Interesting quote

But duh... I guess that should be obvious.
You can go to the movies website here: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ They don't say why they pulled it and supposedly you can watch a small version there, I understand that it's going into movie theatres on July 28th. Straight from DVD to the big screen. I don't know of any other movie that has done that.

You can still see the full, lower quality version at the link below. Google supposedly yanked the movie makers 1Hr. 51Min. free video so these movies might not be up long either.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=america+freedom+to+fascism

Either of the 1Hr 49Min versions played for me. To get the entire story you need to watch the long versions, trailers don't cut it for this movie or the 911WeKnow.com video.

I bought the AFTF Directors cut DVD for $10+S&H. I would've bought the 100 DVD's for $100.00 and handed them out to my friends but I'd like a full tank of gas in my truck too. Don't have one but I'd like it.

When I get enough wunnerful Federal Reserve notes I'm going to trade them for the 911WeKnow DVD too. I'm in the middle of buying, on layaway, a nickel-plated, 12ga. short barrel, double barrel "Coach" shotgun right now. A great, simple, home defense weapon

It's not like anybody would attack us in our home without justification. Is it? Would someone/anyone do that? In real-life? They'll regret it, even now.

I've got that whole "need something to eat everyday" thing going too. A man's got to have his priorities in the right order. I've got mine sorted out. For me. :)

Do I sound like I'm making excuses for being alive and living? :^0

I'm a little gun-shy today. :0 :|

That "Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism" paper is a load of hooey. It's more like "Fourteen Defining Characteristics of an Invocation of Godwin's Law".

Most of the characteristics described actually apply generally to totalitarianism -- not specifically to fascism. Several of the points are redundant. Some are dependent upon specific, subjective ideological principles (perhaps most notably the "labor power" bit).

All things considered, the list just looks like someone's attempt to find excuses to refer to the Bush administration as fascist in nature. While there's a lot in common between the Bush administration and fascism, this list is a piss-poor job of making that connection.

Where are you? ?:|

PS - How does Paradise compare with Hell?

.

:D

I do question a lot of assumptions, but I also whine before questioning the most comfortable ones. I just don't post the whining.

"Is there a law requiring American workers to pay taxes? If so, can you produce it in writing?"

OnTheRopes

"No, there isn't a law. There never has been. There have been many groups in the past who have successfully protested paying taxes on the basis of the lack of law and failure on the part of government to prove the constitutionality of income tax."

TiggerTwo

The United States Constitution:

"Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

"Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[This phrase is cited to dispute progressive income tax, but not taxation itself. If you look closely, though, it does not refer to taxes per se.]

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"

Also, as quoted by DanLM:

"Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

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."

Taxes and taxation have never been the source of Constitutional dispute. Progressive income tax has been disputed.

So, here's a fresh perspective for you:

"How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage .."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000
Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million;

Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000

States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1"

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase."

Again:

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury"

Please do not read this as an endorsement of George W. Bush. That man needs to be impeached. And, of course, the government is largely to blame for our economic ills.

The bulk of our economic difficulty at the level of the federal government is centered on entitlements (which is also the prime reason GM, Ford and Chrysler struggle to compete with manufacturers who are NOT burdened by huge entitlement issues), entitlements which are supported by all workers (that's us) [about two thirds of the Federal budget is entitlements and welfare, including Medicare].

And, of course, there is the Federal Reserve:

Follow this to Congressman Ron Paul's web site:

Http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021507.htm

As long as we vote ourselves money, and permit the U S government to manipulate the economy, the eventuality of our situation is a foregone conclusion:

"8. From dependence back into bondage .."

Cheers!

Uhhhh...it's not.

An other topic, that is.

Do you want to retire? The federal government wants you to apportion sixteen percent of what you earn towards a retirement fund for yourself. In fact, they want this so badly, they give you no option. Half from you, half from your employer.

Is this a service you respect? Is this one you want? Why, of course it is. You are so buried in the every day reality of rent/mortgage, utilities, groceries, car payments and credit card obligations that you can't even think about saving. No problem. The government will do it for you.

