Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Owe The IRS? Bill Would Suspend Passport Rights For Delinquent Taxpayers
CBS 2 LA CA ^ | 4/4/12 | unattributed

Posted on 04/05/2012 5:13:59 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network

After clearing the Senate on a 74 – 22 vote on March 14, SB 1813 is now headed for a vote in the House of Representatives, where it’s expected to encounter stiffer opposition among the GOP majority.

(Excerpt) Read more at losangeles.cbslocal.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: communists; cwiiping; democrats; geithner; geitner; irs; irspassports; passport; passports; same; taxdelinquency
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last
This sounds (very) much like a communist regime "exit visa".

What's next. Guard towers. Facing inward?

Such as were the case, in former East Germany?

1 posted on 04/05/2012 5:14:08 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

But then how will Timmy Geitner travel?


2 posted on 04/05/2012 5:16:35 AM PDT by Explorer89 (And now, let the wild rumpus start!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Hmmmm ... Is that denying mobility to people coming IN or going OUT?

Because, there are millions IN here ILLEGALLY who don’t pay taxes at ALL and never will! THEY come and ago at will.


3 posted on 04/05/2012 5:17:44 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
"delinquent taxpayers"

...and others who find themselves on the "delinquent taxpayer" list.

4 posted on 04/05/2012 5:18:11 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Easy. Big Brother raises taxes through the roof. Nobody can escape. Stroke of the pen—law of the lane—cool!


5 posted on 04/05/2012 5:19:43 AM PDT by Savage Beast (The way of the Left is conformity--ruthlessly enforced conformity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

CW2 Ping

Welcome to the USSA, comrades.

You may not leave our socialist utopia until you have squared your accounts with the IRS. (Soon, this will also mean paying your Obamacare fees.)

Requiring the State's permission to leave your country is a hallmark of tyranny.

6 posted on 04/05/2012 5:19:43 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Explorer89
But then how will Timmy Geitner travel?

Waiver.

7 posted on 04/05/2012 5:20:15 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Your passport has been suspended? Well PROVE that you are not a delinquent taxpayer!


8 posted on 04/05/2012 5:22:19 AM PDT by Savage Beast (The way of the Left is conformity--ruthlessly enforced conformity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Explorer89
But then how will Timmy Geitner travel?

His friends in the State Department will give him a pass. This is another power that Obama will use to reward friends and punish political enemies.

9 posted on 04/05/2012 5:24:52 AM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
They're going to need plenty of waivers for all the government employees who want to travel.
10 posted on 04/05/2012 5:25:13 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (Barack has a memory like a steel trap; it's a gift ~ Michelle Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Requiring the State's permission to leave your country is a hallmark of tyranny.

BTTT.

11 posted on 04/05/2012 5:25:19 AM PDT by snowsislander (Gingrich 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
This mess is brought to you by Barbara Boxer, tied to a 'highway funding bill".

By doing this she can claim ANY opposition will cause the loss of jobs, due to a loss of federal funding. This crap would never pass on its own merit so she personally holds these jobs hostage, then blames those in opposition for the loss of jobs!

The media should be pounding her for doing this, instead crickets.

12 posted on 04/05/2012 5:26:18 AM PDT by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kakaze

Where’s the GOP?

This is EXACTLY the sort of issue which will resonate throughout and across America.

Wake up GOP. Republican timidity is losing America. Fast.


13 posted on 04/05/2012 5:28:40 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ((Racism Fatigue) America is the least racist nation on Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eaker; Absolutely Nobama; afnamvet; AK2KX; Ancesthntr; An Old Man; APatientMan; ApesForEvolution; ..

CW2 Ping

Requiring official state permission to leave your own country is a hallmark of tyranny.

14 posted on 04/05/2012 5:29:00 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Ah. So *now* they’ll get around to building a wall.


15 posted on 04/05/2012 5:29:56 AM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (nobody gives me warheads anyway))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Which Republican senators signed on to this?


