 |
truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:27 pm Post subject: The "Patriot movement" |
 |
|
As has been mentioned in some recent threads, Alex Jones and We Are Change seem to be very much a part of the so-called "Patriot Movement."
The "Patriot movement" seems to be a rather diverse mixed bag. As far as I can tell, its main unifying theme is grand conspiracy ideology of the "Illuminati"/"New World Order" variety.
Below is some interesting stuff I found by some critics of the "Patriot movement."
According to Proto-fascism in America by David Neiwert:
| Quote: | Though the Patriot movement is fairly multifaceted, most Americans have a view of it mostly through the media images related to a single facet -- the often pathetic collection of bunglers and fantasists known as the militia movement. Moreover, they've been told that the militia movement is dead.
It is, more or less. (And the whys of that, as we will see, are crucial here.) But the Patriot movement -- oh, it's alive and reasonably well. Let's put it this way: It isn't going away anytime soon.
The militia "movement" was only one strategy in the broad coalition of right-wing extremists who call themselves the "Patriot" movement. What this movement really represents is the attempt of old nationalist, white-supremacist and anti-Semitic ideologies to mainstream themselves by stripping away the arguments about race and ethnicity, and focusing almost single-mindedly on their underlying political and legal philosophies -- which all come wrapped up, of course, in the neat little Manichean package of conspiracy theories. In the process, most of their spokesmen carefully eschew race talk or Jew-baiting, but refer instead to "welfare queens" and "international bankers" and the "New World Order".
Forming militias was a strategy mainly aimed at recruiting from the mainstream, particularly among gun owners. It eventually fell prey to disrepute and entropy, for reasons we'll explore in a bit. However, there are other Patriot strategies that have proved to have greater endurance, particularly "common law courts" and their various permutations, all of which revolve around the idea of "sovereign citizenship," which makes every white Christian male American, essentially, a king unto himself. The movement is, as always, mutable. It includes a number of "constitutionalist" tax-protest movements, as well as certain "home schooling" factions and anti-abortion extremists |
Also on the same website, on a page titled Dualist receivers, I found the following:
| Quote: | One of the real problems with coming to grips with the right-wing extremists, in fact, is the public image that has grown up around them for the past half-century, but driven home in the militiaman stereotype of the 1990s: A half-educated, beer-swilling, Bible-thumping, child-beating, dentistry-challenged, gun-loving lunatic with both eyes rattling around in his head and a steady stream of hate foaming out of his mouth. Not to mention all those visions of black helicopters dancing in his head.
I have attended a lot of militia and Patriot meetings over the years, and this wasn't what I found at all. In my experience, the average militia member is a person who very much keeps all the appearances of being a mainstream player in society (as contrasted with, say, the skinheads and neo-Nazis, who more closely fit the description). Most of them are reasonably well educated. A large number of them are veterans. Most of the rest are agrarian or blue-collar workers with families. They all pay their taxes (unless they've been drawn in deeply by one of the tax-protest schemes) and vote and attend church.
The false stereotype is built on a sociological approach to these groups, called "centrist/extremist theory," developed in the 1950s that actually is now largely discredited among sociologists. This theory basically held that these "fringe" groups represented a constituency of largely uneducated classes who were grossly disenfranchised due to this fact, thus leading to their radicalism; their status also ensured that they would remain outside the realm of the mainstream. Well, subsequent data collected through the 1970s and 1980s began to demonstrate the weakness of this model; contrary to its prediction, surveys of "Christian Patriots" found that on average they were better educated than the population at large, and many of these groups' members actually prove to be highly educated and some of better-than-average means. |
The above is written from a progressive/liberal point of view. Following is something I found on a conservative evangelical Christian site critical of the Patriot movement: Infiltrating the Church with a Gospel of Hate by Richard Abanes, which says, among other things:
| Quote: | Unlike most citizens, who are merely wearied by our government’s problems, patriots cling to a radical conspiracy theory that the ongoing economic and political difficulties in their country are part of a much larger plan to "enslave Americans by disarming the population and making the currency worthless. The eventual result...will be the New World Order — a one-world government administered by the United Nations."12 This coming totalitarian establishment will reduce everyone to slaves whose sole purpose will be to serve the "international bankers, wealthy elite, socialists and liberals."13
SATAN'S SYSTEM
If the phrase "New World Order" (NWO) sounds familiar, it should. On September 11, 1990, President Bush popularized the use of it through a speech delivered before Congress. He was speaking of "a reinvigorating of the system of collective security envisioned by the drafters of the United Nations Charter."14 The ultimate goal is to create an era "where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause [i.e., peace]."15
Responsible critics of the NWO fear that U.N. policies may set up the U.S. as "the world’s policeman trying to impose a Pax Americana on the rest of the world."16 Patriots, however, voice a different complaint. According to influential patriot Jack McLamb, the NWO will be "an oligarchy of the world’s richest families who will place 1/2 the masses of the earth in servitude under their complete control, administered from behind the false front of the United Nations." |
On edit: Please note that I do NOT, by any means, agree with the all the opinions expressed in the above. I'm just posting the above because it's informative and thought-provoking.
