Re: Rage against the machine

Is this misguided gentleman's rantings a cry for help? 
We should do the right thing and move mixed to summer before this gets out of hand.

Scoop

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Corey) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Now I've read some really fucking stupid shit on this board before,
> but if you go to the web site you list below it's preaching for Roy
> Moore.
> 
> Keep your right wing religious politics off this site, please.  We're
> here to have fun, not get sick over what a jack ass you and everyone
> in the state of Alabama are.
> 
> Corey
> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fetch) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > http://freedom-1st.com/
> > 
> > I know this has nothing to do with ultimate, but it seems like
> > something everyone in ultimate would want to know.  Try getting your
> > checks written in your Christian name. Instead of reading PHIL JONES
> > have it read, Phil Jones.  Good luck.  You know you don't have to pay
> > taxes under the constitution.  People know about this stuff?
> > 
> > http://freedom-1st.com/
> > 
> > Fact #1: "In examining the history of the debate and ratification of
> > the 16th Amendment, this book will show that there is no evidence upon
> > which the government can rely for their claim that the American People
> > desired to have their wages and salaries taxed. No evidence can be
> > found in the law journals of the time, not in the journals on
> > political economy or economics, not in the Congressional Record nor
> > other Congressional documents, nor in any of the newspapers of record
> > of the time. In other words, the government's position that wages and
> > salaries equals income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment is
> > 'wholly without foundation.'" Phil Hart, Constitutional Income: Do You
> > Have Any? page 10, (Alpine Press, 2001).
> > 
> > Fact #2: A tax on wages payable by the wage earner is a Capitation
> > Tax. So says the premier authority on the issue, Adam Smith author of
> > the timeless work Wealth of Nations. See ibid. pp. 141-145.
> > 
> > Fact #3: Capitation Taxes are direct taxes and are required by the
> > Constitution to be apportioned among the 50 States. The 16th Amendment
> > had nothing to do with Capitation Taxes. Ibid. pp. 250 - 253.
> > 
> > Fact #4: In the few hours just prior to the Senate's passage of the
> > 16th Amendment the morning of July 5, 1909, the Senate twice by vote
> > rejected two separate proposals to include direct taxes within the
> > authority of the 16th Amendment. Ibid. pages 193-200.
> > 
> > Fact #5: In briefs and argument before the Supreme Court in the case
> > of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, both Brushaber and the
> > Government claimed that the 16th Amendment provided for a direct tax
> > exempted from the Constitutional apportionment rule. The High Court
> > called this claim an "erroneous assumption...wholly without
> > foundation." Ibid. pp. 204-210.
> > 
> > Fact #6: Just weeks after the Brushaber Case was decided, Mr. Stanton,
> > in the case of Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. again claimed (35 times)
> > that the 16th Amendment created a new class of constitutional tax,
> > that being a direct tax exempted from the apportionment rule. The High
> > Court said in this case that the 16th Amendment created "no new tax."
> > Ibid. pp. 212-220.
> > 
> > Fact #7: In the Stanton and Brushaber Cases, the Supreme Court ruled
> > correctly by excluding direct taxes from the 16th Amendment. The
> > intent of the American People and that of Congress was never to
> > directly tax the American People, but only to tax income severed from
> > accumulated wealth. Ibid. pp. 244 - 270.
> > 
> > Fact #8: When the Supreme Court stated in the Eisner, Stanton, and
> > Doyle Cases that "Income may be derived from capital, or labor or from
> > both combined" all these cases dealt with corporations and had nothing
> > to do with the "Are wages income?" question. Ibid. pp. 239-244 and
> > 272-274.
> > 
> > Fact #9: The genesis of the 16th Amendment was the income tax plank of
> > the Democrat Party's Presidential Platform of 1908 which clearly
> > reveals the intent of that Amendment:
> > "We favor an income tax as part of our revenue system, and we urge the
> > submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing
> > Congress to levy and collect a tax upon individual and corporate
> > incomes, to the end that wealth may bear its proportional share of the
> > burdens of the federal government." Ibid. p. 48.
> > 
> > Fact #10: There is not, and never has been, any delegation of
> > authority from We the People to the government for the collection of
> > an unapportioned direct tax on the wages and salaries of the American
> > People. It has been a maxim of English Law since the Magna Carta of
> > 1215, that the People must consent to all taxation. "We are being
> > taxed without our Consent!" Ibid. p. 278.
> > To read these above quotes in context, buy a copy of Constitutional
> > Income: Do You Have Any? This book is the only exhaustive analysis of
> > the intent of the American People in supporting an income tax
> > amendment to the Constitution. Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?
> > proves without a doubt that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to
> > bring tax relief to wage earners.