The Federal Reserve Fraud

The Federal Reserve is a group of private bankers. No government official (not even King Obama) is allowed in the Federal Reserve building as they are not part of the US government. They are no more Federal then Federal Express. The "money" that the Fed prints is printed off the same machine as Monopoly game money and is backed by absolutely nothing. While Congress does have the authority to coin money, they must be backed by gold and silver. Congress had no authority whatsoever to grant monetary powers to anyone, let alone a privoate bank. To expose the scam of the banks for what they really are, one must understand how they work. They LEND the money that's in circulation to the government for the People at a percentage. For example, for every dollar printed, the government owes the bank $2. The government puts that on us with the income tax, so its a system created to put the People in permenant debt which creates enslavement. The income tax doesn't go towards government services, it goes to the private banks. Not only does this make income tax unconstitutional, but the fact that its not a uniform tax makes it void as well. To be clear, you don't recieve income, you recieve compensation. Income is defined as a profit gained that was not expected. So for example, if you make $30k a year, but one year you make $31k. The extra $1k you made is considered income. The government has no Right to tax your labor. Ever heard "you have the Right to bear the fruits of your labor"? That's what it essentially means. Not to mention, the income tax was never properly ratified by the states, therefore it is invalid. The Supreme Court even backs this up in Stanton v Baltic Mining Co that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation. There is no law, period.

Thomas Jefferson once said: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Between the time President Andrew Jackson killed the bank's second attempt to control the American people to the time the Federal Reserve was enacted in 1913, the united states saw a huge economic rise. He is the only president to pay off the National Debt and when asked what his greatest accomplishment was, he replied with "I killed the banks". The banks create panic to get what they want. The Federal Reserve is the cause of every depression and recession this country has seen. Since 1913, the dollar has lost 98% of its value and its going to crash soon.

Thomas Jefferson once said: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Click to expand...

Actually, Jefferson did not say that. Ever.

"According to the Jefferson Encyclopedia, the earliest printed reference to this quotation found so far appeared in a 1937 Congressional subcommittee report, which means there is no known record of these words having been attached to Jefferson's name until well more than a century after his death (1826). And even
though this quotation has bedeviled historians for several decades now, no one has yet turned up any Jeffersonian speeches or writings or other documentation demonstrating that Thomas Jefferson ever uttered or wrote these words.

In addition to the lack of documentation, an entry in Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations labels this quotation as "obviously spurious" for contextual reasons, noting that the Oxford English Dictionary's (OED) earliest citation for the word "deflation" (as related to currency) dates only to 1920. (The OED's earliest citation for the word "inflation" used in a financial sense dates to 1838, which means that usage might have been known during Jefferson's lifetime.)"

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp#oT8opwTGloT6SCDc.99

Between the time President Andrew Jackson killed the bank's second attempt to control the American people to the time the Federal Reserve was enacted in 1913, the united states saw a huge economic rise. He is the only president to pay off the National Debt and when asked what his greatest accomplishment was, he replied with "I killed the banks". The banks create panic to get what they want. The Federal Reserve is the cause of every depression and recession this country has seen.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

So, the 30 recessions and depressions that happened before the Federal Reserve ever came into being were caused by...?

Since 1913, the dollar has lost 98% of its value and its going to crash soon.

Click to expand...

Actually, most of the international Banks, including fully public ones as the European Central Bank or the Bank of Canada, following "orthodoxical" economic theorists, consider that their perfect inflation goal would be having their currencies lose 50% of their value every 25 years, at a pace of 2% per year. In fact, the biggest periods of crisis lived in the world in those years (1929, 2008) caused several currencies to gain value, which was absolutely terrible as it made it harder for people to pay their debts- if the currency was worth more, their debts now would increase accordingly, making it truly impossible to be paid. Inflation, on the other hand, increases the supply of money people earn, making it easier to pay for their debts.

Because, you know, the dollar has lost 98% of its value and salaries have increased accordingly- in 1967, a family would make an average of 6,000 dollars, which equal 42,000 dollars of today. The current household income is 51,000 dollars, which means people have now more money to spend that in 1967 (that's as far as the official data goes, I'd appreciate it if you could find info about the inflation-adjusted 1913 salaries).

Because, you know, if a burger goes from 30c to $3 but your salary goes from $100 to $1,000, you can still buy the same exact amount of burgers, inflation be damned. So the "dollar has lost X% of its value" doesn't mean "it's going to crash" per se. Why would it mean so?

The Federal Reserve is a group of private bankers. No government official (not even King Obama) is allowed in the Federal Reserve building as they are not part of the US government.

Click to expand...

Shhh dude your bias is showing. You should be a more discreet.

Also, maybe Government officials can't enter the Fed, but Fed officials can be summoned to Congress at any time and held accountable, as it's Congress that sets the economic goals the Fed has to adhere to. Whoops.

"The Federal Reserve, like many other central banks, is an independent government agency but also one that is ultimately accountable to the public and the Congress. The Congress established maximum employment and stable prices as the key macroeconomic objectives for the Federal Reserve in its conduct of monetary policy."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12799.htm

While Congress does have the authority to coin money, they must be backed by gold and silver. Congress had no authority whatsoever to grant monetary powers to anyone, let alone a privoate bank.

