Monday, February 2, 2015

ANOTHER LOOK AT OBAMA'S TREASONOUS BERGDAHL DEAL...


Obama, Hagel and Clinton knowingly
released one of the 9-11 planners. Not to
worry—Hillary assured us that the terrorists
they released pose no threat to Americans.
Only Afghans. Hillary deliberately lied. After
all, she expects you to elect her President.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl, the Taliban's former Deputy Defense Minister's Guantanamo Bay detainees camp (Gitmo for people who don't like long words) internment camp serial number was #7. Since the Bush-43 Administration, the DIA, the FBI, the CIA, Secretary of State Colin Powell and US Attorney General John Ashcroft knew who "prisoner seven" was,Fazl.jpgwe know that Obama, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and Leon Panetta all knew who Number Seven was. In fact, they all knew that the remaining members of the Gitmo Five were just as dangerous as Fazl—and all of them posed an immediate and serious threat to America.
Fazl—who was the former Deputy Defense Minister of the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan, served as the Taliban's military Chief of Staff until he became the 7th Taliban member captured by the US Northern Command shortly after the war began. Khair Ulla Said Wajhli Khairhwn who was the 579th enemy combatant sent to Gitmo, headed the Afghanistan Interior Ministry. He had direct links to Osama bin Laden. He was the former Governor of Heret Province.. And, like Fazl, he had ample reason to hate Americans. The hatred Fazl felt as he helped plan the aerial attack on the World Trade Center was the intense hatred of a man trying to tell America that just because they had too much to eat, made and owned big shiny things, and gave their subjects the right to worship whatever form of God they wanted, that didn't give them the right to tell the Muslim world how to live Add to that the churning, festering hatred the Gitmo Five's confinement and you can see each of them had ample reason to hate America.
NooriMullah Norullah Noori was the very prosperous former governor of BalProvince. Abdul Hag Wasiq, before his capture, was the Deputy Chief of Intelligence for the Taliban. He was prisoner four at Gitmo. WasiqWasiq, like Fazl, arrived at Gitmo on Jan. 11, 2002 with about a dozen other Taliban captives who were held on the USS Bata an until the Guantanamo Bay detainees camp was complete. The final member of the Gitmo Five was Mohammad Nabi Omari, Chief of Communications for the Taliban.. He was prisoner 832. Omari's name was mentioned in documents in al Qaeda safe houses all over the world. Omari is one of only a few key Taliban leaders who were also part of the leadership of al Qaeda. He spent 12 years in Gitmo, and his hate for America, not Afghanistan, grew more virulent and contemptuous as each of those years passed. These were probably five of the most dangerous men in the world. Their hatred of the United States and the American people only intensified during their confinement in Gitmo. You can bet they are already strategizing how to get back at their enemies in Afghanistan (as Hillary suggested to Cynthia McFadden's suggestion on the Today Show), but you can bet they are already plotting their revenge on the American people—and they don't have to go to Afghanistan or Pakistan to retaliate. OmariQatar works just fine. KhairThe Taliban and al Qaeda are, after all, global terrorist networks.
During Hillary Clinton's "book tour" interview by McFadden on NBC's Today Show did not work out well for Hillary's public opinion make-over. McFadden questioned the Bergdahl-Gitmo Five swap by telling Clinton "...I think an awful lot of people think that we're less safe today than we were a week ago because these five guys are out."
Arrogantly, but with the confidence that only a very practiced, highly adept liar possesses, Clinton answered, "These five guys are not a threat to the United States. They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody." In reality, the only people in Afghanistan and Pakistan who have cause to worry are women who want to read or maybe get a job; parents who wanted their children to learn about life and liberty in the free world; and those who befriended or cooperated with American and British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. It was the women in Afghanistan and Iraq whom Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised that the United States would protect when they sought equal rights in the Muslim world and, with those rights, an education that included reading and writing..
She hoped her social progressive partial fabrications in her new book would boost her bonafides as she provided her talking point version of truth to the princes of industry-owned media to dupe those who'd rather watch football or soap operas than pay attention what the politicians are doing to their nation. Hillary, it appears is no more qualified to answer the red phone at 2 a.m. than Barack Obama.
Hillary desperately needs the public to believe her—but just long enough for her to get elected. This time she tripped herself up with her own poorly thought-out shallow talking points about the prisoner swap of a military deserter for five of the most dangerous men in Gitmo. Bergdahl.jpgSince none of the soldiers in Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl's platoon in the 25th Infantry Division of the 1st Battalion spoke out publicly about Bergdahl's desertion from the US Army (or perhaps the leftwing media scrubbed the story whenever it popped up) because the Obama Administration needed the story to disappear for "national security reasons." When the story about Bergdahl's desertion hit the wires, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the third most notorious liar in Washington, DC (following Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) was sent out to do damage control.
One of those fellow soldiers, Coty Full, told Megyn Kelly of Fox News that "...I believe he deserted—without a doubt in my mind. He did not serve the United States with honor. We all took an oath—he violated that oath when he deserted us and put other Americans at risk." Another of Bergdahl's friends, Jason Fry said Bergdahl was "one of the quiet ones." When they were deployed to Afghanistan Bergdahl told Fry that "...if this deployment is lame, I'm just going to walk off into the mountains of Pakistan." When his unit was sent to an outpost called Mest-Malak in Afghanistan, Bergdahl apparently decided the deployment was lame. Bergdahl began to isolate himself from the men in his unit and spent every off-duty moment with the Afghans, learning to speak Afghani (Pashto). When one of Bergdahl's few friends was killed, he sent an email to his parents on June 27, 2009: "The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American." He added, "The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting.The system is wrong. I'm ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. The US army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at. It's an army of liars, backstabbers, fools, and bullies...The horror that's America is disgusting."
An Obama Administration official, Deputy Secretary for Public Affairs at HUD, Brandon Friedman, argued that Bergdahl was justified in deserting and joining the Taliban because of his platoon's psychopath leadership. It is important to remember that Obama-ites always spew the views of Obama or they chew their cuds in silence and swallow their personal views and integrity because there is no honor in serving Obama.
According to Rice, Bergdahl served his country well and deserved to be rescued because, as Obama noted, Americans leave no one behind. Except, perhaps, US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, IT Specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty who were deliberately left behind to die. But, let's make sure we save the deserter who left a note behind in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the United States army because he did not support what the US Army was doing in Afghanistan and he decided to quit and start a new life. Fox News' Jennifer Griffin reported that in an email to his father, Bergdahl said he was ashamed of being an American and wanted to renounce his citizenship. He left all of his body armor and his weapons behind and simply stole away like a thief in the night..
One deserter who expressed his contempt for America for the five most dangerous radical Islamists in the world? Not a good swap..And that fact raised serious questions about Obama, Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (who appears to have already agreed to be the fall guy if the flack got too bad when America realizes that not only did Obama trade five deadly terrorists for an army deserter who may well have been a collaborator with the Taliban, although denied by the White House.) it appears Obama may have also paid a ransom to get back a deserter who was promoted from private-first-class to sergeant while he was "in captivity."
Forget about the five most dangerous terrorists in the world for a moment. Rumors still persist that the Haqqani Taliban "holding" Bergdahl wanted $5 million to release the army sergeant (who was promoted in absentia). Who promotes a deserter? Only Barack Obama's Pentagon. The Department of Defense and, of course, the leftwing Media Matters insists the ransom story was made up by Fox News. Fox News learned from a White House leak that Obama was considering a $1 million to $5 million payment to the Haqqani (a crime syndicate within the Taliban) since shortly after Bergdahl was taken into custody. With the money, they wanted the release of 21 Gitmo detainees. Nothing happened. Had Obama offered the million dollars just for Bergdahl the Taliban would likely have made the swap. But, at the time, no one wanted Bergdahl back. Rumors about a ransom, ranging from $500,000 to $5,000,000 can be found in news reports, but there is no evidence that money ever changed hands. What changed hands were the five deadliest terrorists in Gitmo for one turncoat that only Bob and Jani Bergdahl—Bowe's parents—wanted.
Now, let's look at the whole Gitmo Five puzzle including the Bergdahl puzzle pieces which were sold to the American people in one puzzle box like it was the same puzzle. The leftwing media threw in a few extra puzzle pieces that concerned Barack Obama's several persistent attempts to find a way to get rid of the Gitmo Five and several other very dangerous al Qaeda and Taliban leaders so he could close the Guantanamo Bay detainees camp and declare the war on terrorism officially won. (Remember, to the social progressive left whose political and military objectives are different than those of intelligent people, winning simply means disengaging from war to the accolades of the liberal media, even if the enemy takes the land.) President Jimmy Carter (the white Barack Obama) lost the War in Vietnam. It was the first war the United States ever lost. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is the first occupant of the White House to lose two wars already won—Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama believes when he empties Gitmo the Harry Reid-Nancy Pelosi radial extremists on the left will once more raise him on the pedestal of praise and admiration.
Because he's Constitutionally not one (due to the fact that he's not an American citizen), Obama does not think like a president. He's a radical community organzer with a very expensive airplane at his disposal. He thinks like a community organizer. And he acts like one. When Obama is facing a congressional crisis, what does he do?
Does he, like every chief executive in the past, sit down with the leadership of both parties and reach a compromise that both sides can live with and get the country's business done? No. He gets on Air Force One, with the taxpayers footing the bill, and finds a bully pulpit in a union stronghold somewhere in the country, and with CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC. MSNBC and PBS rolling, he attempts to use the 2008 Obama social progressive charisma to sway public opinion so he could threaten those on the right who do not march lockstep to the beat of the Islamofascist Obama drumfest.
The White House, which had known the general whereabouts of Bergdahl most of the time he was a "Guest" of the Haqqani Taliban in the Paktika Province on the border of Pakistan, could have rescued him anytime they wanted. They just didn't want to. He was an embarrassment Obama may have agreed with, but couldn't pin a good conduct medal on him for it. The Obama Defense Department would rather have found his corpse than him alive. Soldier strays off. Gets caught by the Taliban. Body found. Usually with its head resting on a headless chest. Everyone's sad. No one's embarrassed. Unfortunately someone's phoned the State Department or the Defense Department rang and suggested a trade. The Haqqani offered, once again, to free Bergdahl for that reported $1 million-American and fewer of the detainees in Gitmo. From the media reports I've read, it appears likely had the the military offered to pay cash money to the Haqqani for Bergdahl, they very likely would have considered that to be a good day's work.
Although Obama had the Pentagon promote Pfc. Bergdahl to sergeant as though he was still very much active military, the last thing in the world Obama wanted was Bergdahl back in the United States where a conspiracy-minded rightwing House Committee could subpoena members of Bergdahl's command, political appointees in the Pentagon and worse, Bergdahl and members of Berghdahl's squad—and worst of all, Brandon Friedman, Deputy Secretary for Public Affairs at HUD, a loudmouth antiwar leftwing who parroted the view that Bergdahl was justified since, in Friedman's view, Bergdahl's leaders in the military were psychopaths. Bob and BarackTo normalize Bergdahl, Obama had a Rose Garden meeting with his parents and a second White House photo op where Bob Bergdahl, Bowe's father addressed his son in Pashto, telling the TV cameras that he was speaking both to his son and the Afghan people.
In conclusion, we should take an extra moment and ponder Susan Rice's comment that Bergdahl served his country well and deserved to be rescued because, as Obama noted, Americans leave no one behind. They don't? Then why is it that US Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi (earned stripes), who got in the wrong barricaded lane on the Texas side of the US-Mexican border and was forced to cross into Mexico is still sitting in a Mexican prison awaiting charges. He's been there since May 3. 2014. Sgt Tahmooressi.jpgStrangely, the man in the White House who insists he will leave no man behind was on the phone with Mexican President Enrico Peña Nieto on June 19, yet never even asked a question about the American citizen they had locked up in the El Hongo II Prison in Tecate, Mexico. And, since Tahmooressi, who was not going to Mexico when he accidentally found himself in a barricaded lane he could not escape from, had three legal guns in locked in the back trunk of his car when he passed into Mexico—where guns are illegal—through the San Ysidro border crossing in San Diego, he alerted the Mexico border guards what happened and told them that he had three weapons in the back trunk. Instead of redirecting him back to the United States, they seized his weapons and threw him into jail. Did Obama ask Nieto for his Marine back the night they spoke? No. But, on June 5, 2014 when four Chihuahua, Mexico state police officers chased a suspect with a gunshot wound in his leg across the dried-up Rio Grande and into the United States. a couple miles from El Paso, Texas in Hudspeth County. They were arrested by US Border Patrol agents.for entering the United States illegally. Keep in mind, at that moment, Marine Sgt. Tahmooressi had been detained by the Mexican government for 33 days. Yet, two days later the Department of Homeland Security released the four Chihuahua cops who, like Sgt. Tahmooressi, claimed they had accidentally crossed the border—carrying what amounted to illegal weapons. Why was Barack Obama not on the phone with Enrico Nieto demanding a swap with Nieto—his four cops for Sgt. Tahmooressi?
The reality is that since 2002 over 300 Mexican soldiers and police officers have illegally crossed the border from Mexico in armed incursions into the United States. In some instances there has been gunfire exchanged between the Mexican invaders of US Border Patrol agents according to a written response from the Department of Homeland Security to US Congressman Duncan Hunter [R-CA]. One hundred fifty two of these incurions involved 525 armed Mexican police, miltary and paramilitary personnel who, the government believes were assisting drug cartel member avoid capture by the Border Patrol,
Hunter has been fighting for the release of Sgt. Tahmooressi when news of his arrest reached the US government. My question to the Obama Administration is: where was the Secretary of State? Wimpish John Kerry is no better at protecting the good name and standing of the United States than Hillary Clinton. Is there anyone in the Obama Administration who is qualified to answer the red phone when it rings at 2 a.m.? The answer is an emphatic "No!" They just turn over and go back to sleep as our impoverished neighbors, who are now growing fat on our jobs and feeding their egos playing hemispheric strongmen now challenge Obama by kicking sand in the face of the 92-lb weakling in the White House. Mr. Obama reminds me of the 1930s cinema image of the underweight little rich kid who always paid a gang of thugs and bullies to hang out with him so he could play Mr. Tough Guy and intimidate everyone else in the neighborhood.
Today, Obama has learned that the real thugs and bullies are the Muslim terrorists who today threaten the entire world. What does the bully at 1600 Pennsylvania do? He pretends they don't exist, and there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Or is it that he knows he personally has nothing to fear because the new bullies on the block appreciate his releasing the Gitmo Five so much that, now, they owe him one? Is he expecting a terrorist invasion of the United States sometime around the Election of 2016 so he will be justified in suspending the Constiutiton and declaring martial law? He wouldn't be the first tyrant to do that. Adolph Hitler did it in January, 1933. One month later, the German Constitution no longer existed and the Weimar Republic was replaced with the Third Reich. Don't think for one minute that this nation is safe because of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. A nation is secure only as long as its leaders answer to the People—and the People are strong enough to enforce their will on a belligerent government
IS ANYONE INTERESTED IN SOLUTIONS?


