Watermelons are Not Taxable Income

[Keith Broaders]

The income tax is a direct and un-apportioned tax and is and always has been, unconstitutional. The compensation that you receive from your labor is not a gain and therefore, not income by definition. In fact, income is the profit one receives from being a government employee or from profits from corporate activity. If a man pays you in watermelons for mowing his lawn, are the watermelons considered taxable income?

The fruits of one's labor are the product of one's time and talent and this is not the same thing as income. Whether your compensation comes in the form of watermelons or dollars, it really doesn't matter. Neither the watermelons nor the dollars that you receive as a result of your labor, are income.

For further evidence to support this I direct you to other articles such as;

Income Taxes are a Direct Unapportioned Tax

The National  Debt and The CAFR

The Fed's Big Secret

Income Taxes are Unconstitutional

The Law That Never Was

Taxation Without Representation

Comments? Questions? Replies? Links?

[Mangus Colorado]

Well enough of your snide remarks -

I am a educated Organic Chemist started with a PhD. in my fathers lab at age 4. So, I am well qualified and knowledgeable about Organic chemistry. If you want some good reading on the subject find books by Adele Davis another trained in bio chemistry.

You make silly statements that Monsanto made the soil depleted in what? Next is the fear of GMO . . yes I also studied genetics so do not BS here with the E=Green BS. 

Provide the peer reviewed [with real scientific method] not a grant science for money paper that hides the data researched.

I will answer one more of your false claims - my statements were on topic - more than potassium is a water soluble mineral. Vitamins also are effected.

[Eric R Rhodes]

Beatifully said. Now here's common over the counter drug: Prilosec. Known to reduce bone density over a period of 5 to 7 years, that is if you had good bone density to begin with. If you didn't, your advised to talk to your Doctor about a DEXA scan. 

This DEXA scan is commonly done, and is considered the gold standard for measuring your bone density. BTW Banana's are high in Potassium, look it up, they are a recommended source of potassium in fact, but they are fattening.

[Mangus Colorado]

I am quite well informed about water soluble minerals, but one can have potassium issues without diuretics. There are offsetting treatments that prevent or minimize loss of water soluble minerals and vitamins. 

Humans are like shoes one size does not fit all. Make sure you go to a major research University Hospital where they have all the newer methods and treatments. I had serious issues and there were only 5 Doctors in the entire world that had experience with my issue. I interviewed all but one in Europe and was cured.

[Eric R Rhodes]

Surely your not trying suppress others free speech here are you Linda? We have enough to do without stomping on others free speech and press rights. We the American People still retain that much of the Bill of Rights which I do fully support with my last breath. I take Potassium myself, exactly 88 mg a day as a supplement along with the occasional Banana, but not too much on the banana, they are fattening!  

[Bill May]

Basically the gov wants a percentage of anything you trade your labor for - even watermelons. It just wants it converted to FRN's first.

Is the current income tax constitutional.  Yes and no.  It depends upon whom you are. The gov has been very diligent at programming the population to think there is only one form of citizenship in America called US citizenship, while at the same time a sort of quasi citizenship in a state.

This is false. The constitution still recognize two distinct forms of citizenship.  One in which the individual is only a citizen of one of the several states and one in which the individual is a citizen of the fed gov with a quasi citizenship in a state.  This was created by the 14th amendment.

Here is the answer to the above.  The states never gave the United States [ fed gov ] the power to lay a tax on the [ sovereign ] citizens of the states.  So, to this day, as far as the constitutions are concerned, the current income tax does not apply to them.

It does apply to those people who owe their citizenship to the adoption of the 14th amendment.  They are citizens of the United States [ fed gov ] and although born in a state, are not true state citizens and are under the system of law of their citizenship - the United States [ basically DC ].  Congress has always had the power to impose such a tax on people who are under its [ Art 4 ] general lawmaking powers.

The states to this day have never delegated the power to the United States to rule the states concurrently with the state legislatures.  This is all fraud and maybe even treason.  After the adoption of the 14th there was a class of people in the state that the United States had the power to rule concurrently with the state legislatures, but this still does not constitutionally include those people that are not fed citizens in a state.

[Eric R Rhodes]

Bill, your right, but the reliance on money created out of nothing and can be devalued back into nothing like any paper currency can be, this is no way to base an economy that can be referred to as stable. Lives are lost in such an economy through the military industrial complex and the Rothschild's banking system which feeds off the bodies of those which it kills. In the end this economy is ruins either way you want to swing it. If we keep it up, we are right on schedule for the last step in our evolution, which could well be an extinction level event.

Now with the advent of nuclear weapons and the stakes are much, much higher then ever before, it is not incomprehensible to foresee the day the inevitable will occur, and even the Banksters will pay the ultimate price along with the rest of us. If the idea of global warming seems unlikely, then try out a nuclear winter to cool down with. Either way the outcome is a disaster, and no one can profit off of that outcome. If we find that ultimate freedom through global level extinction, then so be it. The ultimate tax is the end of life on the planet as we once knew it, and it sure seems like we're willing to pay it too. A fools tax if their ever was one, all over money and greed, the Tax man and the banksters will win this one in the end. Hope they enjoy it..  

[Mike]

Now that we have learned that there are more than one type of citizen, how do we PROVE that we ARE NOT federal US citizens, but instead state Citizens of the united- States of America?

For myself, I was tricked into acquiring a Dr license, SS#, passport, voters registration and likely a few dozen other incriminating documents where I probably checked the box asking if I was a US citizen. You bet I was foolish enough to place my autograph and inserted my name in all capital letters obediently as the instructions demanded. I was competently educated/indoctrinated in our federal school system.