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist
Last edited by Diane on Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting post. I think many would prefer these issues not be broached because they might cause antagonism between factions of the 911 truth movement, but ultimately the best way of reducing antagonism is to discuss this stuff openly and honestly.
Alex Jones often refers to a “fake left right paradigm”. I agree that a fake left/right paradigm exists in the form of the Dem/Repug parties. It’s not necessary that the donkey and elephant be identical – there are important differences when it comes to issues like abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, a willingness to grant small concessions to the working class and so forth – but overall you have two very similar animals.
On the major foreign policy issues the two parties are essentially the same. On issues of “free trade” – meaning corporate “rights” – the two parties are essentially the same. On the drug war and the prison industrial complex the two parties are essentially the same.
Polyarchy is more effective than brute dictatorship. This is why most of the world’s people are now permitted to engage in elections. The formal trappings of democracy are more effective than overt repudiation of democracy. Walter Lippman understood this. The “Manufacture of Consent” is more effective than the iron fist. Harold Laswell was more prophetic still: he argued that the manufacture of consent must be supplemented with the “scientific” application of violence.
It is disingenuous to talk of a “fake left/right paradigm” while simultaneously advocating the round-up of illegal immigrants (which would presumably include children), the building of “border walls”, the outlawing of abortion (which wouldn’t stop abortion, just make it less safe), of opposition to universal health care (because the gubmint would be involved) and so on.
There is a fake left/right paradigm but there is also a real left/right paradigm. Pretending otherwise isn’t going to solve anything. We should be debating these issues not pretending they don’t exist.
The right wing – be it the neocon drones or the more intelligent populist right – plays on patriotism to a significant degree.
But what is patriotism?
Mark Twain wrote that “My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its office-holders.” Decades later, George Orwell came to a similar conclusion: that “Patriotism is a devotion to a certain place and people, contrary to nationalism which is inseparable from lust for power.”
It was really during WWI that the modern form of American “patriotism” became dominant. Numerous “Patriotic” organizations sprang up to spy on peace activists, immigrants and labor organizers. They supported war with a vengeance. The most successful of these groups was the Ku Klux Klan.
In fact, the Creel Committee basically created the idea of the modern “American”.
Creel estimated that 72 million copies of thirty different booklets about American ideals were sent across the United States, with millions more sent abroad. In addition to influencing the minds of Europeans, the goal was to redefine for the home population the very concept of what it meant to be “American”. The new American would not interpret reality from what Creel called “a class or sectional standpoint”, but rather as a unified collective. In this manner, the new American could be herded into “one white hot mass instinct”.
When Alex Jones talks of “patriotism” he isn’t talking about supporting war or spying on neighbors, quite the opposite. The modern populist right conceives of patriotism as support for the founding institutions of the American state. Obviously this is far better than the pseudo-patriotism of the neocons or the Klan, but it is also problematic in that (excepting Jefferson) the founding fathers were fierce opponents of democracy. At its heart, the patriotism of the conservative is still fundamentally authoritarian. The “masses” cannot be permitted to take part in the decision making process, otherwise “property rights” might be infringed upon. It is never discussed why some people have the “right” to obscene wealth; the arrangement is portrayed as a “natural” phenomenon and a product of meritocracy. That great wealth negates the property rights of the many is not mentioned. Wage labor is not acknowledged as a form of perpetual property theft born of coercion.
Most of the populist right describe themselves as “libertarians”. But what does this mean?
“The French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque was the first to employ the term libertarian in a political sense in May 1857, in an 11-page pamphlet De l'Etre Humain mâle et femelle (Concerning the Human Male and Female), an open letter criticizing Pierre-Joseph Proudhon published while its author was in exile in New Orleans. From 1858 until his return to France in 1861 Déjacque published in New York a journal called Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social. According to the anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the first use of the term libertarian communism was in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines. The French anarchist journalist Sébastien Faure, later founder and editor of the four-volume Anarchist Encyclopedia, started the weekly paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in 1895”
So “Libertarian” was originally used to describe the difference between authoritarian socialists and socialists who rejected centralized power. In this sense the American “libertarian” is far more “Marxist” than he or she would like to admit. “Libertarians” advocate centralized power as a crucial component of an orderly society. Often, they insist that this power must be “limited” and the government kept “small”, but the very nature of elitism and centralized power is to create more elitism and centralized power.