16 posted on 04/05/2012 5:29:58 AM PDT by jersey117 (The Stepford Media should be sued for malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

Re #5: see #6.


17 posted on 04/05/2012 5:31:29 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

If 74 senators signed on to this then all we need to know is the names of the RINOs and they MUST be targeted for removal by any legal means.

As others have stated this is classic USSR, China, N. Korea, Cuba.

A tax obligation has always had numerous legal tools to recover assets. We do not need this Marxist approach but then again, with this president we do not need a congress or the courts.

While a small handful of tax dodging scum may leave the USA using a Passport you do not hold hostage ALL AMERICANs who might have a dispute with the IRS.

People, the progressives are 100% positive this is their time to take over the USA and they are making no attempt any longer to hide their disdain for our Constitution or citizens.

If we do not act soon, we will no longer have the tools to act.


18 posted on 04/05/2012 5:38:14 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Does this include Congress?


19 posted on 04/05/2012 5:39:22 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

There hasn’t been a GOP for years. The final nail in it’s coffin was when their golden boy McRino admitted to pimping for the other side when he said we didn’t have anything to fear from the usurper.


20 posted on 04/05/2012 5:45:38 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

It’s not even so much about taxes.

Once there is a legal beachhead upon which to make leaving the country, a matter for which you need government permission.

The bases upon which departure can be denied, will expand and expand, until in all practical purposes we become very truly indistinguishable from the former Soviet Union.

This is a very big deal.

House of Representatives - you’re it.

Don’t think Obama will sign this in a second?

DO YOUR JOBS REPUBLICANS.


21 posted on 04/05/2012 5:46:12 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ((Racism Fatigue) America is the least racist nation on Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
I'm confused. Why would you assume that the ruling-class GOP would be opposed to this bill?

They, too, have a vested interest in the status quo.

Hopefully the common man will finally realize that the Sixteenth Amendment was the Re-imposition of Slavery Amendment.

22 posted on 04/05/2012 5:47:15 AM PDT by Aevery_Freeman (Typed using <FONT STYLE=SARCASM> unless otherwise noted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

My wife and dids are eligible for Canadian Citizenship ( they allow dual citizneship) and therefor passports. Might be time to act on that.


23 posted on 04/05/2012 5:48:03 AM PDT by Kozak ("It's not an Election it's a Restraining Order" .....PJ O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Wife and KIDS. Sheesh.


24 posted on 04/05/2012 5:48:39 AM PDT by Kozak ("It's not an Election it's a Restraining Order" .....PJ O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

This will go over real well with the Tour Ship industry. The blows just keep on coming....


25 posted on 04/05/2012 5:49:00 AM PDT by Quick Shot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Here’s the money quote:

“...However, there does not appear to be any specific language requiring a taxpayer to be charged with tax evasion or any other crime in order to have their passport revoked or limited — only that a notice of lien or levy has been filed by the IRS...”

Without conviction!!! Any CongressCritter who votes for this should be run out of town!


26 posted on 04/05/2012 5:54:31 AM PDT by WellyP (REAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Good idea!


27 posted on 04/05/2012 5:56:49 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Wow...between this and illegal immigration...we are turning in to a third world roach trap....you can get in but you cant get out
28 posted on 04/05/2012 5:58:25 AM PDT by tophat9000 (American is Barack Oaken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Geitner and Randle grounded?


29 posted on 04/05/2012 6:03:10 AM PDT by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
already been there/done that on at least the state level and family court 'obligations'...'behind' in support, no fed tax returns or passport...

a couple other punishments that i dont recollect right now for failure to submit...

30 posted on 04/05/2012 6:06:22 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Ya.

“Well, you can’t leave the country if you owe taxes, so what makes you think you should be able to leave when you __________________?”

A lot of S heading at the F at high speed. Too many such things are going in place in too short a time.


31 posted on 04/05/2012 6:06:58 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Bingo.

Exactly. Every single law always expands. Never, does any regulation shrink.

