On the willful ignorance of conspiracy theorists.

Earlier today I posted a comment on an article about shots being fired on Ed and Elaine Brown's property.

In the next 7 hours after I posted that comment, which is still "awaiting moderation", 11 other comments have been approved by the site moderator(s).

(It has since been approved. I tip my hat to the moderators for this.)

I would like to share the comment here so that you can read it and then read the rest of the comments on that article to put it in perspective to illustrate how conspiracy theorists like to pick and choose what information they choose to acknowledge in their quest to confirm their own (often mistaken, misinformed or simply uninformed) personal bias about the issue.

I have seen this same type of response on a number of different forums, in relation to a number of different current issues. People seem desperate to confirm their own stance and will intentionally ignore any information to the contrary, even if it is credible and backed up by actual evidence.

http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/07/importance-of-ed-and-elaine-brown-and.html

Read the facts.

This isn’t really an issue of legality. The laws are on the books and they are “legal”. Period.

The issue here isn’t one of legality, it’s a matter of principle. The laws themselves stand in violation of the principles of the founding fathers, the constitution and of Freedom and Liberty in general.

That is what the Browns are standing up against. The 16th Amendment was properly ratified. The US Tax Code does plainly state a requirement to file and pay taxes etc.

All these claims I keep hearing are based on the spread of ignorance and misinformation. I’ve done the research and read the issues and the court cases myself.

Again, the issue here isn’t the legality of the current laws… they stand as a part of the system. The problem is with their origins in corruption and their violation of the natural laws of the land, the laws meant to be protected by the Constitution.

You people need to do some actual studying and get a better understanding of the principles involved. Your spread of misinformation and ignorance does not help Ed and Elaine Brown, it simply makes it so much easier for the media to write you off as the ignorant conspiracy nuts you’re being when they show the proof that refutes your ignorant claims. You need to research and strike at the root… expose the underlying principles, the deeper issues at stake… the very core of Freedom and Liberty in the US and the violations of the natural law principles of the US Constitution.

Cogito!

Phreadom - July 29th, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Acknowledging what I wrote would not require a lack of support for Ed and Elaine Brown, but simply a rethinking of the actual issues and a greater understanding of the actual facts and issues involved.

After further browsing of that website, I found an even better example of this phenomenon. An article about a video of the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center claiming to be proof of demolitions use to bring down the towers.

The article states:

There are 2 explosions at 7:52 about 30 floors below the impact. If you pay close attention, you will see two flashes and hear 1 boom, possibly 2. Pay close attention.

The video presented with that claim can be found here: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=5474006551011489413

And another video linked just below the video, for the context of proving that demolitions were used to bring down the towers can be found here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939

The second video is linked with the words "9/11 Revisited - Were Explosives Used?".

On actually watching the video, the first problem with their claim is clear almost immediately upon seeing the aforementioned spot in the video at 7:52.

I posted the problems as comments on the article (awaiting moderation), and will summarize them below.

Did you think to factor in the speed of sound? Or that if the "boom" you speak of, which is only the tiniest audible click or pop in the video, would have followed with over a full second gap between the flash in the video and the audible click or pop we hear? (Which would have still placed it around a half second after the second flash at best.)

As stated in the intro of the video, given the 500 yard (457.2 meters) distance from the towers, a full 1.32 seconds would have elapsed between the tiny flashes and the sound reaching the camera, given the speed of sound at 344 meters per second.

This is clearly not the case. The “pop”, which is hardly a “boom”, coincides precisely with the timing of the first small flash and could be nothing more than noise in the room or a bump on the camera and certainly does not belong to the almost single pixel sized “flashes” on the video unless the video was doctored to synchronize the audio and video.

Or how about the fact that most of the conspiracy videos state that the "detonations" went off either before the planes ever hit, or as the towers collapsed?

Not only are there a number of disparate claims of the same event happening specifically at very different times, but many of them are easily debunked when you factor in actual science.

I'm not denying government complicity in 9/11, and I do in fact think they were involved in, at the very least, allowing it to happen... but this kind of misinformation or wild speculation only serves to discredit the investigations into the events.

