America: Freedom to Fascism

[winston_blade]

I just watched this movie and it shocked me. I have been filled with a new energy. I really think this documentary could be a great promotional tool for Ron Paul. It is very well done and shows how scary the government is really becoming.

How should we use this to our advantage. I think if we could get people in the early voting states (Iowa, NH, Nevada, Florida, SC) it could really give Ron some good support. What do you think?

[Buggan]

Yeah it's powerful stuff. The one who made it is Aaron Russo, he is sometimes a guest on Alex Jones radio show.

[RonPaul4President]

I would like to see this show on a network television documentary. Can you imagine the public's reaction? I believe the majority of mainstream viewers couldn't comprehend most of the movie. It would go over their heads and they'd label it as conspiracy theory even though the entire film is based on FACTS.

Ignorance is bliss. Misery is a Partiot.

[ronpaulitician]

Yeah it's powerful stuff. The one who made it is Aaron Russo, he is sometimes a guest on Alex Jones radio show.
Aaron Russo ran for LP candidate last election (lost out to Bandarik).

[kylejack]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu6_eq4F_qE

Fast-forward to 7 minutes.

Russell Kanning is a Free State Project activist who attempted to pass out flyers to IRS agents. They arrested him.

[Shmuel Spade]

AFTF is one my least favorite movies. It makes my own crusade against the Fed (and fiat money) a little harder to generally respect. If Russo decided to remove all of the misleading things, all the misdirection, and all the lies it might have been worth watching and spreading. But he didn't, so it's not.

[kylejack]

AFTF is one my least favorite movies. It makes my own crusade against the Fed (and fiat money) a little harder to generally respect. If Russo decided to remove all of the misleading things, all the misdirection, and all the lies it might have been worth watching and spreading. But he didn't, so it's not.

Agreed.

[thuja]

which misleading things?

[joshdvm]

I support the general thrust of the movie, but I don't like the movie or its approach.

Who cares if there's a law for the income tax? It's a positivist argument. The income tax is wrong, law or no law. That should be the argument.

Who cares if the Fed is a 'conspiracy'? If it were an outright government agency created by benevolent and well-intentioned legislators (and it is a de facto government agency) it would would be just as bad. That should be the argument.

[winston_blade]

I support the general thrust of the movie, but I don't like the movie or its approach.

Who cares if there's a law for the income tax? It's a positivist argument. The income tax is wrong, law or no law. That should be the argument.

Who cares if the Fed is a 'conspiracy'? If it were an outright government agency created by benevolent and well-intentioned legislators (and it is a de facto government agency) it would would be just as bad. That should be the argument.

I think the fact that the government makes up rules as they go is a big part of the movie too though. I care that there is no law for the income tax.

[kylejack]

I think the fact that the government makes up rules as they go is a big part of the movie too though. I care that there is no law for the income tax.

Look, if this ever came to fruitition, they would just pass the necessary amendments/laws. It should be argued on an ethical basis.

[winston_blade]

Look, if this ever came to fruitition, they would just pass the necessary amendments/laws. It should be argued on an ethical basis.

Doing that would mean that they know have been wrong for 90 years and that the people have been illegally taxed for 90 years. If they admit that, then they would never get re-elected again.

[joenaab]

I thought the movie was great and forgive any minor factual imperfections, as I believe the bulk of it to be true and the spirit of its message to be strong. Aaron Russo keeps an active Ron Paul blog...

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/blog/afftfblog.html

[wwycher]

There is alot in this movie that is questionable. I know that if you have central bank you have to tax wages. I think Money Masters is a much better movie, with alot less hoopla and alot more history. MM's shows the history of central banks and how our founders fought against them and how the central banks finally won. It kinda' funny that the 16th Amendment was passed and the Federal Reserve were created in the same year. Mmmmm...

[kylejack]

Money Masters:

Part 1 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947&q=money+masters

Part 2 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683&q=money+masters

[joenaab]

There is an outstanding documentary called "Fiat Empire", which is like a condensed version of the Money Masters. If features Ron Paul extensively and I highly recommend it to anyone.

The Google Video version is one hour and 22 minutes, with the film lasting 56 minutes and the rest being more clips from the interviews of the four interviewees, Ron Paul being one of them.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531&q=fiat+empire

[Brandybuck]

The law that Aaron Russo says does not exist: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.html

It took me ten minutes to find the above law when I first went looking. Mr. Russo is trying to put out a positive message, but with an error this basic, I have to scratch this film off my list of DVDs to recommend.