Ever.

I almost wonder if this single law, is the reason for all the media hysteria during the last month. To distract attention from this.

This is about becoming Soviet.

Right here. Right now. Berlin Wall time.

Rush should talk about this. This is important.


32 posted on 04/05/2012 6:10:57 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ((Racism Fatigue) America is the least racist nation on Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WellyP
Add your money quote to the fact the irs is also going to enforce the health care law...so all are require to buy..if not your are fined by the irs...so add this and you cant even leave if you do not want obamacare
33 posted on 04/05/2012 6:12:26 AM PDT by tophat9000 (American is Barack Oaken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Unfortunately for me, my grandparents, who had hailed from Sicily, became LEGAL United States citizens just before my dad was born. (But fortunately for them, of course. They LOVED America!)

Is there any country that would allow us to gain citizenship so we can get another passport?


34 posted on 04/05/2012 6:15:59 AM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bgill

You’re being silly now. The senate vote answers that question.


35 posted on 04/05/2012 6:19:07 AM PDT by WinMod70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lonestar

Add Warren Buffett to the staycation list.


36 posted on 04/05/2012 6:21:11 AM PDT by WinMod70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Think You Know the IRS? Learn the Truth!

31 questions and answers about the IRS...


1. Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?

Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301 310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).

At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm


37 posted on 04/05/2012 6:23:05 AM PDT by know-the-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: know-the-law

Other posters may disagree, but I object to a newbie trying to make this some sort of tax protest thread.

The point is not taxes nor the IRS.

The point is requiring government approval to leave the country.


38 posted on 04/05/2012 6:30:31 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ((Racism Fatigue) America is the least racist nation on Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Aevery_Freeman; Travis McGee; LucyT; butterdezillion

“Hopefully the common man will finally realize that the Sixteenth Amendment was the Re-imposition of Slavery Amendment.”


“PING”

Actually that would be the 14th amendment!!!

Watch this video [a few times if necessary to let it sink in completely] and then read the text below a few times as well to FULLY grasp it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE

The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited

First - forget everything you ever knew about the Fourteenth
Amendment - then carefully read the below expose:

Take the Amendment’s opening clauses, “All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside...”

Now, consider the same clauses with the central, explanatory clause
removed, and it then reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the
United States are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside...”

Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second
clause, “and under the jurisdiction thereof, “ is an explanatory
clause. Explanatory clauses do not add to nor in any way change or
alter the meaning of the writing in which they are included; their
purpose is to explain. As it is self evident that naturalized
persons volunteer into the jurisdiction of the United States as an
inherent aspect of their voluntary naturalization, the explanatory
clause obviously was not relevant thereto. Therefore the inclusion
of this explanatory clause is to clarify that persons born in the
United States, in deference to the Thirteenth Amendment, do not
become and are not, at the moment of their birth in the United
States, automatically citizens thereof because such newborn persons
are incapable of personally volunteering themselves into servitude.
I contend that the inclusion of “persons naturalized” was somewhat
obfuscatory.

Please note that when the explanatory words (”, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, “), are omitted, the entire impact and meaning
changes, or rather (and more correctly), the true meaning become
obfuscated. The explanatory clause, (”, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, “), clearly adds a second criteria necessary to
establishing citizenship and clearly indicates that there are two
distinctly separate criteria both of which must be met in order for
persons born in the United States to be classified or designated as
citizens thereof.

The words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “ clearly
provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the
United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not
automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United
States.

(I strongly content that this includes all persons born in the United
States of parents when the parents themselves are citizens of the
United States. That is, no one becomes a citizen of the United States
just because the person is born in the United States. “Born in the
United States” and “born under the jurisdiction thereof” are not one
and the same as is commonly misunderstood. If the two statements
meant the same thing then only one would have been needed. Moreover,
the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude
prevents anyone from being designated to be a citizen of the United
States based merely on the location of the person’s birth in the
United States).

