation, under the interpretation that you don’t need to be told, since you volunteered in the first place.
And then, to top it off, the government has created rules to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for you to not be treated like a corporation anymore, by presuming that until you have proven you’re not a corporation, they get to pound down on you just as if you were a corporation that was faking being a human being. As a result, you can actually be convicted for fraud, and go to jail, for demanding you not be treated as if you were a corporation!
That’s the way it is.
So the technical answer is no, 95% of Americans don’t have to pay the income tax, because it’s enforcement mechanisms specify that only corporations, or people responsible for corporations, are subject to income tax enforcement.
The practical answer, however, is that without a lot of money and legal representation, the government will use the presumption that you are a corporation against you to seize your money and property, and throw you in jail, long before you can get through all the court hearings necessary for them to admit that you are a non-corporate human being-type person. Or they will simply show you that that’s what they are going to do to you, unless you sign a document agreeing that you are, in fact, a corporation, and agree that you’ve been a very, very bad corporation, and that you deserve to pay all sorts of fines in order to stay out of jail.
That’s the way it is.
So DO NOT THINK you can use the information in this analysis – even by quoting Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court – to stop paying income taxes.
It. Won’t. Work.
The IRS will simply STOMP you into oblivion, because legally, they get to treat you under the presumption that you are a corporation - and they don’t have to acknowledge any “presumed corporations” that try to claim they are not corporations.
In fact, the technical legal name for that particular argument is “frivolous.”
That’s right, according to tax laws, interpretations and rulings, pointing out that you are a human being who does not fit the specifications of the actual income tax enforcement laws, is frivolous.
Not “funny-frivolous.”
But rather, “go-to-jail-frivolous.”
Read carefully: you’re warned.
Point #10: Generalization – A Bridge Too Far
Contrary to what most people think, judges can’t just go rule on something if they think it is wrong. They have to wait for an appropriate case to come to them, and sometimes it never does. Also, cases themselves have all sorts of issues and parts to them. Sometimes a case will seem to be about one thing, but it’s actually about another. So for the purposes of what it seems to be about, it’s useless. And if political operatives have decided that certain types of cases will be ruled against their interests by certain judges, every effort will be made by those operatives to keep those cases out of those courts. Thus a judge can wait a whole career, and never rule on what he or she wants to rule on.
The opposite is also true. Sometimes a case shows up, and a judge realizes – this is it, now or never. Another opportunity may never come, or come too late to matter. So they act.
That, I believe, is what Chief Justice Roberts has done with his Obamacare ruling. If he waited longer to make this ruling, Obamacare would be in another form, and perhaps not so amenable to exposure for what it really is. Or, such a vast bureaucracy will have been formed by the time he got to rule on it, that enormous damage to the country would have been done in the mean time. Or he simply might not have gotten to be the swing vote, and would have been out-voted no matter what his position was.
So he chose this, and he chose now.
But what did he actually do?
Simply put, he raised the alarm about something that goes far, far beyond Obamacare. In fact, it goes straight to the heart of why everyone is so upset. Roberts not only drew attention to the fact that, by simply positioning anything they want as a tax, the government can force anyone to do anything at any time – he certified that concept as constitutional. And by doing that, he made sure the vulnerability of the country to totally legal tyranny would not go away. For even if Obamacare was repealed, his ruling would still stand, and Congress could just try again with something else.
But why would Roberts do such a thing? After all, he actually warned against the creation of “a general federal authority akin to the police power.” And he also said elsewhere in his ruling, “our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed.” Yet after saying these things, he then went and enabled them!
Except he didn’t. Because he pointed out – subtly, but clearly, for those who follow his hints as I have here – that these powers Congress is trying to use against the People do not, in fact, apply to them, but only to corporations.
But the man is a Federal judge – the TOP Federal judge. Do you think, even for a moment, Roberts isn’t fully aware of what the IRS “legally” does to people who try to use Roberts own argument against them?
Of course he does.
That’s why he wrote the argument. Because now HE wrote this argument – not YOU.
And that matters. Because by definition, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is not frivolous. Even by the interpretations of the IRS.
You see, Roberts jammed the machine. And scared the shit out of the entire Federal government by doing it. That’s why no other Justice would join him – heterrified them.
And he did it because it was the only way he could find to halt the unstoppable expansion of a process that was originally promised by Congress to be limitedonly to the income tax – but technically could be applied to anything.
What was that process?
• The ability of the Federal government, to presume that natural human person Americans had volunteered to be treated as corporations under the law;
• The ability of the Federal government to do this without telling them that such a presumption had been made against them;
• The ability of the Federal government to use this presumption to deny Americans their inalienable constitutional rights by replacing them with government-controlled corporate privileges;
• And finally, the ability of the Federal government to not tell Americans how to get out of that presumption without being harmed by trying to do so.
When Obamacare came up as a tax law, Roberts – and all the Justices – knew what this meant. It meant Congress had gone back on their promise to presume this terrible corporate tax power upon people only for the purpose of the income tax, and use it for everything. Because Obamacare was the generalization of this principle that opened the door to its infinite use. As long as the only application of these tax laws were for income taxes, that single application stood as a kind of protection. But with a second application, the principle became generalized, and with that, the door swung open.
But the real problem was that it was legal. Yet Roberts did not make it legal – it was made legal before Roberts was even born. People have a constitutional right to contract. Contracts can be presumed by behavior. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It’s all there – but in its application to tax laws, and now Obamacare (and with that literally everything else), it has become diabolical.
So what was Roberts to do? Throw it out? If he did that, it would come back. Congress is obviously licking it’s chops over expanding this principle of empowerment through tax enforcement. Obamacare, or something like it, or something else, would come back again, and again, and again – and each time it would be, technically, constitutional.
So Roberts decided to make a stand. Like John Hancock signing his name big enough on the Declaration of Independence to make sure the King saw it, Chief Justice Roberts ensured with the signing of his Obamacare ruling that unless everyone works together, no one is ever going home to freedom again. Because the only way out of this problem is for Americans to know about it, understand it, and craft a constitutional protection against it.
Not against corporations.
But against people being treated as corporations, and losing their rights, through presumption.
Remember Pelosi gloating that you’d have to pass Obamacare to see what was in it? She was telling you the truth about the government’s use of presumption.The government presumes that you’ve voluntarily surrendered your humanity for corporate status, and then passes bills without telling you what’s in them, because you have no right to know what your corporate masters are doing until they want to tell you. Even then, they don’t have to tell you – Pelosi didn’t say she’d explain it, just that you could read it, if it was passed.
That’s what happens if you fight the IRS, too – they are allowed to presume the corporate laws apply to you, and that you therefore have to pay the tax before you can challenge the tax in court. But then, if you pay and fight, the government doesn’t have to tell you you’re being treated as a volunteer corporation. Instead, they rule that your claims of humanity are frivolous because you’re obeying corporate laws and standing in a corporate administrative court. This secret presumption been repeatedly ruled as Constitutional. You just don’t know about it.
So you can see why those who would convert the entirety of the Constitution into tax laws, are drunk on the mechanism of presumption. That’s why Pelosi replied, when asked if Obamacare was Constitutional, “Are you serious!? Are you serious!?” Look at her reply legally: she mocked the question as frivolous,because in doing so she limited her response to only incorporated ”persons”!
And remember, she was saying this as Speaker of the House of Representatives. In other words, she wasn’t without authority when she said it. She specifically invoked the power of secret presumption by using contempt, in order to hide behind it’s legal protections. Government employees use this indemnification technique all the time, because the people don’t know it’s a legal statement!
Before Obamacare, secret presumption meant income tax. Now, it means people forced to face death panels and perform abortions against their religious beliefs – when they don’t actually have to!
That’s why SECRET PRESUMPTION is the monumental problem Roberts has chosen to expose with his courageous ruling. And he did it now because our country is poised on the edge of a precipice - right now. Compared to the absolute catastrophe of generalizing the secret taxing authority presumption, all the hell of Obamacare is merely one example, with an infinite number of the same kinds of tax laws right behind it, waiting only for Congress to vote.
But Roberts also showed the SOLUTION to the problem, when he wrote, “The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.“
Only the People can put a Constitutional Stop to the government’s currently LEGAL use of the secret presumption of corporate status against human beings. Robert’s can’t do that himself. But in a single astonishing ruling, Chief Justice Roberts has warned the American People of what is being done to them, how it is being done, and the immanent danger of its expansion of use.
What the American People will now do about this problem remains to be seen. One thing is sure, though – the more people who know about it, the better. Peaceful change can only come from knowledge. So pass the word.
God Bless America.
Copyright July 4th, 2012. All rights reserved. Permission given for non-profit distribution only.
A FURTHER COMMENT
THE SCOTUS RULING CALLING IT A TAX, CAME OUT AFTER THE SENATE / HOUSE VOTES, AND THOSE WHO WERE PUSHING IT COULD NOT FORESEE THAT IT’LL MAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO SCOTUS,
NOR COULD THEY PREDICT THE SCOTUS’s VERDICT, SO THEY’RE STUCK BIG TIME – CONSTITUTIONALLY, LEGALLY, PROCEDURALLY AND OTHERWISE …
NOW, DUE TO CONSIDERATIONS IN THE LEGAL ANALYSIS ABOVE, IT MAY BE UP FOR A NEW SERIES OF LEGAL AND POLITICAL CHALLENGES DUE TO THE GROSS MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAW, TITLE 26, IRC, ETC. IN TERMS OF
WHAT “PERSONS” OR “INDIVIDUALS” Obamacare ACTUALLY APPLIES TO. IF THE GROSS DECEPTION IN ITS LANGUAGE IS WIDELY EXPOSED, CHALLENGED AND UPHELD BY THE COURTS, IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO THE S.C.”TAXPAYERS”,
AND AS SUCH, COULD AS WELL BRING THE S.C.INCOME TAX MISAPPLICATION SCAM AND FRAUD DOWN, ALTOGETHER !
PROVIDED, THOUGH, THERE ARE ENOUGH NOT-SO-CORRUPT JUDGES WILLING TO UPHOLD THE LAW AND THIS SCOTUS RULING. AND, THAT IS A BIG QUESTION.
THAT’S WHY THE BRILLIANT AUTHOR ABOVE IS NOT EXACTLY RIGHT WHEN SAYING: “Peaceful change can only come from knowledge“.
“KNOWLEDGE IS ONLY POWER WHEN IT HELPS YOU INTO A POSITION OF POWER”, SAYS G.E.GRIFFIN.
THIS IS TRUE WHEN IT COMES TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS, INCLUDING JUDGES AND JUSTICES, WHO DO HAVE THE INSIDER KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH, BUT COMMIT TREASON
BY SILENCING IT TO HELP PERPETUATE THE FRAUD, MISUSE, MISAPPLY THAT KNOWLEDGE TO FURTHER USURP AND STRENGTHEN THEIR DE-FACTO POWER OVER THE PEOPLE THEY’VE TAKEN OATH TO PROTECT !
WILL “WE THE PEOPLE”, OR LARGELY AND GROSSLY IGNORANT SHEOPLE USE THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR “Peaceful change“, OR EVEN CARE TO LEARN THIS KNOWLEDGE EN MASSE, STILL REMAINS TO BE SEEN …..
Source: Before It's News
Americans,
You make your own destiny, no one rules when no one complies, RESIST AND DEFY. If you do not choose your path in life others will choose it for you!
Elevengun
I AM PATRIOT!
While the official motto of the Tenth Amendment Center is “Concordia res parvae crescunt” (Small things grow great by concord), one of our “unofficial” mottoes is “The Constitution. Every Issue, Every Time. No Exceptions, no Excuses.”
It’s a great standard to stick to. Here’s an example why.
Earlier this year, Dr. Gary North put up a short post on his “Tea Party Economist” blog, where he mentioned a topic that a number of people have asked me about:
“In a dozen states, there are bills to make gold legal tender… What is significant is this: there is enough interest in gold today to call forth such bills. It indicates a major shift in the fringes of public opinion. Such bills would have been unthinkable in 2007.”
He’s absolutely correct: thanks to a number of factors (the Crash of ’08, the Great Recession, the monetary policy-focused Presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul, etc.), more Americans than ever have had an “awakening” of sorts regarding gold and silver, and as a result, we’ve had several different types of “sound money” bills introduced in State legislatures across the country. What North is referring to in particular here is what are commonly called “State Legal Tender” bills. These bills have been introduced in a number of States around the country over the last few years. It’s a growing movement (see the main website here), and has already been successful in getting a law passed in Utah declaring gold and silver coins to be “legal tender” (and they were almost successful in Arizona, where both legislative houses passed a similar bill, only to have Gov. Jan Brewer veto it).
Now, before I get into any details, let me start off by making one thing perfectly clear: I like the fact that “State Legal Tender” bills (and gold and silver coin “Sales Tax Elimination” bills, discussed below) are being introduced and passed in the States. I agree with Dr. North that what’s significant is that “there is enough interest in gold today to call forth such bills,” which “indicates a major shift in the fringes of public opinion.” And I agree with a number of my friends who promote these kinds of bills, as being “incremental steps” towards “returning to sound money” in America. But there’s a few things I need to clear up.
I’ve been asked a number of times, “Hey, isn’t this ‘State Legal Tender’ thing the same thing that you’re trying to do, with the Constitutional Tender Act?” Well, no, in fact, it’s not what we’re trying to do, for a number of reasons — some of which North mentions, when he discusses why he doesn’t think these bills will lead anywhere right now. So let’s discuss some of these reasons, starting with his second reason first:
“…most of these bills will not become law this year.”
I’ll grant him that. But that’s not a reason for us to declare, as North does, that “nothing much will come of this.” A lot could “come of this” next year, or the year after or the year after that; it could depend on a lot of things, from grassroots activism in support of various bills, to a currency crisis and the complete devaluation of the dollar, either of which (or some event in between) could bring about passage of sound money-related bills in the States. Regardless, it’s unlikely that Constitutional Tender bills will become law this year, either, so I’m not disagreeing with North here. So let’s look at his third reason:
“…most voters don’t care. People use plastic or currency.”
This is true, too. But one of the goals of both State Legal Tender bills and the Constitutional Tender Act is to enable people to continue using what they’re used to using, only now what they use can be backed by real money (gold and silver). They could use debit cards based on gold or silver accounts, they could write checks based on such accounts, etc. (In fact, the Constitutional Tender Act requires State-chartered banks to create gold- and silver-based accounts.) Or, they could continue using Federal Reserve Notes currency in their everyday transactions, if they like.
So, let’s go back to North’s first reason:
“…the concept of legal tender is anti-free market. A state should not declare anything as legal tender. It should limit itself to declaring the proper currency for the payment of taxes.”
Now, I agree with North, as far as he goes: Congress, for sure, has no Constitutionally-delegated, enumerated power to declare one particular form of money as “legal tender,” and as a conceptual matter, they really shouldn’t do that (which is why the Framers of the Constitution didn’t give them that power, even if the Supreme Court has pretended that they did). But there’s something that is left unsaid, which “strikes at the heart” of this matter: North is talking about the modern definition of “legal tender” here — that is, currency that the law declares may be offered in payment of a debt and that a creditor is supposed to accept. And, in fact, that’s what proponents of “State Legal Tender” bills are talking about, too: having the government make an official declaration that a form of money is acceptable for using as payment. They say that States can declare by law that gold and silver coins are “legal tender,” because the U.S. Constitution says in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. Therefore, the reasoning goes, a State may make gold and silver coins “legal tender.”
They then go on to say that, like other forms of “legal tender,” no one has to accept legal tender as payment; “it simply designates it as acceptable currency. It is not uncommon for retailers to decline to accept U.S. paper dollars and coins, for example, as a matter of policy (such as a convenience store refusing to accept large denominations). No one is forced to tender or accept gold and silver legal tender coins.”
So, that’s all well and good — if a State passes a “State Legal Tender” law (as Utah did), no one (including the State itself) is required to use gold and silver coins; it only says they can use them. More specifically, it says they can use them at their actual value (the value of their gold or silver content), rather than at the “face value” that the U.S. Mint stamped on them. In addition, it removes the “sales taxes” in any “commodities exchange” of legal tender Federal Reserve Notes for legal tender gold or silver coins (that is, instead of treating such an exchange as “buying gold or silver coins,” it treats the exchange just like you would treat an exchange of legal tender $1 bills for a legal tender $20 bill).
(By the way, there are other States, like Texas and Louisiana, which have also passed gold & silver “Sales Tax Elimination” bills into law, eliminating the State taxation of “legal tender” exchanges as described. This is a “no-brainer” — of course you shouldn’t tax legal tender currency exchanges… but of course, the national government still does. Because the IRS considers “precious metals,” including legal tender gold and silver coins, to be “collectibles,” a special capital gains rate applies to any “profits” on their “sale.”)
So, what’s the problem with any of these State Legal Tender bills? Actually, there are several.
First, as I said earlier, all of these folks are using the modern definition of “legal tender” — when what we need to be using is whatever definition was used by the people who actually wrote the Constitution. Allow me to explain:
In Article I, Section 10, the national government has been given most of the responsibility regarding money in America: to coin it (notice it does not give Congress the power to “emit bills of credit”, the common parlance of “print fiat currency”, nor does it give Congress the power to bestow that power on any other entity); to regulate the value of (literally, “make regular” or “make consistent” – to make sure there is no deviance in the gold or silver specie content of) the money they have coined; to regulate (again, “make regular”) the value of foreign coins (which meant they could be used here, but they had to be of a specific amount of gold or silver content); to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures for circulating coins (grains, ounces, pounds, etc.); and to declare what the punishment should be for anyone who counterfeits what the U.S. Mint coins (which, by the way, was death — that’s how seriously they took the idea of making our money worth less).
Now remember, in reading the Constitution, we should always try to understand it as written, with the definitions it was meant to be understood by, and not by overlaying modern definitions or understandings upon it. (Can you imagine the international uproar if Congress were to “regulate the Value of foreign currency” today, according to today’s definitions? “Congress hereby declares that one German Mark can only buy 50¢ worth of goods!”) If we don’t like what the framers meant, then they gave us the means to change it: the Amendment process.
So, Article I, Section 8 declares specifically what Congress can do (Section 9 makes some specific declarations of what they can’t do); Section 10 declares specifically what the States cannot do. Included in there is that States can’t print fiat currency (“emit bills of credit”), that they can’t coin money, AND that they can’t “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. Now, that’s pretty clear: if a State owes money to anyone or anything, it can’t “make a tender” (offer to pay the debt) to those entities in anything but gold or silver coin; and if the State is owed money, the State can’t accept any tender made (any offer to pay that debt) unless it is made in gold or silver coin.
This is a key point here: for the correct (in context) understanding of this phrase “to make something a tender in payment of debt,” see the original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary – “TENDER: In law, an offer, either of money to pay a debt, or of service to be performed, in order to save a penalty or forfeiture which would be incurred by non-payment or non-performance; as the tender of rent due, or of the amount of a note or bond with interest. To constitute a legal tender, such money must be offered as the law prescribes; the offer of bank notes is not a legal tender.”
So the Framers of the Constitution were being very clear here: No State is allowed to make or accept payments in anything but gold or silver coins. It doesn’t matter what the national government does with so-called “legal tender” laws; it’s not up to the national government to determine whether or not States can now disobey that direct prohibition, any more than it’s up to the federal government to determine whether or not States can now disobey the direct prohibition on passing an ex post facto Law or granting any Title of Nobility. The Constitution says the State CANNOT do it – so the State must simply obey the Constitution, NO MATTER WHAT the federal government says or does. It is the duty of every State, and it is the duty of every State’s elected officials, in keeping with their oath of office, to pass laws that conform to the explicit directives of the U.S. Constitution.
And this leads directly to what North doesn’t mention, but what I consider to be the biggest reason why States DO need to pass Constitutional Tender bills rather than State Legal Tender bills: all of the State Legal Tender bills specifically declare that the State can use either gold & silver coins OR they can use Federal Reserve Notes. But the U.S. Constitution specifically says that “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” — which means that any law that declares that a State can use Federal Reserve Notes (make them “a Tender in Payment of Debts”) is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. By passing such a law, they are making some other “Thing” an offer as payment — they are by law declaring that they will accept, and pay out, Federal Reserve Notes for any debts owed by or to them.
On the other hand, the Constitutional Tender Act takes Article I, Section 10 at “face value” — it unambiguously declares that the State may NOT make anything besides gold or silver a “tender in payment” (which means they cannot “make something else an offer as payment”) for any debts, which would include debts owed by and to the State. It sets up a process by which the State, which is currently in violation of the Constitution (because it accepts and pays out Federal Reserve Notes, which aren’t backed by gold, silver, or anything else), can move back to adherence to the Constitution’s actual “legal tender” provisions. And in doing so, it establishes de facto “competitive currencies” of real money vs. fiat money — and in a level-field playing environment in the free market, real money wins.
Which brings us to the other big reason that I believe States need to pass Constitutional Tender bills rather than State Legal Tender bills: the results. In other words, “What will happen if this or that bill is passed into law?” While no State has passed the Constitutional Tender Act yet (so we can’t know for sure), I discuss the likely outcome in much more detail in the paper I presented at the Mises Institute, “Ending the Federal Reserve From the Bottom Up: Re-Introducing Competitive Currency by State Adherence to Article I, Section 10″:
“Upon going into effect, the Constitutional Tender Act would introduce currency competition with Federal Reserve Notes, by outlawing their use in transactions with the State. Ordinary citizens of the State, being required to pay their State taxes in gold and silver coins, would find it necessary to open bank accounts in those denominations. Businesses operating within the State, being required to pay their State sales taxes and license fees in gold and silver coins, would need to do the same; and in order to acquire such coins, they would begin to offer their goods and services in “dual currency” denominations, where customers could choose to pay in Federal Reserve Notes (which would still be necessary to pay Federal fees and taxes) or gold and silver coins (including checks and debit cards based on bank accounts denominated in such coins). Customers, having found the need to open such accounts in order to deal with the State, would be able to engage in commerce using those accounts.