Click to expand...

Actually, you got it all wrong. The Congress DOES have the power to make any coins they damn please not being backed by anything, it's THE STATES who must back their currencies with gold and silver.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states "The Congress shall have power to... coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;" That's it. No gold and silver, nothing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

Meanwhile, Article I, Section 10, Clause I says "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

So uh yes, Congress can print as many dollar bills as they damn please, with or without any gold or silver or whatever.

Oh, and look at all the inflation and deflation having gold and silver backing up the currency prevented!

To expose the scam of the banks for what they really are, one must understand how they work. They LEND the money that's in circulation to the government for the People at a percentage. For example, for every dollar printed, the government owes the bank $2. The government puts that on us with the income tax, so its a system created to put the People in permenant debt which creates enslavement. The income tax doesn't go towards government services, it goes to the private banks.

Click to expand...

[citation needed]

I have this other quote though.

The Federal Reserve's income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. Other sources of income are the interest on foreign currency investments held by the System; fees received for services provided to depository institutions, such as check clearing, funds transfers and automated clearinghouse operations; and interest on loans to depository institutions (the rate on which is the so-called discount rate). After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.

http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/faq/topics/fed_basics.cfm

PknTrainerKevo said:

Not only does this make income tax unconstitutional, but the fact that its not a uniform tax makes it void as well. To be clear, you don't recieve income, you recieve compensation. Income is defined as a profit gained that was not expected. So for example, if you make $30k a year, but one year you make $31k. The extra $1k you made is considered income. The government has no Right to tax your labor. Ever heard "you have the Right to bear the fruits of your labor"? That's what it essentially means. The Supreme Court even backs this up in Stanton v Baltic Mining Co that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation. There is no law, period.

Click to expand...

Yay Stanton! You need to read that ruling, apparently you didn't.

"Stanton also argued that the Sixteenth Amendment "authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform" and that therefore the income tax was "not within the authority of that Amendment." The Court also rejected this argument and upheld the constitutionality of the income tax under the 1913 Revenue Act."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_v._Baltic_Mining_Company

So yeah, the Amendment conferred no new power of taxation... because Congress already had that power under the 1913 Revenue Act.

Not to mention, the income tax was never properly ratified by the states, therefore it is invalid.

Click to expand...

[citation needed]

If you mean the 16th Amendment, it was ratified by 42 states of the 36 required, so you should explain everybody what's wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCPLOGftFuw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1NVPEg1jrQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Here's two videos that will help explain things better. Also, if the Fed Reserve wasn't the problem, why did JFK sign Executive Order 11110 to abolish the Reserve and for the Treasury to property assume the position of money with real US notes that were back by real credit? Why was he killed shortly afterwards?

Well, you didn't address any of the counterarguments I brought in my previous post- instead, you linked me to two videos that just repeat word by word what you said before.

I start watching the first one and I see a guy saying that there is no law forcing you to pay income taxes. Woooow. That makes it so trustworthy. Here, read the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A

Title 26 of the United States Code, subtitle A, Chapter 1, all passed by the US Congress, regulating Income Taxes. (Summary here).

I found it after three minutes of googling! And am I supposed to pay any attention to a video that gets people to state on record that a law I just found after three minutes of googling does not exist?

This is gonna be fun.

The entire video is ridiculous. It's all based on the insane claim that the Title 26 of the United States Code, subtitle A, Chapter 1 does not exist because the dude who made the video (and the people he interviewed) were stupid enough not to look for the law themselves and the IRS was uncooperative and refused to show it- not that it meant the law is secret, because if a Spanish dude living in Argentina (aka me) has found it after three minutes of a google search, anybody can do it. I went through 10 minutes of people saying that there is a conspiracy to pretend that a law passed by the US Congress does in fact exist. I refuse to continue watching it any longer. If there are any other points on the video, please summarize them.

Also, if the Fed Reserve wasn't the problem, why did JFK sign Executive Order 11110 to abolish the Reserve and for the Treasury to property assume the position of money with real US notes that were back by real credit? Why was he killed shortly afterwards?

Click to expand...

The what?

On November 28, 1961, President Kennedy halted sales of silver by the Treasury Department. Increasing demand for silver as an industrial metal had led to an increase in the market price of silver above the United States government's fixed price. This led to a decline in the government's excess silver reserves by over 80% during 1961. President Kennedy also called upon Congress to phase out silver certificates in favor of Federal Reserve notes.

Order 11110 allowed the Secretary to issue silver certificates, if any were needed, during the transition period under President Kennedy's plan to eliminate silver certificates.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110

What does any of this have to do with abolishing the Fed? No, seriously, what? It was just a step to get the US out of the Gold/Silver standard (and make it so the currency wouldn't be backed by anything!). With this law, the Treasury would stop giving silver to people demanding it, as the silver was getting more expensive than the US dollar (and keeping the silver as a standard would essentially cause a massive deflation if they were to adjust the vellue of the dollar with that of the increasing silver) and instead would give them silver certificates, reedemable for US dollars.

There are a lot of things in the OP that are outright lies, but there is an overall point that I see and agree with. The Federal Reserve is very bad for our country, in my opinion.

