Free Speech on Trial: IRS v. Hendrickson

THE SHOCKING TRUTH THE IRS DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW: The limited nature of the ‘income’ tax…

Buried in Supreme Court rulings, legal minutia, tax code jargon, and the minutes from Congressional hearings is the truth that the what is commonly referred to as the income tax is meant to be a simple excise tax levied on those benefiting in some way from a federal privilege.

This means that government workers and office-holders, federal reserve bankers, subsidy recipients, investors in federal corporations, and any other person benefiting from the profitable exercise of federal privilege were meant to pay the tax, NOT independent hard-working American citizens.

RELEVANT COURT HEARINGS:

“…in Spinger v. U. S., 102 W.U. 568 (1880), it was held that [the] tax upon gains, profits, and income was an excise tax or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and that its imposition was not, therefore, unconstitutional.” – United States Supreme Court, Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)

“…taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforces as such,” United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), quoting and reiterating language used in its ruling in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust

IT DID NOT CHANGE AFTER 16TH AMENDMENT:

“The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…” – Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

“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…” – Peck vs. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

“The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.”
–F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Dept legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943

These findings, along with other research meticulously gathered by Pete Hendrickson and presented in Cracking the Code, outline the limited nature of the income tax. This information, if truly understood and effectuated by the American public, could limit government faster than any electoral result or any half-baked reform scheme coming out of Washington D.C.

In ‘Free Speech on Trial,’ you will see the lengths to which the minions of the corrupt federal system will stoop to tread upon the rights of freedom-loving Americans and keep their illicit scam under wraps.

Buy the book ‘Cracking the Code’ and learn how to get your rightful earnings back from the federal criminals – http://www.losthorizons.com/cc.htm

Support Doreen Hendrickson financially as her family appeals the terrible injustice that has been perpetrated upon her – http://www.gofundme.com/DoreenRelief

Advertisements

Unwarranted Influence – Military Industrial Complex

The term the”military-industrial complex” was made famous by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address. Eisenhower warned:”In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Eisenhower (or his speechwriters) did not coin the phrase, but its previous usage referred to physical connections between industrial and military production, not political relationships. Eisenhower referred to a novel set of challenges facing the American polity in the Cold War, while other definitions refer to more general relationships between the military and industry.One use of the term MIC refers to any set of relationships between military policy and industrial production. For example, scholars have examined the MIC in the former Soviet Union and in Latin American countries. Their concern is usually with the reciprocal influence of the military and industry on each other’s policies, rather than the hijacking of foreign policy by a collective interest in maintaining military-related production.A second generic meaning focuses on the historical relationship between sections of industry and the military in the United States. A central concern in this literature is profiteering by industry, especially during wartime production. In this use of the word, specific armed services are more interested in ensuring friendly and stable relations with suppliers than in obtaining fair prices. The term is also used anachronistically to refer to the ‘merchants of death’ debates in the 1930s over the alleged conspiracy of arms manufacturers and bankers for U.S. intervention in the World War I. In these cases, there is no complex of military-industry at work. Instead, industry employs bribery and propaganda to increase profits and alter government policy.Eisenhower believed that in 1961 the” conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry [was] new in the American experience.” The level of peacetime expenditure on the military was unprecedented. Eisenhower also worried that the public would feel that”some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. Like many in the American political elite, he believed the public was unlikely to understand the complexities of superpower politics. This posed two dangers: they might ignore international affairs and allow the new military apparatus to set policy autonomously, or they might be active but misled into endorsing unwise policies.”Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry,” Eisenhower said,” can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”Although potentially dangerous, Eisenhower considered the MIC necessary to deter the Soviet Union from becoming more aggressive. With the United States possessing a powerful peacetime military, war would be too risky a means to victory for Communism. Eisenhower never called for the MIC to be eliminated; he urged citizens to be vigilant so that its power would not be abused.For Eisenhower conservatives, the emergence of the MIC was part of a broader pattern of the growth of federal power, starting with the New Deal. While Eisenhower supported minimal social welfare programs, he championed local over centralized control of government and the economy, believing that federal solutions to national problems would be ineffective. He feared that political power would accumulate in the hands of a few. The MIC was one of two”threats” he cited in his farewell address; the second was the”technological revolution” and its implications for academia.”The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”These beliefs about the MIC had a partisan dimension. Many Congressional Democrats had promoted increased defense spending, aware of the electoral implications of greater spending in their districts. Organized labor supported such spending, too. During the 1952 campaign, Democratic nominee Adlai E. Stevenson had called for defense contracts to be directed at areas suffering from economic downturns. For Democrats supportive of existing or greater levels of progressive taxation, the resources for such projects were available. For Republicans like Eisenhower, who sought to lower taxes from the Roosevelt-Truman levels, the MIC was a potential obstacle.As Aaron L. Friedberg argues in In the Shadow of the Garrison State, an array of societal forces blocked more ambitious proposals for the federal government to extract and direct resources to build American strategic power during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. As a percentage of GNP, military spending declined from fiscal year 1958 to 1966. With this measure, one could argue that the MIC did not have the effects that Eisenhower had feared it would (of course one could argue that his warning was heeded).Even if the MIC did not succeed in keeping military expenditures at the level maintained through most of the 1950s, it still may have had an effect on U.S. grand strategy. One of the potential abuses of the MIC was that it could shape U.S. policies toward the Soviet Union. Eisenhower had supported disarmament measures, but failed to achieve an agreement with the Soviet Union. The MIC could support wasteful spending that would discourage cooperative disarmament under the illusion that national security was improved by such unilateral efforts.The concern that the MIC continues to have an effect on grand strategy persists in some critiques of U.S. defense and foreign policy. In this view, the MIC has harmful effects on U.S. policy through a revolving-door relationship in which retired military officers become consultants to defense contractors, and some are later appointed to important civilian positions in the Pentagon. These relationships perpetuate excessive military spending and hinder arms reduction efforts. Nevertheless, Eisenhower never argued that the MIC harmed U.S. grand strategy, although he did worry how about how to integrate the”machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals.” His primary concern was how the complex would alter American domestic order over time, entrenching and expanding a powerful federal state to pursue social and national security.

NWA’S STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON…PRIVATE PRISON–CONNECTION/CONSPIRACY (FULL-VERSION)

PRIVATE PRISON & MUSIC INDUSTRY’S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET:
SECRET MEETING OF 1991 BETWEEN PRIVATE PRISON & MUSIC INDUSTRY
Powerful Influence of Music:


http://www.thugexposed.org (LIVE PRAYER: DELIVERANCE AND HEALING 7-8PM MON-FRI)

Stewart Swerdlow – CERN, Blue Beam and the Portal to Hell

How many extraterrestrials are visiting Earth? Is the Project: Blue Beam alien in origin? Stewart Swerdlow unveils our planets history and future at Free Your Mind 3.

http://freeyourmindconference.com/
http://freemantv.com/