- Infowars - http://www.infowars.com -
Debunking the DOJ’s Hit Piece, Part 2: Assault on The Constitution and Those Who Revere It
Posted By kurtnimmoadmin On October 8, 2010 @ 12:24 pm In Featured Stories,Old Infowars Posts Style | Comments Disabled
October 8, 2010
In Part 1 of this essay, I showed that the Department of Justice’s glossary “Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism: Terms and Concepts,” was nothing more than a hit-piece against the citizenry who are waking up to the lies of Big Government. The first part debunked their assertion that the Patriot Movement is made up of “conspiracy theorists” who believe that CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and Bilderbergs are working against the American people. This second of three parts debunks their attacks on the Constitution Party, as it represents a de facto attack on our Constitution: — the very foundation of our country.
|On top of linking the term “Constitution” to criminals and terrorists, the DOJ also attacks provisions within the Constitution.|
If you need more convincing that the Power Elite running our government right now hates you and the Constitution to which they swore an oath to uphold, there is plenty more evidence from the DOJ’s glossary to prove this point. The mere fact that this glossary, which is defined by the Department of Justice as a “tool for criminal justice professionals to enhance their understanding of words relating to extremist terminology, phrases, activities, symbols, organizations, and selected names that they may encounter while conducting criminal investigations or prosecutions of members of extremist organizations” mentions the word “Constitution” or any permutation of that word literally over a dozen times should be an indication that these “officials” are on the lookout for anyone who either speaks passionately about the Constitution, or dares to refer to it to back up their arguments.
On top of linking the term “Constitution” to criminals and terrorists, it also attacks provisions within the Constitution; namely money, precious metals, and the right to bear arms — essentially anyone involved in the rising Patriot Movement, which is also mis-defined over and over (I lost count after 50). We will continue to debunk the glossary, which attacks this rising Patriot Movement to show that true Patriots merely want a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which is exactly what The Powers That Be fear.
The “Constitution Party,” defined by the DOJ as, “A minor right-wing extremist political party formerly known as the U.S. Taxpayers Party which is one of the primary parties that specifically tries to appeal to the ‘Patriot Movement.’” All you have to do is visit the U.S. Constitution Party’s website and see that calling it a “right-wing extremist” group is an outright lie. Yes, it is a minor party compared to the corporate-owned Republican and Democrat parties, but to label it “right-wing extremist” is to label our Constitution and our Founding Fathers right-wing extremists — which the Department of Homeland Security has no problem doing, by the way. So anyone who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution is a right-wing extremist and domestic terrorist according to the DOJ, which should be more than enough evidence to show how much they hate the Constitution. This will serve as a basis for this part of my essay, for everything mentioned henceforth can be linked back to the platform of the Constitution Party, which advocates actually reading and following the guidelines laid out for us in the U.S. Constitution.
Let us begin with money. There are several terms regarding money and precious metals that the DOJ links to domestic terrorists. For instance, they define “Constitutional Money” as “Gold and silver. Ignoring judicial interpretations of the Constitution and federal law, many anti-government extremists claim that gold and silver are the only constitutional forms of money in the United States.”
First, to say that those who are advocates for gold and silver money are “anti-government extremists” is a lie — they are merely advocates for a Constitutional Government and, therefore, a Constitutional way of coining the nation’s currency, not a fiat currency based on debt printed by a Private Central Bank that practices fractional-reserve banking, as we currently have. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that the Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, as well as fix the Standards of Weights and Measures. Article I, Section 10 states that: “No State shall . . . coin money, emit bills of credit, or make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt. And of course, the 10th Amendment states, “The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” meaning if it’s not written in the Constitution (like the ability to create a Central bank that loans money to the government at interest), and it is not written as a power forbidden to the states (like the ability to emit bills of credit) then it is reserved for the States and the people.
Putting all of this together, we see that a strict interpretation of the Constitution (i.e. actually following what is written) shows that, yes, Gold and Silver is the only Constitutional form of money due to the fact that no amendments have ever repealed this section of the Constitution. The question is, how did we get away from it?
The answer is simple: Illegal actions on behalf of our Congress and past presidents. In order to make anything else legal tender in this country, the Constitution must be amended, which of course, never happened. The tyrants running the show right now know this, and so they label those who speak out as “anti-government extremists”, when it is they who are the anti-government extremists! Our government is set up with rules, and even with rules on how to change the rules! Every law regarding money and banking in this country has been a violation of our Constitutional Government’s rules. Legal tender laws — illegal. The Federal Reserve Act — illegal. The Emergency Banking Act — illegal. House-Joint Resolution 192 — illegal. Why? Because the Constitution does not say that Congress can give up their authority to coin money, give it to a privately owned bank, and have them create paper money backed by nothing and loan it to the government at interest, then declare the right to require gold and silver as payment “against public policy.” I mean, they literally passed a law saying that the previously mentioned section of the Constitution is against public policy! Why stop there? What about those pesky amendments that re-establish our God-given rights? Why not declare our rights as a violation of “public policy”?
If they wanted to change the monetary system, they needed to first amend the Constitution which, again, they never did, because they knew that the people would not go for it. As U.S. history shows us, fiat money along with fractional reserve banking always leads to economic depressions.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that the DOJ has the term “Precious Metal Dealers” in their glossary, which is defined as: “Dealers in gold and silver who form perhaps the most significant source of financial support for the ‘Patriot’ movement. Gold and silver dealers . . . sponsor shortwave radio programs whose hosts urge their listeners to put all their money into gold and silver so they can survive the ‘coming collapse.’ These cynical dealers will accept Federal Reserve Notes for precious metals.”
Never mind that gold continues to hit all-time highs. Never mind the fact that most people lost 40% of their 401K when Bush mercy-killed the Free Market System (he had to sacrifice free-market principles to save the free-market system, mind you), while precious metals have done nothing but rise as theFederal Reserve announces “quantitative easing.” But no, these are “cynical dealers” with ill-intent.
And to add icing to the cake, the DOJ has many definitions regarding precious metals. They define “Monetary Realist” as: “A term used to describe someone that adheres to the view that only gold and silver are lawful money.” The definition could easily be rewritten as: “A term used to describe someone that understands that our government has been hijacked and our Constitution ignored resulting in a confiscation of our nation’s wealth.”
The term “Silver and Gold” is defined by the DOJ as “The only ‘biblical’ and ‘constitutional’ money according to members of the ‘Patriot’ movement. Some members go so far as to refuse to use paper money conducting all of their transactions in silver or gold or through barter.”
Again, this could easily be rewritten as: “The only medium that the Constitution declares to be legal in payment of debt, which has been illegally violated by the government.”
One of the more laughable definitions is “Tax Protest Movement” defined as: “A movement consisting of people who do not simply want to avoid paying taxes but generally claim they should not have to pay them. The right-wing movement started in the 1950s and 1960s and has concentrated on interpreting the Constitution, U.S. law, and the tax code, in particular, in such a way as to be able to claim that most people do not have to pay income taxes. The motivating force behind the right-wing tax-protest movement was to find loopholes, actual or manufactured, that would allow people to claim that they had no tax obligation.”
If I recall, the Tax-Protest movement started back in the 1770s, and ended with a Constitution that stated that: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” The Constitution laid out the law to prevent taxes on people’s income, and it wasn’t until the Sixteenth Amendment that they finally stabbed America’s wealth-producers (i.e. the private sector) in the back and were able to legally rob and plunder the American People every April 15th.
But oh no! It looks like I’m a domestic terrorist, because the DOJ also defines “Sixteenth Amendment” as: “Passed in 1913, this amendment to the United States Constitution permits the collection of an income tax. Followers of Posse Comitatus and other right-wing organizations refer to the year 1913 as the ‘year of the great betrayal.’ Many groups do not believe the amendment was properly ratified by enough states to be valid and, therefore, believe the federal income tax is ‘voluntary’ and need not be paid.”
The problem is that nowhere in the Constitution is the term “income” defined, nor is it defined in the IRS tax code — the author of the IRS said this himself on video. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Courts have ruled on numerous occasions that the term “income” does not refer to one’s wages, ruling that, “income tax statutes apply only to state created creatures known as Corporations no matter whether state, local or federal,” in the case Colonial Pipeline v Traigle. Unless people are now defined as “corporations,” then the Federal Income Tax does not apply to us (which we will get to later on).
Similarly, in the case Stapler v US, the Supreme Court ruled, “There is a clear distinction between ‘profit’ and ‘wages’ or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law…The word ‘profit’ is a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor . . . Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and Revenue Act, means ‘gains’ . . . and in such connection ‘gain’ means profit . . . proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal. Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor.”
