http://reframingresources.com/2013/11/05/project-search-part-ii/
All Posts (30701)
Sort by
Tea Party
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue #190 Suite 428
Washington, D.C. 20004
What is the Tea Party?
Just the mention of “Tea Party” evokes strong emotions and comments on all fronts. It is no longer possible for the Tea Party to be ignored. Politicians and the left wing have been trying to negate the effects that this movement has had on the election process in the last two election cycles. The people who believe in the basic principles of the Tea Party have managed to elect conservative members of the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as many state and local positions.
King Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi as well as other Democrats and left wing pundits have called Tea Partiers anything from unpatriotic, terrorists, arsonists, traitors and many others that cannot be mentioned here. So what is the Tea Party?
The Tea Party is composed of like minded patriotic individuals in a loosely organized group with no central command organization. All groups are autonomous and answer only to the local members of any group. It is a phenomenon that occurred due to the left taking great strides in their attempts to destroy the democratic nature of this great country. With the election of Barrack Obama in 2008, promises were made to fundamentally transform the United States. Great hope and fanfare was present when he was elected. Only the left had an idea of how drastically they could get the country to turn into a socialist state with a tyrant at its head.
Almost immediately upon his election and taking his oath of office in 2009, Barrack Obama immediately set about socializing and expanding the powers of the Federal Government, in order to mould the country into one run by an overgrown federal government and one he was determined to control every aspect of our daily lives through fear.
History has taught us that tyrants, no matter what the country, begin their careers by promising to better everyones lives and do much better for them, than their predecessors. Barrack Obama, was no different. A wolf in sheeps clothing , he promised to fundamentally transform the United States. What he didn’t say, was that he wanted to install a socialist government, through big government programs, lies, intimidation and force. He has succeeded to some extent, with Eric Holder the dirty work as Attorney General in what is being called “Fast and Furious” and trying to destroy the Constitutional rights given to citizens of the United States in our Constitution. Katherine Sibilius as Secretary of Health and Human Services, who was responsible for the disasterous implementation of ObamaCare. Chuck Hagel Secretary of the Defense, to weaken and demoralize the military by denying them the opportunity to worship if they are Christians. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, current Secretary of State forging closer ties to enemies of the United States. The Department of Homeland Security is training for civil unrest after attempting to purchase all available ammunition for assault rifles. The EPA is ramping up regulations to effectively halt coal fired energy that they attribute to “global warming. We have a government that is allowing islamist extremists to infiltrate different aspects of our government at the highest levels.
If we have learned nothing else in history, it is that, When a lie is told to enough people, enough times, they will eventually begin to believe it. Now, this is where the Tea Party comes in.
People who call themselves Tea Party members, are simply identifying themselves with other like-minded individuals in that they are patriots, not willing to give up their country without a fight. And fight we will, to reinstate the principles of our founding fathers:
A government based on the rule of law where all parties are treated equally,
That our Second Amendment rights to bear arms will never be abridged and that our weapons of self-defense will never be confiscated.
That our rights under the First Amendment, to the practice of religion and free speech not be abridged.
That the president provide a physical, original copy of his birth certificate to We the People and submit himself to the scrutiny of qualified forensic experts.
The Internal Revenue Service must be abolished entirely leaving in place only a reasonable consumption or flat tax.
The National Security Agency's (NSA) over-broad and unconstitutional spying on American citizens needs to be curtailed and limited to those who are legitimately related to terrorism, terrorist acts, or those who are or could be linked to breaches of national security.
The rules of engagement, which favor Muslim jihadists, must be changed in order to preserve the lives of American military units.
The attempt at socializing the United States of America by enacting the unconstitutional health care plan Obamacare must be blocked, and Obamacare as it stands must be repealed.
Immigration reform is critical to our nation's survival. We must strengthen our Border Patrol and seal the borders and not allow any illegal immigrants into the country. We must come up with a commonsense plan that does not allow for amnesty for illegal aliens as well as deportation of same.
Deny special treatment of the children of illegal aliens by giving them preferential treatment not afforded citizens of the United States.
There are many more areas of agreement that we would agree on, but one thing is this, Tea Party members actively involved at the local, state and federal levels in their desire to preserve our liberties and our rights under the law. We come from different races, different ethnicity, and economic backgrounds. We are not ogres, arsonists, terrorists, traitors of killers as the President, the leftists, Senator Reid, and even some in the republican party have labeled us. But We the people are willing to fight and uphold these principles.
