Ron Paul Warns Of Coming “Social And Political Chaos”

[newspresenter]

Paul warns that if the country continues along the course it is on, we will witness a three stage slide into social and political chaos, beginning with the current financial crisis, a coming dollar crisis, and culminating in mass unrest.
“Reality is setting in,” the Congressman urges, adding that the only way to prevent social breakdown is to embrace liberty and self reliance and reject the nanny state and government dependency.
“We are rapidly moving toward a dangerous time in our history. Society as we know it is vulnerable to political and social unrest. This impending crisis comes as a consequence of our flawed foreign and domestic economic policies, a silly notion of money, ignorance about central banking, ignoring the onerous power and mischief of out of control intelligence agencies, our unsustainable welfare state and a willingness to sacrifice privacy and civil liberties in an attempt to achieve safety and security from an inept government.”
Ron Paul Warns Of Coming “Social And Political Chaos”

Ron is considered to be a decent liberal politician in America, so much so that he admitted there is no law that says you have to pay Income Tax, thus the American Inland Revenue is an illegal organisation - powerful stuff.
America: Freedom to Fascism - Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) | SPIKE

[DougieG]

Ron is considered to be a decent liberal politician in America, so much so that he admitted there is no law that says you have to pay Income Tax, thus the American Inland Revenue is an illegal organisation - powerful stuff.
America: Freedom to Fascism - Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) | SPIKE

That's not a liberal. That's an idiot libertarian. Not so much freedom of the people as freedom for him to selfishly hoard his money. I think this is possibly the first time that I have ever heard him described as a 'liberal', it's certainly thrown into light your ignorance.

[Midas]

That's not a liberal. That's an idiot libertarian. Not so much freedom of the people as freedom for him to selfishly hoard his money. I think this is possibly the first time that I have ever heard him described as a 'liberal', it's certainly thrown into light your ignorance.

Ron Paul is one of the very few American Congressmen who I have any respect for. Yes, he is very much a libertarian, but unlike many of that ilk, particularly stateside, he realises that the average man/woman in the street still needs a framework of laws around which society can function effectively. As for the video interview, if it hadn't been cut so it started mid-question, we'd know what context the question about the tax laws was in. Technically I believe he is quite correct in what he says, there is no one single explicit law which does say that Americans have to pay tax, but that doesn't mean they're not obligated to under many other bits of legislation, as he does also point out.

[Don]

Technically I believe he is quite correct in what he says, there is no one single explicit law which does say that Americans have to pay tax, but that doesn't mean they're not obligated to under many other bits of legislation, as he does also point out.

See the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1913:

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.



Sounds pretty clear and unambigous to me. The US jails are full of those who believe otherwise.

[JacquesMagique]

That's not a liberal. That's an idiot libertarian. Not so much freedom of the people as freedom for him to selfishly hoard his money. I think this is possibly the first time that I have ever heard him described as a 'liberal', it's certainly thrown into light your ignorance.

He says some pretty reasonable things, but I found it quite funny when he said in an interview I saw that the best way to prevent terrorist attacks was for everybody on a plane to carry a gun..

[newspresenter]

That's not a liberal. That's an idiot libertarian. Not so much freedom of the people as freedom for him to selfishly hoard his money. I think this is possibly the first time that I have ever heard him described as a 'liberal', it's certainly thrown into light your ignorance.

What?

[newspresenter]

As for the video interview, if it hadn't been cut so it started mid-question, we'd know what context the question about the tax laws was in. Technically I believe he is quite correct in what he says, there is no one single explicit law which does say that Americans have to pay tax, but that doesn't mean they're not obligated to under many other bits of legislation, as he does also point out.

Watch the full interview in the documentary America: Freedom to fascism.
How are Americans obliged to pay income tax, if theres no law that can enfoce it? Be clear, are you saying they have to, or its a free choice?

[newspresenter]

See the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1913:

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.



Sounds pretty clear and unambigous to me. The US jails are full of those who believe otherwise.

Thats not incomes based on labour, as explained here YouTube - 4. Freedom to Fascism (part 4 of 11)

[DougieG]

What?

Sorry, I didn't expect you to understand. After all, this is politics, something you clearly don't have too much understanding of. The comment was for the benefit of other members.

[DTE]

Sorry, I didn't expect you to understand. After all, this is politics, something you clearly don't have too much understanding of. The comment was for the benefit of other members.

Miiiaow Doug

[Don]

Thats not incomes based on labour, as explained here YouTube - 4. Freedom to Fascism (part 4 of 11)

Fortunately the Constitution, not YouTube, as interperted by the Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land in the US. The 16th amendment says; "from whatever source derived". That is all inclusive. You appear to lack reading comprehension, not unsual for those raised on a diet of TV.

Addendum:

Ok, I watched the video. What Mr. Russo fails to mention is that the Supreme Court has never over ruled these convictions. Without the Supremes doing so, the lower court rulings stand. I admit to not knowing if the Supremes have ever even agreed to review one of these cases and I don't intend to review them to find out. That they have never been overturned is sufficient.

[newspresenter]

Sorry, I didn't expect you to understand. After all, this is politics, something you clearly don't have too much understanding of. The comment was for the benefit of other members.

What?

[newspresenter]

Ok, I watched the video. What Mr. Russo fails to mention is that the Supreme Court has never over ruled these convictions. Without the Supremes doing so, the lower court rulings stand. I admit to not knowing if the Supremes have ever even agreed to review one of these cases and I don't intend to review them to find out. That they have never been overturned is sufficient.

What about the Mr Harrell case mentioned in the docu (end of part 4, beginning of part 5), the Supreme Judge couldn't find a law to convict him. So if Mr harrell doesn't have to pay income tax, does that mean no one does. Also, checkout Joe Banister's story. There was an advert placed in a newspaper offering $50,000 to anyone who can present a law that says you have to pay income tax, no one won the money - explained in the docu.

So if theres no income tax law in america, should britain be the same?

[Don]

What about the Mr Harrell case mentioned in the docu (end of part 4, beginning of part 5), the Supreme Judge couldn't find a law to convict him. So if Mr harrell doesn't have to pay income tax, does that mean no one does.

That had absolutely nothing to do with the US Supreme Court. That was an Illinois state court case about IL state income tax not Federal Income tax. That the state court judge couldn't come up with applicable federal law doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Jury nullification comes to mind.

Also, checkout Joe Banister's story. There was an advert placed in a newspaper offering $50,000 to anyone who can present a law that says you have to pay income tax, no one won the money - explained in the docu.

Still doesn't prove anything. The point is that US case law says you have to pay income tax and the US Supreme Court, the final arbiter, hasn't said different. Until they do such, one has to file and pay.

So if there is no income tax law in america, should britain be the same?

There is, I assure you, Income Tax in the United States of America. What does British law have to do with US law? Simple answer, when speaking of codified law, NOTHING.

[newspresenter]

That had absolutely nothing to do with the US Supreme Court. That was an Illinois state court case about IL state income tax not Federal Income tax. That the state court judge couldn't come up with applicable federal law doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Jury nullification comes to mind.

Right, the Federal reserve is an independent company, zero to do with the government, created by congress and run by private banks. So you're saying they can legally charge people income tax?

Still doesn't prove anything. The point is that US case law says you have to pay income tax

Was the 16th Amendment ratified by three fourths of US states? here it says only 20 ratified it HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
if the 16th Amendment wasn't legally ratified, then there is no law?

[Don]

Right, the Federal reserve is an independent company, zero to do with the government, created by congress and run by private banks. So you're saying they can legally charge people income tax?

Are you really as thick as you seem or are you just trying to stir the s***. The Federal Reserve has jack s*** to do with the Federal Income Tax. The Internal Revenue Service is not part of the Federal Reserve, it is an arm of the Treasury Department of the US Government. Learn something about the United States Government before you continue to demonstrate just how ignorant you are.

Was the 16th Amendment ratified by three fourths of US states? here it says only 20 ratified it HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
if the 16th Amendment wasn't legally ratified, then there is no law?

It is interesting to note that if this has ever been brought before the courts (Federal), they have either never agreed to review it or they have over ruled it. Either way challenged or not, it is now the law of the land. Note that the Supreme Court only reviews lower court rulings, cases are not brought directly to the Supreme Court. Also note that they only review the cases they wish to review. Refusal to review is upholding the lower court. A Federal Law can be challenged by an affected party suing the US Government in district court, the next step if you lose is to appeal to the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals, lose there and appeal to the Supremes. In light of all that, the ratification of the 16th Amendment is a moot point.

That ploy has been tried by lots of people who are in jail. I wish you would move to the US, get a job and try that scam. Just please don't reproduce if you come, we have enough nut cases as it is.

Must be the difference between a "news presenter", if you are one, and a journalist. A news presenter/talking head just regurgitates any old thing he is fed with absolutely no subject knowledge required. Right?

[newspresenter]

It is interesting to note that if this has ever been brought before the courts (Federal), they have either never agreed to review it or they have over ruled it. Either way challenged or not, it is now the law of the land. Note that the Supreme Court only reviews lower court rulings, cases are not brought directly to the Supreme Court. Also note that they only review the cases they wish to review. Refusal to review is upholding the lower court. A Federal Law can be challenged by an affected party suing the US Government in district court, the next step if you lose is to appeal to the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals, lose there and appeal to the Supremes. In light of all that, the ratification of the 16th Amendment is a moot point.

Does ratification of it create the law for which you have or have not got to pay income tax? Was the 16th Amendement ratified as a lawful document to which you have to pay income tax?

Do you wave away your rights under the 5th Amendment if you file a tax return? The IRS states that you're required to file a tax return, not that you have to, this right?

[Don]

Does ratification of it create the law for which you have or have not got to pay income tax?

Ratification allowed congress (the legislative branch) to create the laws implementing the tax, i.e. creating and empowering the IRS (in the executive branch), laying out the basic framework for the tax code (admittedly sometimes it resembles a "secret code") that is then created by, in this case, the Internal Revenue Service (subject to review)

Was the 16th Amendement ratified as a lawful document to which you have to pay income tax?

We've been over this at length. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills.

On a practical level, can you even begin to imagine the chaos and mayhem that would result if the Supreme Court now ruled that the 16th Amendment had not been ratified? It is after all the major source of revenue for the government. Ninety-seven years on, I'd rather see an armed invasion by aliens from outer space. Just contemplating all the lawyers and accountants that would be out of work does make me smile however.

Do you wave away your rights under the 5th Amendment if you file a tax return?

I have no definitive answer, not being a lawyer. I doubt it however.

The IRS states that you're required to file a tax return, not that you have to, this right?

Please explain to me where you see a difference between being "required to" and "have to".

I suggest you Google all this stuff and follow the Wikipedia links, stuff like this they usually get right, at least on a basic level.

[newspresenter]

We've been over this at length.

We have, so a simple yes, no or don't know is all you needed. Was the 16th Amendement ratified as a lawful document to which you have to pay income tax?
If you could do the same for the previous question - Does ratification of it create the law for which you have or have not got to pay income tax?

On a practical level, can you even begin to imagine the chaos and mayhem that would result if the Supreme Court now ruled that the 16th Amendment had not been ratified? It is after all the major source of revenue for the government.

Wouldn't make any difference. Theres no income tax system in Dubai, they cope no problem. What do you think the American government do with income tax that they couldn't do without it?

I have no definitive answer, not being a lawyer. I doubt it however.
Please explain to me where you see a difference between being "required to" and "have to".

The IRS say you are required to file a tax return, but ron paul says there is no law to back up the IRS requiering anyone to file a tax return.
So if theres no law requiring anyone to file a tax return, theres no one that can legally force the taxation of someone's income?
What do you think of this Free Thinkers Playground: America: Freedom to Fascism

I suggest you Google all this stuff and follow the Wikipedia links, stuff like this they usually get right, at least on a basic level.

wikipedia was set up by 2 far left americans, i could point out many lies stated on that site. Anyone who doesn't eat lental soup is usually turned away from uploading information, for example, i advised the EDL English Defence League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to upload what they're about, as i noticed there were lies about them, the EDL were denied permission to state who and what they were about.
Googling something is better, but you have to question everything.

[Don]

Wouldn't make any difference. Theres no income tax system in Dubai, they cope no problem. What do you think the American government do with income tax that they couldn't do without it?

I give up. You actually are that effing thick aren't you. Just what, exactly, do you think would happen when the Social Security checks stopped, payments to government contractors stopped, to government employees including the military stopped, funds redistributed to the states (inequitably I might add) stopped, ad infinitum. This ain't Dubai you idiot. BTW, you may present the news but apparently you don't keep up. Dubai has serious financial problems. Google it.

The IRS say you are required to file a tax return, but ron paul says there is no law to back up the IRS requiering anyone to file a tax return.
So if theres no law requiring anyone to file a tax return, theres no one that can legally force the taxation of someone's income?

Well lord knows that Ron Paul is the final authority on income tax. I'm sure the government is going to defer to his judgment in the next few days.

What do you think of this Free Thinkers Playground: America: Freedom to Fascism

Don't have time right now to look at it. I'll get back to you on it, or not.

wikipedia was set up by 2 far left americans, i could point out many lies stated on that site. Anyone who doesn't eat lental soup is usually turned away from uploading information, for example, i advised the EDL English Defence League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to upload what they're about, as i noticed there were lies about them, the EDL were denied permission to state who and what they were about.
Googling something is better, but you have to question everything.

I really don't care about the political orientation of its founders. Some stuff is spot on and some not. Most descriptions of governmental functions are. It is my understanding that practically anyone can edit wiki articles, but I may be wrong. I'm not familiar with the EDL, but if you're pimping them I'm not sure I want to know. Better yet, buy a US Civics textbook and try reading for a change.

[newspresenter]

Just what, exactly, do you think would happen when the Social Security checks stopped, payments to government contractors stopped, to government employees including the military stopped, funds redistributed to the states (inequitably I might add) stopped, ad infinitum.

You could stop giving benefit to immigrants. You could stop wasting billions on illegal wars. Do you have a VAT system? That must rake in unreal dosh. You could stop funding the keep of children and make parents do so. government contractors? Do you have a local tax, like our council tax, doesn't that fund government employees? Your government could start printing its own money, that would help enourmously.

This ain't Dubai you idiot. Dubai has serious financial problems. Google it.

Yeah, but they still manage to have an income free tax system, and its a poor argument to blame business decisions on a once better economy.

Well lord knows that Ron Paul is the final authority on income tax. I'm sure the government is going to defer to his judgment in the next few days.

Isn't Ron a Democrat, that make him part of the government? Surely he would be a laughing stock if what he said was as childish a claim as you make out, yet ive seen him say this on your national tv news networks, no laughing occured.
If i was you, i'd lookout for that advert and claim the $50,000 reward. Is it something you'll look for?

It is my understanding that practically anyone can edit wiki articles, but I may be wrong.

Anyone can, so long as you follow the political line of its owners.

Was the 16th Amendement ratified as a lawful document to which you have to pay income tax?
Does ratification of it create the law for which you have or have not got to pay income tax?
All i want is a simple yes, no or don't know to the above.

[DougieG]

Your government could start printing its own money, that would help enourmously.

NP's identity finally revealed!!!

[newspresenter]

NP's identity finally revealed!!!

EH? What would be wrong with the US government printing money rather than an independent company?

[DougieG]

EH? What would be wrong with the US government printing money rather than an independent company?

Its just your view of economics. Can you keep posting some more economic ideas? I need a good laugh to get me up in the morning.

[Balthazar]

NP's identity finally revealed!!!

Please lengthen your message

Oh, all right then.

[newspresenter]

Its just your view of economics. Can you keep posting some more economic ideas? I need a good laugh to get me up in the morning.

What would be wrong with the US government printing money rather than an independent company?

[Don]

What would be wrong with the US government printing money rather than an independent company?

Absolutely nothing, which is why the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (part of the Treasury Department) does, and has always printed US paper money, stamps, and other secure documents. Coins are produced by the US Mint.

I keep answering your questions so now answer one of mine please. Why do you insist on making wrong statements about the workings of the US Government and its different Departments? I ask this in all sincerity, wishing to determine if you are too lazy to look this stuff up yourself, lack the requisite mental capacity to look this stuff up or simply enjoy making yourself to look like a fool.

[Don]

You could stop giving benefit to immigrants. You could stop wasting billions on illegal wars. Do you have a VAT system? That must rake in unreal dosh. You could stop funding the keep of children and make parents do so. government contractors? Do you have a local tax, like our council tax, doesn't that fund government employees? Your government could start printing its own money, that would help enourmously.

We do not have a VAT system. Government in the US is City/Town, County, State, Federal. Sales tax, as a percentage of the sale total, is levied at the City/Town, County, & State levels and kept within those jurisdictions. Federal taxes are levied on sales that are considered as a luxury (autos, etc,). Obviously there are "government employees" at all these levels. Just as obviously there are federal employees that must be paid by monies generated through federal taxes, income being the major one. Some City/Town, County, State governments also have their own income tax (my state does). There are also other "taxes" expressed as fees (business licenses, etc.

See comments further down the thread for money printing.

Illegal wars? Pot/Kettle.

Benefits for immigrants? They have a right to collect what the law allows. Again, Pot/Kettle

"...government contractors?" Yes Government Contractors as in private companies that provide goods and or services to the government. Government's function is not to produce, that is generally a private sector function. For instance, developing and manufacturing weapons systems for the military, clothing and equipment for the various specialized departments of government, developing and installing and even maintaining and running various computer/electronic data networks, support services for the various arms of government, ad infinitum.

Yeah, but they still manage to have an income free tax system, and its a poor argument to blame business decisions on a once better economy.

Comparing the US economy with that of Dubai is akin to comparing the effects of a nuclear weapon to that of a cannon ball. Your argument is silly, as opposed to funny which might get a smile out of me.

Isn't Ron a Democrat, that make him part of the government? Surely he would be a laughing stock if what he said was as childish a claim as you make out, yet ive seen him say this on your national tv news networks, no laughing occured.

Ron? Didn't realize you were on a first name basis with him. He is an elected Republican representative of his district, one of a total of 412. We also have Senators, 100 total, 2 from each of the fifty states. He does not hold any official position in the Executive Branch of our government. He is a member of the Legislative Branch which makes laws basically. His isn't a cabinet member or anything like that if that is your meaning of "part of the government". I would posit that he wasn't laughed at due to respect for his office, not out of respect for his view on the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Whilst I may agree with some of his positions, when it comes to the 16th Amendment, I consider him a crackpot.

If i was you, i'd lookout for that advert and claim the $50,000 reward. Is it something you'll look for?

You're not me. If you were me, you'd have better ways of spending your time than to follow pipe dreams.

Was the 16th Amendement ratified as a lawful document to which you have to pay income tax?
Does ratification of it create the law for which you have or have not got to pay income tax?
All i want is a simple yes, no or don't know to the above.

I refuse to plow this ground again. You have a habit of asking the same questions over and over.

Also I refuse to give you further civics lessons regarding the workings of the US Government because you refuse to pay attention Do your own research or pay me $5.00 per word for further answers to questions directed toward me.

[newspresenter]

Absolutely nothing

There you are Doug.

Why do you insist on making wrong statements about the workings of the US Government and its different Departments?

Such as?

[newspresenter]

Just as obviously there are federal employees that must be paid by monies generated through federal taxes, income being the major one.

Must, as opossed to, theres no other way? All the different taxes America collects, shocking redistribution. What source funds Dubai's politicians?

Illegal wars? Pot/Kettle.

Eh? Isn't it a shame you attack, rather than say, ok, we fight illegal wars and we could save that wasted money.

Benefits for immigrants? They have a right to collect what the law allows. Again, Pot/Kettle

They do, but if you had a sensible government, they wouldn't allow immigrants into the country and let them claim benefit, what good is that. If you had a really dedicated government, state welfare would be a thing of the past.

Comparing the US economy with that of Dubai is akin to comparing the effects of a nuclear weapon to that of a cannon ball. Your argument is silly, as opposed to funny which might get a smile out of me.

You're loosing the plot, i didn't compare, i gave an example. You don't have credible answers, so you attack instead.

I refuse to plow this ground again. You have a habit of asking the same questions over and over.

Thats because you're scared of suppling a yes or no.

[DougieG]

There you are Doug.

The way you phrased it was still hilarious.

[newspresenter]

The way you phrased it was still hilarious.

Why's that?

[DougieG]

Why's that?

Don't worry, everyone else understood the joke.

[newspresenter]

Don't worry, everyone else understood the joke.

I can't help it, im one of lifes worriers, i worry that you attempt comedy.

[DougieG]

I can't help it, im one of lifes worriers, i worry that you attempt comedy.

Luckily I'm not a worrier, but I do fear for your health when you realise the quality of this 'insult'.