By: Devvy
January 26, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

If you are you won't get it from Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, talk show hosts on liberal/progressive cable networks or even from the very popular Megyn Kelly on FOX. Their paychecks are in the double digit millions every year. Limbaugh's last signing bonus was $100 million with a yearly salary of just under $40 million. I know all those individuals - especially the ones on FOX - are hugely popular. But, are Americans tuned in for entertainment or solutions?

Megyn Kelly is not only drop dead gorgeous she's very intelligent. Unfortunately, she's also a pro-homosexual advocate. In Kelly's case not only is she highly paid, she had her husband on her show to push his new book which became a best seller. Nice gig. I know for a fact a lot of people sent her email asking her to cover my Seventeenth Amendment lawsuit. One would think an attorney like Megyn Kelly would be interested in covering a lawsuit which proves an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified, but nope, not interested.

I don't begrudge anyone who works an honest day for their paycheck. But, when you know the truth it's difficult to listen to or watch wealthy media personalities who have so much influence never approach the truth on most issues, never mind solutions - other than the standard party line. Earlier this month I had to make a trip to California for a family emergency. I deliberately listened to Hannity and Limbaugh on the drive out there and back just to see if either of them had anything worth listening to; they didn't. Rush Limbaugh sticks to the latest scandals, chides the Republicans in Congress for this that or the other and in general never touches on key issues like the "Federal" Reserve. And, the commercials! Nothing but never ending commercials during his show; I just turned the sound down until I heard his voice again.

Sean Hannity's radio show was just more of the same one sees on his nightly gabfest on FOX and endless commercials. Like Limbaugh he takes phone calls which are very discouraging because callers, while sincere, seem to fall into the herding technique as Hannity keeps them focused on anything but solutions since he doesn't know them either. Hannity's rant for the shows I listened to on my trip was more of the same: smaller government, lower taxes and Republicans need to have a bold message going into 2016! Big whoop. Do his listeners get educated on how government programs actually work or why the "FED" has destroyed America's farming families and our economy? (Read: The Fed & The Farmer) No, they get nothing but the same rhetoric from one day to the next. Limbaugh repeats himself over and over just like Hannity. Lord, how do people sit and listen to that stuff five days a week?

“I was astonished at the huge number of work permits that are being issued by the Obama administration outside the legal immigration system through executive discretion, especially at a time of high unemployment and stagnant wages,” Jessica Vaughan, CIS’ director of policy studies, said Monday. “Besides the effect on the American worker, it encourages and rewards more illegal immigration.”

Report: 5.5 million Additional Work Permits Issued Since 2009 In ‘Shadow’ Authorization System


The Obama administration has been issuing millions of work permits over the limits set by Congress, according to a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies.
In the report released Monday, the anti-amnesty group explains data it obtained from U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) via a Freedom of Information Request.
Federal records show, the CIS finds, that from 2009-2014 the agency issued 5,461,568 new work permits to immigrants, beyond the 1.1 million legal immigrants and 700,000 guest workers admitted to the U.S. each year.
CIS laid out three categories of immigrants who received work authorization under what the group is calling a “shadow” system:
  • Approximately 1.8 million new work permits were issued to aliens with temporary visas or who entered under the visa waiver program. Of these, about 1.2 million (67%) had a visa status for which employment is not authorized by law, such as foreign students and independents of guest workers.
  • About 982,000 new work permits issued to illegal aliens or aliens unqualified for admission. Of these, 957,000 were aliens who crossed the border illegally (Entered Without Inspection). Inexplicably, 1,200 new work permits were issued to aliens who were denied asylum, were suspected of using fraudulent documents, were stowaways, or were refused at a port of entry.
  • About 1.7 million, were issued to aliens whose status was unknown, not recorded by the adjudicator, or not disclosed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes the applications.
“I was astonished at the huge number of work permits that are being issued by the Obama administration outside the legal immigration system through executive discretion, especially at a time of high unemployment and stagnant wages,” Jessica Vaughan, CIS’ director of policy studies, said Monday. “Besides the effect on the American worker, it encourages and rewards more illegal immigration.”
The report comes a day before the Senate is set to take its first vote on a House-passed Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that defunds President Obama’s executive amnesty — the president’s attempt to grant legal status and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants.
 
Obama Is Openly Colluding with the Enemy  
James Lewis 
ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban.  It's emotionally painful to see your own president colluding with the worst mass murderers since the Nazis. More
If the truth doesn’t get its pants on, and get them on, on the double, Obama will have have transitioned himself from American president to Uncrowned King of the World
Exposed: Obama team working on election campaigns worldwide

 By Judi McLeod Full Story
Intuitive Winston Churchill’s warning: “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on” can now be taken literally.
The lies of President Barack Obama’s have reached all the way over to Israel and are still traveling with the truth yet to get its pants on.

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Ben Carson: Obama Letting Islamists 'Destroy Us'
Dr. Ben Carson, an expected GOP presidential contender, said he wants to see the size of government reduced if he one day sits in the Oval Office. ... [Full Story]

"The Embedded and Institutionalized Corruption At The IRS"
from "In Defense of Rural America"
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners
and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues.
 
 
© Copyright Sunday, February 1, 2015 - All Rights Reserved

As published on Newswithviews, January 28, 2015


This article is also available on our website at:


"Democracy must be built through open societies that share information.  When there is information, there is enlightenment.  When there is debate, there are solutions.  When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation."      Atifete Jahjaga, President of Kosovo

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As we continue our articles on corruption it has become readily apparent that there is almost nowhere to stop, in that waste, fraud, abuse and corruption are not ancillary to government, they are part and parcel of it.  Most of the federal bureaucracies have not only grown into powers unto themselves with little oversight, they embody this culture of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption.  This is the peril that each new nation faces as it ages, especially if the citizenry is wholly apathetic, as most Americans are today.

None in the list of the ever-growing federal bureaucracies epitomizes this waste, fraud, abuse and corruption more than the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  Its power to collect or to incarcerate, by virtually any means is almost absolute.  As many Americans have found out the hard way, challenges to IRS power are met with silence, or the intransigence, arrogance and corruption of America's judicial system that have become pitch hitters and enablers of IRS corruption, overreach and abuse.  We wrote about this judicial corruption in our last article entitled:


The history of the IRS is checkered at best and much of the blame of what the IRS has become can be laid directly at the feet of the U. S. Congress.  Since its creation out of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the IRS Act was reconstituted every two years by Congressional legislation.  Then in 1939, the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) was codified into statute under 26 USC.  Several machinations and revisions to the code took place in the 50's, then again in the 80's and once more in the 90's.  Congress has toyed with it, manipulated it, revised it and bastardized it at almost every Congressional session with new laws to placate some special interest group, advance some social goal, or enhance some business interest.

The Treasury Department and the IRS itself have added to this congressional injustice by piling rule on top of rule in the IRC with no attempt to remove the conflicts or the ambiguities.  With Obama Care now being tied to it, the IRC has virtually made slaves of every single American that believes they must comply with its twisted, mangled, distorted, confusing and conflicting regulations.

The controversy surrounding the IRS and its underhanded tactics to collect the revenue needed to operate the government is never ending.  Worse than that, the IRS is being used as a political weapon by this and past administrations.  It's not just the Lois Lerner's in the IRS. It's an embedded culture of corrupted power throughout the agency.

Attempts to get to the bottom of its corruption by Congressional oversight are stonewalled by the IRS, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department and the White House, thereby allowing the IRS to continue its illegal and abusive tactics unimpeded.  No one is fined, fired, or sent to jail.  As the IRS stonewalls, the questions surrounding the legality of the Internal Revenue Code rage on.

One of the big questions is, are you, an American citizen, a "taxpayer?"  If, in the IRC, there is a specific and legal definition of a "taxpayer" and you do not fit that legal definition, then why are you obligated to pay "income" taxes?  If, in the IRC, there is a legal, clear and concise definition of what is to be construed as "income" and your income does not meet that legal definition, why then should you pay any IRS taxes at all?  If we are not a government of laws where those laws have unambiguous meanings, then we are a government and a people in chaos where those with the guns can make up the laws.  That is not a Constitutional Republic ladies and gentlemen, that is a dictatorship.

Regarding the legal definition of "taxpayer" from the IRC: Only "taxpayers" made "liable" for the tax by statute are required by the IRC to be subject to the "income" tax.  This fact has been clearly stated through the years in many court decisions including Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F.Supp. 236 (1922), Stuart v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Phoenix, 168 F.2d 712 (1948), First National Bank of Emlenton, Pa. v. US, 161 F.Supp. 847 (1956), Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 509 (1961), and Economy Plumbing v. US, 470 F.2d 589 (1972).

