As more and more ‘vaccination’ propaganda appears in the main stream media, it is crucial that the American people become aware of the outrageous scam the CDC and the medical industrial complex are running. It is important to understand that the CDC is a for-profit corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet and partnering with Big Pharma.
The Center for Disease Control is a rogue institution engaged in the destruction of the health of the American population . . .
- CDC is a for-profit corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet
- CDC partners with big pharma
- CDC deceives health practitioners as well as the public
- CDC is rife with corruption
- CDC orchestrates propaganda campaigns based on nonexistent threats
- CDC wastes millions of dollars
- CDC hires researchers to create bogus studies
- CDC does not protect the population, but promotes whatever agenda those who control the White House [the international banksters] wish advanced
- CDC pays public health institutions and even has employees stationed in their state offices
- CDC ignores congressional reports and/or hearings
- CDC actively discredits/destroys reputable researchers
- CDC bilks insurance companies out of billions of dollars by knowingly creating disease through their massive vaccination programs
- CDC hires private think-tank corporations to produce phoney consensus reports
- CDC promotes the dumping of toxic wastes from the chemical fertilizer industry into public drinking water in the name of ‘fluoridation’ contributing to ill health
- CDC has a long and nasty relationship with the CIA
While most physicians and public health workers may be unaware of the depth of the cover-up regarding vaccines, the harm they are causing is incalculable and the damage being inflicted on us and our children is devastating. Since the illnesses or injuries caused by toxic vaccines frequently don’t show up for weeks or even years, the medical industrial complex maintains plausible deniability.
Many good physicians have come forward (like those affiliated with the International Medical Council on Vaccination) and exposed the dangers of vaccines as have CDC whistle-blowers. The truth is everywhere. All that is needed is for folks to educate themselves and join the many good people (professionals and non-professionals) working to get the truth out.
If anyone is inclined to contact their STATE legislators and request they DO NOT eliminate philosophical school vaccination exemptions, do not argue for your right to “choose”. The “choice” issue was created to keep the players unaware of the truth regarding both the CDC and their vaccination program. Another option which exposes many truths that are being kept hidden can be found on this page:
More info at Parents Against Mandatory Vaccines
The head Controller Ego Archetype is the Draconian hierarchal belief system originating in Orion, which is the False King of Tyranny. This is the main ideology of the Negative Aliens and their NAA to Mind Control humanity and enslave this planet to their rule through slavery enforced by Consumptive Modeling. Through its archetypal overlay implanted into the planetary brain, humanity has been “forced” to submit and worship a False Father Reptilian God through Religious Violence and salvationistic theology. (see False Gods)
This ego archetype is represented as the angry father god that will protect you if you do his bidding and worship him or you are condemned to hell. Because the False King of Tyranny is the primary Reptilian Controller Archetype used to control humanity and the planet, it is these archetypal forces that are wielding “his” cosmic rage upon the planet as he loses control. Primarily Males that are using this archetype as an identity (or younger males who are totally disconnected and lost) are easily used for these Dark forces to unleash their anger and rage upon whomever is the near vicinity. (This has been evidenced with young males randomly shooting to kill and then killing themselves.) This is the phenomena when human bodies are used as dark portals to direct these forces, if they are unconscious, they have no idea this thoughtform is not sourcing from “them”. Most of the planet’s ego maniacal leaders are manipulated to play out these agendas and are reinforced through this N.A.A. Controller archetype.
It is through the Cosmic Mother Aether that the Cosmic Father Principle is reborn to replace the False Father Reptilian God. The pain of resistance that this polarity synthesis requires for the inner alchemy of rebirth is felt by many now. 
The future of human life on earth belongs solely to those who can protect the integrity of their genetic code. It only makes sense, right? And yet most humans are damaging their DNA with toxic chemicals and medical imaging radiation. The result? A coming genetic catastrophe that virtually no one is yet talking about.
This document represents the doctrine adopted by the Policy Committeeof the Bilderburg Group during its first known meeting in 1954.The following document, dated May 1979, was found on July 7, 1986, in an IBM copier that had been purchased at a surplus sale.Silent Weapons for Quiet Warshttp://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml – prefacehttp://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/
THEY JUST BROKE THE ABUSIVE U.S. TAX SYSTEM WITH THE NEW INCOME TAX LAW (H.R. 1 – Dec. 2017)
The new federal personal income tax law, H.R. 1, – that was just enacted into law by Congress in December 2017, and already made effective as of January 1st, 2018, has the immediate legal effect of:
1. completely disemboweling and destroying the I.R.S.’ current personal income tax collection and enforcement practices and operations, by removing them entirely and completely from all legitimate constitutional authority to act to enforce the direct taxation of income under the 16th Amendment, as practiced for the last 60 years;
2. strips the federal Department of Justice naked in the courtroom of all of its illegitimate constitutional arguments that have been made in the courtroom for the last 60 years, to sustain the federal court’s (both district and tax courts’) erroneous enforcement of a direct and unapportioned tax upon the income of We the American People under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment; and
3. completely exposes the federal judiciary’s unlawful enforcement of the federal personal income tax under the 16th Amendment over the last 60 years of American history, as nothing but a complete and total judicially committed fraud that plainly and clearly can now be seen as the true judicial conspiracy of sedition that it is,
– to undermine and remove the constitutional limitations placed upon the federal taxing powers, in order to enforce the unconstitutionally direct taxation of the labors and work (“wages” and “salaries“) of the American People, in order to fund, not the legitimate operation of the government, but the constitutionally unauthorized progressive, liberal, Fabian, socialist programs effecting the re-distribution of wealth that have been by used by the politicians to create the welfare based, class warfare system of taxation that has resulted in the divisive destruction of America, its people’s Freedom, Liberty, private property, and equal rights;
– by expanding the judicial authority beyond that which is constitutionally authorized, to enable the federal judiciary to constitutionally usurp the legislative authority of the Congress, through the judicial enforcement of only the perverted judicial Fabian opinions they issue, in place of the actual written constitutional tax law that is authorized and exists.
What ? You may say – that’s crazy. What the hell are you talking about ?
It’s the same tax it’s always been ! There’s nothing new in the law that could do that ! Yea, – that’s right, it’s the same income tax law that it has always been, and now they have admitted it on the Congressional Record, and their world is about to change, – well, actually, implode.
Congress has no idea of what they have done, or of the true extent or size of the catastrophe within the tax enforcement system, that they have wrought with the new income tax law, and few Americans, if any have realized it yet,
– but any honest lawyer will tell you (after reading this) that everything you are about to read (and have read up to this point in this article) is irrefutably true.
FACT: For the last 60 years the IRS has been issuing income tax collection correspondence to Americans asserting that American citizens owe the payment of an income tax on their work, because of the adoption of the 16th Amendment. This claim to legal authority is all over their website; it is in their “frivolous Arguments” propaganda publications, where they repeatedly assert the income taxing authority under the 16th Amendment, and label as frivolous any reference made to the limitations on the taxing powers imposed under Article I of the Constitution; and, it is in the pleadings made on the record of the court by the United States as a plaintiff, in every tax case prosecuted in the federal courts in the last 30 years.
FACT: The Department of Justice attorneys argue in every single income tax case prosecuted in the federal courts, that the income tax is owed by the individual defendant as a function of the 16th Amendment alone, without use or need of any “applicability” of the authorized indirect Article I, Section 8, impost, duty and excise taxing powers.