Over time, as residents of the State use both Federal Reserve Notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve Notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve Notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the State’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the State (as citizens residing in other States carry out their desire to bank with sound money), and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve Notes for any transactions. At that point, the Federal Reserve system will have become unwanted and irrelevant, and can be easily abolished by the people’s elected Representatives in Washington, D.C.”
And what about State Legal Tender laws? What results would they bring? Well, we have a real-world example to look at there: Utah. In 2011, the Governor signed H.B 317, the “Utah Legal Tender Act,” which declared that U.S. Mint-issued gold and silver coins were “legal tender” in Utah, and monetary exchanges of these coins could no longer be taxed by the State. It allowed banks to set up gold- and silver-based accounts; it allowed people to pay their taxes and fees in gold and silver coins; and it allowed the State to pay its debts in gold and silver as well.
But it didn’t require any of those things — most of which the Constitution clearly states are required. It simply allowed them — and then noted that “A person may not compel any other person to tender or accept gold and silver coin that is issued by the federal government.” Apparently, that includes any “person” who works as a tax collector in Utah, as one man found out who tried to pay his taxes in “legal tender” silver coins:
Carlton Bowen is frustrated.The Orem man says all he wants to do is pay his property tax, but the Utah County treasurer says no. The reason: Bowen wants to pay his taxes in silver.
“When is Utah going to accept its own legal tender?” Bowen asked.
Earlier this year, the Utah Legislature passed groundbreaking legislation, stating that gold and silver coins can be used as legal tender in Utah… The practical impact of the Legislature’s move has been minimal… the Utah County and state treasurers have rejected Bowen’s payment.
“In my mind there’s still no practical way of making this happen,” said Richard Ellis, the Utah State Treasurer. He said the state simply isn’t equipped to accept, authenticate and store gold and silver, and doesn’t see it becoming a reality in the near future.
So, the Utah Treasurer won’t accept payment in “legal tender” gold or silver coins, even though Utah passed a “State Legal Tender” law. And why not?
Ellis, the treasurer, says gold and silver transactions present enormous risks to the state that have to be addressed before he’s comfortable with the idea. How would the state determine the value of a coin? What’s the exchange rate? How do the state or counties secure the precious metals?
“There are a lot of things that put the treasurer in the middle of it, but I’m not anxious to necessarily be in that role,” Ellis said… “Nobody’s fleshed out all these details, and they want to have as little regulation and oversight as possible,” Ellis said. “I haven’t tried to make preparations to [accept payments] because there’s just not a practical way of making this work.”
So, what are the practical results of passing a State Legal Tender law? Apparently… nothing. In the one case where such a bill has become law, the result has been (a) the State still won’t use gold or silver coins, (b) bank accounts still can’t be set up using gold or silver coins, and — most importantly — (c) the State is still violating Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, by making some other “Thing” besides gold and silver coin a “Tender in Payment of Debts”.
I’m sorry. I just don’t see those “results” as being beneficial in any way.
Again, let me reiterate that I like the fact that State Legal Tender bills (and gold & silver Sales Tax Elimination bills) are being introduced and passed in the States. I agree with Dr. North that what’s significant is that “there is enough interest in gold today to call forth such bills,” which “indicates a major shift in the fringes of public opinion.” And I agree with a number of my friends who promote these kinds of bills, as being “incremental steps” towards “returning to sound money” in America.
What I have a problem with is when these bills, in attempting to return States to obedience to the U.S. Constitution, end up violating the very same Constitution — in fact, the very same Clause that they’re supposedly based on. That’s why we’re so strongly encouraging States to pass the Constitutional Tender Act — a bill template that can be introduced in every State legislature in the nation, setting up clear and methodical systems to return each of them to adherence to the United States Constitution’s actual legal tender provisions.
Which, in turn, will “Nullify the Fed” in the long run, which is itself unconstitutional. Not a bad deal.
Apparently we have forgotten the main problem that, we the citizens of the United States,are facing. The amnesty bill that European brought before Congress is so much more dangerous than Obama care could ever be. This Bill will give amnesty to over 10 million illegal aliens. If this bill passes it would mean 10 million undocumented people would be allowed all rights that any legal citizens enjoys. My wife is third-generation Danish and knows what her grand parents had to go through to be a citizen of this great country. So why not these 10 million free loader have to do the same thing . All citizens must obey the laws of this country. One of those laws is to enter the country legally. They should have to go through the same process that any other alien who wishes citizenship in this country has to go through. That includes entering this country legally.
Megyn Kelly of FOXNews, "The Kelly Files", 11/08/2013, interviewed filmmaker, Dennis Michael Lynch.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2821459991001/ after viewing this interview you will see why there is a problem with illegal in this country. We must not change or add anything to the existing laws we should enforce the ones on the book.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
( Galatians 5:22-23 KJV 1611 AV )
Ye Know Jesus Spoke the TRUTH, so, Please TRUST Him Now!!Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE, no one comes unto the FATHER, but through Me ( Jesus Christ )!!
Love Always, YSIC \o/
And I will Bless them that Bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all Families of the Earth be Blessed.
I am a Member to Christians United for Israel ! You can Join them and be a Member also!! Jesus Christ was Born there and DIED on the CROSS there in Israel!! Jesus Christ is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE, No one comes unto the FATHER, but through Me ( Jesus Christ )!!
Jesus Christ COMMANDED us to LOVE one Another, the WAY He LOVED us FIRST!!! Ye Know there is a God in Heaven, ye also Know His Name is to Praised twenty four hours a Day, His Name is HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, and WORTHY, He is Our FATHER in Heaven Jesus Christ!!
