Inaccuracies in AFTF

[LibertyEagle]

I have heard several times on here that there are several inaccuracies in America: Freedom to Fascism. So, I wanted to ask what those are.

[AlexAmore]

All the bullshit spewing from this man's mouth:
http://www.yannone.org/BlogPics/SheldonCohen.jpg

[trispear]

Lol!

[noxagol]

Well, the DOD budget is NOT equal to corporate income tax. It is infact MUCH larger. It might have been equal when the movie was made though.

[BuddyRey]

All the bullshit spewing from this man's mouth:
http://www.yannone.org/BlogPics/SheldonCohen.jpg

LOL!!!!!!!!! :D

That pretty much sums it up. If there were really any holes in tax protestors' arguments, wouldn't they have been spotted by now? In fact, tons of tax evasion cases have already been thrown out on the strength of the evidence offered in AFTF!

[american.swan]

Well, the DOD budget is NOT equal to corporate income tax. It is infact MUCH larger. It might have been equal when the movie was made though.

It might have been equal when the study was carried out by the order of Reagan...so that was some time ago

i could be wrong

[LibertyEagle]

bump

[cjhowe]

[Asking myself if I really want to spend the next several hours debating with conspiracy theorists]

It has been about a year since I've watched it. That said, I apologize if I counter points of Fed Conspiracy and There is no Law, that is not specifically mentioned in the movie.

To begin with, "inaccuracies" may not be the correct word. Misleading would be more correct.

Claim: FIT, there is no law.
From memory, there's a claim that the 16th amendment gave no new taxing authority. That's accurate, but misleading. Since the signing of the Constitution, Congress had the authority to tax income, to tax anything actually. The Constitution put no limitation on what congress could tax, provided it was apportioned based on census or enumeration. The 16th amendment allowed for the income tax, specifically, to not need be apportioned based on census or enumeration.

Basic history of the law...
1. Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 imposed a tax on income. (there were previous taxes on income that were that were repealed, as well as laws afterwards that superseded this law)
2. Supreme Court Ruling Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. deemed the the income tax unconstitutional because its proceeds were not apportioned based on census or enumeration.
3. Congress and the States ratified the 16th Amendment overruling the SCOTUS in Pollock.

From memory, there was another claim that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. Secretary of State Knox proclaimed it ratified on 2/25/1916. By that date 40 states had ratified it, only 36 were required. Within two weeks of Knox's proclamation, an additional two states had ratified it. IIRC, A:F2F makes a claim that 3 states did not ratify it for what ever reason, the argument is moot (while also unfounded) as even without those three, there were sufficient states in agreement for ratification.

Claim: Fed Reservce Conspiracy
There is a quote flashed on the screen by Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."
Then Russo narrates something to the effect that Rothschild knew that he and the other bankers would now control the laws of the nation after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A little hard for Rothschild to know this when he died 101 years prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.


As far as the overall conspiracy, this link gives a pretty good synopsis: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html of the reality of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve.

Misc. misleadings
There's a quote attributed to Bill Clinton in the film that reads
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
The actual quote was:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles—it's something I strongly support—we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation—no other nations—has permitted to exist."

While I can agree that Bill Clinton is wrong in his line of thought, he's not suggesting some world government.

[Thunderbolt]

...

[Wyurm]

I recommend AFTF as good viewing for critical thinkers ONLY. If you can't think critically, then it can have a negative effect. Most people who watch this movie and say it led them to Ron Paul or opened their eyes are already critical thinkers who can take the good and toss the misleading info.

The movie is however correct. The goal was to show how taxes and our money system are working to enslave us. Whether it started intentionally to enslave us or was just a natural course it took is a completely different debate. After all, slavery has appeared many times in human history. Its an easy way to get things done without having to give up profits. So, its only natural that if liberty is not safeguarded, those with power and influence will rise up eventually to enslave the "have-nots". The difference this time is how quietly its happening. It has been a silent shift toward slavery rather than an obvious shift.