--
Concerning the passages quoted by Diane, I’m troubled by the ubiquitous use of the term “conspiracy theory”. By now, we should all be aware that “conspiracy theory” is essentially a propaganda term.
The problem is that there ARE kooky conspiracy theories, mostly of the macro variety. In their cowardice, many on the left have conflated real or obvious conspiracies (and their important relationship to the class structure) with mega conspiracies involving Jews, the “illuminati”, Satanists and so forth.
In fact, the two modes of “conspiratorial” analysis have very little in common. You don’t hear Peter Dale Scott talking about the Knights of Malta – he talks about real, proven conspiracies created by known institutions which have major effects in terms of “social engineering”.
Macro conspiracy theories are essentially a means of passing the buck. It’s not that there’s something wrong with the institutions of the state, they’ve just been hijacked by “Satanists” or “globalists” or what have you. Frequently, the 18th and 19th centuries are portrayed as the Halcyon days. So Aaron Russo “America was a free country before the founding of the Federal Reserve”. Really? Because to my understanding, child labor, 18 hour work days and mass killing of strikers does not constitute “freedom”.
--
Aside from the flippant use of “conspiracy theory”, there are other problems with the quoted passages in the original post. Home schooling is denigrated, as is “anti-tax” activity. I think both of these tendencies are perfectly healthy. Mandatory public “education” was introduced to prepare children for life in mass industrial society (see John Taylor Gatto’s work on the subject), while taxes are used to fund the war machine.
I’m also uncomfortable with the maligning of Christianity. I’m not a Christian, but I see no reason why Christianity has to express itself in the form of hatred, chauvinism and violence.
One other thing: to Alex Jones' credit, he sometimes suggests his listeners read the anti-Federalist papers. He should do this far more often, and stop lionizing the slave-holding scoundrels who established the American state.
The Anti-Federalists were frighteningly prophetic:
“The natural Course of Power is to make the many Slaves to the few”, one anti-Federalist wrote. Another objected to the new government because “the bulk of the people can have nothing to say to it. The government is not a government of the people.” The “men of Fortune” would not feel for the “Common People.” An “aristocratical tyranny” would arise, in which “the great will struggle for power, honor and wealth, the poor become a prey to avarice, insolence, and oppression.” “In short, my fellow citizens, it can be said to be nothing less than a hasty stride to Universal Empire.”
--
Overall, however, I agree with much of Diane’s post. To me, the frightening thing is the possibility of a right populist revolution. It happened in Italy. It happened in Germany. And it can happen in the United States.
Since the 1980s, a new set of theories about fascism has gained attention in academia. These include the work of Roger Griffin (fascism as a right-wing populist movement calling for heroic rebirth — palingenesis) and Emilio Gentile (the sacralization of politics). According to Griffin:
"Fascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence”. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danse wrote: | Alex Jones often refers to a “fake left right paradigm”.
[...]
It is disingenuous to talk of a “fake left/right paradigm” while simultaneously advocating the round-up of illegal immigrants (which would presumably include children), the building of “border walls”, the outlawing of abortion (which wouldn’t stop abortion, just make it less safe), of opposition to universal health care (because the gubmint would be involved) and so on. |
I totally agree with you on this.
Thanks for the historical info on the Creel committee and on the history of the word "libertarian."
| Danse wrote: | Concerning the passages quoted by Diane, I’m troubled by the ubiquitous use of the term “conspiracy theory”. By now, we should all be aware that “conspiracy theory” is essentially a propaganda term.
The problem is that there ARE kooky conspiracy theories, mostly of the macro variety. In their cowardice, many on the left have conflated real or obvious conspiracies (and their important relationship to the class structure) with mega conspiracies involving Jews, the “illuminati”, Satanists and so forth.