Love Always, YSIC \o/
Kristi Ann
Ron Paul, in his paper “The Political and Economic Agenda for a Real Gold Standard” (originally delivered at the Mises Institute‘s 1985 conference on the gold standard), discusses the steps which the economist Ludwig von Mises laid out for us to be able
to return to a sound currency (which was in his 1952 epilogue to “The Theory of Money and Credit“).
What’s particularly relevant about this discussion is that, where the attempts at the national level to implement these steps have been halting at best, the Constitutional Tender Act actually builds on what HAS been accomplished and uses it to implement those steps starting at the STATE level… where they actually have the chance to SUCCEED.
The first step we need to take, writes Paul, is “Gold Coinage“:
The heart of Mises’s proposal to restore gold to our monetary system is a gold coinage. He wrote,
Gold must be in the cash holdings of everyone. Everybody must see gold coins changing hands, must be used to having gold coins in his pockets, to receiving gold coins when he cashes his paycheck, and to spending gold coins when he buys in a store.[7]
In this one detail — the critical importance of the gold coinage — I believe lies the key to establishing a new gold standard.
We should make no mistake about it: the more progress we make toward reestablishing the gold standard, the more aggressive our opposition will become. Some vested interests, as you know, have a lot to lose if we succeed in getting the monetary system reconstructed on a gold basis. The first political step is, therefore, to get the coinage into circulation.
One objective might be to aim for every American to become a gold owner. We must encourage a broader base of political support for gold ownership and the availability of gold for personal economic objectives. Certainly a broader base of gold ownership in the country would help to reduce the threats of discriminatory taxation or regulation of gold ownership and gold coin transactions, which are seriously favored in Congress today.
Under the Constitutional Tender Act (a proposed State law which re-applies the U.S. Constitution’s negative mandate in Article I, Section 10, that “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”), the State would be required to only use gold and silver coins (or their equivalents, such as checks or electronic transfers) for payments of any debt owed by or to the State (e.g., taxes, fees, contract payments, etc.). All contracts, tax bills, etc. would be required to be denominated in legal tender gold and silver U.S. coins, including Gold Eagles, Silver Eagles, and pre-1965 90% silver coins. All State-chartered banks, as well as any other bank that is a depository for State funds, would be required to offer accounts denominated in those types of gold and silver coins, and to keep such accounts segregated from other types of accounts such as Federal Reserve Notes.
So, with the “ConTen Act”, the foundation is now laid. Dr. Paul goes on:
What we must first do is get the coinage into circulation, and then build the political base to lock the government’s fiscal folly with golden handcuffs. People have always understood the tangible value of gold coins in circulation. They don’t need to agree or even understand the fine points of monetary theory to own gold coins, trade gold coins, or use gold coins to satisfy part of their marginal-utility demand for cash balances.
Most people understand very little about economics or monetary theory. When they see supposed experts in disagreement, the status quo wins by default, because nobody with the power to change it has the courage of conviction. The majority of voters see the debate among experts and hesitate to support any leaders with comprehensive reform schemes. This is why all efforts to rebuild a gold monetary system have met with frustration and stalemate in the past.
And this is the beauty of the Constitutional Tender Act: instead of being a top-down, federal-level effort, it is a bottom-up, State-level effort, thus giving it a higher likelihood of eventual success (see my paper presented at the Mises Institute’s Austrian Scholars Conference, “Ending the Federal Reserve From the Bottom Up: Re-introducing Competitive Currency by State Adherence to Article I, Section 10“). Upon going into effect, the ConTen Act would introduce currency competition with Federal Reserve Notes, by outlawing their use in transactions with the State (as the Constitution requires). Ordinary citizens of the State, being required to pay their State taxes in gold and silver coins, would find it necessary to open bank accounts in those denominations. Businesses operating within the State, being required to pay their State sales taxes and license fees in gold and silver coins, would need to do the same; and in order to acquire such coins, instead of just relying on the U.S. Mint or coin dealers, they would begin to offer their goods and services in “dual currency” denominations, where customers could choose to pay in Federal Reserve Notes (which would still be necessary to pay Federal fees and taxes) or gold and silver coins (including checks and debit cards based on bank accounts denominated in such coins). Customers, having found the need to open such accounts in order to deal with the State, would be able to engage in commerce using those accounts.
Over time, as residents of the State use both Federal Reserve Notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve Notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve Notes). (Gresham’s law may be stated as, “Where legal tender laws exist, bad money drives out good money.” A reverse of this would be, “In the absence of legal tender laws, when people are given the free choice between using and accepting good money or using and accepting bad money, bad money becomes less popular than good money, and is driven out of the marketplace.”) As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the State’s treasury (instead of ever-devaluing FRNs), an influx of banking business from outside of the State (as citizens residing in other States carry out their desire to bank with sound money), and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve Notes for any transactions (because the average citizen will see with their own eyes that it keeps costing more and more FRNs to purchase things, while the cost in real money stays constant). At that point, the Federal Reserve system will have become unwanted and irrelevant, and can be easily abolished by the people’s elected Representatives in Washington, D.C. — and thus open the door for a return to sound money, nationwide.
All of this can take place because Dr. Paul helped bring about the minting once again of legal tender U.S. gold and silver coins, which can now be used to return every State to its Constitutional mandate for honest money. He recognized that this first step was a necessity: “There must certainly be no restrictions on the private production of coins, but I believe that getting the US Mint further into the act, producing a gold coinage with some of the mystique of the government, will be useful in the further political stages of monetary reform. Honest money, after all, is a political objective; it is fitting that people should demand honesty from their government, as well as an economic policy that permits individuals to compete honestly.” Now, with the Constitutional Tender Act, that political objective is within reach.