These are the facts and arguments reflected in the Tax-Protest movement — Constitutional arguments backed up by Supreme Court decisions. But apparently, if you want to follow the interpretations laid out by the Supreme Court regarding the US Constitution, the DOJ considers you a a potential extremist or terrorist.
And of course, the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and the Internal Revenue Code along with “Tax Protesters” are all listed in this glossary as terms used by potential criminals and/or terrorists and/or extremists. This goes hand-in-hand with the MIAC report that linked Ron Paul and other libertarians who advocate abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a commodity-based money to white-supremacist groups (apparently the Constitution and previous Supreme Courts that ruled on tax issues are racist.) Apparently, “anti-government extremists” use logic, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and the racist U.S. Constitution to justify their arguments.
By now, it is obvious that those running the show are the anti-government extremists, and that those in the Constitution Party are merely advocating a return to Constitutional Government.
The term “Sovereign Citizen” shows up a number of times in the DOJ’s glossary of terrorist terminology. It is far too long to reprint here, but can be viewed in its entirety here. What is important to document, however, is that part of the definition states that Sovereign Citizens believe that “they are not citizens of the United States but are ‘nonresident aliens’ with respect to that ‘illegal corporation.’”
We must pause and analyze this phrase regarding “illegal corporation” due to the importance of the Supreme Court rulings regarding income taxes and that they apply only to corporations. If this is true, and for some reason Americans are required to pay them, then the only logical explanation would be that American citizens are now legally defined as “corporations” by the United States Federal Government. This is one of the arguments of the Sovereign Citizen Movement, which I will briefly explain.
On April 5, 1933, then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued an executive order that required that the private gold of citizens be confiscated, stating: “All persons are required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933 all Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, & Gold Certificates now owned by them to a Federal Reserve Bank, branch or agency, or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System.” The penalty was a $10, 000 fine or 10 years imprisonment, or both, as provided in Section 9 of the order.
Section 9 is the part about which the Sovereign Citizen Movement raises questions. Section 9 stated, “Whosoever willfully violates any provisions of this Executive Order or of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issued thereunder may be fined not more than $10,000, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.”
Now, let us take a look at the Emergency Banking Act text, which other than giving the same penalty regarding natural persons, imprisonment and fines, it actually defines “person,” stating, “As used in this subdivision the term ‘person’ means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation.” For some reason, the executive order and this legislation both make a clear distinction between persons and natural persons — persons in their natural state that live and breathe, as opposed to unnatural persons, meaning artificial persons or corporations.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (named “A LAW DICTIONARY: ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION”) has several definitions of person and corporation which is necessary to mention in order to clearly define the Sovereign Citizen Movement.
“Person” is defined this way: “In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.” Bouvier goes on to say, “It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person.”
Likewise, “corporation” is defined this way: “An aggregate corporation is an ideal body, created by law, composed of individuals united under a common name, the members of which succeed each other, so that the body continues the same, notwithstanding the changes of the individuals who compose it, and which for certain purposes is considered as a natural person.”
It is important to realize that “person” is defined as a term used to denote natural persons as well as artificial persons (corporations), and that “corporation” is defined as a term which “for certain purposes is considered a natural person.” In other words, the definitions clearly show no discernible difference between the definition of person and corporation. The only term that is clearly not referring to corporations is natural person.
Now before you start saying that this is all “semantic mumbo jumbo,” remember who we are dealing with here. We are dealing with politicians and lawyers — of course this is all semantic mumbo jumbo! Unfortunately, however, semantics plays a huge role in every interpretation of legislation and law since the inception of our country and Constitution.
Why is all of this important in understanding the Sovereign Citizen Movement? Well, remember that the Supreme Court ruled that income taxes only apply only to “state created creatures known as corporations whether state, local, or Federal.” Yet, we all have to pay these taxes to the IRS so they can give it to the privately owned Central Bank known as the Federal Reserve, or we go to jail (or get promoted, as is the case of our current Treasury Secretary).
