Harry Reid | NutHouse.net

Is Taxation Voluntary?

Posted February 10, 2009

Harry Reid seems to think so as do so many of the Democrats in Congress. Reid makes it perfectly clear that paying taxes is voluntary in the following interview.

I actually believe this is true. The tax code states that “…only citizens while living abroad” are required to pay taxes not “citizens living and working at home” I have studied this for some time. The original tax act of 1913 imposed a tax on all “income” of an individual or corporation. In 1916 the wording was changed after the 1913 act was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It has never been worded differently invariably because the taxation of income is an enslaving tax and therefore unconstitutional.

With all of the unconstitutional spending going on in Washington, it is more important than ever to begin a tax revolt and stop sending money to the bureaucrats in Washington. Support your state’s economy directly and not the unwise spending of the federal government.

SUMMARY

The Federal Income Tax Act of 1913 contained a sweeping, all-inclusive definition of “income”, it being the clear intention of Congress at the time to apply the “income tax” to all American citizens living at home or abroad. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brushaber substantially affected the government’s interpretation of the definition of “income” within the meaning of the fundamental law, and “to whom” and “where” the income tax could apply.

The Brushaber Court specifically concluded that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation. The Brushaber decision prompted Congress to revise the 1913 Act, and via Section 25 of the Federal Income Tax Act of 1916, amended 1917, declared that the “income” subject to the 1913 Act was not the same “income” to be taxed under the 1916 Act. But, what was the purpose of this change in the language, and by extension, the legal effect of the 1916 Act? UNFORTUNATELY, CONGRESS DID NOT EXPLAIN WHAT WAS MEANT BY SECTION 25.

One theory of the meaning of § 25 of the 1916 Act is based on location, that Section 25 removed the application of the un-apportioned direct “income” tax on salaries, wages and compensation of ordinary Americans living and working at home, leaving the application of the un-apportioned direct “income” tax on salaries, wages and compensation of non-resident aliens and American citizens living and working abroad. This, it is argued is the reason that not a single federal income tax act since 1916 has ever mentioned the imposition of an un-apportioned direct “income” tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of citizens “at home,” although the same acts repeatedly mention citizens abroad and particularly those in the insular possessions.

Evidence of this solely external, “locational” application of the un-apportioned direct “income tax” on salaries, wages and compensation is demonstrated in several ways. First, the IRS Commissioner has been delegated via T.D.O.s published in the Federal Register authority to administer an un-apportioned direct tax on salaries, wages and compensation only in the area external to the boundaries of the 50 states of the Union.
If the Commissioner has been delegated authority to administer an un-apportioned direct tax on salaries, wages and compensation in the area internal to the boundaries of the 50 states of the Union, that authority has not been published in the Federal Register and is therefore a secret, so it could not concern American citizens “at home,” without violating their due process Rights.

Further, federal income tax returns are allegedly required to be filed at IRS service centers. But the Administrative Procedures Act demands that any part of an agency’s field structure which affects the domestic American public must be published in the Federal Register. The absence of publication in the Federal Register of these extremely important parts of the IRS field structure further indicates that the service centers do not legally affect the domestic American public and can, therefore, be ignored by the ordinary American wage earner living and working at home.

But perhaps the most compelling proof of the “locational” application of the federal income tax in the manner noted above is derived from analysis of the IRS’ compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The federal income tax is imposed via § 1 of the IRC. But the “information collection request” applicable to this section is Form 2555, entitled “Foreign Earned Income.” Further as shown by the OMB control number assigned to 26 C.F.R. § 1.6091-3, the specific tax return required to be filed at service centers is Form 1040NR. And a “TIN” can only be obtained by a non-resident alien; see Form W-7.

Another theory of the meaning of Section 25 of the 1916 Act is that it is based on classifications of people, distinguishing between aliens and citizens, imposing no un-apportioned direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens, no matter where they live and work, but authorizing an un-apportioned direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation on resident aliens working here and on employees of the federal government who voluntarily agreed to labor for the government.