Thank you, Dr. Paul. Now, it’s up to US to finish the job, in our own States.
07ThursdayNov 2013
The below summarization of Barack and Michelle Obama’s 5 year reign in the White House is by far the best I’ve ever read as it squarely hits the nail on the head. And it took a black reporter writing it to make it as effective as it is. A white man’s account would be instantly criticized by the liberal media as pure racism. But, how can anyone scream Racist when an exacting description of the Obamas is penned by a well known journalist of color?
BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE EVER!
Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespected) their Christmas family picture.”
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous. I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.
I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people.
The Reagan’s made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Obama’s arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to not being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.
Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same. I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.
He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.”
If the reports are correct, this is a terrible deal, and it is dangerous for America. The prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapon capacity is the gravest national security threat we face, yet it appears that this 'deal' does not require Iran to dismantle even a single centrifuge or turn over even a single pound of enriched uranium. To lift economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for an amorphous promise to pause their immediate efforts to acquire nuclear weapons makes no sense whatsoever. It is almost surely unverifiable, and lifting the sanctions will only encourage Iran to surreptitiously continue to develop nuclear weapons--weapons that, if acquired, pose an existential threat to America and our allies.
The United States should negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness. We should have insisted on good-faith measures before meeting with the Iranians directly, such as the release of Pastor Saeed Abedini and the acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has taken the extraordinary step of condemning what is happening in Geneva as a 'very, very bad deal.' President Obama should not abandon our friend and ally Israel, and he should not cut a deal that endangers the national security of the United States.
The United States should negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness. We should have insisted on good-faith measures before meeting with the Iranians directly, such as the release of Pastor Saeed Abedini and the acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has taken the extraordinary step of condemning what is happening in Geneva as a 'very, very bad deal.' President Obama should not abandon our friend and ally Israel, and he should not cut a deal that endangers the national security of the United States.
TEXANS LISTEN-UP!
In a law suite Wendy Davis filed a few years ago she claimed she was disabled because of remarks a news report made about her and "mentally incapable of holding political office"!
Elevengun
http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/Report_Illegal_Immigration/
Like any other Patriot who loves their blessed land, I felt it was my responsibility to report two illegal aliens and the agricultural based employer who hired them. I had names, addresses, and every detail I would need to file this report with ICE. Thinking I was doing my part to keep our future safe for our children and grandchildren I went to the website to make my report; however, I was angered when I read the first few paragraphs.
It starts out by saying "Americans Working to Stop Illegal Immigration". That part sounded right but after reading a little more it tells you that 'they always explain that broader political involvement is needed because our government is barely enforcing any of the existing immigration laws at this time." In the next paragraph they tell you that "the chances of ICE taking any actions on your report is slim to none", but they still encourage Americans "to do their part in this struggle".
This sound like a sick joke and an insult to all Americans. It's like they are telling us to go ahead and make our reports (but they'll be ignored); ICE won't do anything so you're wasting your time. I'm not pleased with this and I don't know of anyone who would be. If such government agencies aren't doing their jobs why do they still 'pretend' to exist and waste our tax dollars?
I'm fed up with such stupidity and I'm fed up with Obama. We, the American People, are stranded in an ocean of uncertainty on a raft that could sink anytime. Let's take our country back!
My version of " the talk " generations of young Black men have gotten in America came from grand parents who survived Jim Crow et al without bitterness but with healthy caution about how some in society misperceive law abiding Black males.
Granted, " the talk " happened long before crack cocaine and gangster rap mutated the Black male image into the destructive icon displayed now!
I was part of the first wave to attend integrated public and private schools and with that came marching orders I faithfully followed for decades.
Highlights included:
* Don't touch anything that wasn't mine.
*Don't trespass on private property.
* Don't ask to borrow anything, refer all requests to home,
* Don't disobey the nuns ( I'm a pre-school choice kid, sent to parochial school by public educators no less ).
I can go on but here's the biggie, told to me by my loving grandmother with a fear born of life in an recently apartheid America:
* Don't go in White neighborhoods
* Don't get fresh with White girls ( and other girls too, btw ).Be a gentleman
I know these last two items may raise some eye brows in our " post racial " era but growing up in 1970s-1980s Southeast Georgia, one ignored these directives at your peril!
A White girls' false accusation of inappropriate conduct, let alone rape, had sent many young Black men in the past to their grave or lengthy imprisonment.
It wasn't until my 30s that I relaxed these rules based upon extensive observation of societal change.
That's when I first accepted a hug from a White woman. It was the 1990s and I'm sure many may snort, " What's the big deal? " but grandma's advice served me well for a lifetime.
The recent shooting death of Renisha McBride ( 19 ), a Michigan teen, by a home owner after she sought help after a car accident, touched off this walk down memory lane.
Facts haven't emerged yet but it is an apt time to review " the talk " I received about safely navigating an America less enlightened than now and necessary upgrades to address present issues.
The Old Prejudice was perpetuated by old wives tales warning Africans and American Blacks were savages tamed by the whip and words of long gone slave masters.
Now, we grapple with a New Prejudice, whose members even include wary Blacks, on guard against a swaggering thug mentality on public display daily!
Parents and mentors should update their version of "the talk " to include how today's thug culture voluntarily paints all Black youth as vandals anxious to harm anyone caught unawares.
I hope poor Renisha McBride wasn't subjected to a lethal expression of the New Prejudice, though it doesn't change the tragic outcome.
Time will tell.
