by metatron 113 Replies latest jw friends
Speaking of which, the original point of this thread. Has anyone read the NDAA? Take a look at sections 1031 and 1032 where it specifically states
Do you really think spreading internet half truths is helpful in addressing the serious concerns within our government?
There is no half truth.
To me it looks like they changed it at the last minute. Looks like public pressure and outcry might have worked. The final passed version of the bill was probably changed. There is no longer a section 1021.
An article published in April of this year - it WILL happen - sammies
The U.S. is turning into a huge debtor's prison.
But Beks...there is no absolute law that mandates federal income taxes as far as I know. It is implied and force applied but as far as I know, nobody will point to an absolute clause that says you must pay federal taxes and yet by federal implication, every person must. State taxes are filed in at least some places based on whether or not you file federal taxes but if you have no law to file federally, how can you be forced to file by state? Why not just make a law and make it clear. The threat and action of seizure of your property by armed personnell has almost all Americans so fearful of their government tax collectors that they comply. Many a civilized country cannot understand the use of force by armed personnell as it relates to taxation. So if laws are ambiguous by intent, how can we believe that any law created with the same ambiguity cannot be forceable abused? sammies
But Beks...there is no absolute law that mandates federal income taxes as far as I know.
Check the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ratified in 1913. It was ratified by all but 6 states.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
I should point out as well, that there are other laws passed I'm sure, although I can't recall their numbers or sections, that would state that under a state of emergency for example, all people would or could be considered enemies of the State. This would become a 'me vs them' scenario where all people outside the government or security forces would be considered a threat and in times of military rule, I believe all rights as a citizen are suspended. All bills link to one another and are used in conjunction with one another - so while one bill claims one thing, another can be publicized to counteract the first. sammies
But Botch, while they have the power, did they pass the law? That is the question. Where is the printed law that says that one must pay federal taxes on income? The original law was applicable to corporations and profit but was not intended for personal income and I believe that one is in print. I know federal is implied and followed but I think people have been asking for the printed law that demands that payment be paid, for years. To date I don't think it's been found. Don't know if you've seen freedom to fascism documentary - it goes into this in depth and the IRS commissioner and others have never come up with any law. I think Ron Paul said - well they have more guns - or something like that. sammies
To me it looks like they changed it at the last minute. Looks like public pressure and outcry might have worked. The final passed version of the bill was probably changed.
I should point out as well, that there are other laws passed I'm sure, although I can't recall their numbers or sections, that would state that under a state of emergency for example, all people would or could be considered enemies of the State.
Wow. So in other words you guys are pretty much uninterested in finding the facts if it fits in with your preconceived notions. Assumption and speculation are good enough. Okie dokie.
Have you fact checked that Aaron Russo movie?
I started getting pretty fizzed up over it a few months ago, then began to explore each point individually. What a waste of time.
Assumption and speculation are good enough. Okie dokie.
Baloney. I provided links to all the draft versions of the bill above. The final bill does not have the same language. It is gone. You can easily click and see for yourself.
And the ACLU was on the warpath over it. I'd hardly think they were engaging in half truths and scaremongering. You had people from all over the political spectrum, from Maddow to Napolitano to Uygur condemning it, and that is upthread too.
Seems to me you are trying to whitewash it. At least Maddow displayed intellectual honesty about it.
It was the Senate Bill that was passed that specifically said it does not apply to US Citizens or resident aliens except under the Constitution. I'm perfectly willing to believe that it needs some clarification. It also states in section 1031 that it applies to (I'm paraphrasing) those involved in the 9/11 attacks, members of Al Qaeda, and those engaged in terrorist hostilities against the US. I have to assume that is to cover the killing of the likes of Anwar Al Awlaki. I know Maddow, the ACLU and most left leaning talkers were very much against that.
My point is that the ability to drone strike a US citizen in a foreign country that was (apparently) engaged in planning terrorist hostilities against us and the ability to round up Occupy Wall St. demonstrators and hold them are two very different things. Police State hysteria isn't going to do anything to help explore the reality.