There's got to be more evidence that proves what these crooks are doing is wrong and... not just unconstitutional, but criminal. Printing money out of nothing outside the government is enfeeblingly ludicrous, and something has to be done about it.

Would anyone per chance have some sources for this?

There's nothing abnormal about printing money "out of nothing", "outside the government".

1) Many governments have fiat money that isn't backed by any material value. It gives governments a lot more freedom to manipulate the value of their currency when they're not restrained by their money supply. I don't know the story very well, so I'll try putting this in my own words and hopefully it's accurate and makes sense: the reason the American dollar was taken off the gold standard was because it became unsustainable with the US not owning much gold and the rest of the world holding the USD in reserve. When there's a lot of people holding to what amounts to "exchange for x grams of gold" cards and not a lot of gold, sooner or later somebody is going to break ranks and cash their dollars in - making the currency worthless anyways, even if it's "worth" x grams of gold. Who would want a US dollar in this situation? That's what was about to happen in 1971, but fortunately it didn't.

2) The Federal Reserve, as far as I'm concerned, is "inside the government". I know that people talk about corruption and the "bankers only looking out for themselves", but the Fed is still the instrument from which the government can affect monetary policy. If they decide that the USD is over/undervalued, then they can print money/increase interest rates + reserve requirements to get the supply of money and hopefully its value where they want it. This is what allows the government to deal with recessions by maintaining a flow of money (and economic activity) at the expense of a lowered value. Eventually economic activity recovers and the government is at the liberty of raising the value of its currency back to where it has to be. Otherwise people lose confidence in the economy -> there's decreasing economic activity -> people go out of work -> even less economic activity -> death spiral because nothing gets done. I would be much more concerned if the Federal Reserve system was "private" to the point that they stop responding to the monetary policy passed down to them :P

If I'm mistaken on anything I say, please correct me. This is something in which I have a very superficial understanding, and I would hate to allow misconceptions to linger.

You should watch the WHOLE video first before making claims of "ridiculousness". It has all of the info. Why is it that IRS agents have come out and said there is no law? Why is it that Ronald Reagan said "I believe that the tax system has come to be unAmerican."? The authentic definition of income is in the video too, as I've stated before. These are real tax experts and attorneys as well. You can't tell me they, nor the Supreme Court, know what they're talking about.

As far as money being backed by absolutely nothing is not only wrong, but it makes it worth nada. How can you tell me that a piece of paper with "Federal Reserve Note" and a number indicating value written on it is worth anything when there's no collateral? That would be like me printing my own currency out of construction paper and telling someone that its worth "x" amount of dollars. Its ridiculous for the thought to occur for I know i would just get laughed at and told to take my fake money elsewhere because its not welcome. The more money you print without properly backing it, the more inflation is going to occur. The Fed controls the markets and where the economy is at any point. With gold and silver, inlation and deflation can occur, yes, but it is a very rare occurance. The video also has a part of a speech John F Kennedy gave, in which he says that we are opposed to secrecy and secret oaths among others. This is exactly how the Fed behaves; in secrecy. If Executive Order 11110 was to benefit the Fed, why is it that after Kennedy was murdered, LBJ, JFK's Vice President that assumed the presidency, got rid of EO 11110?

Why is it that the Constitution for the united states of America grants ONLY GOLD AND SILVER for LEGAL PAYMENT OF DEBT? Why is it that you can go to jail for defacing Federal Reserve Notes? Because it belongs to the private bank, not the People. When you work, you recieve a fair trade of labor for money. This means it should be yours because you earned it and not to mention the government has no Right to tax you for your labor.

As far as the united states becoming a corporation, please see the Act of 1871, but thats for another topic.

PknTrainerKevo said:

You should watch the WHOLE video first before making claims of "ridiculousness". It has all of the info. Why is it that IRS agents have come out and said there is no law? Why is it that Ronald Reagan said "I believe that the tax system has come to be unAmerican."? These are real tax experts and attorneys as well. You can't tell me they, nor the Supreme Court, know what they're talking about.

Click to expand...

Well, Reagan wanted to lower taxes (which he did) because the higher tiers were extremely high. It's just a political quote taken out of context.

And I don't care about that a "tax expert" says that the law I am reading in this very moment does not exist. As Groucho Marx said, "Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?".

Law forcing you to pay income taxes, Title 26 of the United States Code, subtitle A, Chapter 1. Summary here.

Also, the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court ruled today that taxpayers who sincerely believe the Federal income tax laws do not apply to them cannot be convicted of criminal tax violations, even if there is no rational basis for their belief.

But at the same time, the Court said a belief that the tax is unconstitutional, as opposed to inapplicable, is not a shield against criminal liability for refusal to pay taxes.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Harry A. Blackmun said it was incomprehensible that 77 years after the establishment of the Federal income tax system "any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections."

Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/09/business/supreme-court-ruling-supports-tax-protester.html

The Supreme Court says that it's not a crime to not pay taxes if you honestly believe you don't have to pay them... but, even though they won't charge you with a crime, they'll force you to pay anyway, because what you believe doesn't matter, since there is a law forcing you to pay income taxes, Title 26 of the United States Code, subtitle A, Chapter 1. Summary here.