FACT: For the last 60 years the federal courts have been wrongfully allowing and upholding the constitutionally prohibited, and therefore unconstitutional, direct taxation of the alleged gross income of the American People, created as a function of all of their labors and work, as a direct tax without apportionment, under alleged authority conferred under the 16th Amendment to tax “… income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment, and without regard to any census or enumeration. ”
FACT: The 16th Amendment has no enabling enforcement clause in it, that would constitutionally authorizes the U.S. Congress to write any law to enforce any power alleged newly created or authorized under authority of the Amendment alone.
FACT: There are Amendments to the Constitution, both before and after the 16th Amendment, that do have and clearly contain an enabling enforcement clause within them, irrefutably proving the absence within the Amendment, of such alleged grant of any new enforceable power, is intentional.
FACT: In assessing the legal effect of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court plainly said in 1916 that “the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation“. “. . . The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged . . .”
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916)
FACT: The Article I, Section 8, clause 1, authorities to tax only indirectly, by uniform impost, duty and excise, do not reach the labors of the American people with legal effect. This is why the federal government has argued for sixty years that the 16th Amendment was the sole basis for the enforcement of the income tax imposed by Section 1 of Title 26 United States Code (Title 26 is also called the I.R.C.). In speaking of the power to tax by ‘duties,’ ‘imposts,’ and ‘excises,’ the Supreme Court has consistently said:
” ‘We think that they were used comprehensively, to cover customs and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like.’ Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are ‘taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.‘ Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680. The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.
If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376.“ Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 220 US 107, 151-152 (1911)” Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 , 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305 “Excises are “taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable…it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods. ” Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.” Flint, supra, at 151; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)1
Which is mirrored in Black’s Law Dictionary: “Excise taxes are taxes “laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911); or a tax on privileges, syn. “privilege tax”. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition
“The subject matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states, though the method of apportionment may at times be different. “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” Art. 1, § 8. If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U. S. 378, 288 U. S. 403, 288 U. S. 405; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1 , 240 U. S. 12.” Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 581
“The [income] tax being an excise, its imposition must conform to the canon of uniformity. There has been no departure from this requirement. According to the settled doctrine the uniformity exacted is geographical, not intrinsic. Knowlton v. Moore, supra, p. 178 U. S. 83; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., supra, p. 220 U. S. 158; Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 232 U. S. 282; Stellwagen v. Clum, 245 U. S. 605, 245 U. S. 613; LaBelle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U. S. 377, 256 U. S. 392; Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U. S. 101, 282 U. S. 117; Wright v. Vinton Branch Mountain Trust Bank, 300 U. S. 440.” Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 583 “Whether the tax is to be classified as an “excise” is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an “impost” (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 158 U. S. 622, 158 U. S. 625; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soble, 7 Wall. 433, 74 U. S. 445), or a “duty” (Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 75 U. S. 546, 75 U. S. 547; Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 157 U.
S. 570; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 178 U. S. 46). A capitation or other “direct” tax it certainly is not.” Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 581-2
1 Again, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. is controlling and Constitutional law, having been cited and followed over 600 times by virtually every court as the authoritative definition of the scope of excise taxing power.
So, the granted taxing powers are conclusively defined within the U.S. Constitution: “Mr. Chief Justice Chase in The License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 72 U. S. 471, when he said: “It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity.
Thus limited, and thus only it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.” And although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax nor included under the words “duties, imposts and excises,” such a tax, for more than one hundred years of national existence, has as yet remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances [that] has invited thorough investigation into sources of revenue.” And with respect to the power to tax income the Supreme Court has said:
“The act now under consideration does not impose direct taxation upon property solely because of its ownership, but the tax is within the class which Congress is authorized to lay and collect under article 1, [section] 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, and described generally as taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, upon which the limitation is that they shall be uniform throughout the United States. Within the category of indirect taxation, as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon business done in a corporate capacity, which is the subject-matter of the [income] tax imposed in the act under consideration. The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership. In the present case the tax is not payable unless there be a carrying on or doing of business in the designated capacity, and this is made the occasion for the tax, measured by the standard prescribed. The difference between the acts is not merely nominal, but rests upon substantial differences between the mere ownership of property and the actual doing of business in a certain way.” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 220 US 107, 150 (1911) Which is repeatedly supported: “As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 , 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 1312; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U.S. 295 , 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; United States v. Whitridge (decided at this term, 231 U.S. 144 , 58 L. ed. –, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24.” Stratton’s, supra at 414 So imposts and duties are taxes on imported and exported goods, i.e. : commodities and articles of commerce that are imported into, and or exported from, the United States of America. Imposts are also taxes on foreign “persons” and their activities in the United States (foreign individuals & companies, & organized operations like a foreign trust, charity, etc.). Imposts and duties are also taxes, where imposed, on persons in the U.S. territories and possessions, and on America citizens who are living and working in a foreign country under a tax treaty with the United States that allows the federal taxation of the American persons in that foreign country, under the active tax treaty.
So taxation, by impost and duty, by definition, fundamentally does not reach the labors of the American people conducted in the fifty states, where the labor does not involve any import or export, or other foreign activity. And Excise taxes are now accepted as being constitutionally defined by both law and precedent (over 600 times) as: “taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … “.
But Title 15 U.S.C. Section 17, plainly and clearly states that: “The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce… “. Under the U.S. Constitution this law removes “the (domestic) labor of a human being (American citizens)” from subjectivity to any and all taxation by excise under Article I, Section 8.
This is of course why the United States’ IRS, DOJ, and the entire federal judiciary (at this point) PREVIOUSLY have had to claim in court for 50 years that – it is the 16th Amendment that authorizes the income tax, and not Article I, Section 8. Thus, under Article I of the Constitution, there is an admitted total lack of subjectivity of the citizens to any and all impost, duty or excise taxation on Labor, i.e.: the indirect taxation of the citizen’s labor, or a tax upon the exercise of his or her Right to Work resulting in the payment of “salary” or “wages“, does not apply to citizens, because it is not statutorily authorized, now made enforceable, as it is fundamentally outside of the legal reach, and scope of legal effect, of all of the granted Constitutional authorities to tax indirectly under authority of Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
The reason why this is so important to understand, is because this basic information, concerning the proper, limited, application and enforcement of the constitutional, and constitutionally granted, powers to tax, is essential in properly and fully understanding the legal issue of the limited subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts that exists with respect to the taxation of the individual citizens. A proper and complete understanding of this legal issue, immediately leads to the realization that there is no constitutionally granted subject-matter jurisdiction that can be taken over a civil action to adjudicate and or enforce the claims that are alleged by the United States in any Complaint filed in a legal action that is filed in the federal courts to pursue the enforcement of the payment of a personal income tax against an individual American citizen as defendant. In the United States of America, under the Constitution of the United States of America, our federal courts are courts of only limited, specifically enumerated, constitutionally granted, powers, that only exist as written in the law. The courts cannot enforce ideas, or a philosophy, or custom or habit, or ritual, or beliefs, or even common sense.
The courts can only enforce the written law of the statutes of the Titles of United States Code. Nothing else. And of course, under the Constitution of the United States of America, a statute (law), can only be written by Congress where,
first: – the Constitution grants a specific power to be exercised by the Congress (as is done in Article I, Section 8); and second: the Constitution specifically grants the authority to the Congress to write law (as is done in Article I, Section 8, clause 18), with specific applicability to the enforcement of the power(s) granted, that was, or were, exercised in operational practice (enforcement) by the government (IRS).
