Yup. In international politics, Canada is a joke. We don't even have a legal constitution and our government is operating illegally. How ridiculous is that?
Everything You Have Ever Learned is a Lie
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
With the precedent of the 1992 referendum, many believe that a future package of constitutional amendments could not be passed without popular approval through another referendum. Indeed, both Alberta and British Columbia have legislation that requires the holding of a referendum in those provinces on constitutional amendments. In the case of Alberta, the referendum must be held before a vote is held in the legislature on the resolution to amend the Constitution. The B.C. government has to put any proposed amendment to a referendum even before introducing a motion in the legislature.
- For details, see Alberta's Constitutional Referendum Act and B.C.'s Constitutional Amendment Approval Act.
Political Science
I can keep looking if you need more details.
Apparently more is required. It does require a vote by the people, who cares if it only applies to Alberta and BC.
A check into how it was taken away from the other Provinces is your part in this conversation.
Amending the Constitution
See also: Amendments to the Constitution of Canada Section 52(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982 says that constitutional amendments can only be made in accordance with the rules laid out in the Constitution itself. The purpose of this section was to entrench constitutional supremacy and remove the ability of legislators to amend the constitution using simple legislation.
The rules for amending Canada's constitution are quite dense. They are laid out in Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.
There are five different amendment formulas, each applicable to different types of amendments. These five formula are:
- The General Formula (the "7/50" procedure) - s. 38. The amendment must be passed by the House of Commons, the Senate, and at least two-thirds of the provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the population. This covers any amendment procedure not covered more specifically in ss. 41, 43, 44 or 45. The general formula must be used for any of the six situations identified in s. 42.
- The Unanimity Procedure - s. 41. The amendment must be passed by the House of Commons, Senate, and all provincial legislatures.
- "Some-but-not-all Provinces" (or "bilateral" procedure) - s. 43. The amendment must be passed by the House of Commons, the Senate, and the legislative assemblies of those provinces that are affected by the amendment.
- Federal Parliament Alone (or "federal unilateral" procedure) - s. 44. The amendment must only be passed by the House of Commons and the Senate.
- Provincial Legislature Alone (or "provincial unilateral" procedure) - s. 45. The amendment must only be passed by the provincal legislature.
Supremacy clause
According to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Constitution of Canada is the "supreme law of Canada", and any law inconsistent with it is of no force or effect. This gives Canadian courts the power to strike down legislation. Though the laws will remain in the books until they are amended, after being struck down they cannot be enforced.
Before this provision, the British North America Act was the supreme law of Canada by virtue of s.4 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, a British Imperial statute declaring that no colonial laws that violated an Imperial statute was valid. Since the British North America Act was an Imperial statute, any Canadian law violating the BNA Act was inoperative. There was no express provision giving the courts the power to decide that Canadian law violated the BNA Act and was therefore inoperative; up until 1982, that Court power was part of Canada's unwritten constitution.
Definition of the Constitution
Section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 defines the ?Constitution of Canada.? The Constitution of Canada is said to include:
(a) the Canada Act 1982 (which includes the Constitution Act, 1982 in Schedule B), (b) 30 Acts and Orders contained in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, and (c) any amendments which may have been made to any of the instruments in the first two categories. Section 52(2), in addition to containing many Imperial Statutes, contains eight Canadian statutes, three of which created provinces, and five of which were amendments to the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Canadian courts have reserved the right to add and entrench principles and conventions into the Constitution unilaterallly. Although a court's ability to recognize human rights not explicitly stated in a constitution is not particularly unusual, the Canadian situation is unique in that this ability extends to procedural issues not related to human rights.
In particular, in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), the Supreme Court of Canada said that s. 52(2) was not an exhaustive listing of all that comprised the Constitution. The Court reserved the right to add unwritten principles to the Constitution, thereby entrenching them and granting them constitutional supremacy (in this case, they added parliamentary privilege to the Constitution). The Court did note, however, that the list of written documents was stagnant and could not be modified except for through the amending formulas.