Below are two screenshots from the video showing the intro statement that tells the distance from the towers and a shot of one of the supposed "explosions" that accompany the so called "boom(s)".




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

I'm no fan of the George W. Bush administration and I do think that based on a variety of information that they were involved to some extent in 9/11 through a combination of previously knowledge and intentional inaction at the least, if not more, based on things like the highly improbable collapse of WTC7 given its very minor damage and architectural stability etc. However, even given my stance on those issues, I like to maintain a more fact based, skeptical approach to this issue.

As I stated before, I think that giving into to wild speculation and conspiracy theorist type hysteria, we only serve to distract attention from the real issues involved and the actual credible information that's available.

(Again, I'd like to note that my comments were eventually approved after this article was written. I appreciate that move on the moderators' part. I still think this issue remains for a countless number of other forums, websites etc, so I'll keep this article here in that regard.)

The importance of Ed and Elaine Brown and their stand against Income Tax.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-taxevaders20jul20,0,2090706,full.story

The story of Ed and Elaine Brown is something we should be keeping an eye on.

Many people confuse this issue with simply not paying taxes. The issue here is a bit more complex (as is often the case) and actually centers on one tax specifically, not on all taxes.

The issue has to deal with the perception of Income Tax as a direct tax, and its implementation as a direct, unapportioned tax in regards to Sections 1 and 9 of Article 1, and Amendments 9 and 16 of the US Constitution

Article 1, Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 9:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

16th Amendment:
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.

The first two sections of Article 1 meant that any direct Federal tax or Capitation tax would have to be distributed equally among the States of the Union according to their respective populations.

A Capitation tax is basically a direct tax, per person, of a set amount based simply upon being a citizen.

The 16th Amendment removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes, thus allowing the Federal Government to collect direct taxes and not have to redistribute them to the states.

The 9th Amendment is referred to by more libertarian protesters in arguing that some rights are simply natural rights that are still protected even if not explicitly defined as protected rights in the Constitution. Their argument is that if the Federal government can collect such a tax and not have to equally redistribute it to the states, the government can use this form of extortion as coercion to force states into compliance with the Federal Government's wishes by restricting redistribution of funds by placing conditions on funding, much as was recently done with the Real ID Act and by many other acts in the past, where states were not obligated to conform, but would have their funding cut and face other restrictions if they did not.

Another argument is that the income tax is a form of extortion stating that you must pay under threat of imprisonment, and thus must hand over part of any income in order to maintain your freedom.

There are many arguments on both sides of this issue, and while a number of them simply do not hold water, so to speak, others bear serious consideration.

Some that don't hold water are the argument that the 16th Amendment was not valid either because the draft legislation distributed to the states had minor differences in punctuation (a comma instead of a semicolon), capitalization and the like, or the argument that Ohio was granted statehood in 1803, yet there was no official government proclamation until 1953, and thus Ohio's vote was invalid.

Other arguments center on the word "voluntary" in the IRS Tax Code, or argue that there is no law that explicitly states that a person must pay an income tax. These claims have been refuted time and again in courts of law on the grounds that it is implicitly declared that there are criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment for failure to file, as well as explicitly stated as such in the US Internal Revenue Code.

Some arguments that bear further consideration include those that argue that certain rights and liberties are protected, even if not originally enumerated in the Constitution or subsequent Bill of Rights. This was actually an area of heated contention during the ratification of the Constitution where the Federalists argued that in enumerating certain rights, there could be the implication that any rights not explicitly listed were not protected. This was part of the motivation for the 9th Amendment after the Anti-Federalists won out in their desire for a "Bill of Rights". Others include those mentioned above, such as the danger of the government being able to extort funds from its people or force states to comply with Federal wishes by restricting funds that previously would have been apportioned to the states, having been derived from direct taxes on those states' citizens, if they do not follow the wishes of the Federal Government and so on.

Pro-Income Tax arguments usually focus on the assertion that our government could not survive without the income tax, or are based on the implication that tax protesters want to do away with all taxes etc. I have personally found these arguments to be based on either misinformation or ignorance. The government lasted for well over a century with very little in the way of income taxes, which were generally only implemented during times of war or other exceptional need until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 under the justification that it was impractical to differentiate various forms of income and thus simply removing the need to differentiate by removing the requirement for apportionment of direct income taxation.

Some of the "solutions" to these perceived problems have been the movements to have the 16th Amendment repealed, and implementation of the FairTax legislation, among others.

It is a complex issue that weighs the desires of the government against the desires of the people under the justification of taxation in order for the government to provide services to the people.

Libertarians chafe under what they perceive as extortion of personal property under threat of imprisonment, essentially a "stay out of jail" fee, and the idea that in the United States today there is no longer any true Freedom. Everything is taxed. The Federal Government reaches its hands further into our pockets and our lives on a daily basis and continually strips away our basic Freedoms and Liberties a little at a time in order to further expand their power and fatten their coffers. Money is taken from the states and used to force states into compliance with Federal wishes by only granting funds and services on the condition that states comply with Federal wishes etc. This, coupled with restrictions on gun ownership rights, suspension of due process, domestic surveillance and other invasions of privacy, expansion of powers for domestic military use and numerous other acts have pressed many libertarians and freedom lovers into increasingly questioning the authority of the government and the limits to which a people can be beholden to that government and still be considered Free.



I'll be keeping my eye on this one.

Why does fiat money seemingly work?

I read an excellent article a few days ago that sheds a lot of light on Ron Paul's stance on the Federal Reserve system etc. Well worth the read to stay abreast of the issues this election, if not simply to have a better understanding of our money and government etc (if you live here in the US).

"Why does fiat money seemingly work?"

The article explains the importance of the shift between currency backed by gold and silver to unbacked currency as the images below of one of the original Silver Certificates and one of the modern Federal Reserve Notes show.


Before 1913 bills were labeled along the lines of "Silver Certificate - This certifies that there has been deposited in the Treasury of the United States of America One Silver Dollar payable to the bearer upon demand". After the institution of the Federal Reserve, currency was moved to unbacked notes that bore the phrase "Federal Reserve Note - This Note is Legal Tender for all debts, public and private" that relied simply upon the Federal Reserve saying they had value. Read the article linked above for a much more in-depth explanation of the historical chain of events that led to this change.

Excellent article on Ron Paul's historical relationship with Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson

I just read an excellent article that sheds some light on the issue surrounding the possible reluctance of people who might be hesitant to vote for Ron Paul on the grounds that they feel his reforms might be too radical.

The author goes on to cover the legacies of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, who both made similar, if not even more radical, changes during their presidencies, and how that actually garnered them re-elections and massive public support after initially narrowly winning the elections.

An excellent read!

Zeitgeist

I just watched a documentary of sorts called "Zeitgeist".

This movie was fascinating in its scope and revelations. I knew a fair portion of this information, but even I was floored by the scope of the information they presented and the cohesive manner in which they presented it.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Have a look for yourself. Its assertions and information are simply staggering

I'm including two quotes from the website linked above. First we have the "about" page from http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/statement.htm:

Thank you for your interest in Zeitgeist.
Zeitgeist was created as a not for profit expression to inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the population at large think they are. The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period of research and the current Source page on this site lists the sources used / referenced.
Soon, an interactive transcript will be online with detailed footnotes and links.

It's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed.
For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance, very often people who look up "Horus" or "The Federal Reserve" on the Internet draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is based on documented evidence.

That being said, it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.

Thank you

And the sources as referenced in the above quote, from http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm:

Basic Sources:

Part 1:
Massey, Gerald - The Historic Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree
Acharya S - The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press
Massey, Gerald - Ancient Egypt: Light of the World, Kessinger Publishing
Churchward, Albert -The Origin and Evolution of Religion, The Book Tree
Acharya S - Suns of God, Adventures Unlimited Press
Murdock, D.M. - Who was Jesus?, Steller House Publishing
Allegro, John - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, Prometheus Books
Maxwell, Tice, Snow - That Old Time Religion, The Book Tree
King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman
Leedom, Tim C - The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read, TS Books
Paine, Thomas - The Age of Reason
Remsburg, John E. - The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, Prometheus Books
Massey, Gerald - Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Mysteries of Amenta, Kessinger Publishing
Irvin, Jan & Rutajit, Andrew - Astrotheology and Shamanism, The Book Tree
Doherty, Earl - The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?, Age of Reason Pub.
Campbell, Joseph - Creative Mythology: The Masks of God, Penguin
Doane, T.W. - Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, Health Research
Maxwell, Jordan: The Light of World (Film Series) IRES
The Naked Truth (Film) IRES

Part 2:
Griffin, David Ray - 911 The Myth and the Reality
Ruppert, Michael -The Truth and Lies of 9-11
Avery, Dylan - Loose Change 2nd Edition
Berger, Michael - Improbable Collapse
Avatar, LLC - 911 Mysteries
Hilder, Anthony J.- Illuminazi 911
Mugford, Duistin - September 11th Revisited
Hufschmid, Eric - Painful Deceptions
Zwickerm, Barrie - 911 The Great Conspiracy
Duffy, John - 911 Press For Truth
Jones, Alex - Martial Law 9/11
Jones, Alex - TerrorStorm
Hilder, Anthony J.-The Greatest Lie Ever Sold
vonKleist, Dave - 911 In Plane Site
Humphrey, George - 911 The Great Illusion

** Important Reference Books **
Ruppert, Michael - Crossing the Rubicon, New Society Publishers
Tarpley, Webster - 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Progressive Press
Griffin, David Ray - The New Pearl Harbor, Interlink
Griffin, David Ray - Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Olive Branch Press
Griffin, David Ray -The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions, Olive Branch Press
Marrs, Jim - The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty, Disinformation Company


Part 3:
Perloff, James - The Shadows of Power, Western Islands
Marrs, Jim - Rule by Secrecy, Harper Paperbacks
Dye, Thomas R. - The Irony of Democracy, Wadsworth Publishing
Greider, William - Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country, Simon & Schuster
F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, Duell/Sloan/Pearce
Allen, Fredrick Lewis - "Morgan The Great"/ Life Magazine - 4/25/1949
Simpson, Colin - The Lusitania, Little Brown
Pool, James - Who Financed Hitler: the Secret Funding... ,Pocket Books
Epperson, Ralph A. -The Unseen Hand
Sutton, Anthony C. - Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, G S G & Associates Pub
Sutton, Anthony C. - The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, G S G & Associates Pub
Allen, Gary - The Rockefeller File, 76 Pr
Lundberg, Ferdinand - America's Sixty Families, Citidell Press
Mcfadden, Louis - On the Federal Reserve, Congressional Record 1934
Allen, Gary - The Bankers , Conspiratorial Origins of the Federal Reserve, American Opinion
Larson, Martin - The Federal Reserve
House, Edward Mandell -The Intimate Papers Of Colonel House, Kessinger Publishing
Sutton, Anthony C. - Wall Street and FDR, Arlington House
Russo, Aaron - America: Freedom To Fascism (film)
Iserbyt, Charlotte Thompson - The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, 3d Research Co
Stinnett, Robert - Day Of Deceit, Free Press
Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America, spp.gov
Jaikaran, Jacques S. - Debt Virus, Glenbridge Publishing
Griffin, G. Edward, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American Media
Grace Commision Report - 1984 - Reagan Admin

I've been studying a bit on the Federal Reserve, Personal Income Tax and issues surrounding 9/11 etc lately as a part of my regular forum debates, as well as my long standing study of Christianity and religion, but I found a lot of information that was new to me, and found many new correlations between that information etc.

While there is still some information in the latter parts of the movie that I'd question or would disagree with, for the most part the information is valid and compelling. Some of the things I would question would be the validity of the 16th Amendment, or the "squibs" on the WTC towers etc. Some of these things have been debunked or explained already, so I was a little disappointed to see them included, but overall I was impressed.

I think the fast pace of the delivery for such a large amount of information lended itself to a bit of cherry picking or taking things out of context etc, but I can somewhat forgive that, given the format of delivery.

I would love to see a much more expanded version of this documentary that could dwell more on the points. I would also love to see an in-depth critique of the film as a whole, addressing all the various claims etc.

With that said, check it out for yourselves! An impressive presentation!

Cogito!