So, the three required elements of our constitutional law in America, necessary to establish the subject-matter jurisdiction of the courtthat can be taken over any legal action, sufficient to allow that court to entertain and adjudicate the action in the court, are:
(1) a specific power must be granted by the Constitution or Amendment for Congress (the United States) to exercise;
(2) a specific grant of authority for Congress to write law must be made by the Constitution or Amendment, with respect to the administration and enforcement of the specific power granted in (#1) above 2; and,
(3) a specific statute must be legislatively enacted by an authorized Congress, with specific application to the enforcement of the specific power alleged granted and exercised in (#1) above, and made enforceable with authorized law under (#2) above.
These fundamental elements of constitutional law, controlling the ability of a federal court to lawfully take a granted subject-matter jurisdiction over a legal claim made by complainant (like the United States) in the federal district court, combined with the irrefutable lack of any enabling enforcement clause that exists in the 16th Amendment as adopted, make the United States’ claims in the courts that the 16th Amendment is the foundational authority for the enforcement of the income tax against the individual citizens, on the mere basis of being a “person” with alleged “gross income”, appear dubious at best, and a complete and total lie at worst, as this lack of granted constitutional authority to write law under the 16th Amendment also explains the alleged tax-protestors’ claims of the last 50 years, that – if the tax is under the 16th Amendment, then the tax must be voluntary, as no law is constitutionally authorized to be written by Congress, and therefore no law can exist, or does exist, under the 16th Amendment that effects the income of the citizens directly, without the underlying foundational use of the impost, duty and excise taxing authorities of Article I first being made applicable.
i.e. : a specific enabling enforcement clause of the Constitution, or one of its Amendments, must be shown to have been made applicable to the specific taxing power alleged constitutionally granted, and operationally practiced under (#1) above;
So the lower federal district and circuit courts have over time, seditiously reversed the Supreme Court’s original and true holding in 1916 – that the income tax is authorized and is constitutional under the granted and enforceable indirect Article I taxing authorities, as a measure of the amount of the indirect tax that is imposed on the income derived from the impost, duty or excise taxable activities or persons,
– who are made subject by the tax law to the payment of the uniform impost, duty or excise;
– which does not constitute an unconstitutionally unapportioned direct tax. The Supreme Court plainly held in 1916, in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) cases, that the income tax is an indirect tax under Article I, and is not a direct tax under the 16th Amendment.
Again: “. . . The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged .”
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916) “It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense – an authority already possessed [under Article I, Section 8] and never questioned – or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.” Brushaber, supra, at 17-8 “The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.
And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, . . .” Brushaber, supra, at 10-11 “…it clearly results that the [direct tax] proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. … This result … would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.” Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113.” These holdings in 1916 of course merely reasserted the Court’s long-standing recognition of the constitutional fact that the federal taxation of labor (without apportionment to the states for payment of the direct tax), is not a constitutionally granted taxing power, as labor has historically been perceived by the courts as a constitutionally protected Right, and outside of the granted internal Excise taxation powers. “As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ — that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement — ‘that all men are endowed’ — not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain inalienable rights’ — that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime — ‘and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these’ — not grant them but secure them — ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ “Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation,
. . . “It has been well said that, “The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable [right] . . .” Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.” [in Justice Field’s Concurrence in Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884)] Justice Field was not alone in his assessment. He was joined in his concurrence by Justice Bradley, who, joined by JJ. Harlan and Woods, also concurred, but on the basis of Field’s reasoning, stating at p. 762:
“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.” “Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property partaking of a nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established constitutional sense.” Justice Pitney in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14, 59 L.Ed. 441, L.R.A. 1915C, 960, 35 S.Ct.Rep. 240 (1915) “But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth ‘may be a government of laws and not of men.’ For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) But the lower federal district and circuit courts have reversed this clear indirect “income tax” holding that was made by the Supreme Court in 1916, by invoking as controlling, not these true, controlling Supreme Court cases cited above (Brushaber & Stanton), but instead they invoke one of their own contradictory inferior opinions from the below list of inferior circuit court decisions that openly simply declare, erroneously (and obviously so), that the federal personal income tax is authorized by the 16th Amendment as a direct unapportioned tax that is laid on all of the income of all persons.
- United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), (which simply asserts the tax is direct and unapportioned, reversing Brushaber without actually citing or quoting any text from that case opinion);
- Parker v. Comm’r, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984). (which also asserts the tax is direct and unapportioned, reversing Brushaber without citing or quoting any actual text from the case opinion);
- Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984), 11 The Broken Tax System www.Tax-Freedom.com (which simply cites to Parker v. Comm’r. to make its assertions);
- United States v. Sloan, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984), (which simply cites to Lovell and Collins to make its assertions);
- In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir. 1989), (which simply cites to Lovell and Parker to make its assertions). And so, as a result of the federal courts improperly using for the last 40 years these inferior, isolated, self-circular court decisions (upholding the direct unapportioned taxation of income under the 16th Amendment), actually reversing the Supreme Court’s true holding (upholding only indirect uniform taxation of income under Article I, Section 8), the federal personal income tax has been enforced for 60 years in the lower federal Tax Court and district and circuit courts, erroneously, as a direct unapportioned tax, in blatant violation of the prohibition on such direct taxation that is still constitutionally prohibited by Article I, Section 2, clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
Which brings us back to the focus of this exposé, and the beginning of this paper,
– the new tax law H.R. 1 (Dec. 2017), made effective as law as of January 1, 2018. You see in 2011 the United States Congress passed another new law directly affecting the new tax law, requiring that all legislative Bills brought forward to the House floor for debate, contain within them a plain and clear statement identifying and declaring the alleged constitutional clause with the grant of authority that serves as the constitutional foundation to the congressional claim of a granted authority to write law with respect to the administration of the powers claimed therein, and proposed exercised under the new legislation.
So, what did they put in the Constitutional Authority Statement for H.R. 1, the new income tax law now in effect ? Did they actually write “the 16th Amendment” was the authority, as argued for 50 years, or something else ? NO! It’s either there or it isn’t.
First, it should be noted that the re-enactment of Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.) Section 1, as done in H.R. 1, of course constitutes a re-enactment of exactly the same income taxing powers, and scheme of taxation (or lack thereof), as previously existed under the previous version of the income tax law, i.e. : the 1986 IRC code provisions of Title 26 U.S.C. (IRC) Section 1. Congress has simply adjusted the number of tax-brackets from seven to four, with different earnings thresholds and tax-rates associated with each of the four new tax-brackets, and with a new set of allowed or disallowed deductions and exemptions for everyone.
But, it is basically and essentially, an undeniable reimplementation of exactly the same scheme of graduated, bracketed, gross-income taxation (under IRC § 61) of taxable income (IRC § 63), as that (scheme of taxation) which has existed since 1913.
Supposedly, under this new law, nothing substantial or constitutionally foundational is believed to have been changed concerning or controlling the fundamental taxing power exercised, to tax income, and everything about the scheme is basically left unchanged, schematically identically the same as before (since the recodification of the tax law in 1986, which was also recodified (a new written version was created) in 1939 and 1954).
The “Constitutional Authority Statement” for the new law (26 USC (IRC) Section 1) plainly states: (next page) Lets look at that, closer:
As never before…It now plainly states that the Constitutional Authority for the enactment of the new income tax law enacted under H.R. 1, is not the 16th Amendment at all, but relies solely on “ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution of the United States.” for its authority. If the 16th amendment was intended as the authority, it would have been listed. It is NOT!
Uh-oh! You mean it isn’t the 16th Amendment after all? … and that claim of constitutional authority under the 16th Amendment as legal foundation to sustain the imposition and enforcement of the personal income tax, can never be made by the IRS, or in court by the United States attorneys, again, – ever !! In neither civil, nor criminal, tax prosecutions?
Finally, the true and correct constitutional authority for the federal personal income tax is plainly and clearly specified in the law, on the Congressional House record, as being established under ONLY Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which contains only the grant of the required constitutional authority to tax, indirectly, by impost, duty and excise, which powers, by law (Title 15 USC Sec. 17) do not lawfully reach the labors or income of the American People with force of law though the proper and lawful invocation and enforcement upon individual persons of only the granted indirect taxing powers.
The new income tax law, H.R. 1, by completely removing the 16th Amendment as an arguable constitutional basis and legal foundation, or as the applicable constitutional authority that is allegeable as the constitutional authority for the imposition, withholding, collection, and enforcement of the personal income tax in the federal courts as a direct tax,
– completely strips the IRS, the DOJ, and the federal judiciary of all of their lawful ability to legally enforce on American citizens after January 1st, 2018, the federal personal income tax in the federal courts as it has been practiced since 1945.
Its’ over. The IRS, the DOJ, the federal judiciary are all eviscerated. The monstrous income tax FRAUD perpetrated by the federal courts on the American People is fully exposed now, naked to the world, and the behavior and opinions of the federal judiciary are exposed as nothing but the treasonous sedition they have always been. i.e. : communistic and not constitutional. Repugnant, disgusting, corrupted, polluted, perverted, ultra vires judicial behavior and opinions, all committed for sixty years outside of the granted constitutional authority that exists for the court to lawfully act under, is all exposed. Naked to the world.
The Emperor wears no clothes. This new constitutional clarification now proves it has all been conspiratorial judicial theft. Nothing more, and nothing less. The judicial crimes of the last sixty years, fraudulently perpetrated on the American People by the federal judiciary in the name of tax has all been pure unlawful and wrongful conversion of the constitutionally protected private property of We the People, under color of law, under color of office, and in the name of tax only;
– for there is no law because none is authorized, and there is no enforceable direct tax or taxing power conferred under the 16th Amendment as previously used and deceptively claimed, because no such power is constitutionally made enforceable against the individual ‘person’, as opposed to one of the “several states”.
Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 – “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned amongst the several states which may be included within this Union”
All American citizens, in all 50 states, are all now EXEMPT – as they always were, but is now clarified by constitutional as now clarified by congress), from any required payment or withholding of the federal personal income tax from their paycheck, earned at their place of employment in one of the fifty states, and everyone should therefore now claim EXEMPT on their W-4, as provided in law thereupon, under the supremacy-clause exemption from withholding, that is made at Title 26 USC (IRC) Section 3402(n), for informed employees to claim.
Go ahead, “Google” it, – “H.R. 1 Constitutional Authority Statement”. See for yourself. Without the use of the misapplication of the 16th Amendment to erroneously allege a direct tax on income that is owed by all “persons”, there can be no lawful enforcement of the personal income tax on the income of the American People, by any Department, Agency, Service, or any other group of men that exist within the federal government,
– like the IRS, the DOJ, the federal judiciary, or even the “United States of America” (as a plaintiff in the courts), without there first being the clear applicability of some impost, duty, or excise tax to measure, that lawfully and properly taxes the underlying taxable (business, commodity, or trade based) activity from which the income is derived.
Therefore, if there is no impost, duty, or excise tax that exists in the written law of the United States Code (the written laws) that applies to the underlying taxable activity, resulting in “taxable income”, then there is no amount of “gross income” to measure as tax. And, since there is no impost, duty, or excise tax that exists in the written law of the United States Code (the written laws) that reaches either the “wages” or “salary” of the American People, earned by Right, as those terms (“wages” and “salary“) are not included in IRC Section 61 defining the sources of gross income constituting taxable income of an American citizen;
– but the terms are specifically included in IRC Section 1441(b), wherever “wages” or “salary” are earned by the non-resident alien person that is identified in law under IRC Section 1441(a). And, since it is only the foreign person (Follow this LINK and CLICK on Person see the definition – and also look up definition of individual in the code – it’s likely not you), who is made subject under the provisions of IRC Sections 7701(a)(16), to the collection of the federal personal income tax imposed in the code sections of Subtitle A (Chapters 1-6) of Title 26, which is where the original 1913 income tax laws are found in today’s law.
Subtitle A is the body of law that was enacted by Congress in 1913 as the federal personal income tax law, enacted under the original income tax legislation of the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, then it has now become impossible (under the new H.R. 1 income tax law, ONLY under Article I, Section 8, authorities) for any party or person to lawfully withhold or collect any federal income tax from the payments made to an informed American citizen in one of the fifty states!
Oh, by the way, a Tariff, as enacted within the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, is one form of an impost, which taxing power, when exercised in the 50 states, is limited in constitutional operation to the taxation of only foreign persons and imported foreign goods, commodities, and other taxable “articles of commerce“. An impost, in the form of an enacted tariff, has no internal application to the domestic activity of American citizens conducted by Right within the fifty states, without any involvement with foreign goods or foreign persons.
So, as I said in the beginning: The new federal personal income tax law, H.R. 1, that was just enacted into law by Congress in December 2017, and already made effective as of January 1st, 2018, has the immediate legal effect of:
1. Completely disemboweling and destroying the I.R.S.’ current personal income tax collection and enforcement practices and operations, by removing them entirely and completely from all legitimate constitutional authority to act to enforce the direct taxation of income under the 16th Amendment, as practiced for the last 60 years; Exposing 60 years of IRS THEFT & UNLAWFUL CONVERSION BY FRAUD.
2. Strips the federal Department of Justice naked in the courtroom of all of its usual illegitimate constitutional argumentsthat have been made in the courtroom for the last 60 years, to sustain the federal court’s (both district and tax courts’) erroneous enforcement of a direct and unapportioned tax upon the income of We the American People under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment (Exposing 60 years of DOJ FRAUD AND/OR STUPIDITY); and
3. Completely exposes the federal judiciary’s unlawful enforcement of the federal personal income tax under the 16th Amendment over the last 60 years of American history, as nothing but a complete and total judicially committed fraud that plainly and clearly can now be seen as the true judicial conspiracy of sedition that it is, to undermine and remove the constitutional limitations placed upon the federal taxing powers, in order to enforce the unconstitutionally directtaxation of the labors and work (“wages” and “salaries“) of the American People, in order to fund, not the legitimate operation of the government, but the constitutionally unauthorized progressive, liberal, Fabian, socialist programs effecting the re-distribution of wealth that are used to create the welfare-class and class warfare systems that are resulting in the destruction of America, Freedom, Liberty, private property, and equal rights, by expanding the judicial authority beyond that which is authorized, to enable the federal judiciary to constitutionally usurp the legislative authority of the Congress, through the judicial enforcement of only the perverted judicial Fabian opinions, in place of the actual written constitutional tax law that exists.
This clearly exposes 60 years of JUDICIAL FRAUD, ERROR, and ARROGANCE.
Now you also know that not only is this not crazy, it is ALL irrefutably TRUE. Oh yea, by the way, it is the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto that calls for the graduated and communistic taxation of a population that is kept divided by the different classes of the population defined in the non-uniform tax law by the creation of the different tax-brackets established therein; with different rates of tax for each bracket as under the communistic system of unconstitutional taxation that we suffer under today (for the last 72 years- since 1945), rather than the system of uniformity in taxation that is constitutionally required of both the authorized direct, and indirect taxation of We the People in America and our activities. That 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto, explicitly states:
“A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
So, now you know where the income tax enforcement operations of the IRS, the DOJ, and federal judiciary really came from, for the last 60 years, because it isn’t Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, or the 16th Amendment.
Now our government servants, and especially the federal judiciary, stand condemned by their own ignorance and arrogance, and sedition. By its own congressional admission, now made in the written formal Congressional Record of the United States of America, they are nothing but as guilty as sin itself. And now, there is only one path left by which they may escape to find their way back to justice and righteousness, repent.
COMMENT AND CALL TO ACTION – It’s time to move in on every case pending or case already judged in the past and open the prisons doors for those enslaved under this fraud, by bringing a Mandatory Judicial Notice of this argument into that case or appeal, to prove there was never constitutional jurisdiction for the IRS to bring cases in Tax Court or US District Court citing the 16th amendment, now or in the past. Then after winning these cases or in conjunction with your action to stop those cases, sue for constitutional violations using this new found information and congressional rules as the evidence.
published on You Are Law, on January 18, 2018
Basic content provided by: Thomas Freed (tell him you were sent by TJ at Youarelaw.org)
Tom@IRSzoom.com of –
~ the people
I have been writing about the United Nations and George Soros, and their diabolical plan for a One World Government for many years. I want the reader to understand that the One Word Government (OWG) IS the end game for the globalists. Sustainable Development Goals In September of 2015, a special meeting of the U.N. […]
By Anna Von Reitz
We are told that the United Nations (UN) is an international organization that aims to facilitate co-operation through social progress, economic development, international security and international law. They promote themselves, and are outwardly promoted as a reputable body that deals with peace, security, development, human rights and humanitarian affairs. With this being the case it’s no surprise to see the UN at the forefront of all international conflict and instability, since these exact events give them the ideal atmosphere to promote themselves as bringers of all that I previously mentioned. Throughout history, authoritative figures have always tried to paint a perception of themselves in hopes of influencing and brainwashing the masses into a desired agenda.
By promoting themselves, I am referring to the UN’s use of mainstream media networks, like CNN. CNN is owned by Time Warner (1), which is owned by JP Morgan Chase and Company and Dodge & Cox Inc, to name a few (2). It also has a select group of direct holders, like Jeffrey L. Bewkes. Mr. Bewkes sits in the head office of Time Warner’s two towers built in 2001 -buildings purposely built to resemble the once standing World Trade Centers of New York City. Bewkes is also a member of The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (3),which is headed and funded by the Rothschild and Rockefeller families (4)(5). In fact a large majority of mainstream media network owners are all members of the CFR, as well as the trilateral commission. Another example of this is Richard D. Parsons. who served as Time Warner’s Chairman of the Board from May 2003 to January 2009. Currently Mr. Parsons is a member of the Board of Trustees and is a Senior Advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation(6). I could even go on to look at Frank J. Caufield, another major direct holder of Time Warner Corp, who is also a member of the CFR(7). Let me remind you again, that CNN is owned by Time Warner Corp, which is owned by a number of individuals and corporations that are run by a few families. These families hide behind the corporations they run, using the employees and politicians they hire to do their dirty work. Why we continue to hand our perception of what is happening on the planet to a select few who show no regard for the human race is beyond me. As a child, I did not understand how a human being could have such negative intentions, and create so much conflict through the use of trickery. To this day I still believe that a human being cannot do what these “governing bodies” and multinational corporations do. Whether or not it holds the same effect on you, I hope the connections above at least raise an eyebrow for you.
There is no need for me to point out the JP Morgan (major institutional holder of Time Warner)/ Rockefeller connections, which also played a big role in the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1912. So what does all this have to do with the United Nations? Well, the same ones that own all of our mainstream media networks, also own, run and created the United Nations. The owners of the United Nations use their media networks to influence the perception of billions of people. Not many people know that our mainstream media networks are owned by less than 5 multinational corporations, and all of these corporations have ties to the Rothschild and Rockefeller families. If you dive in even further, all of the same corporations are directly related to suppressing clean energy technologies, like General Electric. You can find out more about free energy suppression here. More ties can be made in the food and medical industries as well. Our planet is owned by a small group of families and the corporations they run, this is no longer a secret, no longer a conspiracy theory. It’s becoming evident that these “people” do not have our best intentions at hand.
League of Nations/Treaty of Versailles
The forerunner to the United Nations, was the league of Nations. It was created under the treaty of versailles in 1919 (8)(14). Many believe the idea of the UN’s creation was due to the second world war, it wasn’t. A plan for global control through a well disguised body of peace started long before 1945. The League of Nations was an intergovernmental organization created at the Paris peace conference that ended the First World War. Development of international organizations due to conflict is a way of trickery. The UN was created in 1945 as a result of World War 2. Anytime there is global conflict, something is created out of that conflict, to give the illusion that whatever is created out of that conflict is a direct solution to that conflict. Have you ever thought that the ones who created the conflict, are doing so in order to propose the solution? What a scam that would be, wouldn’t it? What a trick, using and controlling our will. Handing our will over to those who look to take advantage of us, to those that are not in service to others, but to themselves. The League of Nations was created by the Rockefeller Family, they were responsible for funding the entire operation(9). At the same time, the International Labour Organization was developed, which is and was heavily funded by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families(10). It is clear that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families both created the United Nations, without them the development of this global organization would not be possible.
The Same Groups That Funded Nazi Germany Created The United Nations? Both Sides of the War Were Funded by the Same Group?
A key question we must ask ourselves when it comes to international global governing bodies is, who is in charge? Who is making the decisions? What connections can be made between the United Nations and the other major governing bodies of planet Earth? How often do we ask these questions? And how often do we make the connections? If the United Nations was created for peace and stability in conflicting War time, why would the same parties fund both sides of the war? Was it just for profit, or did they want to create War, to create government bodies that would control our entire planet? The United Nations has branched off into the World Health Organization, which has other branched within it like Codex Alimentarius and the Food and Drug Administration.
I’m talking about Paul M. Warburg, a German-born banker, who was an appointed member of the Federal Reserve System, on the board of governors(11). Isn’t the Federal Reserve a United States entity? He was heavily involved with the creation of the Federal Reserve, and his family was heavily involved with I.G Farben. I.G Farben was the largest chemical company in the world during its time, and one of the largest industrial booms next to the Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, and General Motors. I.G Farben was responsible for numerous war crimes, supplying the Nazis with weapons and even funding the Nazi party(12)(13). Why would the federal reserve system and the Rockefeller’s be involved with I.G Farben? Isn’t the federal reserve an American entity? Did they not fund the United States as well? Paul Warburg and his family were involved with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Warburg family headed I.G Farben, a company that supported the Nazi movement. So what is going on here? There is a lot of evidence to show that both sides of World War II were funded by the same people, so I think a “fast one” has been pulled over our eyes. The Federal Reserve is still in tight with the Warburg family, as they have transformed themselves into several multinational corporations and financial institutions, like Warburg Pincus(15)(16).
It’s no secret that the Bush family also heavily profited from the war. Did you know that the Bush family also had members connected to the federal reserve, and that the Bush family is also very close to the Rockefeller family?(17). It’s not a secret that the presidency has always been connected to the Federal Reserve. Prescott Bush even worked for the Nazis, he worked with and profited from companies that were funding Hitler. With all of these connections, it is easy to see how the real founders of the United Nations (if you follow the money) were connected to many inhumane acts. So what makes you think it has stopped today? What if the United Nations give you the illusion of a peace making body, in order to drive chaos, fear, and to fulfill an agenda that started long before we were all born? How can the UN protect us against mining corporations for example, that commit atrocities all over the world, when the same ones who created the UN own all of the major mining corps, like the Rockefeller Hughes Corporation(18). I’ve provided sources for all of my claims, at the same time I like to leave a few out to inspire the readers to do some research. Feel free to look into the Bush connections yourself! Keep in mind, I’ve used only a few examples and connections in this article, there is a tremendous amount that you can make on your own if you are sparked to further your research.
One aspect of the current consciousness shift is waking up to new facts and possibilities of what really happened in our recent human history. Many people take different paths to awakening, but in the end it all leads to one thing: we have to be the change we want to see. We’ve seen a lot of turmoil throughout the years on this planet, and in turn it’s created a very dense energetic state for planet Earth. More people are starting to find peace, they are experiencing more joy and desire change for all on planet Earth. Through awakening, we are changing the vibrational frequency of the planet. We’ve been blind to many things for thousands of years. We are living in the age of transparency, everything has presented itself for us to see from the “darkest” experiences to the “lightest”. Either way you look at it, everything that has and is playing out on planet Earth is all an experience for the human race. Events happen, in order to jolt us into waking up to truth. 9/11 for example, woke many up. Whether it’s the truth about hemp, the federal reserve, the illuminati, extraterrestrials, spreading love, or anything else, the age of transparency is leading to a new truth within billions of people, and that truth is love. Love is required as a necessary building block for a new world. We are responsible for what is happening here, when we awaken from our sleep, I’m sure we won’t let continue what we’ve let continue for so long. No longer will we be used to uphold a system that does not resonate with us, instead we will create a new one that makes the old one obsolete.
There are multiple sources that go beyond mine, I could have used many more. Please feel free to do your own research to further verify some facts.
The UN have unveiled their masterplan for the next 14 years – saying that they wish to implement global socialism and corporate fascism as part of their “Agenda 2030” plans.
Part of their plans, officially dubbed “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals,” aims to reduce inequality worldwide by forcing individual governments and citizens alike to share their wealth under the guidance of a one world government.
In simpler terms, Western taxpayers should prepare to be fleeced so that their wealth can be redistributed internationally as their own economies are cut down to size by Big Government. Of course, as has been the case for generations, most of the wealth extracted from the productive sector will be redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist/totalitarian policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes to be propped up with more Western aid under Agenda 2030.
Wealth redistribution alone, however, will not be enough. Governments must also seize control of the means of production — either directly or through fascist-style mandates. “We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services,” the document states. It also says that “governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-state actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns … to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.”
In plain English, the Agenda 2030 document is claiming that today’s “consumption and production” patterns are unsustainable, so we’ll need to get by with less. How much less? It would be hard to find a more clear and concise assessment than that offered by the late Maurice Strong, the recently deceased Canadian billionaire and longtime UN environmental guru who led the 1992 Earth Summit, in a pre-Earth Summit document: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and ‘convenience’ foods, ownership of motor vehicles, numerous electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning … expensive suburban housing … are not sustainable.”
In truth, such “lifestyles and consumption patterns” are sustainable, so long as the freedom that makes prosperity possible is not destroyed in the name of achieving “sustainability.” The UN and the environmental lobby claim that we must get by with less because there are now too many people on the planet consuming too many resources. But this rationale for accepting UN-imposed scarcity is patently false.
Of course, the promoters of Agenda 2030 would claim that rather than impoverish us, the global regime they envision would take good care of us — through universal health coverage, for instance. One of the targets for Goal 3, ensuring “healthy lives” and “well-being,” is: “Achieve universal health coverage,” including “vaccines for all.” Universal access to “mental health,” along with “sexual and reproductive health-care services” — code words for abortion and contraception — are also included. All governments are expected to integrate such services into their “national strategies and programmes,” the agreement demands.
It is worth noting that mass-murdering Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin made clear that controlled healthcare is the “keystone” of socialism. The United Nations obviously agrees. And though he may not call it “socialism,” Obama undoubtedly also views government control of healthcare as key. Indeed, enactment of ObamaCare could be viewed as a “great leap forward” by the United States toward implementation of a key component of Agenda 2030, before Agenda 2030 was even “approved.”
But as important as targeting healthcare is to the globalist schemers, any plan for building international socialism would be lacking without also targeting the next generation with global-socialist propaganda. And so an entire goal of Agenda 2030 is devoted to ensuring that all children, everywhere, are transformed into what the UN calls “agents of change,” ready to push forward the plan for the new global order. “Children and young women and men are critical agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world,” the agreement explains.
The sort of activists that the UN hopes to make your children into is also explicitly defined in the agreement. “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development,” the global plan for 2030 states. Considering what the UN means by “sustainable development” — population control, central planning, global governance, and more — the agenda for your children takes on an even more sinister tone.
“Sustainable” children for global citizenship in the new order will be accomplished via what the UN misleadingly refers to as “education.” In the UN document the word “education” alone is mentioned more than 20 times. And throughout the agreement, the UN openly advocates the use of schools to indoctrinate all of humanity into a new set of values, attitudes, and beliefs in preparation for the new “green” and “sustainable” world order. The UN’s education agenda also puts sex “education” front and center. “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services [abortion and contraception], including for family planning, information and education,” the document explains.
How much will Agenda 2030 cost? Various figures have been thrown around by UN bureaucrats regarding the monetary costs of the plan, generally ranging between $3 trillion and $5 trillion per year.
Yes, trillions. In the “From Billions to Trillions” report released by the World Bank in July 2015, the globalist outfit, a key player in Agenda 2030, conceded: “To meet the investment needs of the Sustainable Development Goals, the global community needs to move the discussion from ‘Billions’ in ODA [Official Development Assistance] to ‘Trillions’ in investments of all kinds: public and private, national and global, in both capital and capacity.”
But the money needed to implement Agenda 2030 and other UN schemes is only part of the cost. Other parts include the loss of our national independence and freedom that the rise of global governance and global socialism would surely entail. Revealingly, empowering dictators to help in global governance is openly touted by Agenda 2030. The document states, “We recommit to broadening and strengthening the voice and participation of developing countries [the regimes ruling those countries] — including African countries, least developed countries, land-locked developing countries, small-island developing States and middle-income countries — in international economic decision-making, norm-setting and global economic governance.”
When Agenda 2030 was adopted at the 70th annual UN General Assembly confab in New York City on September 25, the UN plot to re-engineer civilization was ushered in with a “thunderous standing ovation,” the UN Department of Public Information reported. Every one of the 193 UN member governments on the planet — from murderous communist and Islamist dictatorships to those ruling what remains of the “Free World” — vowed to help impose the UN’s controversial goals on their subjects.
It all sounded so wonderful to some of the world’s most brutal dictators that they could hardly contain their glee. “This agenda promises a brave new world, a new world which we have to consciously construct, a new world that calls for the creation of a new global citizen,” gushed Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe, the genocidal mass-murderer enslaving Zimbabwe who also serves as chairman of the African Union. “I want to believe that we are up to this task that we have voluntarily and collectively committed ourselves to. Our success, and in particular the promise of a new world that awaits us, depends upon this commitment.” He also promised to vigorously impose the UN Agenda 2030 on the starving and impoverished victims his regime lords over with Agenda 2030-style policies. The communist Castro regime vowed to work with socialist Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro and other tyrants to impose the UN goals on their victims, too — all with financing from Western taxpayers.