How do we undo the damage after we are hoodwinked into incriminating ourselves into federal slavery? Some of it can be viewed as legal contracts signed while a minor. What about the rest? "Ignorance is no defense". Unless we can prove that THEIR federal school system never taught us any different, so it's THEIR fault we checked the wrong boxes and signed where we weren't supposed to! Can we prove to a jury of our peers the hundreds of untruths taught to all of us as our defense claiming ignorance on our part and fraud on the federal side? Or will a judge toss it out before a jury ever hears it?

[Mangus Colorado]

WE THE PEOPLE created and approved the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION which is a COMPACT with specific powers and limits. 

*It bestows no citizenship on any person nor does it limit who can be a State citizen. 
*It does not say who and who can not vote in elections for the Federal Offices. 

*The Constitution is a LIMITING DOCUMENT. 
It does not pass any rights to anyone!
* Rights are from the CREATOR.
All unstated rights go to the States and to the people. 

So, we are all citizens of our Home State - I was born in (edit), but I am a citizen of (edit). 
Keep  in mind that all case law precedent on the Federal Level are usurped as Article III does not allow British case law theory nor does it allow for Judicial review.

(1807-1815) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_Part 1 Beginning on Pg 53.
 
"DEAR SIR, While Burr's case is depending before the court, I will trouble you, from time to time, with what occurs to me. I observe that the case of Marbury v. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop at the threshold the citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to be law."
 
"I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, & denounced as not law; &: I think the present a fortunate one. because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad therefore. if, in noticing that case.you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive, that the doctrines of that case were given extra judicially & against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive."

                                                                   USURPED POWERS AND HAMILTON 

Now maybe all will understand the importance of restoring the ORIGINAL Constitution and it's intents and meanings as of the time it was adopted. None of the laws passed or the Precedent case law created using the usurped powers has any effect in law. They by the nature of the usurpation are null and viod because the usurpers did not have Constitutional power to change alter or create new rights or find new meaning to the various sections, clauses and amendments.

Any violation of oath of office by way of usurpation of power is the gravest of civic offenses. It is "treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people," as Alexander Hamilton correctly characterized any flouting of the people's fundamental law. ("letters of Phocion," 1784: regarding violation of the New York Constitution.) 

Any usurpation "is criminal and odious" as declared by President John Quincy Adams in his first annual Message to Congress 1825. Such condemnation of usurpation-either by misusing granted power, or by grasping power which has not been granted - is in keeping with the Federalist's denunciation of this most heinous offense by any public official as a defaulting public trustee, including especially any and ever Judge because especially charged with the particular duty of enforcing respect in practice of this basic law. (all from a book by Hamilton Abert Long).

So as you can surmise the Congress and the Courts are usurpers as they have created new laws where none existed and new rights where none had been before. So, if they usurped the powers and actions the actions and right are hereby voided in the real law.

[Bill May]

Original intend determined who could be a citizen before the 14th was adopted. The framers were concerned with survival of their new gov that they created only for them and those like them.  There was no such thing as political correctness back then.

Citizenship in a state [ sovereignty ] was reserved exclusively for whites and interestingly, there has been no amendment yet to change this.  Sovereignty under the 14th resides in the gov and no state has amended its constitution to accept anyone but whites as citizens.

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded."
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]

The courts have always made it clear the the 14th created a citizenship in the fed gov with a quasi state citizenship. The right to live in a state but without the benefits associated with true state citizenship.

[Eric R Rhodes]

Hells Bells Magnus, you didn't agree to any of this, not one person alive could have, you weren't even around when this all started up. So how can you say We the current living People on the land, consented to this with the signatures of men we never even knew? I DO NOT CONSENT to be enslaved by mere words spoken long before I was even born. Debt shouldn't be inheritable from one generation to the next. Just what the hell kind of freedom is that? Alexander Hamilton featured heavily on a strong central bank, and he and Thomas Jefferson had strong opinions against each other on that very subject. I wonder why Arron Burr and Alexander Hamilton really had a duel where Burr shot and killed Hamilton in a duel held in New Jersey? Just a question, the two must have had a strong differences of opinion to step out on the field of honor and lay their lives in the line...don't you think? We might never now, through the passage of time, much has been lost..your right the Constitution doesn't confer rights on anyone but those who consent to uphold those rights, but since rights apparently are not inheritable unless accepted by those whole claim them as a birthright, the same should apply to debts from our forefathers. I, for one accept my rights, but not the debts of the past. No generation should pay for the debts of another, past generation. Born free, or die a slave is motto most of us can live with..Kinda like Patrick Henry said in his famous quote "Give me liberty or give me death"..it is our choice, and not one man can make us their debtor/slave, that is unless we wanted too..I sure don't. 

[Eric R Rhodes]

Thank you Linda, Magnus does seem to be a little thought provoking, and that's OK! How ever trolling to piss people off isn't. We can agree to disagree on about 90% of just about anything. But each of us does have limits, and some limits are reached quicker then others. I just listen to what he has to say and I agree with much of what he has to say. But it's the format of a challenge that pisses off some people, and I'm not going to be one of them, until he or anyone crosses the invisible line, and since it is invisible, it's hard to say when it has been crossed. All is good with me as it stands right now. Have a GREAT AFTERNOON/ EVENING!

[Mangus Colorado]

I do not intend to offend, but yes I do intend to challenge or what is the purpose of forums?

Sorry if some are offense but you can disprove my post and I will retract from the argument.