Province of Alberta
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM ACT
Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000
Chapter C-25
Current as of January 1, 2002
© Published by Alberta Queen’s Printer
Queen’s Printer Bookstore
Main Floor, Park Plaza
10611 - 98 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5K 2P7
Phone: 780-427-4952
Fax: 780-452-0668
E-mail: qp@gov.ab.ca
Shop on-line at Alberta Queen's Printer:
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM ACT
Chapter C-25
Table of Contents
1 Holding referendums
2 Referendum to precede constitutional change
3 Question to be asked
4 When referendum binding
5 Time of referendum
6 Application of Election Act
7 Application of Local Authorities Election Act
8 When councils to conduct vote
9 Results of referendum
10 Regulations
11 Appropriation
12 National referendum
HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the
Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:
Holding referendums
1 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may order that a
referendum be held on any question relating to the Constitution of
Canada or relating to or arising out of a possible change to the
Constitution of Canada.
1992 cC-22.25 s1
Referendum to precede constitutional change
2(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall order the holding
of a referendum before a resolution authorizing an amendment to
the Constitution of Canada is voted on by the Legislative
Assembly.
RSA 2000
Section 3 Chapter C-25
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM ACT
(2) The motion for the resolution may be introduced in the
Legislative Assembly before the referendum is held.
1992 cC-22.25 s2
Question to be asked
3 The question or questions to be put to the electors at a
referendum shall be determined by a resolution of the Legislative
Assembly on the motion of a member of the Executive Council.
1992 cC-22.25 s3
When referendum binding
4(1) If a majority of the ballots validly cast at a referendum vote
the same way on a question stated, the result is binding, within the
meaning of subsection (2), on the government that initiated the
referendum.
(2) If the results of a referendum are binding, the government that
initiated the referendum shall, as soon as practicable, take any steps
within the competence of the Government of Alberta that it
considers necessary or advisable to implement the results of the
referendum.
1992 cC-22.25 s4
Time of referendum
5 An order under section 1 or 2 shall specify whether the
referendum is to be held
(a) in conjunction with a general election under the Election
Act,
(b) separately on a date provided in the order, or
(c) in conjunction with the general elections under the Local
Authorities Election Act.
1992 cC-22.25 s5
Application of Election Act
6(1) If a referendum is to be held in conjunction with a general
election under the Election Act or separately on a date provided for
under section 5(b), the Election Act and the regulations under it
apply, with all necessary modifications, to the referendum except
as otherwise provided by the regulations under this Act.
(2) The persons eligible to vote at a referendum to which the
Election Act applies are the persons who would be eligible to vote
RSA 2000
Section 7 Chapter C-25
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM ACT
at an election under the Election Act on the day the referendum is
held.
1992 cC-22.25 s6
Application of Local Authorities Election Act
7(1) If a referendum is to be held in conjunction with the general
elections under the Local Authorities Election Act, the Local
Authorities Election Act and the regulations under it apply, with all
necessary modifications, to the referendum except as otherwise
provided by the regulations under this Act.
(2) The persons eligible to vote at a referendum to which the Local
Authorities Election Act applies are the persons who would be
eligible to vote at an election under the Local Authorities Election
Act on the day the referendum is held.
1992 cC-22.25 s7
When councils to conduct vote
8(1) When a referendum is to be held under the Local Authorities
Election Act, every council shall conduct the referendum of the
electors residing in the municipality, except as otherwise provided
in this section.
(2) The council shall conduct the referendum notwithstanding that
a general election under the Local Authorities Election Act is not
required in that municipality.
(3) If a council has entered into an agreement with one or more
elected authorities in the same area for the conduct of a general
election under the Local Authorities Election Act, the elected
authority that is responsible for the conduct of the general election
under the agreement shall conduct the referendum and has all the
rights, powers and duties of the council to conduct the referendum.
