America: Freedom to Fascism

The_Animus · 23rd October 2007, 01:36 PM

Just for kicks and to hear the other side of the argument I got a copy of America: Freedom to Fascism to watch tonight after I'm done with work.

I tried searching the forum but I couldn't find a thread talking about this 'documentary'. I think the search feature here doesn't always work very well.

In any case I was hoping I could get a general review of this film and its accuracy.

If there are many errors in this film, could you please point out just a couple of the main ones and provide a link to evidence showing this?

I wanted to know what some of the issues and inaccuracies with this film are before watching it so I can point it out to anyone who is watching it with me to ensure they know the facts.

Thanks everyone.

Drudgewire · 23rd October 2007, 01:48 PM

Here's a couple of resources:

Wiki entry (check out "criticisms")

NY Times: Facts Refute Filmmaker’s Assertions on Income Tax in ‘America’

qarnos · 23rd October 2007, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Just for kicks and to hear the other side of the argument I got a copy of America: Freedom to Fascism to watch tonight after I'm done with work.

I tried searching the forum but I couldn't find a thread talking about this 'documentary'. I think the search feature here doesn't always work very well.

I haven't seen it myself, but there are a couple of (very short) threads about it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62726
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2572365

I find Google is more useful for searching the forums. There should be an option for it in the search menu, or you can just go to Google and type "site:forums.randi.org" after your search terms.

Hyperviolet · 23rd October 2007, 02:00 PM

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

The_Animus · 23rd October 2007, 04:46 PM

Thank you all for the links and information. I will start reading it now

The_Animus · 23rd October 2007, 06:16 PM

I read through some of the links that were provided, but the way the FRS and fiat money and such works is beyond my understanding.

Could someone please either provide a link or a general explanation of how the FRS works and how the government money worked before the FRS was created? I simply don't understand the explanation from the links that were previously provided.

Also many of those links continuously mention the fact that the 16th amendment is the reason why income tax is constitutional and that judges have consistantly ruled this way in court. However, if the 16th amendment was passed illegally, shouldn't it either be abolished because it was never really passed, or at least re-passed legally this time?

Also I understand, or at least I believe I do, that part of the income tax is used to pay off national debt, and part of it is used to fund various government programs and expenses. How did the US government afford all its expenses before there was an income tax?

Drudgewire · 23rd October 2007, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by The_Animus

However, if the 16th amendment was passed illegally, shouldn't it either be abolished because it was never really passed, or at least re-passed legally this time?

The problem is with the "if." Since it was legally ratified, pay your damn taxes.

Anti-sophist · 23rd October 2007, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by The_Animus

However, if the 16th amendment was passed illegally, shouldn't it either be abolished because it was never really passed, or at least re-passed legally this time?

It's not technically correct to say that the 16th amendment is the reason that income tax is legal. Income tax was legal before the 16th amendment. If you read the 16th amendment, there's a particular part that seems quite confusing and tends to get ignored almost universally by people in this argument. That part is the part of most importance. I think it should be self-evident from my description of the part I'm referring.

Furthermore, the argument that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified is.. well.. non-legal. No court has ever found that to be true and the list of courts that have tossed that argument as 'frivolous' is long.

Lots of people have the opinion that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified. The Constitution, however, only makes a certain class of opinions matter, legally. That would be the judicial branch. So while we have alot of opinions floating around, the ones that count, as per the Constitution, have been pretty universal in the legality of the 16th amendment.

The Evan's Faq is a great place to destroy most of the tax protestor nonsense. Russo spends alot of time on the "there is no law" stuff. PL 83-591, for the record, is the law. Evan's FAQ handles it and many other of the smaller claims.

The federal reserve stuff is more complicated and I've never really gotten into it for exactly that reason. I don't really want to argue such nuanced economic theory as money creation/fiat currency/central banking with people who believe stuff like this. It just makes my brain hurt.

Drudgewire · 23rd October 2007, 06:53 PM

Even if you accept the claim Kentucky rejected it (the official stance is they approved it, then turned around and rejected it over some wording, then approved it later), there were still three states that hadn't acted upon it one way or the other and never had to once it became law. Considering we were AT WORST one state from a 3/4 majority going in, the odds all three would have then rejected it are... what do I look like, a math guy? They suck, OK?

If there was the tiniest loophole in it, someone would have gotten it by now... because A LOT of lawyers have tried.

Wanting something to be illegal doesn't make it illegal. Much like wanting something to be legal can still get you a simple possession beef. <

>

23rd October 2007, 01:36 PM	#1
The_Animus Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 1,220	America: Freedom to Fascism Just for kicks and to hear the other side of the argument I got a copy of America: Freedom to Fascism to watch tonight after I'm done with work. I tried searching the forum but I couldn't find a thread talking about this 'documentary'. I think the search feature here doesn't always work very well. In any case I was hoping I could get a general review of this film and its accuracy. If there are many errors in this film, could you please point out just a couple of the main ones and provide a link to evidence showing this? I wanted to know what some of the issues and inaccuracies with this film are before watching it so I can point it out to anyone who is watching it with me to ensure they know the facts. Thanks everyone.
	__________________ Insults come when a person cannot think of an intelligent response.