The brutal tyrants ruling Communist China, meanwhile, have also been enthusiastic cheerleaders for the UN goals — goals that the regime boasted it played a “crucial role” in developing. The Chinese autocracy, infamous for forced abortions, censorship, religious and political persecution, the “one-child policy,” terrible pollution, kangaroo courts, and of course, murdering more human beings than any other entity in all of human history, used its vast, global propaganda machine to celebrate Agenda 2030.
“China has made important contributions to the global efforts in reaching a fair, inclusive and sustainable post-2015 development agenda,” the regime’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, Wang Min, was quoted as saying in a report by the Communist Chinese news and espionage service Xinhua. “China is also very active in putting forward Chinese proposals…. The agreement includes important proposals by China and many other developing countries in numerous aspects.”
Among other “commitments,” China promised to spend $2 billion in foreign countries to meet the UN goals in “education” and “health,” with its funding increasing to $12 billion by 2030. While only contributing a small piece of the pie, the fact that Beijing is so excited about the agenda is quite revealing. Echoing Chairman Mao’s rhetoric, EU and NATO globalist Javier Solana said, “With a sustained commitment from all countries, developed and developing alike, the world can ensure that it celebrates another great leap forward in 2030.” (Emphasis added.) The last “Great Leap Forward,” presided over by Chairman Mao Tse-tung between 1958 and 1963, resulted in the murder of an estimated 45 million Chinese who were worked, starved, or beaten to death.
The Obama administration, which apparently does not plan to present the UN scheme to the U.S. Senate for ratification as required by the U.S. Constitution, also offered a forceful defense of the UN agenda. Speaking to the UN General Assembly on September 27, 2015, after purporting to commit the United States to the global plot, Obama claimed the UN blueprint “is one of the smartest investments we can make in our own future.”
Even the world’s leading religious figure, Pope Francis, addressed UN member governments with a plea to support the UN goals. “The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development … is an important sign of hope,” he declared, before demanding a UN “climate” regime as well.
Beyond governments and religious figures, much of the private sector also enthusiastically backed the new goals. Among the mega-corporations backing the scheme are the world’s top three search engines: Google, Microsoft’s Bing, and Yahoo. It was not immediately clear whether those corporations’ support for the UN agenda would affect the supposed impartiality of search results, but critics of the UN plan expressed alarm nonetheless.
For now, at least, the world and the White House are all pretending that the SDGs are binding on Americans, too. However, the U.S. Senate was not consulted, as the Constitution requires for all treaties. And even if the Senate were to ratify it, the federal government cannot grant itself new anti-constitutional powers merely by approving a treaty. Therefore, the agreement has no force in the United States. But as UN Agenda 21 showed clearly, that does not mean that the Obama administration, and possibly future presidents, would not attempt to push it forward anyway. The American people, therefore, must demand through their elected representatives that the UN power grab be stopped.
Speak Out Against REAL ID
Stop REAL ID! Submit comments to the Dept. of Homeland Security by May 8th!
- UPDATE: DHS has released an e-mail address where you can submit REAL ID comments. The subject line must include the Docket No. DHS-2006-0030. Send your comments to email@example.com. Click here to open an e-mail window with the sample comments included.
- A broad coalition of organizations across the United States is urging the public to submit comments rejecting the illegal national identification system created under the Department of Homeland Security’s REAL ID program.
- Five states and several members of Congress have rejected the scheme, which creates a massive national ID system without adequate security or privacy safeguards, which makes it more difficult and costly for people to get licenses, and which makes it easier for identity thieves to access the personal data of 245 million license and cardholders nationwide.
- To take action and submit comments against this fundamentally flawed national ID system, click here! Comments are due by 5pm EST on May 8, 2007.
To take action and make your voice heard, submit comments against the fundamentally flawed national identification scheme. The draft regulations to implement the REAL ID Act are open for comment until 5:00 PM EST on May 8, 2007. The comments can be submitted in one of three ways:
- E-mail: Send to firstname.lastname@example.org. Include DHS-2006-0030 in the subject line.
- Online through the Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov (search for “DHS-2006-0030-0001” and follow the instructions for submitting comments);
- Fax to 1-866-466-5370. Your fax must state that you are submitting comments in response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking DHS-2006-0030.
- Postal Mail sent to Department of Homeland Security; Attn: NAC 1-12037; Washington, D.C. 20538. Your letter must state that you are submitting comments in response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking DHS-2006-0030.
Click here for sample comments you can print, sign and send in.
Organizations have launched a nationwide campaign to engage the public in the debate over what would be the first national identification document. These transpartisan, nonpartisan, privacy, consumer, civil liberty, civil rights, and immigrant organizations have joined in this unique public education project because the REAL ID proposal put forth by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would harm our lives in a multitude of ways every day. The proposed regulations set requirements that states must follow to have their state issued identification documents accepted for federal purposes, like getting on an airplane or entering a government building, including courthouses.
The power of the Department of Homeland Security, along with other federal government agencies, to reach into the everyday lives of people living in this country will be unprecedented.
This is the same federal agency that had responsibility for helping people following Hurricane Katrina, and proved itself not to be ready for the challenge. Creating a national identification system is a huge, complex project and there no agency in the Federal government that has proven that it could manage a project of this magnitude.
What we do know: You will make more than one trip to the motor vehicle office to apply for your REAL ID national identification card; the government has estimated that the scheme will cost taxpayers $21 billion; REAL ID requires documentation that most people will have difficulty finding; and the cost of driver’s licenses and state ID cards will skyrocket. We do know that the federal government is considering expanding the REAL ID card to everyday use.Click for more background…
- DHS: Real ID Proposed Guidelines: Questions and Answers
- American Civil Liberties Union
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Liberty Coalition
- Privacy Activism
- Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
- Wikipedia entry on REAL ID
- American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations
- American Library Association
- “There are serious privacy and security issues with the REAL ID Act,” said Loriene Roy, ALA President-Elect. “ALA has expressed deep concern about standardized machine-readable driver’s licenses and national identification cards because of the potential privacy implications for library users, as well as the increased potential for identity theft for all individuals.”
- American Policy
- American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
- Carol Khawly, Director of Legal Advocacy at ADC, states that “as a community, we fear that the REAL ID card will be used by different government agencies as well as private parties to profile individuals who look foreign or who have a foreign name.”
- Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
- Association of American Physicians & Surgeons
- Bill of Rights Defense Committee
- Center for Digital Democracy
- Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights
- Citizen Outreach Project
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- “REAL ID raises the specter of George Orwell’s 1984 the government controlling a central database of personal information, which could be used to monitor the comings and going of American citizens,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz.
- Coalition Against Prosecutorial Abuse
- Common Cause
- Computing Professionals for Social Responsibility
- Consumer Action
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- “Make no mistake, this is a national identification system that will affect your everyday life,” said Melissa Ngo, Director of EPIC’s Identification and Surveillance Project. “Critics of the REAL ID scheme are called anti-security, but it is not anti-security to reject a national identification system that will harm our national security and make it easier for criminals to pretend to be law-abiding Americans.”
- Fairfax County Privacy Council
- Give Me Back My Rights Coalition
- Government Accountability Project
- Gun Owners of America
- Immigrant Workers Union
- Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
- Liberty Coalition
- National Center for Transgender Equality
- National Council of Jewish Women
- National Council of La Raza
- National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
- National Immigration Law Center
- Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
- Patient Privacy Rights Foundation
- People for the American Way
- Privacy Activism
- “The breadth and diversity of the opposition is a real testimony to how harmful Real ID is to so many different communities,” said Deborah Pierce, Executive Director of PrivacyActivism.org and one of the founders of the Stop Real ID Now! activism campaign. “By getting people and groups who are usually excluded from the debate involved at the grassroots level, we can stop Real ID.”
- “The Real ID Act of 2005 turns our state driver’s licenses into a national ID card, costs over $20 billion dollars, infringes privacy, and imposes major burdens on taxpayers, anybody renewing a driver’s license, seniors, immigrants, transgender people, and state governments – while doing nothing to protect against terrorism,” said privacy activist Jon Pincus, one of the founders of the Stop Real ID Now! activism campaign. “This commenting process is a great chance for the American people to tell DHS and Congress the Real ID Act is a bad law that needs to be repealed.”
- Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
- Privacy Times
- Republican Liberty Caucus
- Rutherford Institute, The
- The Arc of the United States United Cerebral Palsy
- The Multiracial Activist
- US Bill of Rights Foundation
- Virginia Citizens Defense League
- Virginia Gun Owners Coalition
- World Privacy Forum
- America’s Right to Privacy
- Arizona Citizens Defense League
- Asian American Justice Center
- Artist Activism Network
- Constitution Party of North Carolina
- Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering (CASPIAN)
- Consumer Federation of California
- Center for Democracy & Technology
- The Loyal Nine
- Oklahoma Defense of Freedom Project
- South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow
- Young Democrats of America
Blog Posts covering the campaign:
- Schneier on Security: REAL ID Action Required Now (May 8)
- Worthless Ponderings: What REAL ID is and why you should care (May 8)
- Knitting with rocketships: Stop Big Brother (May 8)
- The Hackenblog: Just say no to the National ID card (May 8)
- Flouncy: My REAL ID Comments (May 8)
- Wax On: Bruce Stole my thunder (May 8)
- Jay Knight: Your chance to stop REAL ID (May 8)
- Suspended Nitrogen: Urgent: stop taxpayer dollars being wasted on a fake security id (May 8)
- Generalized Notes of Oberservation: Last Chance: REAL ID (May 8)
- Fueled by Caffiene: REAL ID Action Required Now (May 8)
- Core Dump: REAL ID Comments Close Tonight! (May 8)
- David Wilford’s LiveJournal: Please do this! (May 8)
- Have GNU, Will Travel: Speak Out against REAL ID (May 8)
- LibraryLaw Blog: Comments DUE TODAY to Dept. of Homeland Security (May 8)
- Victor Pillow the Musician: 5 hours to say no (May 8)
- Guy2k: Breaking: More Security Theatre? (May 8)
- The Militant Libertarian: Fight REAL ID (May 8)
- Rerilocity: REAL ID? No, Says DHS’s Advisors (May 8)
- Tattooed Dad: Act NOW to stop REAL ID (May 8)
- The New Citizenship Project: Last Day to Stop the REAL ID Act (May 8)
- Lis: “Your ID, please” Hell No!! (May 8)
- Clackablog: Fatherland Security, There You Go Again (May 8)
- Your Authority for Online Security: Will the REAL ID, please stand UP! (May 8)
- Threat Level: Panels Scrutinize Real ID Proposal (May 7)
- Campus Progress: EPIC Says: No to REAL ID (May 7)
- TLF: DHS Privacy Committee Declines to Endorse REAL ID (May 7)
- Cato @ Liberty: DHS Privacy Committee Declines to Endorse REAL ID (May 7)
- RochesterTurning: Action: Call DHS; oppose nation ID & Big Brother (May 7)
- The Technology Liberation Front: DHS Privacy Committee Declines to Endorse REAL ID (May 7)
- Laura: Stop REAL ID – Submit Comments Tonight! (May 7)
- Shekkara: Oppose REAL ID – send your comments to Dept. of Homeland Security (May 7)
- Boing Boing: One More Day to Stop REAL ID and keep Big Brother out of the US (May 7)
- The Crossed Pond: REAL ID Act – Public Comments (May 7)
- A Sociable Loner: The Assault on Liberty Continues (May 7)
- SunbeltBlog: Get grumpy about REAL ID (May 7)
- Hullabaloo: Action Items by Digby (May 7)
- Crimes and Curruption of the New World Order News: Tell Lieberman to stick REAL ID up his…(May 7)
- Twistedchick’s Free Speech Soapbox: awake! awake! fear! fire! foes! awake! awake! (May 7)
- Privacy Saved My Life: Stop REAL ID: Reject National Identification (May 7)
- Stop REAL ID Now:: Again… what’s wrong with REAL ID (May 6)
- Mr Sprinkles’ Indubitable News: Stop the REAL ID Act by May 8 (May 6)
- Marketing Whore: Your Information At Risk (May 4)
- Anti National ID Campaign: Anti National ID Campaign (May 4)
- Rantings of a New Yorker: Comment Deadline of May 8th is Quickly Approaching for REAL ID (May 4)
- Ales Rarus: REAL ID = Real Mistake (May 4)
- AYM Networked: Less than a week to stop REAL ID (May 4)
- News2U Worldwide News: Stop REAL ID! (May 3)
- Chronicles of Dissent: Stop REAL ID! (May 3)
- The Technology Liberation Front: REAL ID Comment Campaign (May 3)
- Lunog: Coalition Team-up to Defeat National ID(May 3)
- The Blog of M’Gath: Submit Comments Against REAL ID (May 3)
- ShoutPost – Alex Jones: The Rise of the Police State and Big Brother (May 3)
- BBspot: Stop REAL ID (May 3)
- Boston Tea: Fight the REAL ID (May 3)
- James Landrith: Taking the Gloves Off (May 3)
- News and Int’l PoliTRICKS: Stop the REAL ID Act by May 8 (May 3)
- Fly Me to Your Satellite: Stop REAL ID (May 3)
- Homeland Stupidity: Who Wants a National ID? (May 2)
- Cato @ Liberty: REAL ID Comment Campaign (May 2)
- Katie: Big Brother is getting closer (May 2)
- All his Engines…: Don’t Forget Folks (May 2)
- Consumer Thoughts: One week to Stop REAL ID (May 2)
- Privacy Activism: REAL ID: activism in high gear and what you can do (May 2)
- Emergent Chaos: Stop REAL ID (May 2)
- Protect Personal and Financial Privacy: REAL ID – Oppose Defacto National ID (May 1)
- ArsGeek: Stop Real ID. You’ve got a week. (May 1)
- Giles Bowkett: More Bush Administration Law-Breaking (May 1)
- The Civil Libertarian: Help STOP “Real ID” (May 1)
- Boing Boing: One week to stop REAL ID and save America from the surveillance state! (May 1)
- District Dispatch: ALA joins anti-National ID Campaign (May 1)
- Privacy Digest: Over Forty Groups Announce National REAL ID Public Campaign (May 1)
- Pogo Was Right: Forty-Three Groups Join Campaign to Stop REAL ID (May 1)
- Stop Real ID Now!: 43 organizations announce campaign to solicit comments! (May 1)
Visit Technorati.com to see all blog posts about the campaign. 203 blogs currently support the REAL ID campaign!
- Washington Post: Leahy, Others Speak Out Against New ID Standards (May 9)
- Voice of America News: Privacy Concerns, Cost, Jeopardize Plans For US Identity Card (May 8)
- CNet News: Congress rethinks the Real ID Act (May 8)
- Computerworld: Privacy Groups renew push against REAL ID bill (May 3)
- Washington Technology: Coalition attacks REAL ID Act regulations (May 2)