This is what it means to be a tea party member.
Robert Bradshaw
I've been watching Obamacare's roll-out turn into Obama's unraveling. Or at least it should be. But the Left will survive whatever we say about Obamacare. Like it did with Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS and NSA scandals too.
Obama's approval rating is tanking. His lies about his lies about Obamacare even have the democrats worried. Millions have lost their health insurance, lost their jobs, trading full time jobs for part time jobs and are really worried about the future. They're slow to the party, but America is finally getting it and waking up.
I am not a moderate. This country doesn't have time for moderates anymore. This isn't politics as usual. We are really on the edge of losing this great representative republic forever. We have a cancer in Washington. It will take painful medicine to cure it. I'm not going up there to "go along to get along". I don't care who the speaker is. I don't care what party controls what. We just don't have time to play the usual political games. I'm not going to be the one referring to the other guy as "the honorable gentleman" when he is trying to destroy my country.
This isn't a game. This isn’t tiddly-winks. This is a serious, purposeful attempt to highjack America and destroy capitalism. This isn’t a trainwreck. It’s purposeful suicide. It’s not failing, it’s working exactly according to plan. Obama knows what he’s doing. I will stop apologizing and start fighting to my last dying breath to protect your rights and defend my children's future, and the future of my constituents' children.
We play nice. We are polite. When we speak up they call us "extremists, obstructionists, jihadists, terrorists" and our side gets scared and then we compromise or give in and the march to socialism continues. The White House, the Left, controls the media and therefore the message. We get wrapped up in providing free contraceptives while they destroy the domestic energy industry and take away jobs from millions of average Americans. If we keep playing this game according to their rules, we're doomed. Not on my watch.
This is crazy. My primary opponent keeps saying we need "new leadership" in Washington. She's right. We certainly do. But to get that, you first have to elect an experienced leader.
You are not the folks you're going to see having tea and cookies in the garden under a parasol. You are like me: God fearing Patriots all. There are those who will sat in their dining rooms on 18 April 1775, and then there were those who standing on Lexington Green. I invite you now to stand by my side with your muskets on your shoulders.
This fight is about freedom. This fight is about the future of America. This is a fight we simply cannot afford to lose. You can help. Act now. Make a donation to my campaign. $5, $10, $25, $50, or whatever you can afford. Don't let this country slip away. Volunteer. Now is our time. This is serious business and nothing short of the future of our country hangs in the balance.
http://www.joegilbertforcongress.org/
This I believe is the first time I have asked to make something go viral please share and repost as much as you can! Did you know Bill Clinton had a military career (as a coward)! Elevengun IAM PATRIOT
Oh! You didn't know he had a military career? Bill and Hillary got about $20 million for their to-be-written memoirs. Here's some help for them since their memories are getting old. BILL CLINTONS MILITARY CAREER Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the draft. His Selective Service Number is 32 646 228. Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964. Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968. Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969. Bill Clinton refuses to report and is not inducted into the military. Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserves on August 07, 1969, under authority of COL. E. Holmes. Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment. Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of Arkansas ROTC , September 1969. Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton, now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2) (a) - registrant who has failed to report, remains liable for induction. Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is INELIGIBLE! Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40. Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney Gene ral (1976), while a fugitive from justice. Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from President Carter. Bill Clinton becomes the FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as President of the United States . All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by Clinton . After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia , which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia , which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1998 bombing of U.S. Embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible be hunted down and punished. Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington , DC , who are now dead, would be alive today. THINK ABOUT IT! It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 million for her forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who spent 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath. Sincerely, Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter, USN (ret) PS. Please forward this to as many people as you can! We don't want this woman to even THINK of running for President!
Should Chris Christie’s New Jersey Landslide Win Matter To Tea Party In 2014? – photo credit: Luigi Novi
You can literally see the frothing at the mouths of RINO media pundits and key establishment Republicans over the trouncing by New Jersey Chris Christie Governor of his Democrat sacrificial lamb opponent. Even though there was never any real serious doubt that Christie would win against a middling gubernatorial candidate like state Sen. Barbara Buono. According to the Christian Science Monitor and other news organizations, Christie had already been conceded the election win when major democrat donors ignored supporting their own candidate.