"Taxpayer" is a legal term defined in 26USC7701(a)(14) which states, "The term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to an internal revenue tax.’" For a person to be subject to a tax there must be a provision in the law stating clearly that his or her activity makes him or her "liable" for the tax. There are only two things that create the presumption of "taxpayer" status and those are the signing of a W4 "withholding allowance" certificate, or voluntarily, with full knowledge and willful consent, executing an Income Tax Return Form 1040.  Without the W4, or voluntarily filing a Form 1040, the IRS has no legal authority to demand that Americans pay taxes. To our knowledge there has been no determination by a court of competent jurisdiction declaring under oath or affirmation and under penalty of perjury that an American citizen is a legal term "taxpayer" without the citizen being clearly identified in the statutes, or having first volunteered into compliance.  
 
Try to get the IRS to disclose the law which compels such a man or woman to voluntarily submit himself to the Code when the Code itself only compels "withholding agents" to pay the tax withheld from those made liable under Code sections 1441, 1442 and 1443 (See Exhibit 1, "Who is Liable…").  This conclusion is derived from the term "taxable year" defined in 26USC7701(a)(23) to mean "the calendar year . . . of which the taxable income is computed under subtitle A."

So, who is included "under subtitle A."  This is disclosed in the term definition of "withholding agent".  This is the ONLY definition of "withholding agent" in Title 26.  In unambiguous statutes of the United States, codified in 26USC7701(a)(16), "Withholding agent. -- The term ‘withholding agent’ means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461." The limiting term definition of "withholding agent" "means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax" is conclusive and includes only "any [all] persons required to deduct and withhold" from any [all] tax, with no exceptions.  Thus, the ONLY parties "under Subtitle A" are listed in 7701(a)(16).  These specific parties are identified in Subtitle A, i.e. section 1441 (non-resident aliens), section 1442 (foreign corporations) and section 1443 (foreign organizations) with the hold harmless clause for Subtitle A being section 1461.  Only these Subtitle A parties can have money forcibly deducted and sent to the IRS.  Therefore, it follows that only those parties mentioned in Subtitle A’s definition of "withholding agent" can be legally liable to file and pay income taxes, under Subtitle A.

It is clear that IRS has nearly everyone convinced that they are "required" to "voluntarily self-assess" their tax liability at least annually and pay to the IRS the amount they themselves have deemed they owe.  This, despite the fact that the IRC only makes "Withholding Agents" liable for filing an Income Tax Return (Form 1040), or for paying a tax.

The income tax law (IRC), however, is the only instance where there is no clear liability provision defining just who is liable for the tax.  Although partners are called "liable" for taxes on partnerships, that "liability" is only in their "individual capacity", and there is no provision in the IRC making them liable in their "individual capacity".  That of course, is ambiguous. The only clear liability provision is section 1461, which specifically assigns liability for the tax to those required to withhold taxes on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.  While 26USC3403 does require employers to withhold income tax from employees, there is no law that makes the employees liable for the tax in the first place.  Thus, there is no law making the typical American liable for any income tax, unless he voluntarily agrees to be assessed by singing a W4 statement, or filing a Form 1040 and signing it under penalty of perjury.

Further, the fact is that the "income" tax is an indirect tax on franchised or privileged activities, not on everyone’s "income".  The "income" is merely a measure for the tax.  The Congressional Record, Volume 89, Part 2, on Page 2580 for March 27, 1943, states:

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by relevance to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107, in discussing income tax as an excise tax, stated on page 165, ‘It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this Court that, when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax the legitimate subject of taxation, as an exercise of franchise or privilege, it is no objection if the foundation of the taxation is found in the income.’"

If any of the above statements are true, and there are many who believe they are, then the entire Income Tax Code is a fraud, irrespective of the fact that the IRS is hopelessly corrupt.  But woe be to the person who acts on the alleged strength of these statements.  The full force of the IRS, the Treasury Department and the Justice Department will come down on the fool who relies on the law, as legally codified in the IRC, to argue that he or she does not owe income taxes.

But remember, if the IRS is attempting to enforce laws (the IRC) on American citizens that do not exist, or are not authorized by statute, the IRS is acting under the "color of law".  Acting under the "color of law" is not only illegal, it amounts to corruption, collusion and conspiracy, if not open tyranny.  The only remedy for the citizen is to sue the government for violation of his or her civil rights under 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1985 in the corrupt judicial system.  Good luck with that.

The U. S. Supreme Court made it clear in United States v. Lee, 106 US 196 (1882):

"It seems to be opposed to all the principles upon which the rights of the citizen, when brought in collision with the acts of the government, [106 U.S. 196, 219] must be determined. In such cases there is no safety for the citizen, except in the protection of the judicial tribunals, for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government, professing to act in its name. There remains to him or her the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime."