Blog intro
http://reframingresources.com/2013/09/07/9/ Example resources can b found
Great Service. I loved them.
Keep it local here in Oklahoma and Yukon!
Millions of American Families losing health care must stand up for their Healthcare Freedom
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” Samuel Adams, January 21, 1776
For many of the 3.5 million American families that according to the Associated Press, the loss of their family health insurance came at them like a wrecking ball. Their very economic health and stability for their family members has been shattered because of a president who comforted millions of citizens with the one phrase which shall live in historical infamy: “If you like your health care you can keep your health care guaranteed and period!” Barack Obama – 35 times!
That one statement which as it turns out was a carefully plotted assault upon the comfort and trusting nature of the middle of the road America was used to plant the Trojan horse into the health care system like a deadly killer virus causing mass destruction. Now, 3.5 million families, much like you or your neighbor or co-workers are faced with the onerous choice of Obama’s one size fits all brand of engineered socialism or face possible excessive fines, liens against your home and in the end a surgical neutering of your own self determination and freedom. You have been obamafied!
Recent responses from readers as well as on conservative radio and in print have examined the horror and dismay that many families are facing as they attempt to deal with providing health insurance for a family member undergoing an operation, or a child who is faced with an illness or a female member who is suffering from breast cancer. Tens of thousands of examples of the gloomy prospects are pouring in, and yet in each one there is a solution.
Instead of worrying about what and when the congress will remedy this debacle it is clear that the solution lies with the family that has suffered this individual injustice. This is truly the point in the American experience when your neighbor, your distant relative and even your babysitter or church member can create your own distinctly American Insurance Freedom From Obamacare Campaign.
Imagine how the nation’s founding fathers felt at the beginning of the American Revolution and even months and years before. Sure there were writers and patriots in the colonies that were demanding justice from the British, which were largely ignored. Did that deter the common patriot who decided that his neighbor’s home that had been invaded time and time again by the British was not his fight? What about the British loyalists who were working to destroy the rights and freedoms which were God given to each and every American colonist member? These rights were stripped away by colonial government loyalists that cared more for the cruel boot and heel on their necks than the true essence of what freedom from continued oppression represented. These modern day sympathizers are the Obama democrats that stand with the socialist-in-chief and continue to mine the harbors of freedom.
Rick A. Geisler posted about Progressives, although what counts is how one votes. Many comments gave a list of votes which tells us, no matter if they ran as a Progressive, Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative, how they voted. The vote is what counts and some conclusions can be made by looking at who they suggest they represent and how they voted. We must remember to look at the vote to judge if America has been represented. Most of us are oath men and women as we all should be. We are oath keepers to our Country and our people. Just as Promise Keepers is an oath supporting organization for marriage. What say yee? Are we together in support of our Constitution and our rights or are we foolish enough to think these are outdated? It is not our Amendments; our Constitution; or Bill of Rights that are outdated. It is those who were elected that DO NOT keep their oath of office! Just as life tells us by experience that keeping ones oath is always a thing we all should do, we need them to keep their oath.
DO UNTO THE GOVERNMENT AS IT WANTS TO DO UNTO YOU, only do it first!!!
It is time "WE THE PEOPLE", place they the government, under legal CONSTITUTIONAL LAW before the illegitimate Un-Constitutional President places us under illegal martial law.
Elevengun
I AM PATRIOT
As it stands today, 3.5 million Americans have had their health insurance cancelled due to Obama care and the number could go as high as 16.5 million according to industry experts. So the 30 million uninsured that this inept Legislation was intended to aid has now reached 33.5 million and may go as high as 47 million before the exchanges are even open. I don't think this was an accident, I believe it was by design.
Obama care will only work if it has initial high enrollment numbers in the exchanges themselves. I believe shortly after the implantation of this program they realized it was going to suffer from low turnout from the young contributors, That is to say that all their data pointed to the majority of young people being more likely pay the fine rather than purchase health insurance through the exchanges. To salvage the program the needed a surrogate; enter private policies.
Private insurance policies work differently due to the fact that there is no "group" statistics" to dilute the cost of potential losses to the insurer. Therefor the insured is scrutinized more harshly, the cost is higher, and the unneeded benefits are stripped away from the policy to bring the price down. An example is that a 56 year old single man will not need maternity benefits or annual free breast screening so that benefit is removed from his policy to offset the higher non group cost he has incurred. Obama care had offered to grandfather these policies in but after learning the despairing projections from the “Youth Turn out" they decided to tighten the criteria to include 10 benefits that are not negotiable. Now the 56 year old single man has to have a plan that includes breast exams and other things that he does not need. This was a godsend for many private insurers who could now cancel their clients due to the inability to provide compliant coverage at a reasonable cost.
You see, many of these private policies were written for people with pre-existing conditions. By cancelling these policies they eliminated these pre-existing policies and lowered their own risk. In short, Obama care purposely aided big insurance companies in purging their roles of the most vulnerable (those with no group policies and pre-existing conditions) in order to facilitate a need for Obama care . They have now brought in as many as 16 million people who have no place to go except the exchanges. A nice bi-product of this action is that when they count the policies in a year or so and tally up the effectiveness of the program they will use the estimated 14 to 16 million canceled private policies as proof that at least half the 30 million expected were helped. They will conveniently ignore the fact that they themselves caused these people to lose the coverage they had.
This is not a new game, In the 30s and 40s in Chicago it was common for organizations to create a problem and then offer their services to solve it. It was called "The Protection Racket" and the people who carried it out were known as "Racketeers" and the organization was "Organized Crime". Americans should expected more from their Government than the actions of a Chicago Racketeer.
Perry