23rd October 2007, 01:48 PM	#2
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Here's a couple of resources: Wiki entry (check out "criticisms") NY Times: Facts Refute Filmmaker’s Assertions on Income Tax in ‘America’
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

23rd October 2007, 01:50 PM	#3
qarnos Cold-hearted skeptic Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Melbourne, Austrylia Posts: 1,985	Originally Posted by The_Animus Just for kicks and to hear the other side of the argument I got a copy of America: Freedom to Fascism to watch tonight after I'm done with work. I tried searching the forum but I couldn't find a thread talking about this 'documentary'. I think the search feature here doesn't always work very well. I haven't seen it myself, but there are a couple of (very short) threads about it. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62726 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2572365 I find Google is more useful for searching the forums. There should be an option for it in the search menu, or you can just go to Google and type "site:forums.randi.org" after your search terms.
	__________________ "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]" - Greenpeace press release.

23rd October 2007, 02:00 PM	#4
Hyperviolet Damnum Fatale Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Glaschu Posts: 988	http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
	__________________ The English are worried about the Euro being brought in because of loss of national identity and rising prices. In Scotland, people are just worried in case they have to close Poundstretcher.

23rd October 2007, 04:46 PM	#5
The_Animus Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 1,220	Thank you all for the links and information. I will start reading it now
	__________________ Insults come when a person cannot think of an intelligent response.

23rd October 2007, 06:16 PM	#6
The_Animus Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 1,220	I read through some of the links that were provided, but the way the FRS and fiat money and such works is beyond my understanding. Could someone please either provide a link or a general explanation of how the FRS works and how the government money worked before the FRS was created? I simply don't understand the explanation from the links that were previously provided. Also many of those links continuously mention the fact that the 16th amendment is the reason why income tax is constitutional and that judges have consistantly ruled this way in court. However, if the 16th amendment was passed illegally, shouldn't it either be abolished because it was never really passed, or at least re-passed legally this time? Also I understand, or at least I believe I do, that part of the income tax is used to pay off national debt, and part of it is used to fund various government programs and expenses. How did the US government afford all its expenses before there was an income tax?
	__________________ Insults come when a person cannot think of an intelligent response.

23rd October 2007, 06:21 PM	#7
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by The_Animus However, if the 16th amendment was passed illegally, shouldn't it either be abolished because it was never really passed, or at least re-passed legally this time? The problem is with the "if." Since it was legally ratified, pay your damn taxes.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

23rd October 2007, 06:45 PM	#8
Anti-sophist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1,542	Originally Posted by The_Animus However, if the 16th amendment was passed illegally, shouldn't it either be abolished because it was never really passed, or at least re-passed legally this time? It's not technically correct to say that the 16th amendment is the reason that income tax is legal. Income tax was legal before the 16th amendment. If you read the 16th amendment, there's a particular part that seems quite confusing and tends to get ignored almost universally by people in this argument. That part is the part of most importance. I think it should be self-evident from my description of the part I'm referring. Furthermore, the argument that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified is.. well.. non-legal. No court has ever found that to be true and the list of courts that have tossed that argument as 'frivolous' is long. Lots of people have the opinion that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified. The Constitution, however, only makes a certain class of opinions matter, legally. That would be the judicial branch. So while we have alot of opinions floating around, the ones that count, as per the Constitution, have been pretty universal in the legality of the 16th amendment. The Evan's Faq is a great place to destroy most of the tax protestor nonsense. Russo spends alot of time on the "there is no law" stuff. PL 83-591, for the record, is the law. Evan's FAQ handles it and many other of the smaller claims. The federal reserve stuff is more complicated and I've never really gotten into it for exactly that reason. I don't really want to argue such nuanced economic theory as money creation/fiat currency/central banking with people who believe stuff like this. It just makes my brain hurt.
	__________________ A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire

23rd October 2007, 06:53 PM	#9
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Even if you accept the claim Kentucky rejected it (the official stance is they approved it, then turned around and rejected it over some wording, then approved it later), there were still three states that hadn't acted upon it one way or the other and never had to once it became law. Considering we were AT WORST one state from a 3/4 majority going in, the odds all three would have then rejected it are... what do I look like, a math guy? They suck, OK? If there was the tiniest loophole in it, someone would have gotten it by now... because A LOT of lawyers have tried. Wanting something to be illegal doesn't make it illegal. Much like wanting something to be legal can still get you a simple possession beef. <>
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet