Posted on 04/05/2012 5:13:59 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
After clearing the Senate on a 74 – 22 vote on March 14, SB 1813 is now headed for a vote in the House of Representatives, where it’s expected to encounter stiffer opposition among the GOP majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at losangeles.cbslocal.com ...
It’s not even so much about taxes.
Once there is a legal beachhead upon which to make leaving the country, a matter for which you need government permission.
The bases upon which departure can be denied, will expand and expand, until in all practical purposes we become very truly indistinguishable from the former Soviet Union.
This is a very big deal.
House of Representatives - you’re it.
Don’t think Obama will sign this in a second?
DO YOUR JOBS REPUBLICANS.
They, too, have a vested interest in the status quo.
Hopefully the common man will finally realize that the Sixteenth Amendment was the Re-imposition of Slavery Amendment.
My wife and dids are eligible for Canadian Citizenship ( they allow dual citizneship) and therefor passports. Might be time to act on that.
Wife and KIDS. Sheesh.
This will go over real well with the Tour Ship industry. The blows just keep on coming....
Here’s the money quote:
“...However, there does not appear to be any specific language requiring a taxpayer to be charged with tax evasion or any other crime in order to have their passport revoked or limited — only that a notice of lien or levy has been filed by the IRS...”
Without conviction!!! Any CongressCritter who votes for this should be run out of town!
Good idea!
Geitner and Randle grounded?
a couple other punishments that i dont recollect right now for failure to submit...
Ya.
“Well, you can’t leave the country if you owe taxes, so what makes you think you should be able to leave when you __________________?”
A lot of S heading at the F at high speed. Too many such things are going in place in too short a time.
Bingo.
Exactly. Every single law always expands. Never, does any regulation shrink.
Ever.
I almost wonder if this single law, is the reason for all the media hysteria during the last month. To distract attention from this.
This is about becoming Soviet.
Right here. Right now. Berlin Wall time.
Rush should talk about this. This is important.
Unfortunately for me, my grandparents, who had hailed from Sicily, became LEGAL United States citizens just before my dad was born. (But fortunately for them, of course. They LOVED America!)
Is there any country that would allow us to gain citizenship so we can get another passport?
You’re being silly now. The senate vote answers that question.
Add Warren Buffett to the staycation list.
Think You Know the IRS? Learn the Truth!
31 questions and answers about the IRS...
1. Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?
Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301 310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).
At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
Other posters may disagree, but I object to a newbie trying to make this some sort of tax protest thread.
The point is not taxes nor the IRS.
The point is requiring government approval to leave the country.
“Hopefully the common man will finally realize that the Sixteenth Amendment was the Re-imposition of Slavery Amendment.”
“PING”
Actually that would be the 14th amendment!!!
Watch this video [a few times if necessary to let it sink in completely] and then read the text below a few times as well to FULLY grasp it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE
The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited
First - forget everything you ever knew about the Fourteenth
Amendment - then carefully read the below expose:
Take the Amendment’s opening clauses, “All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside...”
Now, consider the same clauses with the central, explanatory clause
removed, and it then reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the
United States are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside...”
Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second
clause, “and under the jurisdiction thereof, “ is an explanatory
clause. Explanatory clauses do not add to nor in any way change or
alter the meaning of the writing in which they are included; their
purpose is to explain. As it is self evident that naturalized
persons volunteer into the jurisdiction of the United States as an
inherent aspect of their voluntary naturalization, the explanatory
clause obviously was not relevant thereto. Therefore the inclusion
of this explanatory clause is to clarify that persons born in the
United States, in deference to the Thirteenth Amendment, do not
become and are not, at the moment of their birth in the United
States, automatically citizens thereof because such newborn persons
are incapable of personally volunteering themselves into servitude.
I contend that the inclusion of “persons naturalized” was somewhat
obfuscatory.
Please note that when the explanatory words (”, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, “), are omitted, the entire impact and meaning
changes, or rather (and more correctly), the true meaning become
obfuscated. The explanatory clause, (”, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, “), clearly adds a second criteria necessary to
establishing citizenship and clearly indicates that there are two
distinctly separate criteria both of which must be met in order for
persons born in the United States to be classified or designated as
citizens thereof.
The words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “ clearly
provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the
United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not
automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United
States.
(I strongly content that this includes all persons born in the United
States of parents when the parents themselves are citizens of the
United States. That is, no one becomes a citizen of the United States
just because the person is born in the United States. “Born in the
United States” and “born under the jurisdiction thereof” are not one
and the same as is commonly misunderstood. If the two statements
meant the same thing then only one would have been needed. Moreover,
the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude
prevents anyone from being designated to be a citizen of the United
States based merely on the location of the person’s birth in the
United States).
In regard to persons born in the United States there are two criteria
which must be met and complied with in order for persons born in the
United States to be designated as citizens of the United States, and
the second of the two preclude such citizenship from
being “automatic” or based on the mere “accident” (or contrivance,
as in the case of so called “anchor babies”), of the persons birth
in the United States. The two required criteria are (1), that the
persons be born in the United States (obvious), and, (2) that the
person born in the United States must also be subject to the
jurisdiction thereof (this criteria is universally, incorrectly and
erroneously presumed - read on:).
This second criteria is not and cannot be met merely by the location
of the persons birth, because, as set forth in the Fourth Article of
the Fourteenth Amendment, there is a requirement that citizens of the
United States not question the validity of the national debt. This
mandated provision clearly constitutes a condition of servitude,
therefore, in deference to and in recognition of the prohibition of
involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth Amendment, it becomes
abundantly clear that a person’s birth in the United States, by
itself, does NOT and cannot establish U.S. citizenship. Please read
on:
An examination of the two subject amendments will expose a diabolical
plot; understand that the same legislators who wrote the Fourteenth
Amendment had, two years earlier, also written the Thirteenth
Amendment, wherein these same legislators prohibited involuntary
servitude - I am not aware of any claim by anyone or any court that
the Fourteenth Amendment in any way revoked or abolished any of the
provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Bearing in mind that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary
servitude; and while keeping this thought in mind, then consider this
wording contained in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment,
(in reference to citizens of the United States):
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by
law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties
for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned.”,
Or, to paraphrase the relevant part, “Citizens of the United States
shall not complain about being required to pay the public debt of the
United States, authorized by law...”.
Or, to cut to the chase, “Citizens of the United States - SHUT UP and
PAY UP!!”
As paraphrased (but NOT wrongly interpreted), it becomes abundantly
clear and indisputable that this mandate in the Fourth Article of the
Fourteenth Amendment constitutes a condition of servitude - that is,
U.S. citizenship constitutes a condition of servitude - and, because
of the prohibition of involuntary servitude in the Thirteenth
Amendment, US citizenship must be voluntarily entered into and cannot
be acquired merely by birth.
So, with the foregoing examination and understanding in mind, it then
becomes clear why the citizenship clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
are phrased in the manner they are (implying U.S. citizenship by
birth but clearly unable to state such to be the case). If those
legislators who created the wording of these two amendments had been
honest, they would have written the Fourteenth Amendment somewhat as
follows:
“All persons born in the United States, who thereafter, upon
attaining the age of reason, then voluntarily elect to place
themselves under the jurisdiction thereof, such persons, by such
voluntary act, thereby voluntarily become citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside and in so volunteering,
such citizens agree to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the
United States in every respect and agree to pay the national debt
thereof, without complaint.”
The opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, “All persons
born or naturalized, “. Bear in mind that those who were held in
slavery had been kidnapped in their homeland and drug to the United
States against their will, in chains, and then forced into slavery
for many generations. Such acts as these, perpetrated on these
innocent kidnapped Africans, could not in any way be expected to
engender an attitude of gratitude and loyalty to the Government of
the United States - what would be your attitude if you were among
those who were freed at the end of Lincoln’s unconstitutional and
undeclared war (just in case you thought Bush was the first to ignore
the applicable Constitutional provisions)??
Due to the conditions the African slaves had been subjected to
preceding their emancipation, the former slaves had every reason to
despise the United States. Additionally, naturalization (also
included in the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment),
requires a renunciation of the candidates former foreign sovereign
and a willingness to take an oath swearing an allegiance to the
United States. Naturalization requires a study of and a knowledge
of the Constitution. The vast majority of the former slaves were
totally illiterate, so, for the most part, none of them were in any
way desirable as candidates for naturalization and it would have been
ludicrous to expect that any of them would seek naturalization, and I
am not aware of even one instance where such occurred. And none of
this has even the slightest bearing on the fact that the former
slaves were black.
In response to the foregoing there are those who claim that the
former slaves gained U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment
because, during the so called reconstruction period, imposed upon the
Southern States after the end of Lincoln’s illegal war, the former
slaves were then under the jurisdiction of the United States and that
is what made them U.S. citizens. This claim is spurious at best as
the purported applicable clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
addressing “those persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof [of the
United States]”, is specifically limited to and is only applicable to
those persons BORN in the United States - and is not applicable those
who found themselves under the jurisdiction thereof due to the result
of an unconstitutional and illegal war. (All of the adult former
slaves had been born (albeit - as a result of kidnapping), under the
jurisdiction of the (southern) state wherein they were born. Some
may have even been born in a foreign country where from they were
kidnapped).
As to those babies actually born of freed slaves during the so called
reconstruction period, such children could still not be classified as
citizens of the United States (due to their birth) because of the
servitude mandated in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment
as a specific condition of U.S. citizenship; all this in deference to
the prohibition of involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth
Amendment. Before such children could become U.S. citizens they
would have to wait until they reached the age of reason and then they
would have to volunteer themselves into such status. I contend that
none ever did so, certainly not knowingly.
I cannot imagine that any sane former slave who fully understood the
provisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments would freely
volunteer into a condition of servitude which is part and parcel of
United States citizenship. For that matter, neither can I imagine
such would be the freewill choice of any sane white person born in
the United States (this disparagement is not in any way applicable to
foreign nationals who immigrate to the U.S. and apply for
naturalization).
Having unraveled the insidious intent hidden in the Fourteenth
Amendment it becomes abundantly clear that the purpose of the
Fourteenth Amendment was/is to con persons of all races into
volunteering themselves into a condition of servitude under the
jurisdiction of the United States
There is widespread belief that the purpose and intent of the
Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a citizenship status for the
freed slaves and at the time of the promulgation of the Fourteenth
Amendment such purpose was even publicly claimed by those who drafted
the citizenship clauses - but if such was the case then why is any
suggestion or implication thereof totally absent from the said
clauses?? Why did the framers thereof not write:
“All persons born in the United States or any territory thereof, or
born in any of the several states, being of African extraction, who
desire to become citizens hereof, shall be accorded every
opportunity to meet and comply with the rules of naturalization on
the same basis of any white immigrant, without any restriction due to
their former condition of involuntary servitude or slavery, nor shall
such applicants be subject to any naturalization quotas.”
And, just to make sure that it is clearly understood, there is no
such thing as an “anchor baby” (babies born in the United States of
illegal alien mothers).
So, if persons born in the United States do not volunteer into U.S.
citizen servitude status - what then is their political status??
Well, as for me, I am of the Posterity of the People of the United
States. “People of the United States” and “citizen of the United
States” are not in any way the same!!! This begs an examination as
to what it is that constitutes a republican form of government - and
that will be the subject of a future discussion.
I suggest skeptics read Chief Justice John Jay’s dicta in Chisholm
vs. Georgia (2US 419 - 1794), the Preamble to the Constitution, and
the First and Second amendments, paying particular attention to the
use of the words “joint tenants in the sovereignty”,
“people”, “ourselves and our posterity”, and, the absence of the
word “citizen”
Cheers,
First of all, You do not know me.
Second, As you say it’s about our freedom.
If you think otherwise, you are confused...
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.