Also important to note is that most of this type of program that wish to expose what is really going on in government fail to show the "big picture". The agendas are often lumped together as if its one massive conspiracy to achive whatever goal is being spotlighted. The truth is that there are a great many seperate agendas (not all with bad intentions either) which have similar goals toward meeting their respective ends. For example, La Raza (Pro-reclaiming western states for Mexican nationals) would love the NAU, but they would love it for the open-boarders policy not for the stepping stone toward globalization. The fed would love an invasion of Iran for propping up the US dollar, not for enacting UN resolutions, and it goes on. The thing is that there is so much of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense occuring with these special interest groups that it gets confusing to seperate their individual agendas. The result is that often an action that actually belongs to one group is mis-assigned to another in documentaries such as this.

The important thing is not to get too involved in picking apart the seperate agendas, rather its to focus on the root of the problem. The root of the problem here is that these agendas are being allowed to be acted on despite their anti-American natures. In other words, the real problem is our government's failure to uphold the vow each government servant takes when they take the oath of office. The promise to obey and protect the Constitution. Instead they have torn it to pieces. The Constitution is what prevents these agendas from having a place in our government, while failing to follow it is asking for the death of America.

I'm sure there might be one out there, but I would prefer a documentary that shows each of the violations of the US constitution that have occured since 1912. This would be more valuable than just trying to expose one or two conspiracies.

[Thunderbolt]

...

[lucius]

[Asking myself if I really want to spend the next several hours debating with conspiracy theorists]

It has been about a year since I've watched it. That said, I apologize if I counter points of Fed Conspiracy and There is no Law, that is not specifically mentioned in the movie.

To begin with, "inaccuracies" may not be the correct word. Misleading would be more correct.

Claim: FIT, there is no law.
From memory, there's a claim that the 16th amendment gave no new taxing authority. That's accurate, but misleading. Since the signing of the Constitution, Congress had the authority to tax income, to tax anything actually. The Constitution put no limitation on what congress could tax, provided it was apportioned based on census or enumeration. The 16th amendment allowed for the income tax, specifically, to not need be apportioned based on census or enumeration.

Basic history of the law...
1. Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 imposed a tax on income. (there were previous taxes on income that were that were repealed, as well as laws afterwards that superseded this law)
2. Supreme Court Ruling Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. deemed the the income tax unconstitutional because its proceeds were not apportioned based on census or enumeration.
3. Congress and the States ratified the 16th Amendment overruling the SCOTUS in Pollock.

From memory, there was another claim that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. Secretary of State Knox proclaimed it ratified on 2/25/1916. By that date 40 states had ratified it, only 36 were required. Within two weeks of Knox's proclamation, an additional two states had ratified it. IIRC, A:F2F makes a claim that 3 states did not ratify it for what ever reason, the argument is moot (while also unfounded) as even without those three, there were sufficient states in agreement for ratification.

Claim: Fed Reservce Conspiracy
There is a quote flashed on the screen by Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."
Then Russo narrates something to the effect that Rothschild knew that he and the other bankers would now control the laws of the nation after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A little hard for Rothschild to know this when he died 101 years prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.


As far as the overall conspiracy, this link gives a pretty good synopsis: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html of the reality of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve.

Misc. misleadings
There's a quote attributed to Bill Clinton in the film that reads
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
The actual quote was:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles—it's something I strongly support—we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation—no other nations—has permitted to exist."

While I can agree that Bill Clinton is wrong in his line of thought, he's not suggesting some world government.

"The use of ‘conspiracy theory’ is a derogatory epithet. It is something the propagandists have deeply embedded [into the collective American psyche] and has been perfected over the decades. It is a useful tool to eliminate articulate dissent, other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda." Chris Sanders, Political Economist--Sanders Research

[cjhowe]

I recommend AFTF as good viewing for critical thinkers ONLY. If you can't think critically, then it can have a negative effect. Most people who watch this movie and say it led them to Ron Paul or opened their eyes are already critical thinkers who can take the good and toss the misleading info.