[Erazmus]

The law that Aaron Russo says does not exist: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.html

It took me ten minutes to find the above law when I first went looking. Mr. Russo is trying to put out a positive message, but with an error this basic, I have to scratch this film off my list of DVDs to recommend.

My apologies, but it appears that the link you gave is simply the root of the title 26- IRS code with Subtitle A being the income tax code. Seeing as you are posting this to prove that the law is somewhere in there, and I don't have hours to sift through it to find it. I was wondering if you could link to the subsection and post which article this is found in.

Sorry if I'm asking too much. But I figure since you said you found where it states the law, that you'd have no problem pointing out exactly where it is. Or better yet, if you could just quote the section you are referring to and cite the source with a link.

Thanks in advance.

[SeekLiberty]

The law that Aaron Russo says does not exist: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.html

It took me ten minutes to find the above law when I first went looking. Mr. Russo is trying to put out a positive message, but with an error this basic, I have to scratch this film off my list of DVDs to recommend.

Brandybuck, we've been through this before. Have you looked up what the TERMS mean in Title 26? There's a difference between WORDS in the normal usage and TERMS in the legal meaning. Do you know what they are?

That's the KEY to cracking Title 26 so it's understandable. If you don't know the legal definitions in Title 26, you won't understand it.

How come you're not telling this essential info to people Brandybuck?

I warn people that there will be shills posting on this board and I hope they don't fall for their crap. Brandybuck is one who totally cited "Popular Mechanics" as a credible source when it's been totally debunked by this book ...

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Paperback)
by David Ray Griffin

I'm not 100% positive Brandybuck is a shill yet or not but one thing is for sure ... she backs up the 9/11 conspiracy theory AND the misleading understanding of the federal, personal income tax.

She does NOT point people to both sides of the "debate." She sides with what is commonly understood.

For those who want an understanding of the tax code, here's a good place to start:

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/lies.php

[SeekLiberty]

AFTF is one my least favorite movies. It makes my own crusade against the Fed (and fiat money) a little harder to generally respect. If Russo decided to remove all of the misleading things, all the misdirection, and all the lies it might have been worth watching and spreading. But he didn't, so it's not.

I'm with you Thuja. Shmuel Spade, what "misleading things" are you talking about?

I can't believe anybody would criticize the commendable efforts of fellow true patriot, Auron Russo. He's a good man! He does a hell of a lot more to fight for our inalienable, individual rights than most Americans.

I consider him my friend and a true friend to all freedom-loving Americans. Don't you?

[Erazmus]

I warn people that there will be shills posting on this board and I hope they don't fall for their crap. Brandybuck is one who totally cited "Popular Mechanics" as a credible source when it's been totally debunked by this book ...

Are you referring to this thread? (http://ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=444&postcount=20)? I posted a link to the debunking of the 9/11 article. Not sure if he/she read it or not. ;)

[aravoth]

The IRS code is not law. It is the governing document for the collection of income taxes. The 16th amendment is the law that enables the IRS to use the tax code. That would be the law you're trying to find. Except that the 16th amendment "granted no new powers of taxation to the federal government" according to the supreme court anyway, but what do they know.

[Brandybuck]

My apologies, but it appears that the link you gave is simply the root of the title 26- IRS code with Subtitle A being the income tax code.
Title 26 is a collection of legislation. Just like all the other titles. For example, copyright is covered by Title 17. If someone wants to see the law on copyright, you point them to Title 17 USC. If someone wants to see the law on income tax, you point them to Title 26 USC. But I don't see anyone saying that there is no law for copyrights. I don't see anyone saying that the national guard is illegal (title 32). Only the income tax is being claimed as illegal.

Title 26 of the US Code, which is entirely comprised of congressional legislation, IS the law that authorizes our current income tax system. Is it a convoluted and unwieldly mass of legislation? Hell yes! The US Code is our federal law! If you want something specific, then start at Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I. If you want to quibble on a piece here or a piece there, be my guest. But you can't claim there is no law, because this is the law.

[Brandybuck]

Brandybuck, we've been through this before. Have you looked up what the TERMS mean in Title 26? There's a difference between WORDS in the normal usage and TERMS in the legal meaning. Do you know what they are?
Aaron Russo asked for the law. Title 26 USC is the law. I am not a lawyer, so if he wants help understanding it, then he should get a lawyer. But he cannot claim it is not the law. A part of his film talked about definitions, but a bigger part kept telling us the law didn't exist. But it does! Here it is! If you want to know what it means, go get yourself a lawyer.