Countering the “location” theory and in support of the “classification” theory is the argument that the fundamental law prohibits the imposition of an un-apportioned tax directly on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens, no matter where they may be living and working, and there is no Supreme Court ruling that an un-apportioned tax can be imposed directly on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens living and working abroad.

Most Americans believe that today, the tax scheme of the 1913 act is still in effect, but the truth of the matter is that it is not.
In fact, the present tax scheme is the exact opposite of the 1913 tax scheme, created by the 1916 act amended by the Act of 1917.

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Change We Can’t Trust; The More Change They Claim, The More Things Stay The Same

Posted January 22, 2009

Comments(0)

This is the liberal agenda that we have to look forward to and must fight for the next four years. These assholes will do anything to promote this agenda and, short of baring arms and fighting a civil war, we have little voice in stopping them. We can’t even get the minority members of the Republican party to march in step together to oppose this bullshit. I’m so sick of it and its only been two days.

Following are two articles by Amanda Carpenter published at Townhall.com. I’m republishing them here to show how disgusting these assholes are and to what extent they will go to further their pathetic land robbing agenda. So much for helping out middle-class Americans. Take their homes and businesses for unneeded and unnecessary airport expansion. How about locking up land, and energy reserves, so that those reserves cannot be produced. This, my friends, borders on treason in my book. There is no end to how far they will go to usurp our constitutional right to “life”, “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness”.

Harry Reid’s Land Grab

Amanda Carpenter
Saturday, January 10, 2009

Update: The U.S. Senate passed the bill Sunday by a vote of 66-12.

It’s hard to pinpoint the worst part of the public lands legislation bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is calling up for an under-the-radar Sunday vote.

The 1200-page, pork-laden, $10 billion proposal locks up millions of acres of energy-rich property by designating it as environmentalist-friendly “federal wilderness” area where not even as much as a bicycle would be permitted to travel across the land. Many of these areas recently became available when the ban on domestic drilling in Western states expired last fall and the liberal left couldn’t muster the courage to keep it in place due to rising energy prices. Now Democratic leaders are using different legislative strategies to put a new kind of ban in place.

One Republican House staffer put it this way: “Reid is going to make it federal land so no one can touch it. He’s locking up the equivalent of ANWR.”

The bill, S.22 “Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009,” would cordon off more than 3 million acres from energy leasing by restricting various areas as “federal wilderness” or “wild and scenic” river ways.

Since the price of gasoline has dropped and attention has diverted to other matters, such as President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration, Leader Reid has made the land grab a priority and is calling members of the Senate back to Washington on Sunday to rush it through. And the bill, which is basically an omnibus compilation of pet projects and land seizures sponsored by individual House members and senators, has wide-ranging, bipartisan support since it helps many of them secure support from stakeholders in their home states and districts.

For example, one piece of the bill that has drawn the ire of the Wall Street Journal is a provision sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.). He’d like to make a robust, container shipping port located in his district’s Taunton River into a scenic tourist destination. This would have the liberally convenient side effect of killing a proposal to create a terminal to import liquefied natural gas.

Then, as to be expected in an omnibus bill, there’s the pork. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.) is requesting $461 million to legally settle a dispute over the San Joaquin River with the environmentalist group Natural Resources Defense Council. The money would be used for a water project that has the “minimum goal” of restoring 500 salmon to the river. (That’s nearly $1 million per fish!) Montana Sen. Jon Tester (D.) wants $5 million to fund a “Wolf Compensation and Prevention Program” to assist property owners use “non-lethal” measures to prohibit wolves from killing their livestock.

The lands bill chief opponent Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) argues it’s foolish to add acreage to the federal government’s responsibility when it can’t even properly manage treasured properties like the Statue of Liberty or National Mall appropriately. And, “we’re not exactly suffering from a shortage of wilderness,” his spokesman John Hart said in a conversation with Townhall.