But if judicial tribunals (our Kangaroo courts) are also corrupt, as we wrote in the above referenced article, what recourse does that citizen have to defend against a government bureaucracy that is corrupt and has the power to confiscate or incarcerate …. or perhaps even make you disappear?

If Americans cannot root out this systemic corruption in our institutions of government, whether local, state, or federal, the jaws of the vice of unconstitutional legislation, rules, regulations and ordinances will close upon all of us until we will not be able to move in any direction without the permission of that same corrupt government.  Make no mistake that permission will be issued at the point of a gun.
`
Those who do not have the vision to see this outcome as our only future without intervention by the people are doomed to one day find themselves in chains.  Corruption is the internal enemy of a free nation.  Who dare rise to expose it?  We do!  Our recent articles on corruption in government, we have written and continue to write, are our first attempt to do just that.  We intend to build on these articles with specific actions.

See also:


 
NOTE: We'd like to specifically thank Donald Sullivan for his research and contribution to some of the language (shown in italics) that has been presented in this article.



Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org), an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State.  He can be reached for comment at info@narlo.org. 

Who is Natural Born, Who is Not?

Now that the Iowa Freedom Summit has officially kicked off the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, it’s time that, as a matter of party policy, Republicans agreed on who is a natural born citizen and who is not.  Three conservatives… Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)… are prominently mentioned as potential candidates.  But the question arises, are they eligible to serve?  And if not, are conservatives and Republicans willing to turn their backs on the U.S. Constitution, cloaking themselves in the specious argument that, if the Democrats could get away with it for eight years, why shouldn’t they?  In other words, are Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio supporters willing to make the case that two wrongs make a right… the Constitution be damned?

If Republicans wish to avoid embarrassment and a potential constitutional crisis midway through a presidential campaign, party leaders would be well-advised to resolve the question before the issue blows up in their collective faces.  By doing so, they can kill two birds with one stone: 1) they can prove to the American people that, unlike Democrats, Republicans still honor the words and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and 2) they can permanently stain the Obama legacy by shining the light of day on his ineligibility… eight years too late, but better late than never.

Some Republicans may be foolish enough to think that Democrats, after nominating and electing  an ineligible candidate in 2008 and again in 2012, would hesitate to make a political issue out of the “natural born” status of Cruz, Jindal, or Rubio.  Those who make that assumption simply don’t know Democrats.  As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld remarked in his book, Rumsfeld’s Rules, “Never assume the other guy would never do something you would never do.”
READ MORE...
It really breaks your heart when you see trust that is so cynically manipulated
We Came, We Saw, He Died

 By Jim ONeill Full Story
“We came, we saw, he died.”—Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughingly gloating over the death of Muammar Gaddafi (1942-2011)

Netanyahu fires back at 'Obama army' plotting his defeat...

