Nothing like attacking the quote by merely attacking the author. Yet another ad hominem for Waffler. "Anyone" can get elected into office? What of those people who don't get elected-- those people who lose? "These folks [know] nothing about large enterprize"? None of them? Not even a little? Not even one? ..laughs.. what "commentators here" have the "inability to grasp large ideas and enterprise"? Waffler, you calling anyone out here son? ..smiles..

Carlton, "according to the census" is in reference to the Constitution. Few people understand anymore that we're a federalist republic, made up of a conglomerate of 50 independent and sovereign states. When our nation was first conceived under our the Federal Constitution, each state was distinguished apart from another much like Germany is from France, Italy, or the UK right now in the federalist type EU. Each state delegated a portion of its sovereignty to the federalist organization, but retained full power and authority to act in every matter that had not been specifically detailed within the Amending powers of the Constitution (10th Amendment). The founders feared another government like they had under the Articles of Confederation wherein the Confederation was generally broke. The Constitution, therefore, granted that it could basically charge a type of rent tax to the states in proportion to their census. The founders sought diligently to divorce the people from being in direct relationship with the federal government because, as they said, history has proven that such a relationship would prove disastrous in the long run (which was what they were trying to get away from). So, as per the Constitution, the only "tax" that the federal government could lay upon the "people" themselves would be in the form of a rent tax in proportion to the state. Specifically the Constitution reads, "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." In other words, the federal government did not have the power to tax the people directly; they had to go through the state in proportion to the census.

Paul, good website. I had the opportunity to meet and talk with both Joe Bannister and G. Edward Griffin at the San Jose Ron Paul rally last summer at Google Headquarters. He is a very decent individual, and very intelligent.

That's nice...

It's not Mike's definition of income that is being questioned, but the Supreme Court's. Waffler, you again show your ignorance of actual American history **astounding**. Income, as originally defined by the Supreme Court, even after the 16th Amendment, was considered the increase/amount received off another person's labor. For example: Should I contract to labor for a job for $10 an hour and sublet this job for $8 an hour to another man, while pocketing $2 for the transaction, I would have $2 income. You can read this any way you want, but history stands that the 16th Amendment supposedly granted no new taxation powers, but merely defined what was already accepted. The Supreme Court originally ruled, per the 16th Amendment, that wages received for a day's labor was not in fact "income," but an exchange. A man's daily labor had to be spent, and in exchange, there was nothing gained. But, Waffler, that's okay, I wouldn't expect you to understand the history of money and the differences between lawful and equitable title and exchange beyond what you can find on wikipedia. Nice try though.

LOL

Although there are a few errors in the video, I would suggest that everyone go to google video and search for "America: Freedom to Fascism".

The IRS can do whatever it wants... Any business owner, small or large, knows this. This isn't hidden information, just information that those who have never nor will ever own their own business/company would ever know about unless they had a very open mind. I've personally seen people go to jail on "laws" trumped up by the IRS that had been repealed years before the particular law was purported to have even been broken... when the IRS has been questioned concerning these misdeeds, it has only ever responded, "yeah, but he/she should have known anyway that they were breaking some kind of law..." HUH?!?! WHAT?!?! It doesn't matter if the IRS couldn't legally assess you if you didn't turn in any information or a return, they'll come after you anyway.

Waffler, through his ad hominem, can't see the forest for the trees. Who cares who said this? Nearly every quote we'll ever read will have some ironic twist to it-- men aren't perfect. I disagree with Reagan on many things, mostly his foreign policy (which was a hell of a lot more than just negotiation talks with Gorbachev--he helped establish the beginning of the neocon foreign policy), but I can accept good ideas when they are spoken. I have many associates and students around me who have started their own businesses or have taken on summer jobs wherein they can provide for every necessary college expense. They have been able to earn enough money to pay for their tuition, boarding, books, food, entertainment, and every other thing --- that is, until tax season. With the "utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive" tax system, I have seen these young and tenacious college students become dummied down dependents of the state! All of their hard work does nothing to advance them further ahead than their counterparts who merely suck and leech off the system! Why should they work hard to show initiative and try to advance harder if they're not going to have anything to show for it? Why should they go out and work hard to graduate debt free when government grants will do the same thing, but without the whole ordeal of actually working? How can I possibly convince these students to keep working hard to learn to provide and pay for themselves when they see their own peers getting the same financial results from just sucking off the system? Once the income tax hits these students, everything these students have worked for is gone. While they would have made enough to support themselves through college, now they are forced to become dependent upon the state if they are to stay in school. I'm not a betting man, but I would place serious money that men like Waffler have never owned or operated their own business; furthermore, I would also bet that such men would know the various and different government programs that would assist putting someone through school, buying a home, paying for a newborn child, etc. It has been said that Americans are so enamored with equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom; this is the legacy of what the income tax has helped give to our country. Sadly, the irony is that we CAN be equal in freedom, but this requires an amount of personal responsibility and personal accountability that the majority of Americans are no longer willing to assume anymore. Anyone who studies international relations and politics knows that the countries that are leaving the income tax are thriving while their poor are being taken better care of -- it's time we woke up to the same fact!

