Posted on 05/26/2015 9:42:10 PM PDT by CharlesOConnell
I heard a man speak on Tony Brown’s Journal in the 1980s, on the thesis that the Federal Reserve System is a tax-farming system, creating monies out of nothing, loaning them to the United States, charging interest that must be repaid with taxes. It sounds paranoiac, until you learn that the Federal Reserve Act was closely associated with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution establishing the Federal Income Tax.
Now that Texas is close to pushing us over the top of the number of states required to ask Congress to call a Constitutional convention, what might happen if Congress fails to take action over Lois Lerner? The Convention might try to abolish the IRS but, in the process, overthrow the whole financial system.
Never mind, the media would ignore it, the Executive would then get away with refusing to enforce it. No worries.
It is not a Constitutional Convention!!!!!
A “Con-Con” is a whole sale replacement of the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION.
What they are proposing is an Article V “Convention of the States”
A “Convention of States” is ONLY to PROPOSE new amendments!
They still have to be ratified by the states the SAME EXACT DAMNED WAY HAD THEY ORIGINATED IN THE FEDERAL SENATE/HOUSE.
Dag Nabbit ALL!!!!
I don’t see what is so damned hard about people everywhere NOT GETTING IT....
Sorry for shouting, but doing a pre-emptive rant before the con-con worriers and chicken littles start showing up and clucking all over the place.
“I heard a man speak on Tony Brown’s Journal in the 1980s, on the thesis that the Federal Reserve System is a tax-farming system, creating monies out of nothing, loaning them to the United States, charging interest that must be repaid with taxes. It sounds paranoiac,”
Paranoic? No.
Stupid? Yes.
Facts are always optional when Fed conspiracy fans get going.
A constitutional convention with strict rules, of only strengthening our constitution, the way or forefathers wrote it, would be one of the best gifts that our politicians can give us. I have a suggestion on what they should be doing first. Get rid of the 16th and 17th amendment. The 15th was to give us the IRS, and the 17th gave us electing the senators, instead of each state appointing them. By getting rid of the 17th amendment, we can get back our 10th amendment to the constitution. Once that’s done, we can begin to get rid of 3/4 of all these alphabet government agencies. The only ones that will really complain would be those bureaucrats that will be forced to find another job in the private companies, that they theroughly despise.
Don't forget, we also need a definitions clause.
Marriage, the word "is"...
“Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.”
LOL!
“We’re off to see the wizard…”
6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt…
8. (4) A great debt will require great taxes; great taxes, many taxgatherers and other officers; and all officers are auxiliaries of power.
9. The management of a great funded debt and a extensive system of taxes will afford a plea, not to be neglected, for establishment of a great incorporated bank. the use of such a machine is well understood. If the Constitution, according to its fair meaning, should not authorize it, so much the better. Push it through by a forced meaning and you will get in the bargain an admirable precedent for future misconstructions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzdomBX8U0w
(link h/t zerohedge poster - Radical Marijuana)
10. “Divide and govern”…
11. As soon as sufficient progress in the intended change shall have been made, and the public mind duly prepared according to the rules already laid down, it will be proper to venture on another and a bolder step toward a removal of the constitutional landmarks.
Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/freneau/republic2monarchy.htm
When we start adding things in the constitution, that wasn’t in our constitution in the first place, we begin to delute the meaning of our constitution. Let’s look at why there is even a push for “SAME SEX MARRIAGE”. It’s because of the way the politicians keep writing and re-writing the tax structure. When the politicians decided that “MARRIED PEOPLE” deserved a different tax break, compared to being single, that was why the homosexuals felt they were being “PICKED ON”. Once the IRS and the 80 thousand pages is off the books, the reason for homosexuals wanting to marry, becomes a non-issue.
The Texas state senate just said no no no to the CC resolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.