The authentic definition of income is in the video too, as I've stated before.

Click to expand...

Why look at that video? The AUTHENTIC definition of income is... in the law that forces you to pay income taxes!

Title 26 › Subtitle A › Chapter 1 › Subchapter B › Part I › § 61

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Click to expand...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/61

It's perfectly fine if you, individually, believe that salaries are not income, but that's you personal belief, period. The law explicitly describes a definition that includes salaries!

Again, I don't give a flipping burger about what a video on the internet says- if I have to choose between believing US Public Law and Random Youtube Video, I think I'll go with the first one.

PknTrainerKevo said:

As far as money being backed by absolutely nothing is not only wrong, but it makes it worth nada. How can you tell me that a piece of paper with "Federal Reserve Note" and a number indicating value written on it is worth anything when there's no collateral? That would be like me printing my own currency out of construction paper and telling someone that its worth "x" amount of dollars. Its ridiculous for the thought to occur for I know i would just get laughed at and told to take my fake money elsewhere because its not welcome.

Click to expand...

Then, by all means, send me all the worthless federal reserve notes you own! Since they are worthless, I'm pretty sure you won't mind sending me all. I can pay you in my own handmade notes! Which are exactly as worthy as the ones made by the Fed, right? [/sarcasm]

Okay, being serious, there is a small difference, and your last line is hinting at it. The whole concept of fiat money hinges on the fact that people will accept without being backed by anything... because it is backed by somebody. Fiat money is, essentially, backed by the Government and the country that issues it. Fiat money is worth as long as the local Government accepts it as a payment for taxes and the local comercies accept it as a payment for services. If you, as a person, print your own currency, people won't use it because you won't be able to impose it on anybody, and they won't be able to use it to avoid prison, since your Government wants their local currency in return for taxes, not your handmade one.

Of course, which are the two most traded currencies in the world? The Dollar and the Euro, backed by almost a (combined) billion users in their native countries, billions outside them (oil is traded, after all, in dollars or euros, not in mexican pesos), and with the support of the Governments of half the top 10 of wealthiest countries in the world.

In other words, a dollar and a Euro will always be worth something until the two single largest economies in the world (US and EU) collapse. And still- the Spanish Empire collapsed centuries ago, yes the US keep on using the 8-peso note (the "tholler" of yore) as their currency!

The more money you print without properly backing it, the more inflation is going to occur.

Click to expand...

It's not that easy. Since January, the European Central Bank has printed 600 million euros. That's a lot, right? Well, for a multi-trillion economy, that meant an inflation rate of... 0,85%. Negligible and, in fact, considered too low for a healthy economy! According to its own goals, the ECB is failing at creating inflation and is hurting the European economy as a result. I'm getting an actual profit on in-hand bank interest! My regular bank account for day-to-day cash pays 1% a year! That should not happen!

Of course, in the long run, inflation will happen, but a small amount of inflation is actually good as it increases the amount of money on the citizens' hands and makes debt more payable. The more inflation there is, the easier to pay all of the US/EU debt is!

The Fed controls the markets and where the economy is at any point. With gold and silver, inlation and deflation can occur, yes, but it is a very rare occurance.

Click to expand...

Rare ocurrence? Are you kidding me??? Do you even know what you are saying????



Look at it. The US was on a gold standard every single year until 1976, either under Brit rule or independent. Well, until then there were 73 (seventy-three) periods of deflation longer than 2 years and 2 (two) lasting one year, for a total of 75 (seventy-five). Since then, there have been zero (0) periods of deflation. Deflation is bad, and the gold standard was useless at preventing deflation (one of those periods hit a 20% deflation! That means that all your debts are, all of a sudden, increased by 20%!).

But let's look at inflation. It's more constant, but also more manageable- average is 5% with a spike of 12%. Before 1976, though, there were 15 (fifteen) periods in which the maximum inflation rate the US has lived since leaving the gold standard was equalled or easily bested, with a spike of 35 (thirty-freaking-five) percent under brit rule in 1740 and another of 25% (twenty-five) in 1830.

The video also has a part of a speech John F Kennedy gave, in which he says that we are opposed to secrecy and secret oaths among others. This is exactly how the Fed behaves; in secrecy.

Click to expand...

Fed members are appointed by the President and approved by the US Senate, they are held accountable by the the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by law. It's not a fully independent secret gang operating under a rock, it's an independent agency supervised by the Government.

If Executive Order 11110 was to benefit the Fed, why is it that after Kennedy was murdered, LBJ, JFK's Vice President that assumed the presidency, got rid of EO 11110?

Click to expand...

What in the name of Chtulu? Executive Order 11110 was reversed by Ronald Reagan in 1987, by Executive Order 12608, two decades after the US had left the gold and silver standard and there was no point whatsoever to giving the Secretary of Treasury powers to issue Silver Certificates the US had not been issuing since the 60's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12608

"Executive Order 12608
Elimination of unnecessary Executive orders and technical amendments to others

Signed: September 9, 1987
Federal Register page and date: 52 FR 34617; September 14, 1987"

How in the hell did LBJ revoke a EO that remained in the books for decades?