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama

EILAT, Israel – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud Party hit back Sunday at a U.S.-linked organization staffed with former Obama campaigners now working to defeat Netanyahu in an upcoming general election.
Victory 2015, or V15, attracted U.S. media attention after it hired 270 Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior leadership is comprised mostly of former top staffers for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.
During a press conference Sunday, the Likud Party officially accused V15 and other related nonprofits of being supported “through millions of dollars funneled from Europe, the U.S. and the New Israel Fund and international factors interested in bringing down Prime Minister Netanyahu” who think “that all means are appropriate.”
The Likud further called for Israel’s Central Elections Committee to outlaw V15′s activities to “ensure the integrity of the election.”
The party today will be filing an official complaint with the Committee seeking an injunction against V15, Likud sources said.
Reacting to the developments, Uri Wollman, V15′s spokesman, told WND his organization will not stop its campaign to ensure a center-left coalition forms the next government in Israel.
Wollman accused Netanyahu and the Likud of “fabricating” a relationship between V15 and the Obama administration.
“We have no relation to any U.S. political party, the White House or the State Department,” Wollman told WND.
Confirming the official Likud complaint, the contents of which were shared with WND, Wollman conceded the V15 effort against Netanyahu is funded primarily by three private philanthropists, two of whom are American:
  • S. Daniel Abraham, the billionaire founder of the Slim Fast food line. Abraham is a major donor to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation
  • Daniel Lubetzky, a social entrepreneur whose OneVoice Movement is partnered with V15
  • Alon Kastiel, a Tel Aviv-based businessman and owner of multiple local venues, including bars, clubs and hotels.
WND previously visited V15′s Tel Aviv headquarters and interviewed the group’s founder, Nimrod Dweck, who explained the ultimate goal of his campaign was to ensure “center and left parties will form the next coalition.”
State Department ties
V15′s headquarters is actually the offices of a U.S.-U.K. group calling itself OneVoice.
OneVoice bills itself as an “international grassroots movement that amplifies the voice of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians.” It has a clearly leftist tone.
OneVoice is reportedly sponsored by scores of nonprofits and received two grants in the past year from the U.S. State Department.
The State Department is also listed as a partner of OneVoice on the group’s website.
OneVoice development and grants officer Christina Taler told the Washington Free Beacon that “no government funding” has gone toward the V15 voter mobilization effort.
V15′s complete takeover of OneVoice’s Tel Aviv offices, however, may raise some questions not only about the grant usage, but also about the State Department’s current partnership with OneVoice.
Indeed, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has called for an investigation into the State Department’s ties to OneVoice and the group’s anti-Netanyahu effort.
Aside from the State Department, OneVoice is also openly partnered with Google, the U.K. Labour Party and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
‘Obama army’ deploys to Tel Aviv
For its anti-Netanyahu campaign, OneVoice and V15 recently hired 270 Strategies, whose founder is ex-Obama campaign staffer Jeremy Bird.
Bird served as a data analyst and a deputy director for Obama’s 2008 campaign and was the national field director for the president’s massive re-election machine.
Dweck told WND that Bird’s organizing skills are central to designing the evolving V15 battle plan.
“Israelis don’t know how to run field (operations) as Americans [do], and that was the major contribution of Jeremy’s team,” he said.
Bird has provided “very professional help about how to organize, manage people, how to go door-to-door, how to talk to people on the street,” Dweck said.
270 Strategies’ team of 45 staffers includes 16 members who worked directly for Obama’s campaigns. Most of the former Obama staffers hold senior posts at the firm. Others worked for the Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee or grassroots groups involved in progressive efforts, including a group to enroll Americans in Obamacare.
The involvement of Bird’s team has ignited reports in some conservative media outlets that Obama or his surrogate are attempting to influence the Israeli elections.
Dweck dismissed those claims as “bullsh-t.”
“It’s a matter of finding the right professionals,” he continued. “And if I need to pick the best professional in the world for the job, [Bird] knows what he is doing. 270 [Strategies] is a great company.”
Besides the initial work to organize the group’s efforts, Dweck said he and V15 continue to consult with Bird and his firm on a regular basis.
The conservative blogosphere is largely focusing on the involvement of Bird in the V15 campaign.

A closer look at Bird’s consulting firm as well as its working relationship with the Israeli groups finds he is just one of scores of former senior Obama election campaign staffers now working on the anti-Netanyahu effort.

Besides Bird, the 270 Strategies team includes the following former Obama staffers:
  • Mitch Steward, a 270 Strategies founding partner who helped the Obama campaign build what the U.K. Guardian called “a historic ground operation that will provide the model for political campaigns in America and around the world for years to come.”
  • Mark Beatty, a founding partner who served as deputy battleground states director for the Obama campaign. He had primary responsibility for Obama’s election plans for the battleground states.
  • Marlon Marshall, a founding partner at 270 Strategies who joins the team after holding several key positions in national Democratic politics, most recently as deputy national field director for the 2012 Obama campaign.
  • Betsy Hoover, a founding partner who served as director of digital organizing on the Obama campaign.
  • Meg Ansara, who served as national regional director for Obama for America where she was responsible for overseeing the 2012 programs in the Midwest and southern states.
  • Bridget Halligan, who served as the engagement program manager on the digital team of the 2012 Obama campaign.
  • Kate Catherall, who served as Florida deputy field director for Obama’s re-election campaign.
  • Alex Lofton, who most recently served as the GOTV director of Cleveland, Ohio, for the 2012 Obama campaign.
  • Martha Patzer, the firm’s vice president who served as deputy email director at Obama for America.
  • Jesse Boateng, who served as the Florida voter registration director for Obama’s re-election campaign.
  • Ashley Bryant, who served most recently as the Ohio digital director for the 2012 Obama campaign.
  • Max Clermont, who formerly served as a regional field director in Florida for Obama’s re-election campaign.
  • Max Wood, who served as a deputy data director in Florida for the 2012 Obama campaign.

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Why Obama Needs to Pretend the Taliban Aren’t Terrorists
The administration makes a desperate and indefensible claim.




No doubt because of my background investigating, prosecuting, and studying terrorism, the cynical claim by White House spokesmen that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization has annoyed me even more than the Obama administration’s nonstop lying usually does. No surprise then that I could be found railing about it on The Kelly File Thursday night.

In that spirit, ten thoughts for the weekend:
1. Under federal law, there are only three requirements for a group to qualify as a “foreign terrorist organization”: It has to be (a) foreign, (b) engaged in “terrorist activity” (bombings, assassinations, etc., carried out to intimidate people and change policy), and (c) a national-security threat to the United States. The law that covers this is Sec. 1189(a) of Title 8, U.S. Code, from the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. It’s here, and it’s just the first few lines — even a president who routinely ignores the laws he is sworn to execute faithfully should be able to make some time for it, maybe on the plane ride between the golf course and the Saudi palace.
READ MORE...