Ah, the very basis of our Republic!!!

Good information Daniel.

Taxes aren't bad. Trouble is that Americans don't know how much they're taxed. They think that their income tax is the main staple of income wherein the government runs. This is simply ignorant thinking--not to mention that the same average American doesn't even know how much he actually pays in income tax!! Take a look at the embedded taxes!! Try to back-trace a product. Think of a loaf of bread, how many taxes have gone into making one single loaf of bread? Besides the sales tax you get at the store, think about the taxes the farmer had who raised the grain, the manufacturer who processed the grain and made the bread, the transportation taxes, and eventually the store taxes. The farmer's price to the manufacturer reflects the taxes he has to pay in his price. The manufacturer’s price reflects the farmer's taxes and his own taxes. The price of bread also includes the price of transportation taxes from the farmer to the manufacturer to the store! It is estimated that between $.55 to $.80 of every $1.00 spent on a loaf of bread is directly equated to embedded taxes! Not only does the government tax me right off the top with my income, but it then takes at least half of what's remaining in embedded taxes! The tax system has become so corrupt that it forces people to become dependent upon the government. I have seen some of my college students take on summer jobs wherein they have worked hard and have made enough money before taxes to pay for their tuition, room and board, and everything wherein to go to school and graduate out of debt. However, as they file their taxes, at least 30% of what they've made goes right off the top to the government. This puts them so far in the hole that they have to rely on government grants and other loans to actually get through school. Our tax system makes dependant slaves out of our future generation! What lessons are we teaching our children?! What do I say to my students to keep them fighting on? Why should they work hard to graduate out of debt when they can simply get a handout from the government? They become so dejected that they give up and become reliant on government services for the rest of their lives!! Is THIS a merciful system? A system that teaches the people to live off the government?! Our country was made great because people worked and were able to use the fruit of their labors to progress forward! Now we destroy initiative by these damned tax codes!! I have yet to find a government that actually became smaller over time!! We won't get rid of our tax system until it has bankrupted our country and destroyed the spirit of initiative that made us great!

Ahh, well said Marx. Ironically, Marx was actually in favor of democratic socialism, although he thought it moved too slowly to have the real effect he thought it should have. Absolute democracy, or "social democracy", as it is also called, is the epitome of socialism and communism; however, communism skips the step of "social democracy" by due process and calls for a physical and immediate revolution. All things are common to the majority. We often think of Democracy in terms of a form of government organization or power, but socialism and communism thought in broader terms-- instead of just Democracy for government, they argued in behalf of democracy for everyday life! SOCIAL DEMOCRACY! This means that all corporations, religions, etc. were now entities to be ruled by the majority of the people. Unless the owner of the company was the only worker, or the priest of the church was the only follower of that sect, he is usually outnumbered by his employees or followers who, by a majority vote, would take over the company or sect of religion and make it their own. This is why there are no property rights in a socialist or communist system (or in a Democracy). Marx realized that with an instant revolution, the people would not have had time to adjust to the new form of communal government as they would otherwise have under fabian socialism that was established over several decades by due process. For this reason, Communism took the end results of socialism, and merely centralized all power into the hands of the state. Pretty ingenious, actually. Marx, like Machiavelli, both understood the nature of humanity in transitioning from one form of government to another. I deplore Marx, but I give it 5 stars for the accuracy of the quote.

Sadly, I haven't met one high-school student, and only a small handful of college-students who even knows what this means.

..laughs.. aww, Waffler, come now son, you couldn't think of anything better to say?