Unfortunately, your contributions only pay for those already on Social Security. You have no savings in Social Security. Your retirement is dependent on future wage earners and their sixteen percent (which was once only four percent). Except, the future wage earners will be in smaller numbers than hoped, so either their contributions will need to be more than sixteen percent, or, your benefits will be less. Take your pick.

Services? Two thirds of the federal budget is already entitlements. When you retire (when will that be?), it will be way more.

Income taxes and FICA are feeding the elderly and subsidizing the infirm and killing Iraqi's. Not much more.

Real services, like schools and roads and police and fire, are provided by local taxes, like property and sales taxes and state income taxes and excise taxes and gas taxes and business licenses etc. Other than entitlements and war and highways, the Federal government does very little.

If you are in the middle income bracket, say fifty grand to two hundred thousand, you are paying your share and more. If you are below this, then you are getting subsidies. If you are very far above this, then you have an accountant and a batch of tax laws that minimize you burden.

Where do you lie in this income hierarchy?

What a thought! Let's do it!

As though "WE" played any real role in this.

If it did, WE would certainly do so.

"WE" would vote ourselves into bankruptcy. As we already have, with the help of an occasional President.

http://www.kylaebbert.net/

Already has, in fact. The plane belongs to the airline, not the passengers. As long as their dress code is known in advance and enforced fairly, they probably won't lose business because of this.

Back in '95 when I was flying a commercial airline from the States to Germany because I was on my way to my new (Army) duty station in Italy, I made the flight in a black t-shirt with big white block letters on it. They spelled out the words "F*CK EVERYTHING". The only people who actually showed me any particular attention with that shirt was a group of elderly ladies who were waiting in line behind me at the counter to get boarding passes. I overheard them talking about the shirt -- words something like "Did you see his shirt?" were in there somewhere, and I knew they were talking about me.

After a few moments I turned around and looked at them. They fell silent and looked at me. I smiled, and said "It's a philosophical statement." They smiled for a moment, then giggled a little. I think they decided I was a nice person.

The stews (sorry, "flight attendants" -- I remember when they were "stewards" and "stewardesses") didn't give it a second look. Nobody seemed to care.

These days, I wouldn't wear that shirt on an international flight for fear I'd end up getting a body-cavity search in a holding room three days after I was supposed to have arrived in Europe. Well, I wouldn't unless I had some time to kill and wanted to get in the news (and wasn't in the military -- which I'm not, now). While these policies have been around on paper for decades, and were no more clearly defined for the employees at the time, I don't think there was the same kind of problem then that there is now.

The current political climate is such that the uber-conservative types are coming out of the woodwork and feel like they're invincible, I think. People don't feel like they have to keep their ultra-conservative intolerances secret any longer.

I hadn't thought of this episode in terms of the present political climate, but now that I have, I'm glad I did.

I'm not sure that this case, even in combination with the recent case of the MIT student whose electronic art was taken for a hoax bomb, signals advancing arch-conservatism in the public sphere. My concern on that subject is much more about legislation and covert surveillance of citizens' personal lives than the enforcement of [u]public[/u] decency laws and regulations. If either of those two ladies use their fifteen minutes to highlight that problem, they'll have my gratitude. I doubt it.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa12/sharewhat2/ScreenShot409.jpg
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa12/sharewhat2/ScreenShot410.jpg

are being used to paint the terrorism picture and possibly justify the surveillance and other measures being used for our own "security". When you/they see terrorists everywhere hasn't terrorism "won"?

I don't think that the Constitution is just a godd**ned piece of paper so I guess that should put me on someones shlt list too. After all, I am a lone individual although I am an extremely law abiding citizen.

Well, I missed the video but that was a good one about asking us to show proof in writing that American workers are required by law to pay taxes. Presidents make up rules as they go. The Constitution is a perfect example of that. It gets changed as often as a baby's diaper it's seems like.

Taxes are levied so our politicians can live off the fat of the land. They tax everything under the sun, including our brains. We are cash cows. You know why a lot of states require us to wear a seatbelt when driving? If we get into an accident and die we can't pay any more taxes.

Who woulda' thunk it?

=============================

Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 29 May 2006

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.

Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.

The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.

"We know we only had partial access to these VNRs and yet we found 77 stations using them," said Diana Farsetta, one of the group's researchers. "I would say it's pretty extraordinary. The picture we found was much worse than we expected going into the investigation in terms of just how widely these get played and how frequently these pre-packaged segments are put on the air."

Ms Farsetta said the public relations companies commissioned to produce these segments by corporations had become increasingly sophisticated in their techniques in order to get the VNRs broadcast. "They have got very good at mimicking what a real, independently produced television report would look like," she said.

The FCC has declined to comment on the investigation but investigators from the commission's enforcement unit recently approached Ms Farsetta for a copy of her group's report.

The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.

Many of the corporate reports, produced by drugs manufacturers such as Pfizer, focus on health issues and promote the manufacturer's product. One example cited by the report was a Hallowe'en segment produced by the confectionery giant Mars, which featured Snickers, M&Ms and other company brands. While the original VNR disclosed that it was produced by Mars, such information was removed when it was broadcast by the television channel - in this case a Fox-owned station in St Louis, Missouri.

Bloomberg news service said that other companies that sponsored the promotions included General Motors, the world's largest car maker, and Intel, the biggest maker of semi-conductors. All of the companies said they included full disclosure of their involvement in the VNRs. "We in no way attempt to hide that we are providing the video," said Chuck Mulloy, a spokesman for Intel. "In fact, we bend over backward to make this disclosure."

The FCC was urged to act by a lobbying campaign organised by Free Press, another non-profit group that focuses on media policy. Spokesman Craig Aaron said more than 25,000 people had written to the FCC about the VNRs. "Essentially it's corporate advertising or propaganda masquerading as news," he said. "The public obviously expects their news reports are going to be based on real reporting and real information. If they are watching an advertisement for a company or a government policy, they need to be told."

The controversy over the use of VNRs by television stations first erupted last spring. At the time the FCC issued a public notice warning broadcasters that they were obliged to inform viewers if items were sponsored. The maximum fine for each violation is $32,500 (?17,500).

From: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece

which does in fact have a highly capable wordwide network of covert operatives, along with liasons with many others who are less than fond of the US, was "discovered" to be in the final stages of implementing a series of attacks within the US, thus prompting both our launching pre-emptive attacks against Iran and the simultaneous imposition of martial law here.

However, if one did in fact expect such to happen, and wished to avoid such, the logical course of action would be to press hard for impeachment [i]before[/i] the President could so act; i.e., impeachment would serve deterent against the feared actions.

So, it's not clear to me as what said Congressman was allegedly saying. That Congress would not act for fear of triggering such Presidental actions; or, so as to guarantee such?

I generally listen to PBS/PRI stations, particularly those that carry BBC feeds.

As for the net, I just don't have the time to separate the wheat from the chaff; too many self-proclaimed "knowledgable experts" there.

To the contrary, our Founders sought, as best they could, to guard against such, both by establishing the 3 separate branches of the Federal government, and by enumerating the powers allowed to each.

That certain Presidents have found ways to subvert such, and that Congress has frequently either overtly supported such, or at least implicitly done so by turning a blind eye to abuses of power, is not the fault of either the Founders or the US Constitution, but of those charged with faithfully discharging the duties of their offices.

for anything else. It's easier for them to just ask - in some cases demand - for the magic pill(s).

And, too many doctors are unable or unwilling to tell them "no."

A good example of good intentioned drugs gone bad is [i]heroin[/i].

At no time did it acknowledge the existence of Title 26 of the United States Code.

It's one thing to rail against the excesses of governments. But, it's quite another to make unsubstantiated claims to the effect that a government's actions lack any foundation in law.

[b]My Workspace[/b] > [b]Profile[/b] > [b]Edit Profile[/b] > [b]Section 2 Photo[/b].

There you can either provide a URL pointing to an image of your choosing, or select from TR's stock library.

for a while, was championed by the Germans as a "wonder" drug. Following WWI, Bayer lost its trademark rights to the name "heroin."

See the "History" section at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin

as well as Jay's piece at

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-22_11-5082270.html