Why is it that the Constitution for the united states of America grants ONLY GOLD AND SILVER for LEGAL PAYMENT OF DEBT?

Click to expand...

Well, I was wondering if you had read my previous post, since you didn't address any of the points I brought and just linked to two videos. So allow me to quote myself:

Actually, you got it all wrong. The Congress DOES have the power to make any coins they damn please not being backed by anything, it's THE STATES who must back their currencies with gold and silver.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states "The Congress shall have power to... coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;" That's it. No gold and silver, nothing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

Meanwhile, Article I, Section 10, Clause I says "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

So uh yes, Congress can print as many dollar bills as they damn please, with or without any gold or silver or whatever.

Click to expand...

So I'll explain again: if Rhode Island decide to make their own currency, it has to be gold or silver coins. If the US Congress decide to make their own currency (and call it Dollar, let's just say), it can be anything. Including paper.

Why is it that you can go to jail for defacing Federal Reserve Notes? Because it belongs to the private bank, not the People.

Click to expand...

...so you haven't read the US Constitution, okay.

Right under the aforementioned Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the US Constitution (the one saying "The Congress shall have power to... coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;"), there is Article I, Section 8, Clause 6, which says "The Congress shall have power to... provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;".

And since the US Dollar (sorry, the "Federal Reserve Notes") are the current coin of the United States... the Congress has the power to punish those counterfeiting them. Whoops!

When you work, you recieve a fair trade of labor for money. This means it should be yours because you earned it and not to mention the government has no Right to tax you for your labor.

Click to expand...

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

See: definition of Income according to US Public Law, earlier in this very post.

Yes, Congress has the right to coin money and regulate the value thereof, but again, it must be backed by gold and silver. Congress had no power whatsoever to grant monetary powers to a private bank that is not even part of the government. That is the US Treasury's job. There is no way out of debt, it is a literal debt machine. All the money in the world couldn't pay off the defecit because again, the Fed LOANS the money to the government. Why is it that its voluntary to pay taxes, but I'll get in trouble if I don't? That makes no sense whatsoever. Also Title 26 must comply with the Supreme Court, which it doesn't.

I don't have an issue paying taxes as long as A) its a uniformed tax as according to Article 1 Section 8 B) it doesn't tax my labor (if its "income" as in extra money brought in that I wasn't expecting as in profit aka that $1k from my previous example, that's different) C) it actually goes towards needed government services that benefit the general welfare of the united states and D) it benefits the local communites.

In the first video about the income tax: please see sections 9:54-10:05; 16:14-19:00 and 22:16-30:00. These will help further explain to you the reason why the current form of the income tax is unconstitutional. The first clip is Reagen himself, the second clip is of the tax experts and tax attorneys and the third clip is of the GUY WHO WROTE THE IRS CODE BOOK. His first name is Sheldon, can't remember the last, but its in the video. These are real people who know what they're talking about.

PknTrainerKevo said:

Yes, Congress has the right to coin money and regulate the value thereof, but again, it must be backed by gold and silver.

Click to expand...

There is NOTHING saying that it must be backed by gold and silver. NOT A SINGLE WORD. Zilch. Zero.

Article I said:

The Congress shall have power to... coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Click to expand...

Please. Please. Point to me where the words "gold" or "silver" appear. I can't find them anywhere.

Congress had no power whatsoever to grant monetary powers to a private bank that is not even part of the government.

Click to expand...

Except the Federal Reserve IS ultimately controlled by the Government, its economic goals are set by the US Congress, its members appointed by the President of the US. It's not a private bank.

There is no way out of debt, it is a literal debt machine. All the money in the world couldn't pay off the defecit because again, the Fed LOANS the money to the government.

Click to expand...

And do you know why the Fed LOANS money? I'll explain to you: it's a way to prevent inflation! I know it sounds incredible but I'll tell you.

Let's say that the Government needs X money to pay something included in the budget, and tax revenue is not enough. So the Government has two options: either it prints money to pay for that amount, or borrows money. Except, borrowing money from foreign investors (which it still does anyway) means a risk for the economical independence. And printing money and using it as if it had been earnt creates pure inflation, as it increases the amount of money in circulation without a backing in GDP increase.

So what to do? Stupid Governments will just print it anyway. In Argentina, where I'm living right now, are doing exactly that. This year they printed enough money to make up for 28% of the money in circulation. Inflation? 28%! Heard that number anywhere?

Well, the US found a way to cheat the system: they print the money... but take it AS A LOAN. As if the Fed was just an investor. They use the money to pay for whatever they need it, and then they pay it back to the Fed the following years, which then proceeds to take it out of circulation. In the end, the billions printed by the Fed are used without increasing the amount of money in circulation, because those dollars are not left circulating around, but rather destroyed later. In other words, by having the Fed give money to the US Government AS A LOAN, they get to use the money-printing machine as much as they want without creating inflation! And the interest payments on Fed loans go back to the US Treasury so they even save money.

Why is it that its voluntary to pay taxes, but I'll get in trouble if I don't? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Click to expand...

"With respect to the use of the term "voluntary," no court has ever ruled that there is no legal obligation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to timely file Federal income tax returns or to timely pay Federal income taxes."