Now according to his frequent moderate and liberal supporters who want Christie to be the anointed one to take on a possible Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy, the trash talking against the Tea Party has already begun. The real question is why it should matter to conservatives if Christie lost or won, when the battle for the American heartland is going to be fought in 2014 and not in 2016.
The often terrified moderates in the GOP establishment sought cover under the umbrella of Christie’s middle of the road protection. The New York Times suggested that many Republicans were terrified by the Tea Party and their overwhelming grassroots supporters. Now these same GOP officials “were cheered by Mr. Christie’s success.”
Just look at the political landscape that this self proclaimed political buddy and pal of Obama created. It was Governor Christie who came to the aid of Obama’s faltering presidential re-election woes after being lambasted by Mitt Romney in the first round of the presidential debates. Obama, who appeared visibly bewildered and befuddled as he tried time and time again to attack Romney during the debate, was swept aside like a rag doll by the republican challenger.
Then came the horror and tragedy of Hurricane Sandy which ripped through the Eastern shores of New York and New Jersey. Obama, who was being held accountable by Fox News and other conservative talkers over Benghazi, needed a safe haven to lick his well earned political wounds and soon found comfort and aid in the huge welcoming arms of Chris Christie. The New Jersey governor not only gave Obama a life line as he walked and skipped along the New Jersey damaged shoreline, but he all but said the president was his new best friend.
So it is in this context, that somehow a Republi-crat governor from a purple state who has managed to willingly, hold hands with democrat leaders and concede on conservative values and principles to be taken seriously as a Republican nominee for president. Well, the moderates in the party and on the alphabet soup networks are beginning to anoint Christie while also spelling the death knell of the Tea Party.
What this premature coronation seems to forget is that while Christie was doing the easy winner’s lap around the state of New Jersey, the real story of the life and vibrancy of the Tea Party and the failure of Obama and his health care poison pill was being played out in Virginia that same night.
I vote to hang the American Flag upside down for two reasons. 1. To show disgrace to the President. 2. To show that our country is in distress because of him. I vote for Dec. 1st due to Obama Care failure
By Oscar Y. Harward
Has the time arrived for a new political party with ‘genuine’ Conservative values on ‘social, fiscal, and National Security’ issues to replace the nationwide Republican Party? Are RINO Republicans joining the Democrat Party on more and more spending? When does the ‘out-of-control’ ‘deficit spending’ end? Is the RNC leadership and Capitol Hill Republican Party splitting the Republican Party; Conservatives v. Moderates?
Will a ‘new’ national ‘Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party’, a ‘Conservative Party’, or some other named political party replace the disconnected ‘Republican ‘RINO’ Party’? Tens of Millions of Americans are crying out for a political party that will support ‘social issues’ first and ‘fiscal issues’ second; in that order. With ‘social issues’ first, the ‘fiscal issues’ will usually follow flawlessly; not necessarily so in the opposite order.
TEA Party members and supporters defend working-class Americans and businesses that create ‘new jobs’ and ‘expand existing jobs’ in the ‘private sector’.
TEA Party members and supporters seek to ‘preserve’ (y)our Social Security program, and our Medicare and Medicaid system. TEA Party members and supporters oppose ObamaCare and seek to ‘maintain the current very best Healthcare system in the entire world’.
TEA Party members and supporters’ desire to work hard and work smart in an ‘effort to exceed in life’ while on their job(s) in providing their family’s necessities of shelter, food, other needs, and additional comforts in life. TEA Party members and supporters accept the ‘importance to pay reasonable and sensible taxes’ rather than excessive and/or disproportionate taxes for ‘unwanted and unneeded government benefits and services’.
TEA Party members and supporters favor a Balanced-Budget Constitutional Amendment to ‘stop the excessive wasteful out-of-control spending’.
What has happened to the Republican Party guided with a GOP ‘Platform’ based on our US Constitution as founded by our Founding Fathers and established on ‘Christian values’? Why has the RNC and the Capitol Hill Republicans walked away from our Republican National Committee’s GOP Platform and its’ ‘social values’? Why did the RNC leadership take Republican National Committee money away from many TEA Party Republican candidates?
Why did so many Americans, and specifically Republican leaders, ignore and/or walk away from our Founding Fathers’ Constitutional freedoms that inspired our nation, and as reaffirmed in our GOP Platform?