(4) The Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible for
conducting a referendum of the electors residing in improvement
districts, special areas, Metis settlements, summer villages, Indian
reserves and national parks and for the purposes of the referendum
has all the rights, powers and duties of a council to conduct the
referendum, including the authority to appoint returning officers
and other election officers.
(5) The Minister of Municipal Affairs may enter into an agreement
(a) with any elected authority in the area or in an area
adjacent to an improvement district, special area, Metis
settlement, summer village, new town, Indian reserve or
national park, or
(b) with the advisory council of an improvement district or
the advisory committee of a special area, the settlement
council of a Metis settlement, the board of administrators
of a new town or the council of a summer village
to conduct the referendum on the Minister’s behalf, and the elected
authority, advisory council, advisory committee, settlement
council, board of administrators or council has authority to enter
into such an agreement.
(6) An elected authority, advisory council, advisory committee,
settlement council, board of administrators or council that enters
into an agreement under subsection (5) has all the rights, powers
and duties of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to conduct the
referendum.
(7) In accordance with the regulations, payments must be made to
elected authorities and other bodies that conduct a referendum.
(8) In this section, “council” and “elected authority” include the
council of the City of Lloydminster.
1992 cC-22.25 s8;1994 cM-26.1 s642(12)
Results of referendum
9(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall announce the results of a
referendum in accordance with the regulations.
(2) The Minister responsible for the administration of this Act
shall report the results of a referendum to the Legislative Assembly
as soon after they are known as practicable.
1992 cC-22.25 s9
Regulations
10 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) modifying the provisions of the Election Act and the Local
Authorities Election Act and the regulations under those
Acts to make them applicable to the requirements of a
referendum, including adding to and declaring any
provisions of those Acts and regulations to be or not to be
applicable to the referendum;
(b) prescribing the duties and powers of the Chief Electoral
Officer in connection with referendums;
(c) respecting amounts that are payable to elected authorities
and other bodies conducting a referendum under section
8;
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM ACT
(d) prohibiting or regulating, for the purposes of campaigning
for or against any question put to the electors at a
referendum,
(i) contributions that may be made to political parties,
persons and groups of persons, and
(ii) expenses that may be incurred by political parties,
persons and groups of persons;
(e) generally respecting any other matters and things relating
to the holding and conduct of a referendum that the
Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary to
carry out the intent of this Act.
1992 cC-22.25 s10
Appropriation
11 The cost of conducting a referendum may be paid out of the
General Revenue Fund.
1992 cC-22.25 s11
National referendum
12 This Act does not apply to a particular proposal to amend the
Constitution of Canada if the Legislative Assembly, on the motion
of a member of the Executive Council, approves the substitution of
a referendum on that proposal held under the Referendum Act
(Canada), but
(a) the question on the referendum under the Referendum Act
(Canada) must be acceptable to the Legislative Assembly,
(b) that referendum must be held before the resolution
authorizing the amendment to the Constitution of Canada
is voted on by the Legislative Assembly, and
(c) the result of that referendum, as determined by the
majority of ballots validly cast in Alberta, is binding on
the Government of Alberta, which shall, as soon as
practicable, take whatever steps within its competence
that it considers necessary or advisable to implement that
result.
1992 c36 s2
Alberta Queen's Printer: Legislation PDF
Yeah, I've been hearing that for at least 15 years. The people who think that need to stop all that pointless analysis and blogging and putting up web sites they can all cite in support of each other, and get it before the courts. What it all looks like to me is a group of poorly informed people who've convinced themselves that something they desperately want to be true is in fact true, but don't have the nerve to test the claim.
Wasn't there something called 'for the common good' that was used as the 'workaround'. Income tax should be collected by the Provinces. Who has the money to take on the Fed anyway, they have unlimited funds (taxpayers to boot, lol) and they have unlimited time. (20 years for treaty cases is nothing compared to the delays this sort of case would bring).