In fact, the two modes of “conspiratorial” analysis have very little in common. |
This is a distinction I've been pointing out for a long time. Chip Berlet, in particular, conflates these two very different things as "conspiracism."
| Danse wrote: | | Frequently, the 18th and 19th centuries are portrayed as the Halcyon days. So Aaron Russo “America was a free country before the founding of the Federal Reserve”. Really? Because to my understanding, child labor, 18 hour work days and mass killing of strikers does not constitute “freedom”. |
I totally agree here also.
| Danse wrote: | | Aside from the flippant use of “conspiracy theory”, there are other problems with the quoted passages in the original post. Home schooling is denigrated, as is “anti-tax” activity. I think both of these tendencies are perfectly healthy. Mandatory public “education” was introduced to prepare children for life in mass industrial society (see John Taylor Gatto’s work on the subject), while taxes are used to fund the war machine. |
Tax protests against a specific government policy, e.g. against a war, are a very different matter from tax protests against the very idea of income tax. Without taxes, a government can't do anything at all, including obviously necessary things like urban fire departments, let alone health care for the 9/11 first responders -- to whom, I would imagine, We Are Change's anti-tax stance must be very alienating. And the fairest kind of tax, obviously, is one which takes the most from those who can most afford it -- such as income tax and inheritance tax.
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danse wrote: | | I’m also uncomfortable with the maligning of Christianity. I’m not a Christian, but I see no reason why Christianity has to express itself in the form of hatred, chauvinism and violence. |
Where in the quoted passages is Christianity maligned? I didn't see anything implying that Christianity has to express itself in the form of hatred. What are you referring to here?
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Diane wrote: | | Danse wrote: | | I’m also uncomfortable with the maligning of Christianity. I’m not a Christian, but I see no reason why Christianity has to express itself in the form of hatred, chauvinism and violence. |
Where in the quoted passages is Christianity maligned? I didn't see anything implying that Christianity has to express itself in the form of hatred. What are you referring to here? |
Just an overall impression, sorta like "Islamic terrorists". I think there is a tendency in the US to equate Christianity with right wing lunacy. I see this view expressed frequently on sites like Daily Kos and DU. This is understandable considering Pat Robertson et al, but if you look at figures like John Ball or the Diggers in England or Mother Jones, it becomes apparent that Christianity does not HAVE to take a fascistic path. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Without taxes, a government can't do anything at all |
Sounds good to me  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danse wrote: | | Diane wrote: | | Where in the quoted passages is Christianity maligned? I didn't see anything implying that Christianity has to express itself in the form of hatred. What are you referring to here? |
Just an overall impression, sorta like "Islamic terrorists". I think there is a tendency in the US to equate Christianity with right wing lunacy. |
I think most people in the US know that not all Christians are like that. 70% of the US population is Christian. Obviously, not all these people are right wing loons. So, the mere mention of "Christian Patriots" or other Christian right wingers does not constitute an anti-Christian smear, at least not in the context of mainstream U.S. culture. (On the other hand, a lot of people here don't know very many Muslims, so talk about "Muslim terrorists" without any qualification is indeed problematic.)
Even here in the U.S., there are some people who believe that Christianity inherently leads to right wing nuttery. But this is not the majority view. Those who do hold such a view usually state it explicitly, rather than just by talking about the Christian religious right wing.
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danse wrote: | | Quote: | | Without taxes, a government can't do anything at all |
Sounds good to me |
So how do you propose paying for urban fire departments, or for health care for the 9/11 first responders?
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Diane wrote: | | Danse wrote: | | Quote: | | Without taxes, a government can't do anything at all |
Sounds good to me |
So how do you propose paying for urban fire departments, or for health care for the 9/11 first responders? |
I dunno, maybe stop sending all those billions to Israel? Just a thought.
Taxes? The problem with the "tax" debate is that it is presented as a uniform proposition. Taxes for everyone or taxes for no one. Hikes for public transit fares are not presented as "increased taxes". Health care cuts are not presented as new taxes, but that's essentially what they are.
More money from your wallet to the guv with little or no payback.
Here in British Colombia, I remember a great propaganda poster created by the BC Health Care Union when our premier was proposing tax cuts combined with health care cuts. Showed a man being flicked a quarter while someone -- presumably the government -- was taking the wallet from his back pocket.
Tax cuts sound awesome, but mostly they benefit the rich.
I see no reason why the lower and middle classes should pay any tax at all. Tax the rich and their ill-gotten gains. If that's the short term solution. The goal should be to abolish the rich, and therefore the poor. In fact, technically, you wouldn't even need to get rid of the rich to eliminate poverty. One-twentieth of the Pentagon's budget could lift the entire world out of poverty (see Bo Filter: Give David a Stone).
