Pinocchio (courtesy of Google Images)
An IRS Commissioner is grilled by a Congressman. This “Comisar” may be great at “just following orders,” but I doubt that he could bluff very well at poker. It’s just kinda funny to watch this guy “tell the truth”. He’s ridiculous.
It’s even more ridiculous that he’ll probably get away with telling such obvious lies–presumably, while he’s under oath.
video 00:05:02
“Infant”, seconds after birth. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I received the following info by email from Colleen. I haven’t verified any of the info, but if the info is valid, it could be (as Colleen says) BIG.
“Well, someone FINALLY did it. They found in the IRS manual the “proof” of when we “claimed” life. I write this in past tense sense when we got a social security number (a lot of us when we applied for a drivers license) is when we were NOT CONSIDERED decedents. Here’s the wordage…
“IRS manual 21.7.13.3.2.2 – An infant is the decedent of an estate or grantor, owner or trustor of a trust, guardianship, receivership or custodianship that has yet to receive an SSN.”
Dick Simkanin
“Sem” is one of the people who comment regularly on this blog.
Today, he posted a comment that read in part,
“One “poster” in particular knows from experience that when a person enters the courtroom half-cocked, that person will experience the real meaning of the double edged sword.
“First of all a plaintiff must respond to Affirmative Defenses. Secondly, the only acceptable way to do so is with Opposing Points and Authorities. Thirdly, it is the very points of Law (precedence) that is being argued:
“For instance:
“McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), was an early substantive ruling by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. (Read closely…BURDEN-SHIFTING FRAMEWORK).”
I’m not sure that I clearly understood Sem’s comment. Initially, I thought he was advocating “affirmative defenses”. In retrospect, I suspect he wasn’t advocating so much as attempting to explain something about the burden-shifting nature of “affirmative defenses”.
Whatever his intended meaning, I started to pen a brief comment in response. But my comment grew so large, that I decided to post it as the following article:
More Fine illegal-alien Voters for Obama (Photo credit: Richard Loyal French)
Phenomenal. The IRS is sending $4 billion per year in refunds to illegal aliens. These refunds are based on fraudulent claims by the illegals for child credit on approximately 4 million children living in Mexico. Some individual refunds exceed $10,000 per year. The IRS knows the claims are false, but refuses to stop issuing the refunds to illegal aliens.
The IRS, of course, blames Congress. I don’t doubt that both Congress and the IRS are responsible
In either case, the government has created an incentive for illegal aliens to invade this country. The same government that may jail you for failure to pay income tax, is knowingly paying illegal aliens for making fraudulent claims for income tax credits.
Harry Reid (D-NV), United States Senator from Nevada and Majority Leader of the United States Senate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The video below is interesting since Senator Harry Reid insists that “our income tax system is a voluntary system” but also that you must pay your income taxes. The interviewer tries to force Sen. Reid to admit that: 1) our income tax system is voluntary and we don’t have to volunteer, or 2) we must pay income taxes and thus the system is not voluntary. The interviewer’s inability to make Senator Reid that either the income tax is–or is not–voluntary is kinda funny. The interviewer’s frustration is almost like an old Abbot and Costello comedy routine about “Who’s On First”.
Senator Reid sounds like an idiot as he tries to maintain his position that our income tax system both is–and is not–”voluntary”.
But you should bear in mind that Harry Reid is a U.S. Senator, and while he’s getting on in years, maybe he’s not the fool he appears to be in this interview. You can bet that Sen. Reid is masterful in his use of language. Maybe he knows something that the interviewer doesn’t know or even suspect. Maybe the income tax both is, and is not, voluntary. Maybe, as President Clinton once remarked, “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
I think Senator Reid may right: the income tax is both voluntary–and involuntary.
How could such ambiguity and contradiction be possible? It all depends on the place or venue where the income tax is being considered.
Image via Wikipedia
I’ve known Michael Ellis since the early 1990s. He came to our Citizens For Legal Reform meetings and volunteered to lead the opening prayer. I saw almost immediately that whenever Michael led the opening prayer, our meetings were somehow much improved. There was more energy, more goodwill–the room and audience seemed to glow a little more when Michael prayed. By the time Michael had finished leading a prayer at his third meeting, I was convinced that Michael had an unusual “connection” with the Good LORD. So I “drafted” him to play a much bigger role in the CFLR meetings and even hired him to help me publish my AntiShyster News Magazine.
After about 18 months, Michael went off to other work. Since then, we talk to each other every few years. He always seems to be doing well. I still think the Good LORD’s hand is on him.
Last week, Michael sent me an email with an attached copy of a letter he’d sent to the IRS. Apparently, the IRS alleges that Michael has failed to file a 1040 Income Tax Return for one or more years. Lacking a 1040 from Michael, the IRS therefore proceeded to prepare a Substitute For Return (“SFR”) to replace the missing 1040 and create grounds for further legal process against Michael.
Image via Wikipedia
In response to my article “Birth Certificates for Slaves?,” one of my readers posted a lengthy comment about the 16th Amendment and income taxes. I started to write a brief reply but, as usual, the more you look the more you see, so my “brief reply grew into the following article:
Article 1.2.3 of The Constitution of the United States declares in part,
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; . . . .”
Robert Kiyosaki is the author of the “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” series of books. He’s sold over 26 million books and is recognized as a pragmatic voice on economics. He’s also recognized as a former Marine and a generally cheerful guy who’s nevertheless unafraid to flip the bird to his critics. (see photo).
In his video (below) Mr. Kiyosaki does not flip the bird, but does declare in part:
#1 ”when the economy crashes as we predict”
#2 ”the crowds come rushing in to buy gold and silver”
#3 ”we could either go into a depression or we go to hyperinflation”
#4 ”or we could also go to war”
Image via Wikipedia
Surely, there must be some mistake.
On June 16th, A.D. 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the case of Bond v U.S.. This case involves the standing of private individuals to invoke the 10th–and, to lesser degree, the 9th–Amendments. The total document (syllabus, opinion and concurring opinion) released by the Supreme Court is 19 pages.
As I read that case, I find excerpts on almost every page that strike me as mind-boggling, explosive and even revolutionary. I can’t recall reading another case in the past 28 years that filled me with such excitement, glee and even hope.
I see this decision as so extraordinary, that I can’t imagine how the Supreme Court (in a 9 to 0 decision (!!!)), would dare write this opinion without fearing for their lives.
This case seem so good, that my fundamental reaction is: Surely, there must be some mistake.
Image by Cayusa via Flickr
One of my readers left the following comment under one of my articles:
“In your opinion, does the definition of person enter the picture. I am not sure what you mean by “capacity” of person. I am in New Mexico and here the word, person, in the New Mexico Criminal Code & the word person in the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code is different. I am not a person as defined in the N.M.M.V.D. Code but it certainly appears that I am a person as defined in the N.M. Criminal Code. In trying to explain this to a police officer a while back, he immediately called somebody & said: ‘I have a person here that says he is not a person.’”
That comment got me thinking. I started to write a brief “reply” to try to briefly explain my understanding of “person”. But my reply continued to grow until I realized that it was not a mere “reply,” but (at least) the germ of an article. In fact, this article has grown to about 7,500 words, and veered off from mere “persons” to speculate on the significance of emergency, treason, genocide and even our obligation to pay income taxes and traffic fines. The article is long and unfocused because many of the “insights” are coming to me for the first time, as I write. But, despite the rambling nature, I think the article offers some insight (or at least conjecture) that you may find interesting.