[Erazmus]

Have you even watched the film? If you had, you'd realize that he has spoken with many lawyers, constitutional lawyers, law professors, former IRS agents, FBI agents, et cetera. I mean, if the law was so concrete as you claim, you’d think that the IRS agents would know exactly where to find it and how to decrypt it. You’d also think the IRS itself would be more than happy to be forthcoming on this information. Also, I believe the foundation of the IRS code that you've cited is based on voluntary compliance (also stated within the documentary). I can link numerous pages with lawsuits regarding the voluntary compliance aspect, if you’d like.

I wish people would watch something before trying to criticize it. Oh, and I don’t buy the argument, “Look, there’s words printed in a manual. Since there are words printed in the manual, the law must be in there,” which is essentially what you are saying…


The US Code is our federal law! If you want something specific, then start at Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I. If you want to quibble on a piece here or a piece there, be my guest. But you can't claim there is no law, because this is the law.

For a law to be enforced it must be easily translated to the people on request, with no grey area, therefore it can be enforced. If there were these clear-cut interpretations to the law, every case would be thrown out that challenges it, yet people win these cases against the IRS. The IRS knows that if they write enough piles and piles of lawyer jargon, the more convoluted they can make everything sound, and fewer people will challenge the code. This is why the IRS drops cases that are threatened to go to the Supreme Court. They know bad things will happen if the Supreme Court has a look at the code. I sure hope one of these cases goes all the way to the top courts, this way we can put this baby to bed.

Now since you cannot, by your own admission, decipher the tax code. Please, refrain from trying to “teach” us what is in it. You sound ridiculous.

[aravoth]

Title 26 is a collection of legislation. Just like all the other titles. For example, copyright is covered by Title 17. If someone wants to see the law on copyright, you point them to Title 17 USC. If someone wants to see the law on income tax, you point them to Title 26 USC. But I don't see anyone saying that there is no law for copyrights. I don't see anyone saying that the national guard is illegal (title 32). Only the income tax is being claimed as illegal.

Title 26 of the US Code, which is entirely comprised of congressional legislation, IS the law that authorizes our current income tax system. Is it a convoluted and unwieldly mass of legislation? Hell yes! The US Code is our federal law! If you want something specific, then start at Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I. If you want to quibble on a piece here or a piece there, be my guest. But you can't claim there is no law, because this is the law.

Once again. The Tax Code IS NOT THE LAW. I don't care if every senator did the Rain dance on it while singing "hail to the cheif" as they signed off on it in blood. If it's not backed up by a constitutional amendment it's worthless. The 16th amendment is what gives the tax code authority. So if the 16th amendment is not valid, then neither is the tax code. I can write up a "hygene code" and make it illegal on paper to clip your toenails on saturday nights, but if a constitutional amendment doesn't exist that to back it up, it's nothing but a meaningless peice of paper, not unlike our currency.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240
The 16th Amendment did not change the U.S. Constitution because of the fact that Article 1, section 2, clause 3, and Article 1, section 9, clause 4, were not repealed or altered; the U.S. Constitution cannot conflict with itself.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US, 112
Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation. Rather it simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary full power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged. Indirect taxes are limited to imposts, duties, and excises, not on the income of individuals.

Those rulings have never been overturned. So you tell me. If the constitution did not allow for a direct tax on the wage earnings of americans without apportionment before the 16th amendment, and the supreme court ruled that the 16th amendment gave no new powers of taxation, how all of the sudden did they miraculously get the ability to impose an unapportioned direct tax?

[Erazmus]

Once again. The Tax Code IS NOT THE LAW. I don't care if every senator did the Rain dance on it while singing "hail to the cheif" as they signed off on it in blood.

:D LOL, I was taking a different approach to the argument, I'm glad you brought up the Supreme Court's rulings on the 16 amendment, so I didn't have to.

:)

[giskard]

This video explains it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=theft+by+deception

The key is in the definition of "sources of income" which is explained elsewhere, and as I understand it, doesn't cover wages for labor performed. (i.e. salary)

[RonPaul4President]

This video explains it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=theft+by+deception

The key is in the definition of "sources of income" which is explained elsewhere, and as I understand it, doesn't cover wages for labor performed. (i.e. salary)

I'm currently half way through this movie and some questions and concerns I have are as follows:
If congress does not have the power to tax income then why hasn't the Supreme Court abolished it as they have done to other infringements in the same context?
What happens to all the people that are arrested* by the irs for not paying personal indvidual income tax?
Why hasn't a Supreme Court ruling on these *cases been rendered which would set precident for future tax law limitations?

[aravoth]

I'm currently half way through this movie and some questions and concerns I have are as follows:
If congress does not have the power to tax income then why hasn't the Supreme Court abolished it as they have done to other infringements in the same context?
What happens to all the people that are arrested* by the irs for not paying personal indvidual income tax?
Why hasn't a Supreme Court ruling on these *cases been rendered which would set precident for future tax law limitations?


