Wednesday, February 6, 2008
McCain Emerges as Front-Runner While Democrats Spin Super Tuesday Wins
Fresh off impressive coast-to-coast primary wins, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain layed claim Wednesday to front-runner status, while Barack Obama declared delegate superiority over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton
Still, even though Hillary Clinton only took eight states to Obama’s 13, she remains in the lead of the delegate race, and she added heavy-hitting Democratic states to her list of victories — including California, New York and Massachusetts — leaving the nomination to be decided another day.
Arizona Sen. McCain put more distance between himself and his closest rival Mitt Romney taking coast-to-coast wins, and Romney lost more ground to Mike Huckabee, whose campaign’s fundraising pales in comparison to the other two GOP candidates, but whose Christian conservative credentials gave him badly needed wins in southern states.
“We’ll be hitting the campaign trail tomorrow morning, flying back this afternoon, and hopefully we can wrap this thing up, unite the party and be ready to take on the Democratic nominee in November,” McCain told reporters Wednesday in Phoenix.
The Democratic race remained too close to call well into Wednesday. In New Mexico, FOX News affiliate KASA reported that results won’t be known until at least midday Wednesday. The Associated Press reported that provisional ballots won’t be counted until noon local time, or 2 p.m. ET.
The latest numbers from the Land of Enchantment had Clinton and Obama with little more than 100 votes separating them after 98 percent of precincts reported early Wednesday morning. More than 6,000 provisional ballots were being kept for a review.
But Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the outcome was already clear.
“By winning a majority of delegates and a majority of the states, Barack Obama won an important Super Tuesday victory over Senator Clinton in the closest thing we have to a national primary. … Obama showed that he can win the support of Americans of every race, gender, and political party in every region of the country.”
In Missouri, Clinton was thought to have pulled out a win until Obama managed to scrape out an victory in vote tally. The state’s delegate count — which must be translated from precinct totals into congressional districts — wasn’t complete Wednesday morning, but the two were likely to split Missouri’s 72 delegates.
Clinton was able to hold on to victory in the delegate-rich states, capping off the night with a win in the major battleground of California, ceding ground to Obama only in smaller and mid-sized states and convincing political pundits that she had gained solid ground.
“Hillary won enough. She won the states she had to win. Obama did well, but Hillary comes out of this ahead and is the favorite for the nomination,” said Martin Frost, a former Texas congressman and a FOX News contributor.
The Illinois senator did well throughout the country and in areas that are known as red Republican states, including Alaska, Idaho and Alabama.
He also won the Connecticut, Utah, Georgia and Delaware primaries, and the North Dakota, Kansas, Colorado and Minnesota caucuses. He captured Illinois, where he is a senator but which is also Clinton’s native state.
“If there is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know — our time has come,” Obama said in his hometown of Chicago. “And change is coming to America.”
Clinton notched the California victory alongside critical wins in Democrat-heavy New Jersey and New York, her home state. She won primaries in Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Arkansas, where she served as first lady when Bill Clinton was governor.
“Tonight in record numbers you voted not just to make history but to remake America,” Clinton said from New York, where she repeated her claim that she’s the more experienced candidate. “We know what we need is someone ready on day one to solve our problems.”
Clinton also took Massachusetts, one state where Obama would have liked to have pulled an upset — it’s the home of Sen. Ted Kennedy and springs roots for many of the Kennedy clan who endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination last week.
As a result, the Democrats are still in a delegate dogfight since all of the Tuesday contests award Democratic delegates proportionally. The weekend brings Democratic races in Louisiana and Nebraska. Tight polling in coming primary states of Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia next Tuesday make predictions frivolous.
The upside for Clinton, Frost said, is that her lead “is made up almost entirely by the superdelegates, but she has a real advantage among superdelegates, among party officials, elected officials, and if she can kind of play this out, if she can break even, come close to break even in this next round of primaries … and if she can then run the table in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, she’ll be the nominee. And it’s Obama’s job to prevent her from doing that.”
On the GOP side, McCain took the bulk of the contests, winning New York, Missouri, Arizona, Oklahoma, Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey before rounding out the night with a win in California.
Nine of the day’s 21 GOP primaries and caucuses are winner-take-all, and McCain won six of those races compared to two for Mitt Romney and one for Mike Huckabee.
“Tonight I think we must get used to the idea that we are the Republican Party front-runner,” the Arizona senator told a crowd of cheering supporters in Phoenix. “And I don’t really mind it one bit.”
Romney won seven races total, five of them caucuses — Alaska, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota. He also won primaries in Utah, where he once lived and where his Mormon church is headquartered, and Massachusetts, which he governed for one term.
Huckabee won five states, including primaries in Arkansas, where he was governor for 10 years, and Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama. Earlier in the day, he swiped victory away from Romney during the second round of ballots cast in West Virginia’s Republican convention.
His strong performance seemed to prove that he’s more than just a spoiler for Romney, as he had suggested.
“A lot of people have been trying to say that this is a two-man race,” Huckabee said in Little Rock Tuesday night. “Well, you know what — it is, and we’re in it.”
Wednesday morning, speaking with FOX News, he again brushed aside suggestions that he was running for the vice presidential nomination on McCain candidacy, as well as suggestions that he and McCain are cooperating on the campaign trail.
“I’m staying in the race because I still want to be president, and until somebody gets 1,191 delegates, we don’t have a nominee,” Huckabee said.
He added: “People see this alliance between McCain and me. What it is is both of us acutally believe that the process of politics ought to be civil, and I think that’s what’s going on. And we like each other but we’re opponents. We’re not colleagues in this thing.”
Despite the limited prizes, Romney showed confidence in Boston, telling supporters, “One thing that’s clear is this campaign is going on. … We’re going to keep on battling. We’re going to go all the way to the (Republican national) convention, we’re going to win this thing and we’re going to get in to the White House.”
Despite the heavy focus on Super Tuesday, no candidate was able to clinch the nomination.
On the Democratic side, 1,681 delegates were up for grabs Tuesday and 2,025 are needed to secure the party’s nomination. For Republicans, 1,023 delegates were being decided Tuesday and 1,191 are needed to win the Republican nomination.
No candidate had enough delegates banked already to reach those majorities.
References:
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/05/georgia-voters-may-give-early-clues-to-super-tuesday-verdict-after-tense-day-of-campaigning/
Still, even though Hillary Clinton only took eight states to Obama’s 13, she remains in the lead of the delegate race, and she added heavy-hitting Democratic states to her list of victories — including California, New York and Massachusetts — leaving the nomination to be decided another day.
Arizona Sen. McCain put more distance between himself and his closest rival Mitt Romney taking coast-to-coast wins, and Romney lost more ground to Mike Huckabee, whose campaign’s fundraising pales in comparison to the other two GOP candidates, but whose Christian conservative credentials gave him badly needed wins in southern states.
“We’ll be hitting the campaign trail tomorrow morning, flying back this afternoon, and hopefully we can wrap this thing up, unite the party and be ready to take on the Democratic nominee in November,” McCain told reporters Wednesday in Phoenix.
The Democratic race remained too close to call well into Wednesday. In New Mexico, FOX News affiliate KASA reported that results won’t be known until at least midday Wednesday. The Associated Press reported that provisional ballots won’t be counted until noon local time, or 2 p.m. ET.
The latest numbers from the Land of Enchantment had Clinton and Obama with little more than 100 votes separating them after 98 percent of precincts reported early Wednesday morning. More than 6,000 provisional ballots were being kept for a review.
But Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the outcome was already clear.
“By winning a majority of delegates and a majority of the states, Barack Obama won an important Super Tuesday victory over Senator Clinton in the closest thing we have to a national primary. … Obama showed that he can win the support of Americans of every race, gender, and political party in every region of the country.”
In Missouri, Clinton was thought to have pulled out a win until Obama managed to scrape out an victory in vote tally. The state’s delegate count — which must be translated from precinct totals into congressional districts — wasn’t complete Wednesday morning, but the two were likely to split Missouri’s 72 delegates.
Clinton was able to hold on to victory in the delegate-rich states, capping off the night with a win in the major battleground of California, ceding ground to Obama only in smaller and mid-sized states and convincing political pundits that she had gained solid ground.
“Hillary won enough. She won the states she had to win. Obama did well, but Hillary comes out of this ahead and is the favorite for the nomination,” said Martin Frost, a former Texas congressman and a FOX News contributor.
The Illinois senator did well throughout the country and in areas that are known as red Republican states, including Alaska, Idaho and Alabama.
He also won the Connecticut, Utah, Georgia and Delaware primaries, and the North Dakota, Kansas, Colorado and Minnesota caucuses. He captured Illinois, where he is a senator but which is also Clinton’s native state.
“If there is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know — our time has come,” Obama said in his hometown of Chicago. “And change is coming to America.”
Clinton notched the California victory alongside critical wins in Democrat-heavy New Jersey and New York, her home state. She won primaries in Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Arkansas, where she served as first lady when Bill Clinton was governor.
“Tonight in record numbers you voted not just to make history but to remake America,” Clinton said from New York, where she repeated her claim that she’s the more experienced candidate. “We know what we need is someone ready on day one to solve our problems.”
Clinton also took Massachusetts, one state where Obama would have liked to have pulled an upset — it’s the home of Sen. Ted Kennedy and springs roots for many of the Kennedy clan who endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination last week.
As a result, the Democrats are still in a delegate dogfight since all of the Tuesday contests award Democratic delegates proportionally. The weekend brings Democratic races in Louisiana and Nebraska. Tight polling in coming primary states of Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia next Tuesday make predictions frivolous.
The upside for Clinton, Frost said, is that her lead “is made up almost entirely by the superdelegates, but she has a real advantage among superdelegates, among party officials, elected officials, and if she can kind of play this out, if she can break even, come close to break even in this next round of primaries … and if she can then run the table in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, she’ll be the nominee. And it’s Obama’s job to prevent her from doing that.”
On the GOP side, McCain took the bulk of the contests, winning New York, Missouri, Arizona, Oklahoma, Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey before rounding out the night with a win in California.
Nine of the day’s 21 GOP primaries and caucuses are winner-take-all, and McCain won six of those races compared to two for Mitt Romney and one for Mike Huckabee.
“Tonight I think we must get used to the idea that we are the Republican Party front-runner,” the Arizona senator told a crowd of cheering supporters in Phoenix. “And I don’t really mind it one bit.”
Romney won seven races total, five of them caucuses — Alaska, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota. He also won primaries in Utah, where he once lived and where his Mormon church is headquartered, and Massachusetts, which he governed for one term.
Huckabee won five states, including primaries in Arkansas, where he was governor for 10 years, and Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama. Earlier in the day, he swiped victory away from Romney during the second round of ballots cast in West Virginia’s Republican convention.
His strong performance seemed to prove that he’s more than just a spoiler for Romney, as he had suggested.
“A lot of people have been trying to say that this is a two-man race,” Huckabee said in Little Rock Tuesday night. “Well, you know what — it is, and we’re in it.”
Wednesday morning, speaking with FOX News, he again brushed aside suggestions that he was running for the vice presidential nomination on McCain candidacy, as well as suggestions that he and McCain are cooperating on the campaign trail.
“I’m staying in the race because I still want to be president, and until somebody gets 1,191 delegates, we don’t have a nominee,” Huckabee said.
He added: “People see this alliance between McCain and me. What it is is both of us acutally believe that the process of politics ought to be civil, and I think that’s what’s going on. And we like each other but we’re opponents. We’re not colleagues in this thing.”
Despite the limited prizes, Romney showed confidence in Boston, telling supporters, “One thing that’s clear is this campaign is going on. … We’re going to keep on battling. We’re going to go all the way to the (Republican national) convention, we’re going to win this thing and we’re going to get in to the White House.”
Despite the heavy focus on Super Tuesday, no candidate was able to clinch the nomination.
On the Democratic side, 1,681 delegates were up for grabs Tuesday and 2,025 are needed to secure the party’s nomination. For Republicans, 1,023 delegates were being decided Tuesday and 1,191 are needed to win the Republican nomination.
No candidate had enough delegates banked already to reach those majorities.
References:
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/05/georgia-voters-may-give-early-clues-to-super-tuesday-verdict-after-tense-day-of-campaigning/
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Freedom to Fascism
To view the video click here: America: Freedom to Fascism - Director's Authorized Version
America: Freedom to Fascism is a 2006 film by Aaron Russo. It was exhibited in theaters in select U.S. cities.
This documentary covers many subjects, including: the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the income tax, Federal Reserve System, national ID cards (REAL ID Act), human-implanted RFID tags (Spychips), Diebold electronic voting machines, globalization, Big Brother, taser weapons abuse, and the alleged use of terrorism by government as a means to diminish the citizens' rights.
Some of the premises of the film include:
1. The Federal Reserve banking system is unconstitutional and has maxed out the national debt and bankrupted the United States government.
2. Federal income taxes were imposed in response to, or as part of, the plan implementing the Federal Reserve System.
3. Federal income taxes are unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid.
4. The use of the Federal income tax to counter the economic effects of the Federal Reserve System is futile.
Federal Reserve issues and interviews in the film
The film spends a fair amount of time examining the Federal Reserve System, including its genesis and functions. The film asserts that the Federal Reserve Bank is a system of privately held, for profit corporations, not a government agency, and was commissioned to print fiat money on behalf of the federal government, at a fee ultimately paid for by the personal income tax (through service on bond interest). The film also refers to the fact that the United States dollar is not backed by gold, and claims that this means the dollar has no real backing other than future income tax payments. Consequently, the film proposes, Federal Reserve Notes represent debt instead of wealth.
According to the film, the Federal Reserve System operates by manipulation of what is sometimes referred to as the business cycle of economic expansion and retraction by putting new notes into circulation to increase the ease of obtaining credit, which devalues the currency, then compounds inflation by increasing interest (prime) rates. This manipulation, according to the film, is responsible for a 96% devaluation of American currency since it was made possible to increasingly sever the link with gold backing by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The film says that this process of creating new money and adding it to the money supply is known as debasement and is a cause of inflation. In this way, the film asserts that the Federal Reserve Bank simultaneously controls the supply of money and its value.
The central thesis of the film may be that this monetary policy is the strongest form of governance that has ever existed, and is central to the unconstitutional, global power ambitions of the interests that supposedly control the Federal Reserve.
The film also asserts that the private interests it claims are controlling the Federal Reserve have been present for generations. According to the film, however, most Americans are kept ignorant of how the Federal Reserve operates through actions of corrupt politicians and an increasingly centralized media. By using what the film calls legalistic and economic "mumbo-jumbo” terms such as 'monetizing the debt' or ‘adjusting monetary policy for increased fluidity of credit’, these interests, according to the film, conceal the true actions of the Fed behind veils of legitimacy.
The argument made in the film is that there is no reason why the Federal Reserve should have a monopoly on the U.S. money supply. The film asserts that, “America got along just fine before the Federal Reserve came into existence” (which, in the film maker's view, leads to the question of why the Federal Reserve System was created).
The film contends that the U.S. Congress has no control or oversight over the Fed, and hence has no control over the value of U.S. money. The film argues that Congressional control over the value of money is required by Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The phrase in question (clause 5) states that the United States Congress shall have the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin..."
The film includes a call to action to abolish the Federal Reserve, echoed by Congressman Ron Paul, who claims the organization is unconstitutional.
Federal income tax issues and interviews in the film
Through interviews with various individuals including former IRS agents, Russo sets forth the tax protester argument that, "there is no law requiring an income tax", and that the personal income tax is illegally enforced to support the activities of the Federal Reserve System. The film refers to both article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the right to impose taxes, and the Sixteenth Amendment, which removes any apportionment requirement. The film disputes the legitimacy of the Amendment and contends, through a series of interviews, that there is no law imposing the income tax.
One of the listed stars of the film, Irwin Schiff, was sentenced on February 24, 2006 to 13 years and 7 months in prison for tax evasion and ordered to pay over $4.2 million in restitution. In pre-sentencing documents filed with the court, Schiff's lawyers had argued that he had a mental disorder related to his beliefs about taxation. Initially, the film portrays Mr. Schiff as a tax "expert," though his qualifications and those of many other "experts" in the film are not mentioned. It is not until later that the film reveals Mr. Schiff has gone to jail.
Mr. Schiff appears in the film for another reason as well. The filmmaker lampoons Judge Kent Dawson's reaction to Schiff's defense. The film alleges that the judge "denied Irwin the ability to prove to a jury that there was no law requiring Americans to file an income tax return. He denied Irwin the right to attempt to prove to a jury there was no law . . . by stating, 'I will not allow the law in my courtroom.'" At 0:48:28 of the film, Mr. Russo introduces the judge and his statement.
Under the U.S. legal system, the general rule (with exceptions) is that neither side in a civil or criminal case is allowed to try to prove to the jury what the law is. For example, in a murder case the defendant is not generally allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder, or to try to interpret the law for the jury. Likewise, the prosecution is not allowed to try to persuade the jury about what the law is, or how it should be interpreted. Disagreements about what the law is are argued by both sides before the judge, who then makes a ruling. Prior to jury deliberations, the judge, and only the judge, instructs the jury on the law.
Another listed star, Vernice Kuglin, was acquitted in her criminal trial for tax evasion in August of 2003. This means she was not found guilty of a willful intent to evade income taxes. (A conviction for tax evasion requires, among other things, proof by the government that the defendant engaged in one or more affirmative acts of misleading the government or of hiding income.) Kuglin's acquittal did not relieve her of liability for the taxes Kuglin entered a settlement with the government in 2004 in which she agreed to pay over $500,000 in taxes and penalties. On April 30, 2007, the Memphis Daily News reported that Kuglin's Federal tax problems continued with the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien in the amount of $188,025. The Memphis newspaper also stated that Kuglin has "given up her fight against paying taxes, according to a Sept. 10, 2004, Commercial Appeal story."
The preview clip for the film includes assertions contradicted by official government publications regarding the activities and nature of such institutions as the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve System
The filmmaker's personal views on taxes
As of late July 2006, Aaron Russo's biography on his website for the film stated: "The film is an exposé of the Internal Revenue Service, and proves conclusively there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct unapportioned Tax on their labor."
The New York Times article of July 31, 2006 states that when Mr. Russo asked IRS spokesman Anthony Burke (who according to the article was credited by Russo in the film) for the law requiring payment of income taxes on wages and was provided a link to various documents including title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code), filmmaker Russo denied that title 26 was the law, contending that it consisted only of IRS "regulations" and had not been enacted by Congress. The article reports that in an interview in late July 2006, Russo claimed he was confident on this point. In the United States "statutes" are enacted by Congress, and "regulations" are promulgated by the executive branch of government to implement the statutes. The statutes are found in the United States Code; and the regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations. The Treasury regulations to which Mr. Russo may have been referring are found at title 26 ("Internal Revenue") of the Code of Federal Regulations , not title 26 of the United States Code. The argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not law, the argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not "positive law," and variations of these arguments, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).The article also discloses that Russo had over $2 million of tax liens filed against him by the Internal Revenue Service, the state of California, and the state of New York for unpaid taxes. In an interview with the New York Times; however, Russo refused to discuss the liens, saying they were not relevant to his film.
Summary of Freedom to Fascism
This is a documentary about an honest search for the truth about the Federal Reserve Bank (a private bank) and the legality of the Internal Revenue System. Through extensive interviews with recognised experts and authority, the director shows an astonishing revelation of how the Federal Government and the Bankers have fooled the American public by taking thier wages and putting it in the pockets of the super-rich. The director goes so far as to interview one of the "master-minds" of the IRS Code, and you the viewer can draw your own conclusions as to how the system works. This is NOT a documentary filled with opinions, conjecture or editorial comment. It is a true documentary with a purpose, and that is to educate every wage earner about the Federal Reserve Bank, and the IRS, how they got started, and where the money goes. It is well done, and it will make you laugh, and it will make you ANGRY!
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0772153/synopsis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
PLEASE POST COMMENTS WITH CRITICISM TOWARDS THIS SUBJECT!
THANKYOU!!!
Search Engine Optimization and SEO Tools
America: Freedom to Fascism is a 2006 film by Aaron Russo. It was exhibited in theaters in select U.S. cities.
This documentary covers many subjects, including: the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the income tax, Federal Reserve System, national ID cards (REAL ID Act), human-implanted RFID tags (Spychips), Diebold electronic voting machines, globalization, Big Brother, taser weapons abuse, and the alleged use of terrorism by government as a means to diminish the citizens' rights.
Some of the premises of the film include:
1. The Federal Reserve banking system is unconstitutional and has maxed out the national debt and bankrupted the United States government.
2. Federal income taxes were imposed in response to, or as part of, the plan implementing the Federal Reserve System.
3. Federal income taxes are unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid.
4. The use of the Federal income tax to counter the economic effects of the Federal Reserve System is futile.
Federal Reserve issues and interviews in the film
The film spends a fair amount of time examining the Federal Reserve System, including its genesis and functions. The film asserts that the Federal Reserve Bank is a system of privately held, for profit corporations, not a government agency, and was commissioned to print fiat money on behalf of the federal government, at a fee ultimately paid for by the personal income tax (through service on bond interest). The film also refers to the fact that the United States dollar is not backed by gold, and claims that this means the dollar has no real backing other than future income tax payments. Consequently, the film proposes, Federal Reserve Notes represent debt instead of wealth.
According to the film, the Federal Reserve System operates by manipulation of what is sometimes referred to as the business cycle of economic expansion and retraction by putting new notes into circulation to increase the ease of obtaining credit, which devalues the currency, then compounds inflation by increasing interest (prime) rates. This manipulation, according to the film, is responsible for a 96% devaluation of American currency since it was made possible to increasingly sever the link with gold backing by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The film says that this process of creating new money and adding it to the money supply is known as debasement and is a cause of inflation. In this way, the film asserts that the Federal Reserve Bank simultaneously controls the supply of money and its value.
The central thesis of the film may be that this monetary policy is the strongest form of governance that has ever existed, and is central to the unconstitutional, global power ambitions of the interests that supposedly control the Federal Reserve.
The film also asserts that the private interests it claims are controlling the Federal Reserve have been present for generations. According to the film, however, most Americans are kept ignorant of how the Federal Reserve operates through actions of corrupt politicians and an increasingly centralized media. By using what the film calls legalistic and economic "mumbo-jumbo” terms such as 'monetizing the debt' or ‘adjusting monetary policy for increased fluidity of credit’, these interests, according to the film, conceal the true actions of the Fed behind veils of legitimacy.
The argument made in the film is that there is no reason why the Federal Reserve should have a monopoly on the U.S. money supply. The film asserts that, “America got along just fine before the Federal Reserve came into existence” (which, in the film maker's view, leads to the question of why the Federal Reserve System was created).
The film contends that the U.S. Congress has no control or oversight over the Fed, and hence has no control over the value of U.S. money. The film argues that Congressional control over the value of money is required by Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The phrase in question (clause 5) states that the United States Congress shall have the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin..."
The film includes a call to action to abolish the Federal Reserve, echoed by Congressman Ron Paul, who claims the organization is unconstitutional.
Federal income tax issues and interviews in the film
Through interviews with various individuals including former IRS agents, Russo sets forth the tax protester argument that, "there is no law requiring an income tax", and that the personal income tax is illegally enforced to support the activities of the Federal Reserve System. The film refers to both article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the right to impose taxes, and the Sixteenth Amendment, which removes any apportionment requirement. The film disputes the legitimacy of the Amendment and contends, through a series of interviews, that there is no law imposing the income tax.
One of the listed stars of the film, Irwin Schiff, was sentenced on February 24, 2006 to 13 years and 7 months in prison for tax evasion and ordered to pay over $4.2 million in restitution. In pre-sentencing documents filed with the court, Schiff's lawyers had argued that he had a mental disorder related to his beliefs about taxation. Initially, the film portrays Mr. Schiff as a tax "expert," though his qualifications and those of many other "experts" in the film are not mentioned. It is not until later that the film reveals Mr. Schiff has gone to jail.
Mr. Schiff appears in the film for another reason as well. The filmmaker lampoons Judge Kent Dawson's reaction to Schiff's defense. The film alleges that the judge "denied Irwin the ability to prove to a jury that there was no law requiring Americans to file an income tax return. He denied Irwin the right to attempt to prove to a jury there was no law . . . by stating, 'I will not allow the law in my courtroom.'" At 0:48:28 of the film, Mr. Russo introduces the judge and his statement.
Under the U.S. legal system, the general rule (with exceptions) is that neither side in a civil or criminal case is allowed to try to prove to the jury what the law is. For example, in a murder case the defendant is not generally allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder, or to try to interpret the law for the jury. Likewise, the prosecution is not allowed to try to persuade the jury about what the law is, or how it should be interpreted. Disagreements about what the law is are argued by both sides before the judge, who then makes a ruling. Prior to jury deliberations, the judge, and only the judge, instructs the jury on the law.
Another listed star, Vernice Kuglin, was acquitted in her criminal trial for tax evasion in August of 2003. This means she was not found guilty of a willful intent to evade income taxes. (A conviction for tax evasion requires, among other things, proof by the government that the defendant engaged in one or more affirmative acts of misleading the government or of hiding income.) Kuglin's acquittal did not relieve her of liability for the taxes Kuglin entered a settlement with the government in 2004 in which she agreed to pay over $500,000 in taxes and penalties. On April 30, 2007, the Memphis Daily News reported that Kuglin's Federal tax problems continued with the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien in the amount of $188,025. The Memphis newspaper also stated that Kuglin has "given up her fight against paying taxes, according to a Sept. 10, 2004, Commercial Appeal story."
The preview clip for the film includes assertions contradicted by official government publications regarding the activities and nature of such institutions as the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve System
The filmmaker's personal views on taxes
As of late July 2006, Aaron Russo's biography on his website for the film stated: "The film is an exposé of the Internal Revenue Service, and proves conclusively there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct unapportioned Tax on their labor."
The New York Times article of July 31, 2006 states that when Mr. Russo asked IRS spokesman Anthony Burke (who according to the article was credited by Russo in the film) for the law requiring payment of income taxes on wages and was provided a link to various documents including title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code), filmmaker Russo denied that title 26 was the law, contending that it consisted only of IRS "regulations" and had not been enacted by Congress. The article reports that in an interview in late July 2006, Russo claimed he was confident on this point. In the United States "statutes" are enacted by Congress, and "regulations" are promulgated by the executive branch of government to implement the statutes. The statutes are found in the United States Code; and the regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations. The Treasury regulations to which Mr. Russo may have been referring are found at title 26 ("Internal Revenue") of the Code of Federal Regulations , not title 26 of the United States Code. The argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not law, the argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not "positive law," and variations of these arguments, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).The article also discloses that Russo had over $2 million of tax liens filed against him by the Internal Revenue Service, the state of California, and the state of New York for unpaid taxes. In an interview with the New York Times; however, Russo refused to discuss the liens, saying they were not relevant to his film.
Summary of Freedom to Fascism
This is a documentary about an honest search for the truth about the Federal Reserve Bank (a private bank) and the legality of the Internal Revenue System. Through extensive interviews with recognised experts and authority, the director shows an astonishing revelation of how the Federal Government and the Bankers have fooled the American public by taking thier wages and putting it in the pockets of the super-rich. The director goes so far as to interview one of the "master-minds" of the IRS Code, and you the viewer can draw your own conclusions as to how the system works. This is NOT a documentary filled with opinions, conjecture or editorial comment. It is a true documentary with a purpose, and that is to educate every wage earner about the Federal Reserve Bank, and the IRS, how they got started, and where the money goes. It is well done, and it will make you laugh, and it will make you ANGRY!
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0772153/synopsis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
PLEASE POST COMMENTS WITH CRITICISM TOWARDS THIS SUBJECT!
THANKYOU!!!
Search Engine Optimization and SEO Tools
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)