I don't want to detract from the rest of what you wrote, because it's very good and very true. I only have a contention with your recommendation that it is good viewing for critical thinkers. It's the same milk v. meat argument that religious people give. It's not good viewing for anyone. If you have to misrepresent something to get someone to agree with you, there's a problem with your viewpoint. In regards to documentaries, you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the baby cannot survive on its own, it's already dead....[apologies if I took that analogy too far]



The movie is however correct. The goal was to show how taxes and our money system are working to enslave us. Whether it started intentionally to enslave us or was just a natural course it took is a completely different debate. After all, slavery has appeared many times in human history. Its an easy way to get things done without having to give up profits. So, its only natural that if liberty is not safeguarded, those with power and influence will rise up eventually to enslave the "have-nots". The difference this time is how quietly its happening. It has been a silent shift toward slavery rather than an obvious shift.

Also important to note is that most of this type of program that wish to expose what is really going on in government fail to show the "big picture". The agendas are often lumped together as if its one massive conspiracy to achive whatever goal is being spotlighted. The truth is that there are a great many seperate agendas (not all with bad intentions either) which have similar goals toward meeting their respective ends. For example, La Raza (Pro-reclaiming western states for Mexican nationals) would love the NAU, but they would love it for the open-boarders policy not for the stepping stone toward globalization. The fed would love an invasion of Iran for propping up the US dollar, not for enacting UN resolutions, and it goes on. The thing is that there is so much of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense occuring with these special interest groups that it gets confusing to seperate their individual agendas. The result is that often an action that actually belongs to one group is mis-assigned to another in documentaries such as this.

The important thing is not to get too involved in picking apart the seperate agendas, rather its to focus on the root of the problem. The root of the problem here is that these agendas are being allowed to be acted on despite their anti-American natures. In other words, the real problem is our government's failure to uphold the vow each government servant takes when they take the oath of office. The promise to obey and protect the Constitution. Instead they have torn it to pieces. The Constitution is what prevents these agendas from having a place in our government, while failing to follow it is asking for the death of America.

I'm sure there might be one out there, but I would prefer a documentary that shows each of the violations of the US constitution that have occured since 1912. This would be more valuable than just trying to expose one or two conspiracies.

[cjhowe]

"The use of ‘conspiracy theory’ is a derogatory epithet. It is something the propagandists have deeply embedded [into the collective American psyche] and has been perfected over the decades. It is a useful tool to eliminate articulate dissent, other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda." Chris Sanders, Political Economist--Sanders Research

However, it is primarily a useful tool to point out those who have a victim mentality and are not capable of having articulate discussions that are based in reality. It is similar to a car being capable of being used as a means for transportation and as a home.

[Wyurm]

I find it a shame that so many people send this DVD out with Ron Paul materials. The law is whatever a judge says is the law. There are hundreds of thousands of unconstitutional laws on the books. So whether or not it is constitutional makes no difference at all.

I about spit out my drink all over my keyboard when I read this. How can you even say that? The constitution IS THE LAW. It is the law that all laws are supposed to abide by. A judge does NOT make laws a judge is only there to determine whether or not a law has been broken. If a judge is not doing their job, then they should be removed. How you can say this and yet be supporting liberty astounds me.


I am afraid that all the people that I have heard who saw this because it was sent to them by Ron Paul supporters are now against Ron Paul because they think he is nutjob that backed this DVD and is trying to get people into trouble implying that they do not have to pay his taxes.

Then they likely would not be Ron Paul supporters if they are so gullible. Just like anyone that visits the Fred Thompson (http://www.fredthompsonforum.com) forum and decides they won't vote for Fred Thompson because of what they see there. Very soon, once Ron Paul reaches the "top tier" to a point where the MSM can't deny it anymore, there will be a massive amount of attacks against his character, voting record, etc... If they can't handle a supporter giving them AFTF, then how on earth would they be able to handle the MSM blasting RP?


I wish people would just send out Ron Paul speaking. A good DVD, professionally made, with good video quality, that just shows Ron Paul and uses his words. Trying to convince people that there is no law to pay taxes to try to get them to support Ron Paul seems silly to me. You will only convince a few young kids, turn off all adults and what does this have to do with Ron Paul anyway? Nothing.

This works fine, however, to each their own. What works for one supporter, won't always work for you. You don't have to like how each supporter supports, I know I don't, but its counter-productive to argue against it. Who have you converted by issuing this complaint?