The Sovereign Citizen Movement sees this for what it is: Semantics garbage that enslaved an entire nation of people by turning us into Corporations with legal technicalities. Is this a conspiracy theory used by the Patriot Movement? Hardly. Again, using actual Supreme Court rulings, legal definitions, and the language of specific legislation signed by our elected politicians, the Sovereign Citizen Movement makes the claim that the Federal Government uses semantics and labels each U.S. citizen as a corporation so they can be financially raped every April 15th, even though a contract has never been signed between the Feds and the People to establish such corporations.
Sovereign Citizens believe that the documents American citizens are required to have, such as driver’s licenses, state IDs, social security cards, etc. are the contract; by taking part in such programs, the movement argues, we are binding ourselves into tyranny.
To quote the famous mobster Rocky from the beloved Bugs Bunny cartoons, “I don’t know how they does it, but they does it.” It really does not matter how the Feds are doing this; the fact is that all evidence points to We the People being legally considered corporations by the mere fact that we have to pay income taxes that are applicable only to “state created creatures known as Corporations no matter whether state, local, or federal,” to quote the Supreme Court. The legislation that declared the country bankrupt, and the executive order that pillaged the wealth from the citizens, made a clear distinction between natural person and other persons, showing us that this is not merely semantics for the sake of semantics, but that this is the kind of thing that they had in mind when drafting this illegal legislation and issuing the infamous illegal executive order.
The solution, offered by the Sovereign Citizen Movement is to apply for “Redemption,” which is trying to counter legal technicalities with more legal technicalities. This does not work of course, because the cards are stacked against the movement. The best way to to redeem ourselves would be to run for office and peaceably fix the system ourselves. As Freedom Force International says, why fight City Hall when you can be City Hall? With enough Constitutionalists in office, we can legally reverse the problematic legislation and make sure that illegal legislation and executive orders don’t take place!
Which brings us to the term “Executive Order” in the DOJ Glossary. They define these as, “The formal means by which the President of the United States determines the conduct of business in the Executive Branch. Typically, such executive orders take two forms: (1) orders governing administrative or policy matters in Executive Branch agencies or (2) orders for which the authority is derived from congressional authorizations. The ‘patriot’ movement, however, contends that executive orders are ‘presidential laws’ that bypass Congress and subvert the Constitution.”
Folks, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that what happened in 1933 by forcing Americans to give up their precious metals under penalty of fine, imprisonment, or both was outlawing private ownership of this metal, and therefore bypassing Congress — considering that the Executive Order was signed several months before HJR 192 that suspended the gold clause that would have authorized the order in question.
But the DOJ doesn’t stop there. As stated earlier, the “Patriot Movement” is mentioned over 50 times in this hit-piece. Let us review their definition of the Patriot Movement:
The ‘patriot’ movement is a general term used by its members to describe the collective movements and individuals on the extreme right wing. In one form or another, this practice dates back many decades; in the 1930s, many on the far right referred to themselves as ‘superpatriots.’ In the 1960s and 1970s, it was common to refer to the ‘Christian Patriot’ movement, but this term is less common now than then. Among the types of individuals that can be found within the ‘patriot’ movement are white supremacists, sovereign citizens, tax protesters, militia members, and sometimes antiabortion or anti-environmental groups.
That is what the Government thinks of you if you happen to agree with what I have discussed thus far in these two essays: You are on the “extreme right wing,” and belong to a list of terms defining terrorists. They don’t mention that sections within the Government have been caught infiltrating these groups (like the Tea Party) to make them look racist, or even outright lie about Tea Party Patriots spitting at Black Congressmen. They don’t mention that Political Operatives have been caught destroying their own property to blame the Patriot Movement, or that the SEIU was caught attacking Black Patriots for no reason outside a Town Hall meeting. No, the Patriot Movement is the problem, and that includes tax protesters, sovereign citizens, and the rest of the “terrorists.”
This is a classic example of how they continue to link innocent Constitution-loving citizens to violent radicals as a way to discredit them. We cannot let that happen. We must educate and engage in intellectual debates with our friends, families and, yes, our political “adversaries.” We will learn that we are not alone on the issue of our rights and our National Sovereignty, and that we actually share more in common than those who the establishment likes to tell us are our enemies.
Richard Anatone is a 24-year-old Graduate student at Ball State University studying music. He has been writing political op-eds for the last 4 years. His articles have appeared on several alternative news sites.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/debunking-the-dojs-hit-piece-part-2-assault-on-the-constitution-and-those-who-revere-it/
Copyright © 2013 Infowars. All rights reserved.