Pope wants “World Political Authority”, aka New World Order

Post Reply New Topic

As it's quite cold today (where I live at any rate), let me quote from that brilliant series Blackadder II: "Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics."

Orwell, you ask questions that would take a very long time to address in detail. So, if you aren't prepared to do your own research, I'm not sure how much I can provide you with before it turns into an online dissertation.

In short, the Constitution of the united States of America says this....

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
- Art. 1, Sec. 9

You then have the favorite of the IRS, the 16th Amendment which says....

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.
- emphasis added

On this alone, I could go on at great length.

TO BE BRIEF, your WAGES are not INCOME under the law. A business (no matter what form) is only taxed on it's INCOME. And that is the NET income, not the gross that is subject to taxation. A person is taxed on his GROSS income, not his net income. If you consider what you are paid to do a job, no accounting is made for the EXPENSE side of your life ledger (and, no, the standard deduction doesn't come close to the actual cost of living). In a business transaction, like is exchanged for like, and a man's time, energy, creativity, etc. is a substance to which monetary compensation is a 1:1 exchange.

INCOME for a man is having your money in the bank or the stock market earning dividends. Your paycheck from going out and digging ditches is not income, it is COMPENSATION. A zero-sum result. You gave and the employer compensated you. For anyone to state your compensation is income, they must establish that it is gain YOU DID NOT WORK FOR.

It is legalese in the IRS code that seeks to state that "wages" are = to "income" for the purposes of taxation.

Now, let's look at the law itself. The USC (United States Code) and USCA (United States Code Annotated) has not a single line in it that establishes a legal duty to pay an individual income tax. Trust me on this one. Pretty devoted people on this matter have searched for years and never found anything that comes close. There is a legal duty to file a tax return with the IRS, but I'll get to that next.

Even the IRS itself has not (and in fact refuses to) cite where in the law such an obligation exists. If it's there, they should know, and they should not be afraid to cite it. However, if indeed such a tax is unconstitutional, putting such a law on the books immediately opens the door for a legal challenge in court.

So, if we presume that it is indeed unconstitutional and that indeed there is no law mandating you must pay it, how do we become obligated to pay the income tax? By trickery and self-admission. Some would say the threat of punishment via the IRS enforcement mechanism, but really, that's not how the legal obligation comes into play.

There is a law requiring that you file a tax return. Now, legally, "wages" does not = "income." This is a legal certainty under the law itself. However, what prevents the IRS from (for purposes of their own form) associating "wages" which are not taxable as being = to "income" which is taxable? Pretty much nothing. So you get a From 1040 and read the instructions. Right in there you will see that the IRS equates "wages" to "income." There is no legal grounds for them to do that, but they do, and they expect every person to put the amount of "wages" they received in with all the other "income" they may have earned in the prior year. That would not be so bad by itself, but then you follow the IRS' instructions and see they take the whole amount (not all of which is legally taxable) and tell you to look up the amount on the IRS' tax table and enter the value on that table into a section of the form. None of this is based in the law, it's all in-house policy and procedure. It's 100% unsupported by law and not representative of what you lawfully or legally may actually owe in taxes.

So, where does the obligation kick in? WHEN YOU SIGN YOUR TAX RETURN. It becomes a legally binding affidavit where you ADMIT that YOU OWE the stated amount on the form. You could put in figures that are legally correct under the law, but then the IRS will pursue you for tax evasion, because they don't care what the law actually says on the issue, they want you to fill out the form according to their hand-crafted and self-serving instructions.

The law says you only must give 10%. I get a law passed that mandates you fill out a form I provide, but in that form I make it simple, I tell you to list 50% of what you earn and sign it as an acknowledgment that you must pay that amount. No matter what the law says you actually can be bound to, your signing that document OBLIGATES you to pay the higher amount.

Is this making any sense to you yet? Believe it or not, that is how it actually works.

Keep in mind this doesn't even scratch the surface of what "income taxes" actually are applied towards. We pay a multitude of local, state and federal taxes that provide for everything we get. The "income tax" doesn't pay a dime of what you get today or even yesterday. Everything we get is the result of government illegally borrowing what it needs to meet the annual budget and promising the incomes/substance of every American as collateral for the loan. Legally, even the government cannot borrow money and obligate a 3rd party as a securing party without the express written consent of that party, but that's what's going on.

Correct, and the same is true in Scripture concerning tithe: Only on actual gain.

I've already checked into the issue a while ago. I'll dig up some links for you that cover the legal side of it, but in the meantime I just want to point out a few issues of basic logic.


There are a lot of wealthy, intelligent people who would very much like to get out of paying taxes. Don't you think they would already have challenged this?


It seems incredibly unlikely to me that millions of people consistently hand over their money when they have every incentive in the world to find a way out of paying it.


Source? Does this claim not sound extraordinary to you? Of the billions of dollars collected in income tax, it all just disappears?

The whole asking for taxes is illegal meme is such an easy way to spot BS...

The solution is respect, not violence and intimidation of a totalitarian institution.

And Lee talked about nuclear powers threatening others.
These nuclear powers are members of the UN and want "global solutions".
Are they going to regulate themselves?

I haven't seen the UN function as a totalitarian institution. Can you show any documentation that supports this idea?

It is BS because what "legal" and "illegal" is, is determined by the same group that taxes people.
The people can vote for this or that guy who would give them more or less taxes, but taxes nevertheless.

Certain events can create reasons to tax people further.
That is why in the US crime is very profitable. Victimless crimes, the war on drugs, the punitive prison system, law enforcement, courts, ect...
All lead to more taxation, more regulation. Which leads to growth of the State, more corruption, more crime. And the cycle repeats itself in a revolving manner.

I wasn't saying the UN is totalitarian, they are totalitarian wannabe. The UN is a global govt prototype.

I was just saying how humans should learn to respect instead of learning to regulate themselves more intensively.

That isn't going to happen and why regulations are needed.

The point I was trying to make is that violence will be used against those who do not want to be part of this global govt. It is not an argument or criticism, it is just what happens.
If they don't use violence to stop secession, people would secede.
Violence does not always stop secession though. It wasn't possible for violence to stop secession of the US from GB, but it was possible in the USA vs the Confederate States of America case, either way, a lot of people died and this could have been prevented if the ones with the most power and wealth would have let people of different ideologies, who happen to live in within the borders of their self-claimed property, secede.



"Anarchist" is just a label, I mean, does it change what I'm saying if I call myself whatever?
You don't need to call yourself a chemist to make sense when you claim that 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 of oxygen make a water molecule.

OK. But again, this doesn't apply to a global government any more than it does to our current national governments. Once again, you pretty much have to be an anarchist to hold this view and be consistent.


When we're talking about political ideologies, it does make a difference because holding inconsistent views is a problem. If you say taxation is theft, and you are not an anarchist, it probably means you have not considered the logical implications of your beliefs, and that is usually a bad sign in a person's ideology. Anarchists can say "taxation is theft" because such a belief is consistent with anarchism. Nationalists can not, because a nation-state must sustain itself by means of taxes.

You think humans are wild beasts that should be bossed around by a group of higher than thou mentality freaks with the biggest guns and laws at their pencil tips.
You forget the fact of how human have the nature to cooperate with each other, this is why civilization exists and crime is many time less common than order is.

You do not know what ethics are nor do favor an ethical evolution of the human species.

I don't know what you are talking about.
Are you saying the State would peacefully allow them to secede?



Well, if you see inconsistencies and contradictions in my beliefs point them out please.
I still don't think how can a label can make my arguments make more or less sense to others if they focus on my argument and not the label itself.
I'm talking about ideas here.

Those are harsh words.
Let's just say I'm not as young as I used to be, and yes, I think humans are little more than wild beasts.
And a good day to you too...

1. The Pope thinks there should be a global authority... PICK ME PICK ME!

2. Who cares. The Pope ordered the Spanish Inquisition. Good he can't now.

"If all states were sovereign and the sovereignty of each was being respected, then yes, nobody could ever interfere without being a bully ... but a global governance cannot exist until sovereignty is gone."

3. Who is really good enough to rule the world? It would suk if Hitler got
the job. The Pope allegedly talked to and approved of Hitler to rule the world.

4. If your work is fun and you make everything you need without money,
how can you get taxed? It is obviously possible. Monkeys don't pay tax,
unless they believe in evolution.