In regard to persons born in the United States there are two criteria
which must be met and complied with in order for persons born in the
United States to be designated as citizens of the United States, and
the second of the two preclude such citizenship from
being “automatic” or based on the mere “accident” (or contrivance,
as in the case of so called “anchor babies”), of the persons birth
in the United States. The two required criteria are (1), that the
persons be born in the United States (obvious), and, (2) that the
person born in the United States must also be subject to the
jurisdiction thereof (this criteria is universally, incorrectly and
erroneously presumed - read on:).

This second criteria is not and cannot be met merely by the location
of the persons birth, because, as set forth in the Fourth Article of
the Fourteenth Amendment, there is a requirement that citizens of the
United States not question the validity of the national debt. This
mandated provision clearly constitutes a condition of servitude,
therefore, in deference to and in recognition of the prohibition of
involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth Amendment, it becomes
abundantly clear that a person’s birth in the United States, by
itself, does NOT and cannot establish U.S. citizenship. Please read
on:

An examination of the two subject amendments will expose a diabolical
plot; understand that the same legislators who wrote the Fourteenth
Amendment had, two years earlier, also written the Thirteenth
Amendment, wherein these same legislators prohibited involuntary
servitude - I am not aware of any claim by anyone or any court that
the Fourteenth Amendment in any way revoked or abolished any of the
provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Bearing in mind that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary
servitude; and while keeping this thought in mind, then consider this
wording contained in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment,
(in reference to citizens of the United States):

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by
law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties
for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned.”,

Or, to paraphrase the relevant part, “Citizens of the United States
shall not complain about being required to pay the public debt of the
United States, authorized by law...”.

Or, to cut to the chase, “Citizens of the United States - SHUT UP and
PAY UP!!”

As paraphrased (but NOT wrongly interpreted), it becomes abundantly
clear and indisputable that this mandate in the Fourth Article of the
Fourteenth Amendment constitutes a condition of servitude - that is,
U.S. citizenship constitutes a condition of servitude - and, because
of the prohibition of involuntary servitude in the Thirteenth
Amendment, US citizenship must be voluntarily entered into and cannot
be acquired merely by birth.

So, with the foregoing examination and understanding in mind, it then
becomes clear why the citizenship clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
are phrased in the manner they are (implying U.S. citizenship by
birth but clearly unable to state such to be the case). If those
legislators who created the wording of these two amendments had been
honest, they would have written the Fourteenth Amendment somewhat as
follows:

“All persons born in the United States, who thereafter, upon
attaining the age of reason, then voluntarily elect to place
themselves under the jurisdiction thereof, such persons, by such
voluntary act, thereby voluntarily become citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside and in so volunteering,
such citizens agree to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the
United States in every respect and agree to pay the national debt
thereof, without complaint.”

The opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, “All persons
born or naturalized, “. Bear in mind that those who were held in
slavery had been kidnapped in their homeland and drug to the United
States against their will, in chains, and then forced into slavery
for many generations. Such acts as these, perpetrated on these
innocent kidnapped Africans, could not in any way be expected to
engender an attitude of gratitude and loyalty to the Government of
the United States - what would be your attitude if you were among
those who were freed at the end of Lincoln’s unconstitutional and
undeclared war (just in case you thought Bush was the first to ignore
the applicable Constitutional provisions)??

Due to the conditions the African slaves had been subjected to
preceding their emancipation, the former slaves had every reason to
despise the United States. Additionally, naturalization (also
included in the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment),
requires a renunciation of the candidates former foreign sovereign
and a willingness to take an oath swearing an allegiance to the
United States. Naturalization requires a study of and a knowledge
of the Constitution. The vast majority of the former slaves were
totally illiterate, so, for the most part, none of them were in any
way desirable as candidates for naturalization and it would have been
ludicrous to expect that any of them would seek naturalization, and I
am not aware of even one instance where such occurred. And none of
this has even the slightest bearing on the fact that the former
slaves were black.

