State of War, could it have been declared against the American People?

[ShortJohnSilver]

I was reflecting on our tax code and the Federal Reserve, how via mechanims both seen and unseen, it is an instrument of theft against "the people".

Then I remembered that the 16th Amendment was "declared to be in effect" and there is some question as to whether it was properly ratified.

Is there support for the argument that Congress has declared war against the people of the several states, of the "united states of America" (note capitalization)?

If so, then any action you take to protect your property, money/wealth, and livelihood, is justified, provided you yourself do not murder.

[7th trump]

First of all, what do you know about the tax code?

And I can tell you theres nothing unseen about the tax code!

Secondly, the People are not taxed. The US constitution through its proportioning outlaws such taxation against the People.
However, US citizens are taxed, regulated and controlled.

As far as the 16th goes its doesnt say who, what or how.
You have to go to the tax code to understand the who's, the what's and hows of the 16th. As far as the IRS is concerned the 14th gives authority to tax US citizens.....says so right on their website. Regulation 26CFR 1.1-1(c) says 14th amendment "US citizens" are taxed.


(c) Who is a citizen.
Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

[Ponce]

The war against the American people was created when the Federal Reserve was created.....WAKE UP.

[ShortJohnSilver]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States


A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.

Army Field Manual:


The U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare (Field Manual 27-10) states:

498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:

a. Crimes against peace.
b. Crimes against humanity.
c. War crimes.

Although this manual recognizes the criminal responsibility of individuals for those offenses which may comprise any of the foregoing types of crimes, members of the armed forces will normally be concerned, only with those offenses constituting "war crimes."[2] (emphasis added)


So what is a "war of aggression" that the Feds and the Federal Reserve may be engaged in against the people?

"A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense usually for territorial gain and subjugation." note: it does not require open, uniformed soldiers with guns; there are a number of actions that can serve as war activities.

What is a crime against peace? See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace


The "territorial integrity" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent permanently to deprive a state of any part or parts of its territory, not excluding territories for the foreign affairs of which it is responsible;

The "political independence" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to deprive a state of the entirety of one or more of the prerequisites of statehood, namely: defined territory, permanent population, constitutionally independent government and the means of conducting relations with other States;

The "sovereignty" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to overthrow the government of a state or to impede its freedom to act unhindered, as it sees fit, throughout its jurisdiction.

[7th trump]

The war against the American people was created when the Federal Reserve was created.....WAKE UP.

No it wasnt Ponce. Read and understand some history. But then again you are Cuban (no pun intended sir Ponce!).

[7th trump]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States


A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.

Army Field Manual:


The U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare (Field Manual 27-10) states:

498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:

a. Crimes against peace.
b. Crimes against humanity.
c. War crimes.

Although this manual recognizes the criminal responsibility of individuals for those offenses which may comprise any of the foregoing types of crimes, members of the armed forces will normally be concerned, only with those offenses constituting "war crimes."[2] (emphasis added)


So what is a "war of aggression" that the Feds and the Federal Reserve may be engaged in against the people?

"A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense usually for territorial gain and subjugation." note: it does not require open, uniformed soldiers with guns; there are a number of actions that can serve as war activities.

What is a crime against peace? See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace


The "territorial integrity" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent permanently to deprive a state of any part or parts of its territory, not excluding territories for the foreign affairs of which it is responsible;

The "political independence" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to deprive a state of the entirety of one or more of the prerequisites of statehood, namely: defined territory, permanent population, constitutionally independent government and the means of conducting relations with other States;

The "sovereignty" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to overthrow the government of a state or to impede its freedom to act unhindered, as it sees fit, throughout its jurisdiction.




Nothing against you ShortJohnSilver, but what you are doing is setting up your arguement to hear what you want to hear.

[Glass]

It can be a complicated topic. The general consensus is that the "trading with the enemy Act". Is one such example that the people living in America are considered to be enemies of the state. Another one I came across the other day was something Winston Shrout said in one of his videos. He said, and quoted from Codes where by it said there could be both US documented vessels and non documented american vessels.

The code he documents is the Admiralty Law, Title 22. Foreign Relations Sub-Chapter I - Shipping and seamen, Part 81 - General, 22 C.F.R. S 81.1 Definitions:

e) American undocumented vessel means any American vessel, other than an America public vessel, which is not documented under the laws of the United States.

I think there are some key words/phrases in the above. American public vessel and United States not the United States of America.

[ShortJohnSilver]

Nothing against you ShortJohnSilver, but what you are doing is setting up your arguement to hear what you want to hear.


I understand what you are saying.

I am just trying to fit the actions of the Feds into a more honest framework than that they are "doing the work the American people asked them to do".

I am trying to find out whether the taking of property by force is a justification of war. I think illegal immigration may be a component as it is an attack on the existing population.

I think as "JCarvingBlock" on the old site would put it, the people's credit was taken without proper compensation (at a minimum) by the actions of the Federal Reserve.

[midnight rambler]

Absolutely. The proof can be found in The Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 as amended March 9, 1933, in particular section 5(b) of that amended Act.


"During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the (united States) or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof.." (NOTE: later we will discuss that jurisdiction ... for now please take note of this important point.).

http://www.barefootsworld.net/srwep.html

It's also crucial to remember that the country remains under a state of martial rule under Lincoln's General Order No. 100 aka The Lieber Code as of April 24, 1863, which just happens to have been codified into the US Army Field Maunal 27-10 The Law of Land Warfare in 1956 (it's officially still in effect, and under the terms of The Lieber Code remains that way - until terminated by the CinC which has NEVER happened). One of the actual good things about FM 27-10 is that Hague V CONVENTION RESPECTING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS AND PERSONS IN CASE OF WAR ON LAND was incorporated into it in full effect, and if one declares one's self a foreign neutral in itinere* one *should* have some protection.

*As referred to by William Whiting in his book War Powers Under the Constitution which he wrote and had published during Lincoln's term as CinC.

[FunnyMoney]

Laws are enforced on the ground and interpreted at the spur of the moment. Where this world is heading a charge becomes a rebate, war is peace, bad is good.

I would not get cought up in all the fluff and side stories, nor in the strange specific details to be reported upon. In the end he who has the gun makes the law.

The workers of the world, willing or not, are in a race to the bottom. Liberty, freedom, prosperity, and even eventually truth and history do not survive the fall to the bottom. The bottom of a very deep pit, where only suffering and slavery awaits them, is now in the cards and nothing on this world is set to prevent it. Planning an aware future for you and yours may be the only thing which will allow you or your future generations to reject taking oath and number with the future central govt, national or global. Most will simply follow orders in order to prevent starvation. A long slow road to their ultimate destiny only ends when revolution becomes a decision taken solely by the individual.