Re:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/16Amend/LegIntent16thAmend.htm
Give that a tug, if it do ya well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Letter of the language in regards to levy and collection of taxes is VAGUE at best. If it was so affirmed to be right, disentors would rarely show their faces. And in turn, if this case was so clear cut as you put it Deep_Dish, then why do movies like Freedom to Fascism crop up? To confuse and confound the (ma)sses so that they lack freedom and confidence in their governing body? Or is it freedom of speech at work and the GOV wouldn't strike down such tripe because it would be a blatant smack down of law?
I understand the tone of your post, and I don't expect you to read mine, as if you're a man o' your word, you'll likely have gone past the banter this post, and those like this one create. However, lumping ALL topics together into one category as "conspiracy" theory, then labeling those who "think for themselves" as deniers is, well, more psychological warfare than anything. Your reference to IRS uncle gives credence to what the posts refers to, yet, trying to besmurch the feelings and reputations of other's who might belief different than you is not different than the criminals you finger out as deniers, don't you think?
It's much the same argument those who fear reprisal on 9-11 use. They gather a bunch of "engineers" and "scientists," those with tenure, government connections, or high-pay positions, those with something to lose, put them on display, and feed them what they shall parrott as the party-line. Logic alone can refute what happened on 9-11. Three buildings, one of which was never hit, DO NOT fall, imploding on itself, as a result of fire. Moreover, structural integrity as it be compromised would cause the building to list to one direction, and not uniformly fall so perfect as to NOT hit another building. The devastation SHOULD have been worse had the buildings actually been the work of terrorists, because they would have toppled onto the citizens of New York. Moreover, were they work of Terrorists, affirmed through government research and our 500 billion dollar budget, we'd have found more than Mass-Weapons of Destruction. We'd be a nation united, not divided, as we stand. But once again, a different post, for a different day.
Diverting the topic by suggesting YOUR REALITY is right, and the 16th Amendment is correct is a bit...smug. It's much the same tactics used to force people into a VOLUNTARY situation of payment to an institution misappropriating money worse than Enron at its peak.
A law needs to be COMPLETE, CLEAR, and LAID out. A new shrouded in such secrecy, that is inevitably ONLY enforced through fear, compulsion, and Neo-Con enforcers IS NOT A LAW. How can it be? Every contradictory argument yet posted is SOLELY based on fear?
"Alas, the Judge will heave you into jail!"
"Alas, the IRS agents will track you down, audit you, and throw you into jail!"
The country is built on THE PEOPLE. When it ceases to have this CLEAR goal in mind, like a DEFUNCT corporation it must be thrust into the pit and thrown to the winds. Bottom line. If it EXISTS for any other purpose, it ceases to exist. It negates its OWN EXISTENCE. One can say a corporation on exists for Profit, but if that be true, then it ceases to exist, too. Much more injury can be had by a defunct corporation NOT focusing on people, and solely focusing on money. See, injured citizens. See, damaged nature. See Enron. See Exxon Valdiz Spill. See Pollution. See Monsanto. The profits themself aren't HAD in an Ayn Randian utopia where people are free. In her book, which is utopian in its hope, but utterly impossible to achieve in present day America, people are free to come and go. Laissez Faire. Minimal government intervention. Maximal business strength. We can only know the merit of these ideals if they ACTUALLY exist, otherwise they're mental extentions of hope and theory with no more weight than air.
I'll grant you your opinion, and the freedom to think, but your argument is full of holes, and provides but one reference to anything factual. It's akin to saying "Because My Mom Says it's True." Just because a he-said-she-said situation occurred, doesn't make it so. And yes the 16th is said to be ratified, but, the only way things SHOULD exist legally is if they're 100% by the Consitution, any OTHER manner of doing so differently isn't LEGAL. The government can't subjectify, it can only objectify things. Everything MUST be straight and narrow as tough as that might be given such power. If it requires a 2/3 vote, and there never was one, then it isn't legal. There's no grey area. More importantly, POWER CANNOT BE GIVEN TO CORPORATIONS or SEPARATELY owned ENTERPRISES on behalf of the US GOV. They cannot entrust or imbue OTHER entities with their rights/powers.
A-Unit