What is a law? It is a thing that when you break it there are consequences. Now, you think you won't have any consequences for not paying taxes... When you can convince me of that, then you will have convinced me there is no law, but I don't think anybody in the film seemed to know what a law is. There is more to law than written statutes. There is case law. There is administrative law. There is tax law and tax courts. If a tax court tells you you have to pay, guess what, that is a law.

This DVD has just enough accuracy to make it dangerous and to confuse people. Do a search for Sheldon Friedman and paying taxes. He has written some excellent stuff on the topic.


I'm just going to end with this. If there is no law written on the books, then there is no law. Thus if there is no law requiring that you pay income taxes, yet you are being forced to anyway, then you are not living in a free environment, you are living under tyranny. This is what we have now (a tyranny) and we are seeking to get Ron Paul elected to restore our liberty. So no, there is no law and why is this important? because its part of waking people up.

Do I recommend AFTF as a tool for this? not really, Aaron Russo (may he rest in peace) used a journalistic style that I'm not very comfortable with. Its they same style that Michael Moore and Alex Jones use. I like Alex Jones, Moore goes overboard and often misrepresents what he is exposing by only spotlighting a select few that support his argument. So no, I wouldn't use it to introduce people to Ron Paul. But this does not mean I don't agree with the points in the movie.

[Thunderbolt]

...

[Thunderbolt]

...

[lucius]

However, it is primarily a useful tool to point out those who have a victim mentality and are not capable of having articulate discussions that are based in reality. It is similar to a car being capable of being used as a means for transportation and as a home.

Very poor analogy, but it does demonstrate that you have a pedestrian mindset. I would suggest you broaden your reading with a first edition reprint of Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by Carroll Quigley. Quigley was mentor to young Bill Clinton while he attended Georgetown University. Former President Clinton said in 1992:

"...As a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so.".

What was one of Quigley’s “pearls” that cause the pulling and destruction of his first edition of Tragedy & Hope?

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies...but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

It’s good read, but might be a little tough for you, you can always return to something softer like ‘Alice in Wonderland’.

[cjhowe]

Very poor analogy, but it does demonstrate that you have a pedestrian mindset. I would suggest you broaden your reading with a first edition reprint of Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by Carroll Quigley. Quigley was mentor to young Bill Clinton while he attended Georgetown University. Former President Clinton said in 1992:

"...As a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so.".

What was one of Quigley’s “pearls” that cause the pulling and destruction of his first edition of Tragedy & Hope?

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies...but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

It’s good read, but might be a little tough for you, you can always return to something softer like ‘Alice in Wonderland’.

Alice in Wonderland is appropriate. How many friggin rabbit holes do you people have? "Dead end over here...how bout that one over there...nope, nothing there, how bout that one?..." it never ends.

[noxagol]

ACTUALLY, the final ineterpretor of the law are the 12 men and women in the jury box. They have more power than even the Constitution through something called Jury Nullification.

They can be presented with evidence that clearly shows someone killing another person. That person could also have no valid reason for wanting to kill the other, IE cold blood.

The jury can still decide that he is not guilty. The final decider is the jury not the judge. Who is the jury? WE THE PEOPLE!

[lucius]

Alice in Wonderland is appropriate. How many friggin rabbit holes do you people have? "Dead end over here...how bout that one over there...nope, nothing there, how bout that one?..." it never ends.

Once again, a feeble retort.

[cjhowe]

Once again, a feeble retort.

Your higher level learning is a conspiracy theory in itself. The author held his viewpoints in 1949 and somehow had them "confirmed" by the "insiders" letting giving him an inside look 15 years later. Riight. He then goes on to publish a 1300 page book without footnotes. Yes, this is to be trusted as the smoking gun.

[lucius]

Your higher level learning is a conspiracy theory in itself. The author held his viewpoints in 1949 and somehow had them "confirmed" by the "insiders" letting giving him an inside look 15 years later. Riight. He then goes on to publish a 1300 page book without footnotes. Yes, this is to be trusted as the smoking gun.

Better, you are now speaking too issues. Your bombastic rhetoric is quite amusing—“smoking gun”.