So yeah, the "anti-tax" stuff can be seen as foolish, and often is, but at its heart is something true and just. Government is not serving "the people" but a tiny minority of plutocrats. People are justifiably upset that the government keeps raising their taxes while Goldman Sachs and the Pentagon boys run laughing to the bank. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Danse wrote: | | Tax cuts sound awesome, but mostly they benefit the rich. |
Exactly my point.
| Danse wrote: | I see no reason why the lower and middle classes should pay any tax at all. Tax the rich and their ill-gotten gains. If that's the short term solution. The goal should be to abolish the rich, and therefore the poor. In fact, technically, you wouldn't even need to get rid of the rich to eliminate poverty. One-twentieth of the Pentagon's budget could lift the entire world out of poverty (see Bo Filter: Give David a Stone).
So yeah, the "anti-tax" stuff can be seen as foolish, and often is, but at its heart is something true and just. Government is not serving "the people" but a tiny minority of plutocrats. People are justifiably upset that the government keeps raising their taxes while Goldman Sachs and the Pentagon boys run laughing to the bank. |
I agree with you as to what the ultimage goal should be. Problem is, the right wing "tax protester" movement is against the very idea of income tax. Hence its aims are not compatible with the idea of taxing the rich, specifically.
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Diane wrote: | | Danse wrote: | | Tax cuts sound awesome, but mostly they benefit the rich. |
Exactly my point.
| Danse wrote: | I see no reason why the lower and middle classes should pay any tax at all. Tax the rich and their ill-gotten gains. If that's the short term solution. The goal should be to abolish the rich, and therefore the poor. In fact, technically, you wouldn't even need to get rid of the rich to eliminate poverty. One-twentieth of the Pentagon's budget could lift the entire world out of poverty (see Bo Filter: Give David a Stone).
So yeah, the "anti-tax" stuff can be seen as foolish, and often is, but at its heart is something true and just. Government is not serving "the people" but a tiny minority of plutocrats. People are justifiably upset that the government keeps raising their taxes while Goldman Sachs and the Pentagon boys run laughing to the bank. |
I agree with you as to what the ultimage goal should be. Problem is, the right wing "tax protester" movement is against the very idea of income tax. Hence its aims are not compatible with the idea of taxing the rich, specifically. |
But why does it need to be framed in this way? Ie Everyone pays income tax or no one pays income tax?
Why should a McDonald's employee have to pay income tax to fund new Pentagon projects? They can barely survive as it is.
I think that's the trick: everyone or no one. Why not increased taxes for the rich and tax breaks for everyone else?
I guess, in the scheme of things, the answer is that the "overtaxed" corporation will simply move to Honduras or China. And there's the rub. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I guess, in the scheme of things, the answer is that the "overtaxed" corporation will simply move to Honduras or China. And there's the rub. |
They already did a long time ago. It's a race to the bottom world-wide. There are solutions, but the most likely solutions would take political will, which does not exist in a system where the corporations own the politicians. The long term solution would involve a grassroots effort, but then there's the issue of the race to the bottom, which leaves less and less time and resources for anything except existence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| victronix01 wrote: | | Quote: | | I guess, in the scheme of things, the answer is that the "overtaxed" corporation will simply move to Honduras or China. And there's the rub. |
They already did a long time ago. It's a race to the bottom world-wide. There are solutions, but the most likely solutions would take political will, which does not exist in a system where the corporations own the politicians. The long term solution would involve a grassroots effort, but then there's the issue of the race to the bottom, which leaves less and less time and resources for anything except existence. |
Hi Vic,
Have you read the work of William I Robinson?
He's one of the best analysts of "globalization" and the rise of the new transnational ruling class. Sort of like the "illuminati" theory, though sensible, and undertaken from a basic analysis of globalization trends.
In the late 70's under Carter, you had a new model reaching fruition: the third world as massive sweat shop. We might view it as a "division of labor": 80 percent of the world's population works for peanuts so we can have the latest T-shirt or cheap banana.
To repeat: this happened before Reagan and his orgy of deregulation.
Reagan took this philosophy to its logical extent, and brutalized workers not only in the "Third World" but in the homeland. Bush Sr. and especially Clinton took it even further.
By the time we reach Obama, sane politics in support of the working class are completely verboten. They're off the table. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dicktater
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 698
Location: Lower Slobovia
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone here, other than me, ever read even one sentence of tax law?
I'm not talking about notices, publications, instruction booklets, or H&R Block adverts. I'm talking about law. You know, statutes, codes...
Where might one start? The Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, maybe?
So, how does the Constitution define the taxing authority of CONgress?
Anyone?
_________________
In a dictatorship, no one can hear you scream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dicktater wrote: | | I'm talking about law. You know, statutes, codes... |
"Law! What do I care about the law? Ain't I got the power?"--Cornelius Vanderbilt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