If personal income was not taxed there would just be other taxes. Wages are still not 'income' no matter how it is twisted.
Just what we need, double tax returns for everybody and a collection and enforcement bureaucracy in every province. All provinces but Quebec let the CRA collect it on their behalf and send it to them.
If all they're going to do is endlessly recycle complaints and sloppy, ill-informed analyses about the illegality of income tax, and never try to take action on it, what's the point?
*shrugs* If we didn't have such a thing as income tax, they'd figure out something else to call it: wage tax, salary tax, etc. but we'd still be taxed. I don't mind paying income tax, I just wish we could find a batch of people that are good at applying it to what Canadians need, and we haven't even come close to doing that. IOW, what they do with a lot of the money collected is an extremely massive waste. And that is the main reason a bare bones gov't is so attractive to me (I'm a minarchist AKA minimal statism).
All personal income tax collected from Canadians goes straight to the Rothscild bank as part of out interest payments. That it, there is nothing left, that payment is optional, our leaders gladly pay it even tough it makes the people perpetual debtors. We have the right to print our own money.
The Provinces can only collect income-tax for use by the Province that collects it.
That particular tax isn't being challenged in Canada, it is based on the same thing that the IRS uses in the US. There it is being challenged more and more. Even the IRS cannot specify what law says people have to pay taxes on their wages.
The links below are worth reading even if you don't. The part I paid attention to was concerning our constitution history, such as this article.
Kuhl
INFO CANADA
TREASON
You were the one saying something useful for Canadians should be done with the money they collect. I think the Rothschild clan has enough, apparently you think they deserve more. I don't see how that makes you a patriot. Bye.
“We can only discuss or make intellectual advances by passing through the existing body of learning. This is such an enormous task, made even more enormous by the multitudes of specialized gate keepers, that no one can produce integrated thought.” “...we are faced by a crisis in language and communication. This crisis is being accentuated, not eased, by the Universities.”
- J R Saul, The Unconscious Civilization
- J R Saul, The Unconscious Civilization
Recent Discovery Shows Water Has a Memory
Recent Discovery Shows Water Has a Memory
Icy claim that water has memory
Icy claim that water has memory - 11 June 2003 - New Scientist
water has a memory - Dogpile Web Search
Apparently, you are still ASS uming that you think you know what I think. I said I think we should get something for our money and you ASSume I think the Rothschilds should get it? Your thought processes are really warped.
The point of my post was that anyone can ASSume whatever they like about what is done with taxpayers' $ and stick it in a post without posting anything backing it up.
Taxation enriches the already wealthy. That is the purpose of money. What did you think it was for?
We are not unlike the US. I don't see you complaining that they get all of it and more. You are under the impression we can actually do something 2with it that helps us in some small way, it helps the Rothschild clan alone. Get used to it it will even get worse as time goes on,lol
The U.S. Personal Income Tax: It Goes to The Family Rothschild
The U.S. Personal Income Tax: It Goes to The Family Rothschild
by William Dean A. Garner
The Rothschild-Owned Federal Reserve Bank: "I've got you, my pretties!"
The more people like me speak out about this, the more will scratch their heads and go, “No way!” or “You’re an idiot, Garner!” or, worst of all, “You’re not an American!”
I’ve heard this crap before, and it always comes from ignorant souls who just don’t understand how the political and economic systems work in the western world.
After more than 30 years of anecdotal research, connecting thousands of dots across an endless sky, a distinct pattern begins to emerge, something I’ll share a bit with you here. First, there’re other brave souls out there who also have researched this contentious topic, and have drawn similar conclusions. And we’ve all done so independently, which makes our conclusions all the more striking. I’ve said this before and it bears repeating: the evil family Rothschild, which controls what I term The First Sphere of Influence in the western world, hides in plain sight. They even flaunt their wealth and control and power over us with such arrogance and contempt that it cannot be ignored, even by like-minded people as they.