Republican National Committee (RNC) leaders, and now the Chamber of Commerce, are rejecting Taxed Enough Party (TEA) Party Republican candidates; apparently based on ‘social issues’. TEA Party Republican candidates are simply attempting to restore our Constitutional freedoms based on Christian values and to ‘stop-the-spending’ added upon more ‘deficit’ expenditures imminent to a taxpayers’ Credit Card; an effort to save our nation for our child(ren), their our child(ren), etc.
Many Capitol Hill Republican ‘Moderates’, better known as RINO Republicans, now ratify ‘fiscal’ (money) issues first, with ‘social’ issues later; ‘if social issues ever come to life of day’.
President Obama, Capitol Hill Democrats, and RINO Republicans have now voted ‘AYE’ in allowing our National Debt to exceed more than $17 Trillion; leaving each American citizen, young and old, with more than $54,000 of a ‘bloated’ federal government liability in debt to China, Saudi Arabia, and others. How and when can this debt be paid? Where is any play to repay this $17 Trillion, plus debt? This mounting splurge of further spending must end, even if all government is forced to ‘shut down’ in order to ‘stop-the-spending’ of ‘deficit spending’. The Capitol Hill Republicans must not allow President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrat to ‘bully’ Conservatives.
Has the RNC management, Capitol Hill GOP RINO Party leaders, and the US Chamber of Commerce now ‘turned left’ in ‘crossing the aisle’ to join the ‘left-wing’ ‘more spending’ Democrat Party to ‘ignore, snub, and/or reject’ Constitutional freedoms and ‘social issues’ based on ‘Christian values'?
Have we reached a timeline when ‘dedicated’ Conservatives must walk away from the National GOP leaders and legislators and vote against all ‘Liberal’ Democrats’ legislation? Have all of our 2 political party leaders rejected our Constitutional values? Are our ‘social issues’ as defined within our GOP Platform being ignored and/or deleted? Oh, I am so saddened! Republican candidates will lose many elections on these issues, but will it really matter when the Republican Party RINO legislators displays no concern in restoring our Constitutional freedoms based on Christian based ‘social’ values as exemplified by our Founding Fathers and defined in (y)our GOP Platform?
Ronald Reagan once said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. It left me.” Today, It look as if the RNC leadership and the Capitol Hill ‘RINO’ Republican Party leadership are ‘leaving’ tens of millions of Conservative Republicans away from Conservative ‘social’ issues. Where will these ‘true’ Conservatives turn? There must be more meaning to any leader than having an (R) placed beside a candidate’s name. Conservatives will return to another political party that supports Conservative ‘social’ issues.
Perhaps, and sadly, the time may have arrived for many millions of us to ‘just say no’ to the GOP and any other political party until a ‘newer’ political party supporting ‘Constitutional freedoms and principles based on Christian values appear. Has the GOP outlived its’ life? I am tired of supporting Republican Party candidates just because they have an ‘R’ listed beside their name(s). There must be more historical personal and political ‘treasured’ trusts and/or verifications associated to any candidate(s) than having an (R) attached to their name(s).
God Bless the USA, again!
Une pensée pour tous les AMERICAINS, AMERICAINES qui sont venus combattre et mourir sur le territoire français en ce jour de commémoration.
une pensée pour tous les AMERICAINS,AMERICAINES qui sont venus combattre et mourrir sur le territoire français pendant la guerre 1914-1918.
Bonjour à tous les AMERICAINS patriotes.
Perhaps if his most recent statement was a one – off oddity, it could be more easily dismissed, but when Barack Obama threatened to a room full of political donors that he is prepared to simply bypass Congress and pass a whole “drawer full of good ideas”, it should give everyone pause. Remember, this is the same man who is said to have told staff, “I’m good at killing people” according to a just released book by Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin.
(via Washington Times)
President Obama on Friday night continued throwing his entire second-term agenda against the wall to see what sticks, challenging Republicans to join him and support more federal spending, pass immigration reform and tackle other challenges.
But should the GOP stand in the way, the president indicated he’s willing to use executive orders to accomplish his aims.
“… We have a whole drawer full of good ideas. And some of them I can do on my own, administratively.” LINK
___________________________________
Now by “good ideas” one must assume Barack Obama is talking about such disastrous policies such as Obamacare, that are now slated to kick tens of millions from their existing health plans and prevent them from seeing the doctor of their choice. Or perhaps he is indicating his attempt to wage an illegal war against Syria? Or his lessening of sanctions against nuclear bomb building Iran – something he did in secret. Or his continued opposition to the Keystone Pipeline – something that would create thousands of high paying jobs and be SAFER for the environment than transporting oil via train or barge. Then there are his TRILLIONS in deficit spending, the explosion of welfare programs, poverty rates rising, etc.
