The original "First Amendment" Your Right To Financial Freedom

The greatest barrier for citizens to retain their wealth and for our nation’s economic growth is the income tax!

What is wealth, where does it come from? Politicians and so called economic experts would have us believe that big businesses or big government is source of wealth.

THEY ARE WRONG, the source of our wealth comes from the energy, ideas and hard work of our citizens. Our ancestors worked with their minds, backs and hands to forge our nation; our blood, sweat and tears built the wealth of our nation.

Businesses don’t start businesses, governments don’t start businesses… citizens start businesses! 

Our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence and for eight years our ancestors fought the king of England; sacrificing their lives so fellow citizens could live free from unfair taxes and tyranny.

It was our ancestors that fought and bled on the battlefields, not big business, not big government. We created the government, by the people, for the people.

Then in 1913, our politicians decided to create the income tax. Unknowingly, betraying the American citizens with Article 16, the Amendment giving the government the right to take our wealth… the income tax!

The government should have no rights, only citizens!

The 16th Amendment turned out to be our nation’s Frankenstein monster; an out of control tax system that targeted citizen’s hard-earned money. A tax system that would be the destruction of personal wealth and privacy!

This amendment enslaves citizens by taking an unfair amount of our wealth; tax paying citizens are now the servants, working for the government.

When the government controls our wealth, they control us.

Through income taxes we are oppressed and in fear of the government, creating the unintended tyranny, even politicians and IRS employees are afraid of this monster. 

Many families after paying state and federal taxes, are robbed of their wealth, paying 30, 40%, 50% or more of their hard-earned income.

Views: 69

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You can say that again. I am one who considers herself the target of the IRS, forced to turn over income from inheritance, for the rest of my natural life.

As a True "Tea Party" patriot, I think income taxes are the most serious problem our nation faces. Please take 5 minutes to review ONE TAX FOR ALL a national sales tax that eliminates income taxes. (it does not require sign up or money, just personal action) and if you agree with it please send in on.

The real tax revolution starts with us the citizens, not our politicians.

 Maybe, but first, with no exceptions, President Trump has to remove the privet owned corporate companies of the Rothschild Family of the IRS- UK, and Oh !!! by the way this includes the Federal Reserve.

 Now unless some do not know it, it has been expose nation wide and a matter a fact world wide, who owns the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

 Then we can talk about  this tax.

LOL Tif

What needs to happen is just what you wrote.

It is pure prejudice and discrimination, (and social engineering us into a nation of lazy curs)—imho, to pick winners and losers to pillage or reward.  Trump's plan to let a bunch of people skate on taxes is not at all what he should be doing. As far as that idea goes, it means that as a single, white woman who is self-supporting, I do not receive the benefits that:

DACA recipients receive—
Mothers who have more children than they can afford, receive—
Certain races/ethnicities receive—and that  includes not only blacks but the multitude of Arabs/Muslimes who own gas stations and get tax benefits for 5 years then turn it over to another family member, then 5 years later, turn it back over to the 1st one, etc., etc.—I do not get any of those wonderful large tax benefits that they gratefully receive (sarc)—
Any member of congress, who receives lifetime fortunes while lying, cheating, harassing, selling/giving information so buddies can also make the millions, and all the rest that they do, including paying off women they have done things to. I do not have access to secret funds to pay for my life, either. And remember, they also at one point and maybe still do, have access to loans that somehow never get paid back. And that little secret was going on when I was a kid. My dad knew about it.

NOPE, I get none of these benefits. And so, the founders intended something far different, something called equal rights under the law, and they certainly did not intend for direct taxation or taxation on inheritance to occur.

Makes me sick.

This DACA, dad has a file thats all locked up, no one is allowed to see it, this makes me Hmmm?, want to go digging around on its foundation and who the founders are?

file/362a/07/date-2012/server/09

Ahhh? Jean,

 The file was opened to me I can not share some of the documents, according to other reports, DACA Legislation, is stated a little different from the UK United Nations.

 The US Media Gov. Files states a birth time line, but in a bitter dispute between Trump and the UN, the UN wants 800,000 new migrants in the USA every year. The argument of the debate was undocumented migrants.

 I have a lot to read, and I can type in from the documents, its something that is not known as well as those that pushed it through, and some will be surprised of how many Republicans voted for DACA.

 But this name will not be a surprise,the George Soros Foundation.

No, not a surprise in any of your statements. Soros. UN, Republicans. They are all united in one global front.

Yes I do have a surprise, a real nifty one, blog coming up in about two minutes if the internet don't crash.

Thank you for sharing this, President Trump, from what I have read is working on it. The IRS Scandals are still in our face.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

ALERT ALERT

FBI Text Should Alarm Every American

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the reported FBI lovebirds, are the poster children for the next “Don’t Text and Investigate” public service ads airing soon at an FBI office near you.

Their extraordinary texting affair on their government phones has given the FBI a black eye, laying bare a raw political bias brought into the workplace that agents are supposed to check at the door when they strap on their guns and badges.

It is no longer in dispute that they held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trumpfrom becoming president. The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.

The Justice Department’s inspector general is endeavoring to answer that question.

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.

But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.

It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.

“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.

Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional training told them it had “no big there there.”

And that, by definition, is political bias in action.

How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job.

TEA PARTY TARGET

 Trump Poised To Take
 Control Of The Federal Reserve 

  • The Fed doesn’t stabilize markets and money — it does the opposite
  • President Trump sharply criticized the Federal Reserve this week, saying interest rate increases are hurting the economy.
  • Trump will have the opportunity to fashion the central bank in the image he would like as he has four vacancies to fill on the board of governors.
  • The result could be a more politicized Fed.

President Donald Trump has multiple reasons as to why he should take control of the Federal Reserve. He will do so both because he can and because his broader policies argue that he should do so. The president is anti-overregulating American industry. The Fed is a leader in pushing stringent regulation on the nation. By raising interest rates and stopping the growth in the money supply it stands in the way of further growth in the American economy.

First, He Can

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is required to have seven members. It has three. Two of the current governors were put into their position by President Trump. Two more have been nominated by the president and are awaiting confirmation by the Senate. After these two are put on the Fed’s board, the president will then nominate two more to follow them. In essence, it is possible that six of the seven Board members will be put in place by Trump.

The Federal Open Market Committee has 12 members and sets the nation’s monetary policy. Seven of the 12 are the members of the Board of Governors. Five additional are Federal Reserve district bank presidents. Other than the head of the Fed bank in New York, who was nominated by the president, the other four can only take their positions as district bank presidents if the board in Washington agrees to their hiring. One of these, the Fed Bank president in Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, is already arguing for no further rate increases.

Second, Regulation

Following the passage of the Dodd Frank Act in July 2010, the Fed was given enormous power to regulate the banking industry. It moved quickly to implement a number of new rules. The Fed set up a system that would penalize banks that failed to obey its new rules. These rules included setting limits as to how big an individual bank could be; how much money the banks had to invest in fed funds and Treasurys as a percent of their assets; which loans were desirable and which were not; where the banks had to obtain their funding and many, many, more up to and including how much a bank could pay its investors in dividends.

These rules have meaningfully slowed bank investments in the economy (the Volcker Rule) and they have had a crippling effect on bank lending in the housing markets (other agencies have had an impact here also).

Thus, of all of the government agencies the Fed has been possibly the most restrictive. The president has already moved to correct these excesses by putting in place a new Fed Governor (Randal Quarles) to regulate the banking industry.

Three, Killing Economic Growth

In the second quarter of 2018, the growth in non-seasonally adjusted money supply (M2) has been zero. That’s right, the money supply did not grow at all. This is because the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet ultimately by $50 billion per month. In addition, the Fed has raised interest rates seven times since Q4 2015. Supposedly there are five more rate increases coming.

This is the tightest monetary policy since Paul Volcker headed the institution in the mid-1980s. It will be recalled his policies led to back-to-back recessions. Current Fed monetary policy is directly in conflict with the president’s economic goals.

Moreover, the Treasury is estimating it will pay $415 billion in interest on the federal debt in this fiscal year. A better estimate might be $450 billion if rates keep going up. There are a lot of bridges and tunnels and jobs that could be created with this money.

Then there is inflation. It is likely to rise if the Fed eases its policies. If that happens paying down the federal debt becomes easier. On a less desirable note, higher interest rates lower real estate values. Lower rates that stimulate inflation increase real estate values.

Bottom Line

The president can and will take control of the Fed. It may be recalled when the law was written creating the Federal Reserve the secretary of the Treasury was designated as the head of the Federal Reserve. We are going to return to that era. Like it or not the Fed is about to be politicized.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service