CFR member Walter B. Wriston, ex-chairman of Citicorp, wrote 'The Twilight of Sovereignty', explaining how the information revolution was ending nation-state sovereignty. He said: "A truly global economy will require concessions of national power and compromises of national sovereignty that seemed impossible a few years ago and which even now we can partly imagine."

Speaking about 1949. NATO was designed as a political and military subsidiary of the UN, and it has no rationale for existence apart from the world organization. This was understood at the time of NATO's creation in 1949. A State Department document published in the spring of that year entitled Foreign Affairs Outlines: Building the Peace explained that NATO was designed to "bring about world conditions which will permit the United Nations to function more efficiently." This understanding was also expressed in a March 1949 Washington, DC address by CFR member Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Acheson explained:

"[NATO] is designed to fit precisely into the framework of the United Nations and to assure practical measures for maintaining peace and security in harmony with the Charter.... The United States government and the governments with which we are associated in this treaty are convinced that it is an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations...."

(An interesting note about Acheson concerning Communist Alger Hiss, who held CFR membership in the 1940s as well. After Hiss had been exposed as a Communist agent, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, a CFR member publicly announced that he would never turn his back on Hiss - and he never did.)

In 1976 interview in 'Transition', CFR member Senator Cranston warned against publicly promoting world government since "the more talk about world government the less chance of achieving it, because it frightens people..." Jean Drissell, "A Senator's View of World Order," Transitions, III (April, 1976).

"The stability of the new world order and the new global challenges require cooperation between all global players.... [W]e have to fight organized crime, international terrorism, and fundamentalist tendencies which are not limited to Islamics only.... Nationalism ... is a main enemy of the nations of Europe, and it can only be avoided by an ever closer cooperation [through the EU]." Former German Chancellor Hans-Dietrich Genscher at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University 1996.

My favorites:

"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes." Abraham Lincoln

Watch Dr. Paul denounce the North American Union at the four minute mark. An interesting note but Dr. Paul remarks that politicians against the NAU are labeled by the media as ‘CONSPIRATORIAL’. See how the Master eloquently speaks too support of Israel in the first four minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Jn2xCF92Y

Here is a little tidbit on preCFR media control, US Congressional Record from 1917 by Representative Oscar Callaway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pLRWiqNsnY&NR=1

CFR Ex-director Cheney speaking at CFR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg&mode=related&search=

Bill Clinton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTi2ib9QMY0

Bush Senior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CWBTL33MpA&mode=related&search=

Gary Hart speaking at CFR on 9/12: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEfdUuPeus0

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” Herbert Spencer

I see you are a regular…

[cjhowe]

This is becoming annoying. There are bad arguments that are non sequitur and there are conspiracy theories. What makes a conspiracy theory is the use of a non sequitur argument to prove another non sequitur argument. And this is what all of the Federal Reserve, NAU, EU, CFR, 9/11 inside job, etc conspiracy theories do.


If there are those that want world domination and the enslavement of the masses, then there must be organizations that exist to remove the principle of state sovereignty.

If there are organizations that exist to remove the principle of state sovereignty, then there must be people who use the influence they have in multiple countries for their personal gain.

Since there are those that use their influence in multiple countries to bring about personal gain, they must belong to an organization that wants world domination and the enslavement of the masses.

You're putting forth the argument that
If A is true, then B is true
If B is true, then C is true
If C is true, then A is true
C->A doesn't follow.

[lucius]

This should be required viewing for anyone regarding the issues of our day...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8730688320934276492&q=TED+talks+global+wamring&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

CJ, I now understand you better; I watched your video, ‘TED talk Bjorn Lomborg’. He is quite a utopian dreamer; solving the top world’s problems brought to you by the Bavarian Motor Works.

I then did a quick scan of your posts, a supporter of ‘A heavy progressive or graduated income tax’, ‘Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly’ and ‘porous/open borders, little restriction on immigration’—mostly a defender for the status quo, somewhat atypical of a Dr. Paul supporter. Your positions remind me of a one-world government proponent.


This is becoming annoying.

We reached accord; I will agree to disagree with you.

