If you are you can be sure the Justice department and it's federal Police Force will be digging around in your background, your private and personal life as well as you taxes, income, labor and investments. Not only can they enter your home without a warrant, gag everyone involved and force you into Bankruptcy, but they can also make up all kinds of false allegations, presume you to be guilty unless you can proof you case and utterly destroy your ability to even pay income taxes upon property tax over all the sales and use taxes. Then what do they have but a bunch of pissed off, angry and beaten down Americans who just are not going to take it any more. Yah, that's it. They just want us all dead or on assistance because they are not really from here nor do they belong here. They are not American's like we are, they are only here to take all they can and then walk away from us as we fall apart. We hear the phrase, "Better to fight them over there", But they are already here and they look like normal people. They may look just like us, but they are not one of We The People. Once you understand this you can start to see who they are and how they all seem to act the same.
Kosmic
ACLU: U.S. Terror List Now Exceeds 900,000 Names
We are infested it seems, infiltrated even, despite the whole Bush doctrine of "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." Apparently the "them" are fighting us both "there" and "here." As I have said, freedom is on the farce, err, march:
ACLU Watch List Counter
Why are there so many names on the U.S. government's terrorist list?
In September 2007, the Inspector General of the Justice Department reported that the Terrorist Screening Center (the FBI-administered organization that consolidates terrorist watch list information in the United States) had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 - and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month.1
At that rate, our list will have a million names on it by July. If there were really that many terrorists running around, we'd all be dead.
Terrorist watch lists must be tightly focused on true terrorists who pose a genuine threat. Bloated lists are bad because
they ensnare many innocent travelers as suspected terrorists, and
because they waste screeners' time and divert their energies from looking for true terrorists.
Small, focused watch lists are better for civil liberties and for security.
The uncontroversial contention that Osama Bin Laden and a handful of other known terrorists should not be allowed on an aircraft is being used to create a monster that goes far beyond what ordinary Americans think of when they think about a "terrorist watch list."
This is not just a problem of numbers. The numbers are merely a symptom. What's needed is fairness. If the government is going to rely on these kinds of lists, they need checks and balances to ensure that innocent people are protected. (See ACLU Backgrounder on Watch Lists for more)."
Let's consider some of these terra-ists on the watch-list.
1. Journalists? Check: My good friend and author of Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush, Jim Moore. Because the pen is mightier than the sword? Or is Karl Rove playing terra-games against his critics? (A Democrat or Independent Liberal)
2. College Students? Check: Like Alexandra Hay - an English major. Because an educated person might figure things out? (Not sure of party affiliation, but a humanities major is likely a Democrat or Independent)
3. Foreign Leaders? Check: Like the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales. This is actually rather interesting, considering that WE have committed acts of terrorism against Bolivia, not the other way around. (A populist/left-leaning politician)
4. Democratic US Senators? Check: Like Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Because you can never watch a US Senator closely enough, especially if they are a Democrat?
5. Democratic US Congressmen? Check: Like Rep John Lewis (D-GA). Because you can never watch a US Congressman closely enough, especially if they are a Democrat? How about Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), is she also a major terra-ist threat?
6. University Professors critical of Bush? Check: Like Walter F. Murphy. Because sticks and stones get you targeted? (Left-leaning or perceived as left leaning).
7. Anti-war Protesters? Check: Like these folks. Because people who are for peace are more likely to do what?
Two Alaska Republicans:
1. Wives of Republican Congressmen? Check: Like Catherine Stevens, wife of Alaska Republican, Rep Ted Stevens. (I think this has more to do with her name being the same as the no-fly-listed singer, Cat Stevens).
2. A Republican Congressman: Like Rep. Donald E. Young (R-Alaska). Because something is wrong with Alaska now? Well we do have to consider that both Stevens and Young are implicated in the Abramoff scandal, maybe this is just the new way justice is doled out?
##
I could go on and on, but you get the idea. There are far too many people on the No-Fly list for it to be an effective tool for preventing terrorists from boarding planes. There are, however, plenty of problems this list can cause for the politically undesirable (Democrats), socially inconvenient (Professors, Students, Anti-war activists), potentially embarrassing (Journalists, Foreign Leaders we disagree with), and two Alaska Republicans. I am surely far too cynical and all of this is pure error.
It is not like we are now openly torturing people or are disappearing and detaining American citizens or using the Justice Department to target Democrats... I mean it is not like these things are going on or anything, right?
Since we don't have full access to the no-fly list, I am left to speculate - and I am, here anyway.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
161 Federal Tax Charges, 0 Convictions
Around noon on Monday, September 17, 2007, a Las Vegas federal jury returned its verdict refusing to convict nine defendants of any of the 161 federal tax crimes they had been charged with. The charges included income tax evasion, willful failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes.
The four-month trial centered around the family businesses of Robert Kahre who paid numerous workers for their labor with circulating gold and silver U.S. coins, and did not report the wages. The payments took place over several years, allegedly totaling at least $114 million dollars.
On September 20, 2007, three days after the federal trial’s dramatic conclusion, the Las Vegas Review Journal, reportedly under a degree of public pressure, ran its first (and last) story about the outcome of the trial. To this day, with exception of the single article by the Review Journal, no major media entity has published a news story regarding the outcome of this important federal criminal tax case.
The censorship of this important news story is, unfortunately, not unexpected given the continuing, worldwide onslaught against the U.S. “dollar” — specifically the Federal Reserve variety, and the ever growing numbers of Federal Reserve Notes required to trade for an actual ounce of silver, gold, oil, or for that matter, anything.