Where shall I start?
The U.S. income tax was a long sought-after tax the Rothschilds had attempted to bring on since the late 1770s, but it was strongly resisted by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison and John Adams, among other less-known (to contemporary audiences) American Patriots. Traitor Alexander Hamilton, a bastard child born in the warm Caribbean, was our first Secretary of the Treasury, sent to the US by the Rothschilds to establish the first central bank. Hamilton had been groomed from the start by the Rothschilds, although few people actually knew of his true identity. Aaron Burr, Hamilton’s killer, knew of his background and often chided and bullied him over it, until Burr finally slapped Hamilton across the face with a leather glove, thus issuing the challenge that killed Hamilton.
While Thomas Jefferson vehemently fought against the creation of such a bank, George Washington believed that Hamilton knew what he was doing and thus must be correct. They bank was started . . . and suddenly plunged the nascent United States into debt.
When the central bank’s charter expired, it was not renewed, so the Rothschilds punished the “Colonies” by having the British attack the US again to commence the War of 1812. When the US “won” the war, once again expelling the RedCoats from our lands, the Rothschilds reveled in their own victory, having established yet another central bank that drained the US taxpayers of their Personal Income.
When this bank’s charter ran its course, the whole Rothschild-US President [Fill In The Blank] battle started again, with one side winning a victory over the other in the ensuing 70 years. Without dredging up reams of references from our beloved annals of history, please note that President Andrew Jackson was instrumental in fighting the Rothschilds, although they tried on numerous occasions to assassinate him.
It wasn’t until 1913 that Senator Nelson Aldrich and his fascist “American Rothschilds” managed to sneak through a bill, during the winter break of the House of Representatives, that imposed a formal personal income tax on all Americans.
Our notion that our personal income taxes go to paying for our country’s infrastructure, social services, military, etc. is inaccurate, to say the least. Our personal income taxes first are collected by the US Treasury via the Internal Revenue Service, which sends the funds to the Federal Reserve, which is NOT a federal bank of any sort. The privately owned Federal Reserve, which is owned by the Rothschilds and, to a smaller extent, other banking families, then sends our tax dollars to its own Bank of England, which is located in the sovereign area of London called The City of London.
Interestingly, The City of London has its own laws, security forces and military, completely independent of the rest of London and the entire United Kingdom. It is considered the most elite banking and economic center in the western world.
The Bank of England, again, owned by the Rothschilds, sends our tax dollars to other central banks, all privately owned, and located in Europe.
Why do we even pay this illegal personal income tax, when our own government can operate without it?
Because our government borrows heavily from the Rothschilds and must pay interest on these loans. Our personal income tax offsets these interest payments. All usurious, of course. And all illegal.
In the coming months, I’ll share more with you. I realize that this information is hard to take, given we’ve been raised on the notion that we live in a free and democratic society, and our hard-earned money goes toward our benevolent US government.
In effect, my fellow Americans, it is all a lie.
The good news is that these bare facts are now more visible than ever and, with sufficient time and effort, people like me will get this word out. We have already seen the power of the American people against the healthcare reform bills: a stunning backlash against the Brzezinski Cartel and The First Sphere of Influence.
Backlashes like we’re seeing now are just the beginning of a new American Revolution, one that we actually win. This time.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: William Dean A. Garner is a New York Times bestselling ghostwriter and editor of many fiction and nonfiction books. A former biophysicist, US Army Airborne Ranger, and Corporate Mercenary, Garner did 211 overseas missions over a nine-year period, escorting clients out of hostile territories so they could have a voice of peace, freedom and liberty. He writes and speaks about the dangers of The First Sphere of Influence, a global cartel controlled by the family Rothschild.