Coburn has drafted 13 amendments to the bill, but Reid is not allowing him to offer a single one of them. One of them is a common-sense measure to just require that the current maintenance backlogs of government property be brought up to date.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) is urging his fellow Republicans to just skip the vote, as a means of opposing the bill and drawing attention to the fact it’s been more than 120 days since Reid allowed a GOP amendment to be accepted on the floor.

Several Republicans, however, have their own projects in the bill making it a difficult vote to skip. Republican Sen. John Barasso of Wyoming, who is typically a reliable conservative vote, has a provision tucked away in the bill to withdraw 1.2 million acres of state land from mineral leasing and energy exploration, where 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 331 million barrels of recoverable oil are estimated to exist.

Mayor Daley Seizes Land for Unfunded Project

Amanda Carpenter
Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has kicked hundreds of families out of their homes and relocated a cemetery full of buried bodies to build a whopping $15 billion airport expansion Chicago residents oppose, airlines don’t want and he doesn’t have the money to build.

The kicker is that Daley stands a solid chance of getting a good chunk of the boondoggle funded in Washington’s forthcoming stimulus bill under Barack Obama’s pledge to dramatically increase infrastructure spending.

The “O’Hare Modernization Project,” signed by disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevich in 2003, has enabled the city to seize 433 acres of land from surrounding villages under a special “quick-take authority” power given to Daley by the state. The city even uprooted a 108-year old cemetery, requiring families to find a new home for the 1,500 bodies resting there, in the process of taking some of its first tracts of land.

Bensenville, a middle class suburban community that borders the airport on the south and west corners, is one of those villages. So far, the city of Chicago has taken 600 parcels of land from Bensenville, representing 15 percent of the village’s total area. 533 of those parcels were single-family homes. Approximately 90 of them were businesses.

“It’s all been snatched up,” said Bensenville City Manager Jim Johnson, who opposes the project. Johnson is now trying to prevent the demolition of those homes because proper guarantees have not been made for the health and safety of the community.

While that battle is being waged in court, all that’s left are essentially vacant buildings, many of them livable homes in good condition. [Click here to see a web video of the area.]

Last fall, OMP completed its first phase, which involved the construction of a new $565 million runway and tower on the airport’s north side. At the time, airlines seemed supportive of the project in public appearances and threw a lavish party to celebrate in September. The festivities included outdoor tents pitched on the runway, refreshments. Mayor Daley even timed his speech so that a plane would land during the address—a grandiose move mocked by local reporters.

“That’s United,” Daley said during his speech. “I want to thank them for landing during my speech. Perfect. That’s a great shot for TV.”

Behind-closed doors, however, airlines were unsupportive of the project, calling it “inappropriate” and “ill-conceived” in letters to the Federal Aviation Administration. American, United, Delta, Northwest Airlines, Continental Airlines and ANA-All Nippon told the FAA the plan was flawed in documents obtained by the Chicago Tribune in November.

One unnamed Delta Air Lines executive even called the plan an “impulsive grab for [tax] funds.”

The airlines were specifically opposed to request made by the city to FAA to approve a tax increase on passenger ticket sales to raise $182 million to pay for second phase of the project. Daley has also sought federal grants from the FAA.

Others have criticized OMP for including an extra $2 million to create 15-acres of protected wetlands for environmentally-friendly efforts like sheltering the state’s endangered black-crowned night heron. Daley’s insistence the project is completed by 2014 so that the airport can accommodate tourists traveling to Chicago in 2016 for the Summer Olympics, has also been ridiculed. (A site for the games has not yet been selected).

“We’d like to put a knife in this project,” City Manager Johnson said. “It is not about providing aviation capacity, it is not about providing any services for the traveling public and the taking of this property is unnecessary because the project doesn’t work and they don’t have the money to fund it.”

Mayor Daley doesn’t seem too concerned about these issues raised. He recently said he would bypass state legislators to lobby the federal government for funding under President-elect Obama’s $800 billion stimulus bill.

“Mayors are going directly to the federal government,” he recently told reporters. “They have to. We can’t wait. You can’t allow Springfield to take your money, hold the interest, then eventually give it to you in the middle of winter. You’ll never get the job done in the middle of winter,” Daley told reporters.