In response to the foregoing there are those who claim that the
former slaves gained U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment
because, during the so called reconstruction period, imposed upon the
Southern States after the end of Lincoln’s illegal war, the former
slaves were then under the jurisdiction of the United States and that
is what made them U.S. citizens. This claim is spurious at best as
the purported applicable clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
addressing “those persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof [of the
United States]”, is specifically limited to and is only applicable to
those persons BORN in the United States - and is not applicable those
who found themselves under the jurisdiction thereof due to the result
of an unconstitutional and illegal war. (All of the adult former
slaves had been born (albeit - as a result of kidnapping), under the
jurisdiction of the (southern) state wherein they were born. Some
may have even been born in a foreign country where from they were
kidnapped).

As to those babies actually born of freed slaves during the so called
reconstruction period, such children could still not be classified as
citizens of the United States (due to their birth) because of the
servitude mandated in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment
as a specific condition of U.S. citizenship; all this in deference to
the prohibition of involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth
Amendment. Before such children could become U.S. citizens they
would have to wait until they reached the age of reason and then they
would have to volunteer themselves into such status. I contend that
none ever did so, certainly not knowingly.

I cannot imagine that any sane former slave who fully understood the
provisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments would freely
volunteer into a condition of servitude which is part and parcel of
United States citizenship. For that matter, neither can I imagine
such would be the freewill choice of any sane white person born in
the United States (this disparagement is not in any way applicable to
foreign nationals who immigrate to the U.S. and apply for
naturalization).

Having unraveled the insidious intent hidden in the Fourteenth
Amendment it becomes abundantly clear that the purpose of the
Fourteenth Amendment was/is to con persons of all races into
volunteering themselves into a condition of servitude under the
jurisdiction of the United States

There is widespread belief that the purpose and intent of the
Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a citizenship status for the
freed slaves and at the time of the promulgation of the Fourteenth
Amendment such purpose was even publicly claimed by those who drafted
the citizenship clauses - but if such was the case then why is any
suggestion or implication thereof totally absent from the said
clauses?? Why did the framers thereof not write:

“All persons born in the United States or any territory thereof, or
born in any of the several states, being of African extraction, who
desire to become citizens hereof, shall be accorded every
opportunity to meet and comply with the rules of naturalization on
the same basis of any white immigrant, without any restriction due to
their former condition of involuntary servitude or slavery, nor shall
such applicants be subject to any naturalization quotas.”

And, just to make sure that it is clearly understood, there is no
such thing as an “anchor baby” (babies born in the United States of
illegal alien mothers).

So, if persons born in the United States do not volunteer into U.S.
citizen servitude status - what then is their political status??

Well, as for me, I am of the Posterity of the People of the United
States. “People of the United States” and “citizen of the United
States” are not in any way the same!!! This begs an examination as
to what it is that constitutes a republican form of government - and
that will be the subject of a future discussion.

I suggest skeptics read Chief Justice John Jay’s dicta in Chisholm
vs. Georgia (2US 419 - 1794), the Preamble to the Constitution, and
the First and Second amendments, paying particular attention to the
use of the words “joint tenants in the sovereignty”,
“people”, “ourselves and our posterity”, and, the absence of the
word “citizen”

Cheers,


39 posted on 04/05/2012 6:41:45 AM PDT by know-the-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

First of all, You do not know me.

Second, As you say it’s about our freedom.

If you think otherwise, you are confused...


40 posted on 04/05/2012 6:45:38 AM PDT by know-the-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Of possible interest to those thinking of bugging out of the country.


41 posted on 04/05/2012 6:46:12 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: know-the-law

You are correct, I do not know you.

I will proactively distance myself from any “tax protest” meme. By FR posting rules the original headline of a posted article must be used.

The original article at the CBS site included the IRS reference.

I could care less about the justification for this law, whether it’s for IRS, child support or for not paying the local recycling fee.

