Ron Paul Introduces Legislation to Abolish the Federal Reserve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Try attacking the message instead of the messenger .

---

Like I've said before Gawain, try using better sources.

You attack me for using wikipedia which actually cites it's sources so you can check, but you continue to use heavily biased, poorly written crap sites that you dig up on a search engine.

Quote:

---

So the colonies made paper money, so therefore they forbade them in the constitution?

---

Yes they did after the disaster with the continentals.

Quote:

---

And currently the only system able to run with 100% employment are quite authorian, has something to do with avoiding the inflation that occurs if people's salary is decided only by thier rarity.

---

Again if going off the gold standard and instigating the Fed were supposed to stop inflation both should be shut down immediatly for making such a mess of it.

Quote:

---

For the last time, read the ruling. Chief Justice White explained it all quite clearly and at length:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

---

Ill give you the at length part. Looks like legal mumbo jumbo to me. Once more it wasnt ratified anyway.

Quote:

---

End of story. How can you argue that's not what the SCOTUS ruled when it's written right in the opinion?

---

It all goes back to the legal meaning of that phrase.

Quote:

---

You attack me for using wikipedia which actually cites it's sources so you can check, but you continue to use heavily biased, poorly written crap sites that you dig up on a search engine.

---

I used only one. I can give you the same info from other places if you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now I know it might have been cruel to say that Gawain is getting his information from lunatic websites , but hey that last link comes up with crap like http://www.reformation.org/synagogue-of-satan.html:dizzy2:
Oh ....WARNING better add an edit saying some poeple might not want to read the crap in that link .

---

Gah, you got me reading that site now. Now I know the earth is stationary, and the Jesuits created a heliocentric conspiracy...
http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html

And of course, the US tested their first nuclear weapons at Port Chicago. I'm sure the Jesuits had something to do with that, too...
http://www.reformation.org/port-chicago.html

Naturally, the UN is a plot to create a Catholic Church world domination and a Spanish Inquisition in the US (sorry, I mean Cabotia)...
http://www.reformation.org/united-nations.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I used only one. I can give you the same info from other places if you like.

---

Please, by all means do! Reformation.org was extremely entertaining!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I used only one.

---

One you say? Hmm, Let's review. I had to open a notepad file to save all the "resources you used". Let's go by through them one by one:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/...reenslade.htm- The price of liberty? I wonder if this site is biased or has an agenda?

http://www.reformation.org/- LOL... go to the home page

http://www.freedomunderground.org/vi...t=3&aid=23951- Freedom... Underground... enough said...

A youtube video with the word "0wnz" in it.

http://political-resources.com/taxes...t/default.htm- Look's decent enough, looking through it yields more biased crap.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...ICLE_ID=17398- World net daily.... :wall:

http://www.constitution.org/col/vieiraspeech.htm- Note, not .net which is a respectable site, .org.
"This organization was founded in response to the growing concern that noncompliance with the Constitution for the United States of America and most state constitutions is creating a crisis of legitimacy that threatens freedom and civil rights"- heavily biased

http://www.honestmoneyreport.com/arc...2006/1027.php- Host Money report...

Quote:

---

I can give you the same info from other places if you like.

---

Sure, but try to make them scholarly or atleast well balance and written if you can.

Have you ever attended higher education, Gawain? They would laugh at you with these god awful sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Yes they did after the disaster with the continentals.

---

Still not following you unless you give some more information. As far as I can read of your sources everything went well, until England forbade paper money in the colonies. This would make paper money good, not bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Again if going off the gold standard and instigating the Fed were supposed to stop inflation both should be shut down immediatly for making such a mess of it.

---

Stopping inflation is a bad thing, limiting to like 1-2% is good though. I can agree that they've failed at some periods, like all other nations has done as well, making it hard to draw any conclutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Within the limitations of the constitution.

---

Correct

Quote:

---

It did no such thing. It already had that power.

---

And the amendment defined that power farther, so why saying it established it might have been over stating it, its not necessarily incorrect either. By defining the tax power in a more definitive manner in regards to Income tax through the amendment process the Congress actually did its job correctly and is why the founding fathers established the amendment process in the first place.

Quote:

---

Income tax has always been constitutional as long as its apportioned. It is unconstitutional in the manner it is enforced however. The purpose of the constitution is to limit government not give it more power. Plus again it was never properly ratified.

---

Actually it was probably ratified when 2/3 of the states voted in favor of the amendment. Callin the IRS unconsitutional might be a valid arguement - but that is not what was stated earlier - the tax is constitutional and the amendment process was followed to define and adjust the way a specific tax was to be handled. The purpose of the constitution serves many purposes - limiting the govenment is only one of those - providing for the common defense and well being of its citizens is also one of those responsibilities - establishing an income tax and defining its scope and breath is within the scope of the government. Small government agencies I am all for - however an arguement about the constitutionality of the Income Tax is once again a false one on its face - the constitution gave the authority to Congress to levy taxes and the amendment continued along that same authority.

Quote:

---

No its not. If the government could not tax your income before that amendment and SCOTUS said it gave congress no new taxing power then your income is still not taxable after it. If they could not have an unapportioned income tax prior to it they cant have one after it. Pretty clear yes?

---

See the above and what has been written by others - the amendment process covers this arguement well - why else would the amendment process be present if it was not to clarify, change, or otherwise add to the constitution?

Quote:

---

Actually it was probably ratified when 2/3 of the states voted in favor of the amendment.

---

Except that never happened. Why do you think the founders made the tax laws that way on the first place?

Quote:

---

Still not following you unless you give some more information. As far as I can read of your sources everything went well, until England forbade paper money in the colonies. This would make paper money good, not bad.

---

No. The secret to success was that it was interest free. It incured no debt . Its the interest on the loan from the Fed thats killing us. A loan we dont need.

Quote:

---

why else would the amendment process be present if it was not to clarify, change, or otherwise add to the constitution?

---

Is the purpose of the constitution to limit government or give it more privilges and power? Just look at the facts. If you had hired these guys to handle your buissiness and they messed it up like this you would have fired them long ago. They were charged with controlling inflation. Well theve controlled it alright. Your dollar in now worth 4 cents of what it was when they took over. They are the biggest problem facing america today. They should all be hung as traitors.

And most of congress along with them as their partners in crime. According to the constitution this is what should happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Gah, you got me reading that site now. Now I know the earth is stationary, and the Jesuits created a heliocentric conspiracy...
http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html

---

It isn't the only thing, but the picture describing how a solar eclipse supposedly works is quite funny. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Quote:
Actually it was probably ratified when 2/3 of the states voted in favor of the amendment.

Except that never happened.

---

The only argument I can find that the amendment was never ratified is "They passed versions with different grammar." Honestly, that's bollocks.

If Pennsylvania passed it as "And you will pay taxes. And you will like it." And New Yorks said, "You shall pay taxes; and shall like it." And Georgia passed "Yall gonna pay tax, or yall gonna be in a heap of trouble you better believe me boy." Well then, thats the same thing.

Would you argue that "I am a man." "Yo soy un hombre." and "我 是 男人“ are different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Gah, you got me reading that site now. Now I know the earth is stationary, and the Jesuits created a heliocentric conspiracy...
http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html

And of course, the US tested their first nuclear weapons at Port Chicago. I'm sure the Jesuits had something to do with that, too...
http://www.reformation.org/port-chicago.html

Naturally, the UN is a plot to create a Catholic Church world domination and a Spanish Inquisition in the US (sorry, I mean Cabotia)...
http://www.reformation.org/united-nations.html

Please, by all means do! Reformation.org was extremely entertaining!

---

People actually believe that :no:

Quote:

---

The only argument I can find that the amendment was never ratified is "They passed versions with different grammar." Honestly, that's bollocks.

---

Please be more dignified with your responses Jimbob what would this site come to if every one just called Gawains conspiracy theories bollocks .
I believe the proper terms used by the people who make judgements on these theories as they were presented were "without merit" , "legally frivolous" and "baseless"...
though on reflection it does appear that bollocks or bollox might be equally applicable despite the different letters they utilise.

Quote:

---

No. The secret to success was that it was interest free. It incured no debt .

---

Ah an attempt at justification through the history of numismatics , which just happens by some strange flaw of logic to be of the testicular variety too .
Now someone already mentioned the inflationry effects that Spanish(or portugese for that matter)expansion had on base metal markets .
But hey might as well do for one from the Gawain himself....

Quote:

---

After the Bank of England pressured the British Parliament to pass a Currency Act making it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money, the colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.

---

...so the ban was on banks in case they had neither the reserves or credit standing to honour the money they issued right , as issuing the money without a guarantee or ability to honour the value makes the currency subject to inflation .....So you have the option of gold or silver which of course never change invalue , always have the same availability and always are on parity so of course would never have any debt or inflationary issues :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So now Gawain if I had a debt on paper and had the choice of clearing that debt in gold or silver (coinage or bullion) what factors would influence which commodity I chose to pay that debt in ? How much money could I gain or lose be availing of that option(considering of course that the payment was made before they took the measures to eliminate the scam) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Except that never happened. Why do you think the founders made the tax laws that way on the first place?

---

Sorry Gawain that answer is a non answer - records indicate that 2/3 of the states probably ratified the amendment. Saying it was not probably done falls on its face. Tax laws made in the late 1700 were based upon what they knew at the time and the believed conditions of what England was doing to them at the time. However once again the amendment process to add, change, or otherwise modify the constitution was done, so in order to claim that the income tax is unconstitutional the amendment first has to be removed.

Quote:

---

Is the purpose of the constitution to limit government or give it more privilges and power? Just look at the facts. If you had hired these guys to handle your buissiness and they messed it up like this you would have fired them long ago. They were charged with controlling inflation. Well theve controlled it alright. Your dollar in now worth 4 cents of what it was when they took over. They are the biggest problem facing america today. They should all be hung as traitors.

And most of congress along with them as their partners in crime. According to the constitution this is what should happen.

---

The constitution is to define and provide the scope of the government. Again if the amendment process was followed the change is constitutional that is why the process was established in the first place.

The problem Gawian is that the Income Tax follows the constitution - it sounds to me that your arguement is not valid in regards to the income tax and the constitution - arguing that the IRS has violated the constitution in its enforcement of tax laws is a different arguement. The Federal Reserve might or might not be in violation of the constitution - but your mixing arguements and attempting to use the Income Tax as the basis of your arguement. Unfortunately the Income Tax is constitutional.

Quote:

---

records indicate that 2/3 of the states probably ratified the amendment.

---

Probably doesnt hold up in court

Quote:

---

The problem Gawian is that the Income Tax follows the constitution -

---

I will give you that. It seems to me the two threads have gotten mixed up. You still cant find the law that says Im liable to pay income tax. They simply use legaleeze to make you think you do. This has been told to you for so long few challenge the idea any longer. Ron Paul has been the chairman of the banking commitee for how long? He doesnt know what hes talking about?

Video: 1984 debate between Ron Paul and Charles Partee

This debate on the Gold Standard features Congressman Ron Paul and Charles Partee, member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. From the Mises Institute's Capital Hill Gold Standard Conference, 11-16-1984

Congressman McFadden
on the Federal Reserve Corporation
Remarks in Congress, 1934
AN ASTOUNDING EXPOSURE

Quote:

---

On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON.
The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has
YET TO BE ACTED ON.

---

Quote:

---

"'My Dear Senator Weeks:

"'Throughout my public life I have supported all measures designed to take the Government out of the banking business. This bill puts the Government into the banking business as never before in our history. "'The powers vested in the Federal Reserve Board seen to me highly dangerous especially where there is political control of the Board. I should be sorry to hold stock in a bank subject to such dominations. The bill as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency. "'I had hoped to support this bill, but I cannot vote for it cause it seems to me to contain features and to rest upon principles in the highest degree menacing to our prosperity, to stability in business, and to the general welfare of the people of the United States.
Very Truly Yours,
Henry Cabot Lodge

---

Quote:

---

President Andrew Jackson stated in reference to the bankers at the state of his administration:

"You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out."

---

An astounding exposure !!!!!!
Are you on a bet or something , is it competition to see how many conspiracy theory websites you can find and post ?:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has
YET TO BE ACTED ON.

---

errrrrr...did they find on referral that it was baseless , without merit and legally frivolous (commonly known as bollox )and required no action ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Ron Paul has been the chairman of the banking commitee for how long? He doesnt know what hes talking about?

---

Ron Paul is insane. After reading up on some of his absurd claims- like there being no law requiring you to pay an income tax -I feel quite sure of that conclusion.

The law is Title 26. The section 861 argument is nonsense and has failed in court numerous times.

It's not about law, it's if the government has the right to rob you of your money... at least, that's the libertarian point of view. I'm leaning towards agreeing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

It's not about law, it's if the government has the right to rob you of your money... at least, that's the libertarian point of view. I'm leaning towards agreeing.

---

It is about law though- and there is one.

You're talking more about policy, in which case I'd agree. Our current income tax system is horrid and could use serious reform. And generally speaking, less taxes are always better than more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Probably doesnt hold up in court

---

spelling error on my part - properly was the actual word - it seems to have been upheld by the courts as it is.

Quote:

---

I will give you that. It seems to me the two threads have gotten mixed up. You still cant find the law that says Im liable to pay income tax. They simply use legaleeze to make you think you do. This has been told to you for so long few challenge the idea any longer. Ron Paul has been the chairman of the banking commitee for how long? He doesnt know what hes talking about?

Video: 1984 debate between Ron Paul and Charles Partee

---

I haven't tried to find the law nor will I cite it other then from the constitution, because its alreadly present in the constitution - Congress has the power to tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

An astounding exposure !!!!!!
Are you on a bet or something , is it competition to see how many conspiracy theory websites you can find and post ?:inquisitive:

---

I'm finding it PARTICULARLY entertaining that so many of those sites write in CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis and end almost every sentence WITH NUMEROUS EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!

Wow, reformation.org is HILARIOUS! So much so it MUST be a spoof :clown:

Quote:

---

Many people consider the Encyclopedia Britannica the FINAL AUTHORITY on all scientific matters.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Just out of curiosity , how much would the limited amount of gold in existance have to increase in value for it to be used as a basis for setting the value of money in todays economy ?
Is the call for the return to the gold standard more or less bollox than a call for a return to the silver standard would be , or are they both just bollox ?

N.B. Kids, we're already basically on a gold standard lite these days. The word economy ain't much different from the gold standard's glory days of before WW1.

Quote:

---

It is about law though- and there is one.

---

Strictly speaking, you're right. The question is if that is just or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

N.B. Kids, we're already basically on a gold standard lite these days. The word economy ain't much different from the gold standard's glory days of before WW1.

---

How so? ~:confused:

Note: I loathe the 16th and 17th ammendments to our Constitution and would prefer to see them both repealed as was the 18th. The stretch between 15 and 19 did not reflect our best thinking despite the good intentions of those ammendments.


As to ratification:

Nothing in the original text of article 5 of the Constitution specifies that ratification of an ammendment must be of a document which is perfectly exact in all respects.

Given the "standards" for spelling in the founder's era, it strikes me that the framers would have expected a text that was functionally equivalent.

Again, ratification of the Constitution itself (Article 9) did not specify an exact textual parallel -- though it is clearly phrased to indicate that the Constitution would not apply to any state failing to ratify it.


I suspect, G-man, that if we dig back into that era of non-mechanical writing and inexact spelling and punctuation, that the same logic applied to assert that the 16th ammendment was not properly ratified could be used to assert that many of our states did not ratify the Constitution and should not be part of our Union or even that the document failed ratification in its entirety and that we should immediately revert to the Articles of Confederation.

The "spirit" of the effort clearly holds that the Constituion was openly ratified by 12 of 13 original states and commonwealths and ratification successfully forced upon Rhode Island.

This same suggests that the 16th ammendment was duly promulgated and ratified. That they did so was a gross dereliction of good sense by those ratifying it and has been the springboard by which so much power has been arrogated by the Federal government in defiance of the intent of our founders -- but it was accomplished legally.

How?

Same as always....the text of the first income tax law was made known and it clearly indicated that it would only be a tax on the rich....suckers.

The Libertarian cause is better advanced by arguing ideas rather than by reveling in minutae.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

How so? ~:confused:

---

Because we have a globalized economy in which Keynesian economics hold little weight and the motor of the world economy follows a monetaristic policy? Milton Friedman and the Austrian School of Economics, taken at their most extreme, advocate a return to the days of the gold standard (in other words: a truly globalized economy) and are vehemently against protectionism and Keynesian policies.

So, yeah, barring the fact that our economic system rests upon fiat more than gold (gold reserves only cover around 30-40%), we're already quite a distance on the gold standard road. The only thing standing in the way are protectionist policies shielding Western economies from others; for instance, the criminal EU tariff walls oppressing and starving farmers in the Third World.

How does that add up to a "gold standard lite"?

Friedman had argued for a true floating currency and replacing the fed with a computer that would expand the money supply by 3% annually, because he didn't trust people(the Fed) to do the right thing.

It's not about the technicalities of the currency and how much its worth, it's about how the world economy is run. Regardless of the difference between a gold-bound currency and a floating one, the similarities between today's globalized economy and that of the late 19th century are striking.

Quote:

---

Probably doesnt hold up in court

---

Except it does, including the numerous court cases I've showed you.