In short, this failed prosecution has coalesced and exposed truths our Government desperately needs to hide from the People: the truth about our money, the truth about our (privately-owned) central bank, and the truth about the fraudulent nature of the operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system.
Click here to read the April, 2005 DOJ press release announcing the prosecution.
Click here to read the 9/20 story by the Review Journal about the trial.
According to defense attorney Joel Hansen, who represented co-defendant Alex Loglia, the primary “willfulness” defense was that the defendants believed they had no legal obligation to withhold, pay income taxes or report anything to the government because, in part, the nominal (i.e., face value) of the gold and silver coins is so small as to fall beneath the reporting thresholds set by the Internal Revenue Code.
The Defendants also argued that regardless of the valuation of the coins for internal revenue purposes, there is no law that requires average American workers to file or pay direct, un-apportioned taxes on the fruits of their labor.
The Government argued that the payments in solid gold and silver U.S. coins must be considered at their bullion (i.e., intrinsic full-market) value when considering the worth of the wages for purposes of the internal revenue code.
Attorney Hansen cited two Supreme Court cases bolstering Defendant’s monetary argument at the heart of the defendants “willfulness” defense.
The essence of the argument is that under the Constitution Congress is obligated by law to mint and circulate such coins as demand requires, and must establish the value of coins as they are used as legal tender, but the coins’ market value, arising as valuable personal “property,” is a distinct, separate attribute of such coins, and is of no legal consequence if the coins are used as legal tender.
In other words, if a worker is paid with such coins, his taxable “income” (if any) can only be the face value indicated upon the coin money paid — i.e., $1.00 for a circulating silver dollar or $50 for a circulating gold U.S. coin. Not surprisingly, the IRS has never issued any public guidance regarding this significant issue.
The first case, Ling Su Fan v. U.S., 218 US 302 (1910) establishes the legal distinction of a coin bearing the “impress” of the sovereign:
“These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange.”
The second case, Thompson v. Butler, 95 US 694 (1877), establishes that the law makes no legal distinction between the values of coin and paper money used as legal tender:
“A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them.”
Defense attorney Hansen confirmed that members of the jury were able to actually hold and inspect the gold and silver U.S. coins paid to the workers.
After almost four months of testimony and three and a half days of deliberation, the jury did not convict any of the defendants of any of the 161 crimes alleged. Although some defendants were acquitted of multiple counts, and several were acquitted completely, others may have to stand for a retrial if the Government brings charges a second time.
The Review Journal reported the jury foreman claimed DOJ prosecutors admitted they were “shocked” by the outcome.
In March 2007, the primary defendant, Bob Kahre, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the prosecutor and IRS agents who had conducted what he alleges to be an unlawful search and seizure raid. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn a previous District Court ruling holding that the federal prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity for the unlawful raid. Read more.
The media suppression of this story is similar to the widespread mainstream media suppression of the July 11, 2007 acquittal of Louisiana attorney Tommy Cryer who was also charged with multiple federal income tax crimes and relied upon numerous Supreme Court precedents and U.S. tax laws to establish his “willfulness” defense.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Ron Paul Signs ‘Numbers USA’ Pledge to Oppose Amnesty and Secure America’s
Borders
“The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 4, 2008
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Today, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul signed the Numbers USA pledge. The pledge reaffirms Congressman Paul’s longstanding opposition to amnesty and support for securing the borders.
Dr. Paul has introduced a six-point plan to deal with the current illegal immigration problem. On the subject, he has said: “The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all.”
Congressman Paul has received the endorsements of many groups and leaders that oppose illegal immigration. A list of such endorsements can be found at: www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements
Below is the Numbers USA pledge:
I pledge to oppose amnesty or any other special path to citizenship for the millions of foreign nationals unlawfully present in the United States. As President, I will fully implement enforcement measures that, over time, will lead to the attrition of our illegal immigrant population. I also pledge to make security of our borders a top priority of my administration.
Numbers USA includes six points of understanding as to what the pledge means and what it entails:
1. The 12 million illegal aliens now here will have to go home.
2. They will not get any legal status while here that allows them to remain long-term.
3. Once in their home countries, they may apply for re-admittance to the U.S. as immigrants, visitors or temporary workers through normal channels.
4. But they will not receive any special privileges on the basis of their having been in the U.S. illegally, such as being put to the front of a line.
5. There will be no new categories or programs through which they may re-enter.
6. There will not be an expansion of green cards in any existing categories that will speed up their movement to the front of the line.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Sunday, February 3, 2008
| Records 1 - 9 of 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |  SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS Guantanamo Bay Detainees U.S. Supreme Court argues whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutionally stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by Guantanamo Bay detainees.  FROM WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5 THE DEC. 5 ARGUMENT |
Saturday, February 2, 2008
| Abortion and Stem Cell Research Gun Control and the Second Amendment Border Security and Immigration Reform | American Independence and Sovereignty The Federal Budget and Spending |
indicates topic has content written in last 30 days| Official Ron Paul Web Sites Ron Paul 2008 Official Web site Ron Paul's Presidential MySpace page Ron Paul's Congressional Web site
Other Ron Paul Related Web Sites Wikipedia: Ron Paul Campaign 2008 Wikipedia: Political positions of Ron Paul Ron Paul Graphics Group क्रियेटिव Icon's Ron Paul Store
| Please Donate to Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign | Ron Paul Related Blogs
International Ron Paul Sites Finland for Ron Paul (Finnish) |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)