"In the Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958) case the taxpayer did not contend, and the court did not rule, that there was no legal obligation to file Federal income tax returns or pay the related taxes. The Court's ruling in Flora was almost the opposite: the taxpayer was required to pay the full amount of tax claimed by the IRS to be owed by the taxpayer before the court would even hear a lawsuit by the taxpayer against the government to determine the correct amount of tax."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_pr...The_.22income_taxes_are_voluntary.22_argument

Also, do you remember the law forcing you to pay income taxes, Title 26 of the United States Code, subtitle A, Chapter 1? (Summary still here). Well, 26 U.S.C. § 1. reads:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

Click to expand...

As far as I know, the word "imposed" does not give you any room to choose whether you want to pay or not.

Also Title 26 must comply with the Supreme Court, which it doesn't.

Click to expand...

[citation needed]

No, seriously, please do cite some SC case that rules that Title 26 is unconstitutional.

I don't have an issue paying taxes as long as A) its a uniformed tax as according to Article 1 Section 8 B) it doesn't tax my labor (if its "income" as in extra money brought in that I wasn't expecting as in profit aka that $1k from my previous example, that's different) C) it actually goes towards needed government services that benefit the general welfare of the united states and D) it benefits the local communites.

Click to expand...

And you are free to have your own ideas on the definition of income and what taxes should be used for, of course. And you are free to vote for politicians that support your ideas. But sadly, actual, existing laws define income as "(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business;".

Also "imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" means that all taxes must be the same across all States, not that all taxes must have a single, flat rate.

The final phrase of the Taxing and Spending Clause stipulates:

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Here, the requirement is that taxes must be geographically uniform throughout the United States. This means taxes affected by this provision must function "with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found." However, this clause does not require revenues raised by the tax from each state be equal.

Justice Story characterized this requirement in a light more relevant to practicality and fairness:

"It was to cut off all undue preferences of one state over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different states, might exist."

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#Uniformity_Clause

PknTrainerKevo said:

In the first video about the income tax: please see sections 9:54-10:05; 16:14-19:00 and 22:16-30:00. These will help further explain to you the reason why the current form of the income tax is unconstitutional. The first clip is Reagen himself, the second clip is of the tax experts and tax attorneys and the third clip is of the GUY WHO WROTE THE IRS CODE BOOK. His first name is Sheldon, can't remember the last, but its in the video. These are real people who know what they're talking about.

Click to expand...

Reagan said that the tax system was "unamerican", and some taxes were "unjust". That's political babble that doesn't mean anything. Then he proceeded to LOWER tax rates, not abolish them.

Second, as I already said in my first post, the 16th amendment does not create any new powers of taxation BECAUSE THE US CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THEM. The amendment only clarifies that the pre-existing power to tax incomes is now absolute and therefore exempt from the constitutional requirement of apportionment, which had caused the SC to rule against it in Polock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894). With that requierement gone, the already exisiting laws regulating income taxes were then and now constitutional once again.

And the last interview is a great example of manipulation. Guy says X, and then the narrator says "well he's wrong/lying". That doesn't help- the one leading the conversation is the narrator, not the IRS comissioner, whose words are challenged without him being able to reply, to twist its meaning. And, as I said, I don't care what he said, law is there for you to read.

Oh my god Kevo stop making these threads. I get it, you read Infowars.com all the time and buy into their propaganda but for the love of god it's irritating to read this trite all over the debates section.

I'm not going to address you as thoroughly as Went has but very simply, while I believe that the banking system of the United States is not efficient and is not the best model, I believe that your opinions on the federal reserve are based in lies or, at most generous, gross misunderstandings. I'm not as knowledgeable as Went is in the subject and am woefully underarmed to prove your inadequate arguments via facts but it is very clear that the facts are right in your face and you're still ignoring them for your conspiracy theory ********.

Also, I'm not exactly on cool terms with Obama either but I'm not going to spit out anarchist, undocumented, unresearched propaganda to support my point.

Supreme Court case Doyle v Mitchell said the idea of GAINS from corporate activity defines "income". In other words it does not mean wages. And what do you mean the interviewer was twisting Sheldon Cohen's words? Listen to it again, he even says that the SC is inapplicle (spelling?), which is outragious because the SC is the Judicial branch of the government and Congress had no authority back then to tax wages. You really should view the entire video to get a full grasp on it. Congress can tax almost anything, keyword "almost", as long as it abides by the Constitution and our current tax system goes against the Constitution.

Yes, I listen to InfoWars, but that doesn't mean I believe everything he says. I look into the claims and also what other experts (in this case attorneys, former IRS agents, FBI agents, Congressmen, etc) and also what the Supreme Law of the Land says. Our Founding Fathers were smart men and knew history well. Why don't you study the Roman Empire and you'll see what I mean.

Sooner or later, the fractional reserve banking is going to catch up to us. Fiat currencies have never in the past been used and relied upon worldwide for anything prior to the petrodollar. How bad things are going to be, when things are going to happen, I'm not going to make any claims on that. However, our currency has been devalued significantly, and sooner or later, debt catches up to everyone. Even the government. I don't think anyone can honestly say the dollar is in a position of long-term stability at this point.

It's not like the Federal Reserve is making ALL the monetary policies in the United States. Shift things back to the Department of the Treasury and I doubt the situation would be much better.

pokemonleaguechamp said:

Sooner or later, the fractional reserve banking is going to catch up to us. Fiat currencies have never in the past been used and relied upon worldwide for anything prior to the petrodollar. How bad things are going to be, when things are going to happen, I'm not going to make any claims on that. However, our currency has been devalued significantly, and sooner or later, debt catches up to everyone. Even the government. I don't think anyone can honestly say the dollar is in a position of long-term stability at this point.

It's not like the Federal Reserve is making ALL the monetary policies in the United States. Shift things back to the Department of the Treasury and I doubt the situation would be much better.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you're saying. The dollar has lost 98% of its value since 1913 when it was introduced. Constitutionally, the Treasury controls the money and has it backed by real gold and silver, whereas the Fed just prints away and is just flat out unconstitutional.

PknTrainerKevo said:

I agree with most of what you're saying. The dollar has lost 98% of its value since 1913 when it was introduced. Constitutionally, the Treasury controls the money and has it backed by real gold and silver, whereas the Fed just prints away and is just flat out unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that you want the United States to go back on the Silver/Gold standard? Do you know WHY they went off of the Silver/Gold standard?...

Also, the government isn't just some fractured pieces that just work completely independently of each other. Despite the fact that there does exist fraud, the government does not just "print money" against the Treasury's will. They actually work together with economists to determine what works best. Of course, they're not always right and there's no reason not to believe that there could be a juicy ulterior motive but what you're suggesting is just dumb. If it really were the case that they were working independently of each other's will then it would be obvious, and fluctuations would be a lot harder to predict, since it'd pretty much be based on their whim.

The treasury is NO LONGER BACKED BY PRECIOUS METALS because of their physical scarcity and the inability for them to expand along with the economy. That's why we use fiat money now, because it's not backed by anything but our trust. Go to the treasury these days with a certificate asking for gold and they'll laugh in your face. In addition no modern economy works on the gold/silver standard and instead is based on fiat money as well. That's the reason for the expanded inflation.

Also, I have no idea where you're getting those figures because they are not accurate and are being skewed for (probably Ron Paul's) favour. It's fairly obvious that our economy has expanded in the last 100 years based on many figures such as GDP and average income and standard of living.


Finally, using fiat money doesn't even address the actual flaws in the banking system of America! The Federal Reserve did not just magically appear when fiat money was made.

Who cares about what's in and of itself constitutional? There's more in politics than following scripture. It takes place in the real world, not in documents which words you skew to your own fancy. As Went already explained, there are very good reasons that the government decided to take action that you found "unconstitutional". It's called adaptation, had the gold standard not been removed, the USD and the economy would've ran into the ground. Would you have kept it for the sake of "constitutionality", for the sake of "following the rules"? You have to keep in mind the people's welfare, for when you ignore it they will suffer. All of us need your taxes, all of us need a functioning economy. You might think your ideas are "constitutional", but I don't find them democratic at all when your attitude is so deep in a narrow and flawed interpretation of a 200 year old document.

PknTrainerKevo said:

Supreme Court case Doyle v Mitchell said the idea of GAINS from corporate activity. In other words it does not mean wages.

Click to expand...

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918), was a United States Supreme Court case defining gross income. The case held that gross income includes the gain on sale of assets, i.e., the proceeds less cost basis. An alternative theory that gross income should be the gross proceeds, and the cost basis should be allowed as a deduction, was rejected by the Court.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doyle_v._Mitchell_Bros._Co.

- include
verb
[with object]

1- comprise or contain as part of a whole

2 - make part of a whole or set

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/include

In other words, it means income is wages PLUS gains. It doesn't say it's "only" gains, it says that it's both wages and gains.

PknTrainerKevo said:

Yes, I listen to InfoWars, but that doesn't mean I believe everything he says. I look into the claims and also what other experts (in this case attorneys, former IRS agents, FBI agents, Congressmen, etc) and also what the Supreme Law of the Land says. Our Founding Fathers were smart men and knew history well. Why don't you study the Roman Empire and you'll see what I mean.

Click to expand...

Except you are quoting Infowars almost verbatim. And you don't seem to know what the Supreme Law of the Land says, since you keep misquoting the US Constitution, or misunderstanding what the Founding Fathers meant with it.

pokemonleaguechamp said:

How bad things are going to be, when things are going to happen, I'm not going to make any claims on that. However, our currency has been devalued significantly, and sooner or later, debt catches up to everyone. Even the government. I don't think anyone can honestly say the dollar is in a position of long-term stability at this point.

Click to expand...

What does "long-term stability" mean, exactly? Because, prior to taking on a fiat currency in the 60's, the value of the US dollar was anything but stable, it was a complete rollercoaster. One year you'd have 20% inflation and the next one, poof, 10% deflation. Meanwhile, in the last decade, inflation has constantly been around 3%, with barely any significative movements. What is more "stable", I wonder?

It's not like the Federal Reserve is making ALL the monetary policies in the United States. Shift things back to the Department of the Treasury and I doubt the situation would be much better.

Click to expand...

Exactly- the monetary policy is made by THE US CONGRESS. The Fed is just the arm that executes them. So, move the power back to the Treasury and it would be exactly the same, except it would be the Treasury taking all the blame.

PknTrainerKevo said:

I agree with most of what you're saying. The dollar has lost 98% of its value since 1913 when it was introduced. Constitutionally, the Treasury controls the money and has it backed by real gold and silver, whereas the Fed just prints away and is just flat out unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

For the I-don't-know-how-manyth time, THE TREASURY IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY OBLIGED TO BACK ITS CURRENCY WITH ANYTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER.

Article I said:

The Congress shall have power to... coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Click to expand...

And second, I know this might blow your mind, but gold and silver are just... fiat currencies! What, you might be wondering? Well, gold and silver, in real word, are used in dentistry, electronics and wiring. But, essentially, gold is not more useful for makind than iron, or wood. Gold and silver are used as reserves of value because they are shiny and people want to buy them- exactly the same as housing, stocks, bitcoins or -gasp- dollars. Their only worth is the fact that people are expected to keep wanting to buy them, even though nobody can do anything with them outside of dentistry or electronics.

So what happens if everything collapses and we go back to barter? That the guy with massive amounts of gold will look pretty foolish with his shiny rocks while other people trade rice for meat and water for shelter. But why would anybody want a shiny rock they can do nothing with? Gold would essentially be worth 0. If it's worth anything at all right now it's because lots of people want to pay a lot for it- essentially, the definition of a fiat currency.

Plus, as housing or stocks, the value of gold and silver is essentially random and dictated by the market, hence the ridiculous inflation/deflation levels it could switch between in barely a year. Fiat currencies controlled by a central bank can, at least, be controlled by the Government, meaning you at least get to drive the car, instead of just getting on the back seat not knowing where you are going, or at what speed.

Oh, and let me quote the article daigonite linked to, just to make it more redundant:

Let us take at the period from 1913-2006, where we have complete data. So what do they mean, when they say the dollar lost 95.1% of its value in those 93 years? Essentially, an average good/service that cost $1 in 2006, used to be priced at 4.9 cents in 1913. In other words, the average price level of goods/services increased by 1930% since 1913. True, but guess what, average earned income increased by 6560% during the same time period. Average earned income rose from $740/yr in 1913 to $49,300/yr in 2006. Adjusting for inflation, $740/yr in 1913 is $15,000/yr in 2006 dollars. Average incomes, not only kept pace, but beat price inflation by 230%.

Click to expand...

To expand on Went's last point: all money is "fiat" money. Money is just a commonly accepted object for the payment of goods and services. The failure of a currency occurs when it doesn't meet that definition anymore - it ceases to be commonly accepted because people lose confidence in it and don't want to accept it as payment anymore. At the end of the day, why does it matter if somebody's money is backed by a material good? They got rid of the gold standard because it was about to fail - for the same reason fiat money, no, all money, would fail - people would lose confidence and not use it anymore.

The current income tax doesn't do anything to help the economy. Please see the Grace Commission. It was studyed during the Reagan Administration. The Federal Reserve is NOT part of the government, it is a PRIVATE BANK. They LOAN our government the currency and the 'fees' imposed by the Reserve is more then we can pay back. If it was the Treasury coining the money, THERE WOULD BE NO DEBT because there is no interest and if any debt was accumulated elsewhere, it could be paid off within the generation. The reason why the government is still the way it is is because of the foreign interest aka the private bankers are paying off politicians to keep it this way. Believe me, I know my Constitution, I have one on me at most times including right now and according to Article 6 para 2, it states that this Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. State Laws, which is also mentioned, is the State's Constitution, which is based on the US Constitution. Its not a perfect document, but it is an iron clad contract enforcable in court. We, as the citizens of our home state, are the beneficiary of the contract. It works in the favor of the citizen, not the government. I think someone should go back and watch the video because watching just the clips isn't getting all of the information to you. Watch it first. The laws you speak of are secondary law, which is not enforcable.

PknTrainerKevo said:

Yes, Congress has the right to coin money and regulate the value thereof, but again, it must be backed by gold and silver.

Click to expand...

It doesn't. You are referring to the gold and silver standard, but I am going to correct you here because I am a bit of a history nut. The gold and silver standard was abolished decades ago during Nixon's presidency. So no, money does not have to be backed up by gold and silver.

PknTrainerKevo said:

It was studyed during the Reagan Administration

Click to expand...

Studied.

PknTrainerKevo said:

The Federal Reserve is NOT part of the government, it is a PRIVATE BANK.

Click to expand...

It's the nation's central bank. It's an entity within the national government. If it was a private bank, it would be owned, but it isn't owned by anybody or anything.

PknTrainerKevo said:

Its not a perfect document, but it is an iron clad contract enforcable in court. We, as the citizens of our home state, are the beneficiary of the contract. It works in the favor of the citizen, not the government.

Click to expand...

Um no. If you knew US History, you would know that the Constitutions original purpose was to strengthen the government, but at the same time make sure America didn't turn into a dictatorship. The thing that benefits the people is the BILL OF RIGHTS.