What’s the connection to my feverently working to elect somebody like Dr. Paul? I believe that Gurudas said it best in his ‘Treason: The New World Order’:

“All these people say there are powerful groups threatening our way of life. Some sources identify the bankers and corporate elite as the source of our problems, while others feel the national security state is the threat. The power of Wall Street is now obvious to many. So much is happening today that it is increasingly clear a police state is no longer some distant event to fear. The American people must awaken and join together to restore constitutional government and diminish the power of the large corporations and their agent, the federal government, so that we can again be a free people.”

[Electric Church]

CJ,—mostly a defender for the status quo, somewhat atypical of a Dr. Paul supporter.


There are quite a few on this forum that appear this way...

[stevedasbach]

IMO, we shouldn't distribute ANY materials while campaigning for Ron Paul except for those directly related to Paul and his message. We should not put words in Paul's mouth that he didn't say -- words that aren't part of his message.

[hiddentreasure]

I find it a shame that so many people send this DVD out with Ron Paul materials. The law is whatever a judge says is the law. There are hundreds of thousands of unconstitutional laws on the books. So whether or not it is constitutional makes no difference at all.

I am afraid that all the people that I have heard who saw this because it was sent to them by Ron Paul supporters are now against Ron Paul because they think he is nutjob that backed this DVD and is trying to get people into trouble implying that they do not have to pay his taxes.

I wish people would just send out Ron Paul speaking. A good DVD, professionally made, with good video quality, that just shows Ron Paul and uses his words. Trying to convince people that there is no law to pay taxes to try to get them to support Ron Paul seems silly to me. You will only convince a few young kids, turn off all adults and what does this have to do with Ron Paul anyway? Nothing.

What is a law? It is a thing that when you break it there are consequences. Now, you think you won't have any consequences for not paying taxes... When you can convince me of that, then you will have convinced me there is no law, but I don't think anybody in the film seemed to know what a law is. There is more to law than written statutes. There is case law. There is administrative law. There is tax law and tax courts. If a tax court tells you you have to pay, guess what, that is a law.

This DVD has just enough accuracy to make it dangerous and to confuse people. Do a search for Sheldon Friedman and paying taxes. He has written some excellent stuff on the topic.

I understand your point that there could be some "blowback" to using AFTF to promote Ron Paul. Its the principles that we should promote with his message. Its an ongoing process of learning for all of us and the masses are not going to understand all of the principles of freedom. Ron Paul articulates the freedom message well to those willing to listen and do a little homework.

here is a good location for promotional DVD's

www.onedollardvdproject.com

www.hiddentreasure.ws

[Electric Church]

IMO, we shouldn't distribute ANY materials while campaigning for Ron Paul except for those directly related to Paul and his message. We should not put words in Paul's mouth that he didn't say -- words that aren't part of his message.


I think that is very reasonable. But AFTF does a lot to support the Ron Paul message. Ron Paul is opposed to the IRS, the Federal Reserve system and a National ID card and those issues are clearly presented in AFTF

[stevedasbach]

I think that is very reasonable. But AFTF does a lot to support the Ron Paul message. Ron Paul is opposed to the IRS, the Federal Reserve system and a National ID card and those issues are clearly presented in AFTF

True. However, Ron Paul doesn't, to the best of my knowlege, include the claim that there is no law requiring payment of income tax as part of his message. The message I've heard is that we should get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing.

[cjhowe]

CJ, I now understand you better; I watched your video, ‘TED talk Bjorn Lomborg’. He is quite a utopian dreamer; solving the top world’s problems brought to you by the Bavarian Motor Works.

I then did a quick scan of your posts, a supporter of ‘A heavy progressive or graduated income tax’,

I have no idea where you got this notion. The federal government should not be doing one tenth of what it does now and therefore does not need the FIT to fund the operations that it is supposed to be doing.


‘Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly’

Again, I don't know where you got this notion. Credit should solely be in the hands of the private sector to ebb and flow in concentration as to the ability of individuals to freely contract.


and ‘porous/open borders, little restriction on immigration’—mostly a defender for the status quo,

yes, I am in favor of porous, open borders, as little restriction on immigration as to ensure our physical security. That's certainly not the status quo though. When the government does not protect the freedom of movement for one class of people, you cannot expect it to protect your freedom of movement.


somewhat atypical of a Dr. Paul supporter. Your positions remind me of a one-world government proponent.


You must not have been around the block, because it should remind you of a limited government proponent. But, I'm glad to see that you've resorted to ad hominem attacks now that you're argument has failed.

[cjhowe]

True. However, Ron Paul doesn't, to the best of my knowlege, include the claim that there is no law requiring payment of income tax as part of his message. The message I've heard is that we should get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing.

Exactly, what need do we have to get rid of the IRS, if there is no law requiring you to pay taxes on your labor?

[lucius]

I have no idea where you got this notion....I'm glad to see that you've resorted to ad hominem attacks now that you're argument has failed.

Not ad hominem attacks, mere observations:


Dr. Edward Flaherty debunks the Jekyll island myth and gives a pretty decent history of the events leading up to the Federal Reserve Act
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html
...

A Flaherty "pearl" from your link:

“Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.
BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.
…
Conspiracy theorists have long viewed the Federal Reserve Act as a means of giving control of the banking system to the money trusts, when in reality the intent and effect was to wrestle control away from them. History clearly demonstrates that in the decades prior to the Federal Reserve Act the decisions of a few large New York banks had, at times, enormous repercussions for banks throughout the country and the economy in general. Following the return to central banking, at least some measure of control was removed from them and placed with the Federal Reserve.”

Here is one of my observations:

"I then did a quick scan of your posts, a supporter of ... ‘Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly’ ...mostly a defender for the status quo, somewhat atypical of a Dr. Paul supporter. Your positions remind me of a one-world government proponent.

Notice how I used the fifth plank from Karl Marx's communist manifesto to describe your Fabian Socialist inculcation/indoctrination. I thought it was appropriate. ;)

"5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking."

President Lincoln was well versed in the tactics of the "The Money Powers" fifty years before the Federal Reserve Act was passed, he will be the one to point out your foolishness:

"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes." Abraham Lincoln

Pfffst...too easy! :)

[Wendi]

The law is whatever a judge says is the law. And the courts have ruled several times that the tax protesters' argument is valid. That's kind of the point.

[libertarianguy]

test

[Electric Church]

i don't like journalistic styles employed by alex jones, michael moore, and aaron russo (may he rest in peace)

please instead use videos put forth by people like michael ruppert, andrew napolitano, michael scheuer, lew rockwell, and murray rothbard

I'm sorry about what you don't like. But I like what you don't like so I'm gonna do what I like.

Thanks
:cool:

[cjhowe]

Not ad hominem attacks, mere observations:



A Flaherty "pearl" from your link:

“Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.
BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.
…
Conspiracy theorists have long viewed the Federal Reserve Act as a means of giving control of the banking system to the money trusts, when in reality the intent and effect was to wrestle control away from them. History clearly demonstrates that in the decades prior to the Federal Reserve Act the decisions of a few large New York banks had, at times, enormous repercussions for banks throughout the country and the economy in general. Following the return to central banking, at least some measure of control was removed from them and placed with the Federal Reserve.”

Here is one of my observations:

"I then did a quick scan of your posts, a supporter of ... ‘Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly’ ...mostly a defender for the status quo, somewhat atypical of a Dr. Paul supporter. Your positions remind me of a one-world government proponent.

Notice how I used the fifth plank from Karl Marx's communist manifesto to describe your Fabian Socialist inculcation/indoctrination. I thought it was appropriate. ;)

"5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking."

President Lincoln was well versed in the tactics of the "The Money Powers" fifty years before the Federal Reserve Act was passed, he will be the one to point out your foolishness:

"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes." Abraham Lincoln

Pfffst...too easy! :)

Just because the Federal Reserve is not a conspiracy theory does not mean that I am in support of it. There you go again with the non sequiturs.

If the Federal Reserve is a Centralized bank
and cjhowe doesn't think that the Federal Reserve is a conspiracy theory
then
cjhowe must be in favor of centralized banking