Becuase even the Supreme Court Fears the IRS and thier gestapo tactics.

[RonPaul4President]

So basically, we live under tyranny. At least now we know. No wonder our military is on foreign soil. I bet that makes the IRS feel safer.

[Bryan]

I just wanted to drop in and say thanks to everyone who is working to keep the discussion civil and fact supportive.


I warn people that there will be shills posting on this board and I hope they don't fall for their crap. Brandybuck is one who ...
While one need not agree with Brandybuck, from what I have seen he makes fair and reasonable use of citing sources to support his position and he has been a valued supporter here in a number of ways. My suggestion is that if you have issue with the sources then explain why or cite a critique. Further, it is preferable to question specific aspects of that source rather than using a broad brush to discredit it. Yes, it takes more time but this is an excellent way for people to learn. If anyone thinks someone here is a shill then my suggestion is to confront them with the facts and have a civil discussion, if you are right it will become apparent- if you are wrong, you may learn something in the process.

While the quoted statement here isn't calling names it doesn't seem to be presented in what I would consider a postive manner, to say the least. I hope everyone can strive to maintain a high level of discourse here, particularly when discussing controversial subjects-- and keep in mind that we're all here to see Dr. Paul win the election. :)

Cheers!

[aravoth]

So basically, we live under tyranny. At least now we know. No wonder our military is on foreign soil. I bet that makes the IRS feel safer.

Yes indeed, and it is far worse than most people know. So, being the bastard that I am I made a short informational video on just how screwed the people of this nation are. And how it can all come crashing down with the stroke of a presidential pen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1VIhdpl4c
hope you're a fast reader

Get ron paul elected or I will see you guys at the soup lines in the gulags.

[Erazmus]

Great vid aravoth. I added a comment through you tube too. :)

[RonPaul4President]

Yes indeed, and it is far worse than most people know. So, being the bastard that I am I made a short informational video on just how screwed the people of this nation are. And how it can all come crashing down with the stroke of a presidential pen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1VIhdpl4c
hope you're a fast reader

Get ron paul elected or I will see you guys at the soup lines in the gulags.

Great video. This is exactly what the founding fathers were fighting against. The biggest contradiction in all of this is that if they kill or imprison everyone they will go broke. What good is power when you have nothing left to control. It's disgusting that our laws are our most accurate form of history.

One at a time.

Let's not forget that it will be American soldiers that will be killing their own. Would you want to execute someone's mother knowing that another soldier may be doing the same to your own mother?

[aravoth]

Great video. This is exactly what the founding fathers were fighting against. The biggest contradiction in all of this is that if they kill or imprison everyone they will go broke. What good is power when you have nothing left to control. It's disgusting that our laws are our most accurate form of history.

One at a time.

Let's not forget that it will be American soldiers that will be killing their own. Would you want to execute someone's mother knowing that another soldier may be doing the same to your own mother?

When I was deployed in Kosovo, Some news organiztion did a poll, I think it was the bbc if I remember right. They asked all of the NATO countries in that theater if they would fire on thier own citizens if the govermnet told them too. I can't rmember what everyone elses answer was, but something like 96% of the american forces said no, not a chance in hell.

[RonPaul4President]

I found this little quote under a Ron Paul youtube video and thought it was related to this thread:

A wolf saw a lamb drinking from a river. Although he was in a higher side of the river, accused the lamb of muddle the water he was drinking. The lamb said: "but I'm only drinking with my lips and you are in a higher part of the river."
The wolf said: "You insult me last year!"
The lamb said: "But I'm only six months old."
The wolf said: "You justify yourself well but I'm gonna eat you anyway!" and ate him up.
For whom dedicate themselves to do evil, no arguments are valid for not doing it. -source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw&NR=1)

[RonPaul4President]

When I was deployed in Kosovo, Some news organiztion did a poll, I think it was the bbc if I remember right. They asked all of the NATO countries in that theater if they would fire on thier own citizens if the govermnet told them too. I can't rmember what everyone elses answer was, but something like 96% of the american forces said no, not a chance in hell.

They have already fired upon their own citizens. There was a college anti-war demonstration in the 1970 where a student was shot and killed by an anonymous U.S. National Guardsman. When you depersonalize and control a person, it's easy to teach them how to hate and kill, without conscience. Five minutes in breifing and you can get a soldier to do almost anything.

Corrupt Objective > Voodoo > Objective Complete

[RPR-omaha]

kent state was in the 70's that survey happened in the 90's and it was the national guard who fired on the kids.