"Why doesn't the Fed print up 10 trillion dollars and get us out of debt?" Are you serious?! You ever heard of inflation? Do you know how inflation works? The Fed (central bank that prints money) arbitrarily sets an interest rate at which to lend to other banks; this is easy for the Fed to do, because it just prints off whatever it needs. The Fed, of course, uses various economic equations and formulas to determine what the prime interest rate would be for the given situation, but this is irrelevant. The banks who have received a low interest loan from the Fed turns around and offers a slightly higher interest rate to us, the people (this is one way banks make a whole lot of money). When the Federal interest rate is extremely low (less than 3% like it is now), the banks are capable of borrowing even MORE money with less risk. At this point we are to check our Econ 100 junior high school textbooks to realize a principle called "Supply and Demand". Two things give products their value: (1) their usefulness/need, and (2) the quantity of that useful/needful product. If the useful/needful product is rare, the price will be high. If the useful/needful product is easily found, then its price will drop. Money, because of how our current economy is structured, is perhaps the most useful/needful product we have in America (as opposed to a bartering system). As said, if you increase the amount of money in the system, the value will drop. If you decrease the amount of currency in the system, the value will go up. How does the Fed control how much hard currency is out in the economy? Through the interest rate. Going back to the question "Why doesn't he Fed print up 10 trillion dollars and get us out of debt?" the answer is quite simple, especially if you understand world economics and WHO actually has invested in our dollar. China, for instance, is holding on to $500-$700 billion. This isn't uncommon -- nearly every country in the world has invested in US through our currency; however, as the Fed drops the interest rate and the market is flooded with more currency, what happens to the value of our dollar? It drops! Our whole present "recession" is based on margins of $1trillion -- What on earth do you think would happen if the Fed flooded the market with $10 trillion?!?! With how much the world market has become dependant on our dollar, the dollar would be worth hundredths of a cent and the world economy would collapse. The Fed DOES print "funny money" (money with no backing), and prints it at will! This is not a hidden conspiracy; this is what you learn in Economics 100 in HIGH SCHOOL!! Paper money was not new to the founding fathers, why don't you look up what they said about a central bank, paper money, and the effects and consequences that these will have on the people!

He's absolutely correct, what are you all talking about? The problem is not whether or not it is voluntary (because it is), but because the majority of people work for corporations who are more willing to fire an employee for going against their corporate system than to make allowances for individual liberty. Companies are set up to pay social security, although they don't have to. I've personally seen it done, so I know of the validity of this statement. There are forms to fill and processes be which this can be done, problem is no one wants to do it. If the Social Security Administration were to send out a mass mail to every America letting them know the truth of the matter, the majority of Americans would take the matter into their own hands... regretfully, the American people are apathetic to knowing their own power, and feel powerless against the decisions of their elected representatives. This is part of what we call the "paradox of democracy".

Nothing's changed...

Ah, the ultimate manifestation of the compelled compliance as produced by the absolute will of the majority. 5 stars for accuracy.

Well, let's get the obvious out of the way -- consider the source of the quote -- so please, no ad hominems. This is the very principle I try to teach students as they go through their college carriers with blinders on.

It is eerie how often the founding fathers were prophetic in their warning voice to the future generations of Americans. This is what made the founders such great men: They knew history for what it WAS, not what they WANTED it to be -- and through such realization, they created a system and philosophy of government that addressed the issues of actual history in principle of maintaining freedom and liberty to those who would yet live. The applications, systems, and players of history change, but the principles are eternal. It takes a very special individual to say, like Thoreau, "I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life...to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it..." -- The fact that so many men who did just this were congregated at the same time and place to found this nation is almost enough to make a person believe in a supreme being.

Well said.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almight God! I know not the course that others might take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death"

Warren, this quote is not stating causation. The bill that we call the "Patriot Act," was not created post 9/11, but had already been presented before Congress in the early 1990's. Several Congressman said that it would take an event like Pearl Harbor to push that 90's bill through-- so, it was lost in committee for a decade. In the light of 9/11, the bill resurfaced and was pushed through within a few months after the catastophy. People, in a time of panic, are apt to shut their eyes to the loss of their freedom, so long as they have the perceived security they once had... This is not a unique happenstance to the United States, but has happened time and time again throughout history. Machiavelli even talks about this. The quote is merely stating the historical obvious. The Weimar Constitution WAS pushed aside just as easily as our own Constitution was (post 9/11) in order to meet the newly found needs of the country (or so they said).

Agreed...