Which is sort of my point. Once this power is available, it will be used and used and used, until we have become the very system we once stood down in the Soviet Union.

I’m not joining your “tax protest”.

It’s a free country, so you do what you decide you believe in. With all due respect, we’ve now discussed this to the extent possible. If you feel the need to have a “last word” then please once you do, do not respond to me again.

Thank you.


42 posted on 04/05/2012 6:53:02 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ((Racism Fatigue) America is the least racist nation on Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Shades of Castigo Cay.


43 posted on 04/05/2012 7:08:49 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

So the IRS will soon have the authority to police our health care *and* have sole power to issue exit visas.This is the wettest of wet dreams for the OsamaObama/Reid/Pelosi junta.


44 posted on 04/05/2012 7:12:13 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Jimmy Carter Is No Longer The Worst President To Have Served In My Lifetime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

What I have posted is not a “Tax Protest” as you seem to believe.

Everything that I have posted is a piece of the shackles they continue to place on “We the People”, it is also a piece of the “Keys” needed to unlock those shackles.

You could learn a lot more about the truth at those sites than you ever will by reading the news articles in the news today, those are only distractions.


45 posted on 04/05/2012 7:13:18 AM PDT by know-the-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network; Explorer89; SMARTY; the invisib1e hand; Savage Beast; Travis McGee; ...

Did anyone check this bill? (1600 pages) The title of the bill is deceiving (what’s new?) THIS IS AGENDA 21

Senate Bill 1813 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1813/text) was introduced back in November by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Los Angeles) to “reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes” .

See this summary: (4 page pdf)
• SUMMARY OF MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY (MAP-21)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=6d1e2690-6bc7-4e13-9169-0e7bc2ca0098

This is a 3 page pdf file called:
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Bipartisan Bill Outline

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=6faa8089-51ae-4e8a-ae20-4055294798f3

Excerpt:
America Fast Forward
MAP-21 builds upon the success of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program to help communities leverage their transportation resources through federal credit assistance. The TIFIA program provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit to large and nationally or regionally significant transportation projects with a revenue stream at terms that are more favorable than those available in the private sector and that will leverage private and other non-federal investment in transportation improvements. MAP-21 increases the funding for the TIFIA program from $122 million per year to $1 billion per year. Other modifications include: increasing the maximum share of project costs from 33 percent to 49 percent; allowing TIFIA loans to be used to support a program of projects, and allowing upfront commitments of future TIFIA program dollars through the use of master credit agreements. In addition, MAP-21 sets aside $100 million per year for projects in smaller cities and rural areas under lower interest rates. The Federal Highway Administration has stated that historically every Federal dollar spent through the TIFIA program can mobilize up to $30 in transportation investments.

SNIP

Planning:
MAP-21 improves the Statewide and metropolitan planning processes to incorporate a more comprehensive performance-based approach to decision making. Utilizing performance targets will assist states and metropolitan areas in targeting limited resources on projects that will most improve the condition and performance of highways and bridges.


46 posted on 04/05/2012 7:20:37 AM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: know-the-law
Article XVI.

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.

This one doesn't need any fancy tricks. It plainly states your money is their money, as much as they want any time they want.

You are now a slave.

47 posted on 04/05/2012 7:25:27 AM PDT by Aevery_Freeman (Typed using <FONT STYLE=SARCASM> unless otherwise noted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

ah back to debtors prisons....yeah thats the ticket. Sounds like Hotel California You can check in you just cant leave...ROFLMAO how about people who live and work outside of the US, you mean they cant come back? exiled? I knew Boxer was dumber than a box of rocks, but what about the rest of the Senate?


48 posted on 04/05/2012 7:53:25 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Exactly. People will start making the list for under-withholding on their quarterly estimates.


49 posted on 04/05/2012 7:59:39 AM PDT by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aevery_Freeman

http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap4.html


50 posted on 04/05/2012 8:04:50 AM PDT by know-the-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson