America: Freedom to Fascism

[clarkpat]

I just rescently watched this film on google video and wanted to share it with everyone. It investigates the constitutionality of income tax and also dabbles in other crazy political events.I found it to be very eye opening. The movie is about an hour and fourty-five minuetes long so give yourself plenty of time to watch it. I would like to hear peoples opinion on the movie. I also admit that there are a few things in the movie that are taken out of context but overall I think it is a good piece. Here is the link to the full documentry America: Freedom to Fascism

Please share your thoughts.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Few people here are inclined to watch youtube for 2 hours.

You're pretty much like the 6th person to link to youtube, and none of y'all have come back with a synopsis or report on the content.

Here's a hint, though:

It's heavily plugged by uberLiberal Kos, which immediately sets off yellow flares, and so if this film purports that Constitutional Usurpation began in 2000 with W, you're not going to find that it gets much traction here, where the generally accepted date of the beginning of modern Constitutional Usurpation is 1934.

 

[JohnBT]

Has the 16th been repealed?

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
___________________

There's a 3-page discussion of this on TheFiringLine. www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225852

 

[Zundfolge]

The movie may be getting plugged by Kos, but its put together by Aaron Russo ... a Hollywood guy who ran as president in 2000 as the LP candidate.

The movie makes some good points, but overall its just more of the same Libertarian bashing of the GOP that is dividing freedom loving Americans.

 

[Just_a_dude_with_a_gun]

I know how we can save the government money, as applied to income tax.....

what is the annual Payroll of the IRS?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Actually Russo ran in 2004 IIRC. He lost the primary race to Badarnik. Besides being judged to be a less suitable representative than Michael Badarnik (which is a statement in its own), he is also the producer of such classics as "Trading Places" and "The Rose". You can find the link to youtube in half a dozen recent posts here including this one:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=229718

Russo strikes me as an interesting guy; but not in the "I would like him to stay in my home and listen to what he has to say" kind of way. More of a "I would like to hear what he has to say in a nice, public area where I can leave if it gets too crazy" type of way. Not that this is surprising since it describes 80% of the actual Libertarian Party members I have met in real life. The remaining 20% is divided between eminently reasonable CATO types and absolute lunatics in a share that does not favor the reasonable.

You know, I share a lot of libertarian beliefs - even some of the ones that are controversial on this board; but the problem I keep having with the Libertarian Party is that I just don't want the people they are showing me. They may believe in libertarian ideas; but there are a tremendous amount of them that aren't well-reasoned people. Heck, the Texas Libertarian Party ran John Gonzales (a local reporter for the Dallas Observer who didn't believe most of the Libertarian Platform but was just writing a story) as its candidate for Congressional races in 2004. It is bad enough that they run people who DO believe in libertarian philosophy but can't be left unattended in a room full of adults. It is even worse when they just run anyone at random, even though they have no libertarian beliefs at all.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Has the 16th been repealed?

I think the argument is that the 16th was never properly ratified. Only watched about 30 seconds of it myself though...

 

[Zundfolge]

Actually Russo ran in 2004 IIRC

I stand corrected ... he got bumped off the ticket at the convention in favor of Badnarik.

 

[clarkpat]

well what are everyones thoughts on the national ID card and RF id chips as discussed in the film.

 

[Art Eatman]

The national ID card is an interesting proposal. It would wipe out a lot of the benefits now enjoyed by illegal aliens, who are a "pet group" of the people who are divided between loving the increase in government power and those who want to hide from law enforcement. But, when you look at the judicial opposition to showing citizenship ID in order to vote, there is a whole new realm of political conflict.

RFIDs? The good or bad as to privacy depends on which computer/electronics boffin you believe. I don't know. By and large, though, personal privacy is already a joke.

Art

 

[JohnBT]

Googled up sort of at random using "16th Amendment ratification" -


"Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified."

One argument is based on the contention that the legislatures of various states passed bills of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas).

Another argument made by some tax protesters is that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's year 1803 admission to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953. Therefore, they argue, the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts."

These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts

These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts

These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts

These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts

These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts

These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts

These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts

These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts

:banghead:

 

[bouis]

The problem as I see it with income tax is that it was sold as a small tax on the (very) wealthy to replace taxes on imports that made goods cost more.

In 1913 the tax rate was 1% on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of 7% on incomes above $500,000.

But giving the federal government access to unlimited funding proved to be a mistake and opened the door to the nanny-socialism we know today.

As to the movie, I saw it, and it made a lot of dubious assertions about the way the tax law, court precedents, and the federal reserve work. On the other hand it made some good points about the danger of RFID (which really comes from business as much as it does from government), even if it did so with the scary and kind of silly bit about implanting everyone with microchips...

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Stranger than fiction

Just google up "Philander Knox" and you'll see what a connected insider managed regarding the verification of the 16th Amendment...

Y'all, of course, know what a Philanderer is, I hope?

 

[Zedicus]

don't Bash it until you have watched it FULLY.

John BT: The arguments you say have been rejected by the Courts, have only been rejected by the Lower Courts, the original SCOTUS Ruling (Will dig up a reference later) has Never been overturned or Challenged.

Do your homework.:banghead:

 

[Wastemore]

Bouis,

The movie brought up more than one good point.

"dubious assertions about the way the tax law, court precedents, and the federal reserve work"

Educate yourself and remove all doubt, please.....

Some things were overplayed in the movie, but they were used to drive the point home rather than be used as a stand-alone.
I'll admit, I sort of started losing interest when the pulled out the "new world order" card..The rest was solid.

The internet/research is your friend.