“That’s how you do creative financing,” he added.

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Forget Capitalism, Pelosi Will Give Anyone A Bailout

Posted November 28, 2008

Comments(0)

In the final days of the Bush Administration and the lame-duck 110th Congress, capitalism and Democracy as we know it are dead. If you have mismanaged your companies financials, no problem, grab your tin cup, jump on your private jet and head to Washington. Make sure you get that meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid scheduled. They’ll make sure you don’t have to file for bankruptcy, whether you need it or not, and just lay down a few incidentals that need to be met for that new bailout package you were hoping for. If ever there were three companies that need to restructure under chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, it would be the Big-Three auto companies.

Oh My God, where is this government going. Do they know anyhing about business, economics or capitalism? In the following article, Donny Shaw explains that if it were left up to Pelosi and Reid, the Big-Three will get the $25 billion bailout they’re asking for. They just have to come back with a plan next time…

Pelosi’s Big-Three Bailout Deal

by Donny Shaw

The lame duck session is over and the Big-Three auto companies didn’t get their bailout. But the companies will have another chance to convince Congress this session to give them the money they say they need to stay out of bankruptcy.

When the bailout was shelved on Thursday by Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also offered the companies a new deal: if they can submit a plan to Congress by December 2 explaining exactly how $25 billion from the government can make them financially viable, she’ll consider calling Congress back again for a second lame-duck session to re-consider the issue.

“Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money,” Pelosi said on Thursday.

So what do the auto companies need to do to convince Congress that they are a good investment?

Nancy Pelosi is already inclined to give the companies some assistance. “Doing nothing is I don’t think an option,” she said at a press conference on Thursday. For reasons of national security, the health of our financial system and the needs of U.S. workers, the survival of the auto industry is essential, she said. Furthermore, she specifically rejected the idea of allowing the companies to restructure through bankruptcy.

Really, it’s the rank-and-file of both parties that need to be convinced of the bailout.

Executives from the three companies testified before Congress this week (that’s them, pictured above), and the general consensus is that they didn’t do a very good job. Rather than focus on how their collapse would damage the economy, the company executives needed to build confidence in their vision for success in the future. Lawmaker after lawmaker repeated the same concern (typified here by Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling): “What I have not heard is a plan that convinces me that with the $25 billion, that you will achieve sustainability.”

The executives also didn’t help their cause much by traveling to Washington in private jets. “There’s a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hands,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) at hearing on Thursday.

The companies have already begun dealing with the jet issue. GM announced today that they are putting two of their jets out of service. Now they need to present Congress with a clear, convincing plan for financial viability.

In a letter sent to the executives this afternoon, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spelled out exactly what they think needs to be in the plan submitted to Congress in order to gain support for the bailout:

The plan must:

Provide a forthright, documented assessment of the auto companies’ current operating cash position, short-term liquidity needs to continue operations as a going-concern, and how they will meet the financing needs associated with the plan to ensure the companies’ long-term viability as they retool for the future;

Provide varying estimates of the terms of the loan requested with varying assumptions including that of automobile sales at current rates, at slightly improved rates, and at worse rates;

Provide for specific measures designed to ensure transparency and accountability, including regular reporting to, and information-sharing with, any federal government oversight mechanisms established to safeguard taxpayer investments;

Protect taxpayers by granting the most senior status for any government loans provided, ensuring that taxpayers get paid back first;

Assure that taxpayers benefit as corporate conditions improve and shareholder value increases through the provision of warrants or other mechanisms;

Bar the payment of dividends and excessive executive compensation, including bonuses and golden parachutes by companies receiving taxpayer assistance;

Include proposals to address the payment of health care and pension obligations;

Demonstrate the auto companies’ ability to achieve the fuel efficiency requirements set forth in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and become a long-term global leader in the production of energy-efficient advanced technology vehicles; and

Require that government loans be immediately callable if long-term plan benchmarks are not met.