HOW CAN PATRIOTS SAVE THEIR COUNTRY?
By doing what their enemy will not be doing. The one thing Americas Founding Fathers claimed gave them the ability, authority and will to write The Constitution Of The United States Of America. That most critical thing is, Believe in God Almighty, Accept his only begotten Son as your Savior, Repent of your sins and be buried with Christ in Baptism. Failing to do these things will ultimately cost you far more than your country and Freedom!
Elevengun
I AM PATRIOT and I AM CHRISTIAN!
We at The Future of Eastern Kentucky have started a petition to send to Frankfort and DC demanding them to bring jobs to Eastern, KY so each and every family has a fair chance to achieve a better living. We are poverty stricken from the impact of job loss here; we want a better life for families in this area. We ask each and every one of you to sign our petition and have your voice heard! The recent loss of jobs in the coal industry struck a devastating impact on each and every person in Appalachia. I have listened to many people say they are not affected by coal so why should they worry. What people don’t realize is every dollar that passes through this region has been in either a miner of someone who is related to the industries hand before ours. With the above being said we just want to clarify that our petition only deals with the coal industry as to bringing jobs in to replace the ones lost due to downfall of coal in Eastern Kentucky. We aren’t Anti anything, we are Pro People, Pro Jobs, and Pro Community. Our goal is to get both the Democrat and Republican Parties working together to bring back jobs to our great community we live in. We have KY Congress members, KY House of Representatives, and US Senate KY Representatives that are members of this group willing to listen to our ideas and concerns as well as share theirs. Please join our site and sign the petition if you haven't.
Thank you
Ray Ratliff
606-477-1301
John Hatfield
606-424-1176
Facebook Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/thefutureofeasternkentucky/
Fan Page
https://www.facebook.com/thefutureofeasternkentucky/
Website
http://thefutureofeastky.webs.com/
Petition
http://www.change.org/petitions/voice-of-eastern-ky
“We’re just here to have a look around…Uh, you don’t lawfully own a gun or anything, do you?”
Sound crazy? You obviously don’t live in Massachusetts.
Swampscott, MA Selectman Barry Greenfield introduced an enforcement discussion Wednesday that he hopes will lead to the safeguarding of guns in town — keeping them out of the hands of children.
In school shootings around the country, guns have been taken from parents and used by kids, he said.
The selectman said state law requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable.
The problem, he said, is that police do not have the authority, granted by a local ordinance, to enforce the law and inspect the safeguarding of guns at the homes of the 600 registered gun owners in town.
The selectman said he has spoken with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan about this.
“We need the ability to enforce the state law,” the selectman said.
If this incredibly bad goose-stepping attack on gun ownership sounds familiar, it should. The state of Washington considered it earlier this year. Then some lawyer read this thing called the Constitution and it went away.
But we’ve never been big on that whole “Bill of Rights” thing here in Kennedy Country. And so the town of Swampscott is going to decide whether or not to send the local cops door-to-door to visit lawful gun owners and, you know, just have a look around.
What could possibly go wrong?
Am I exaggerating? A year ago if I’d warned about cops being sent to gun owners homes to “inspect” them, you’d have said that was exaggeration. Five years ago if I’d said Massachusetts towns would make it illegal to smoke outside you would have said the same.
By the way, nobody should be surprised that this attempt to intimidate gun owners is happening in Swampscott. It’s a town notorious for treating citizens like servants to be ordered around.
I’d just remind Selectman Greenfield that these things don’t always work out well for anti-gun extremists, even in Massachusetts. Just ask former Westford selectman Robert Jeffries.
Julia Davis, a former Customs and Border Protections Officer, was falsely declared a domestic terrorist and subjected to retaliatory efforts against her by the Department of Homeland Security. Her home was raided by a 27 man “special response team.” She was twice falsely arrested and imprisoned, but later exonerated. She is now a national security expert and has put out a historical documentary titled Top Priority: The Terror Within. She claims that the War On Terror by the Department of Homeland Security is a charade and that the agency seems to be targeting concerned American patriots.
The remainder is at the link below.............................
This was posted last year by Stormbringer. Excellent blog. I suggest that all put it on their favorites list.
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.