This entry was published on Saturday, January 23rd, 2010 at 14:52 and is filed under Absurd, Brzezinski, Business, Communism, Democracy, Economics, Entertainment, Evolution, Fascism, Freedom, Healthcare, IRS, Income Tax, Politics, Power, Socialism, Terrorism, US Constitution, US Treasury, Wall Street. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
The U.S. Personal Income Tax: It Goes to The Family Rothschild | That's Just Plum Dumb
The U.S. Personal Income Tax: It Goes to The Family Rothschild
The U.S. Personal Income Tax: It Goes to The Family Rothschild
by William Dean A. Garner
The Rothschild-Owned Federal Reserve Bank: "I've got you, my pretties!"
The more people like me speak out about this, the more will scratch their heads and go, “No way!” or “You’re an idiot, Garner!” or, worst of all, “You’re not an American!”
I’ve heard this crap before, and it always comes from ignorant souls who just don’t understand how the political and economic systems work in the western world.
After more than 30 years of anecdotal research, connecting thousands of dots across an endless sky, a distinct pattern begins to emerge, something I’ll share a bit with you here. First, there’re other brave souls out there who also have researched this contentious topic, and have drawn similar conclusions. And we’ve all done so independently, which makes our conclusions all the more striking. I’ve said this before and it bears repeating: the evil family Rothschild, which controls what I term The First Sphere of Influence in the western world, hides in plain sight. They even flaunt their wealth and control and power over us with such arrogance and contempt that it cannot be ignored, even by like-minded people as they.
Where shall I start?
The U.S. income tax was a long sought-after tax the Rothschilds had attempted to bring on since the late 1770s, but it was strongly resisted by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison and John Adams, among other less-known (to contemporary audiences) American Patriots. Traitor Alexander Hamilton, a bastard child born in the warm Caribbean, was our first Secretary of the Treasury, sent to the US by the Rothschilds to establish the first central bank. Hamilton had been groomed from the start by the Rothschilds, although few people actually knew of his true identity. Aaron Burr, Hamilton’s killer, knew of his background and often chided and bullied him over it, until Burr finally slapped Hamilton across the face with a leather glove, thus issuing the challenge that killed Hamilton.
While Thomas Jefferson vehemently fought against the creation of such a bank, George Washington believed that Hamilton knew what he was doing and thus must be correct. They bank was started . . . and suddenly plunged the nascent United States into debt.
When the central bank’s charter expired, it was not renewed, so the Rothschilds punished the “Colonies” by having the British attack the US again to commence the War of 1812. When the US “won” the war, once again expelling the RedCoats from our lands, the Rothschilds reveled in their own victory, having established yet another central bank that drained the US taxpayers of their Personal Income.
When this bank’s charter ran its course, the whole Rothschild-US President [Fill In The Blank] battle started again, with one side winning a victory over the other in the ensuing 70 years. Without dredging up reams of references from our beloved annals of history, please note that President Andrew Jackson was instrumental in fighting the Rothschilds, although they tried on numerous occasions to assassinate him.
It wasn’t until 1913 that Senator Nelson Aldrich and his fascist “American Rothschilds” managed to sneak through a bill, during the winter break of the House of Representatives, that imposed a formal personal income tax on all Americans.
Our notion that our personal income taxes go to paying for our country’s infrastructure, social services, military, etc. is inaccurate, to say the least. Our personal income taxes first are collected by the US Treasury via the Internal Revenue Service, which sends the funds to the Federal Reserve, which is NOT a federal bank of any sort. The privately owned Federal Reserve, which is owned by the Rothschilds and, to a smaller extent, other banking families, then sends our tax dollars to its own Bank of England, which is located in the sovereign area of London called The City of London.
Interestingly, The City of London has its own laws, security forces and military, completely independent of the rest of London and the entire United Kingdom. It is considered the most elite banking and economic center in the western world.
The Bank of England, again, owned by the Rothschilds, sends our tax dollars to other central banks, all privately owned, and located in Europe.
Why do we even pay this illegal personal income tax, when our own government can operate without it?
Because our government borrows heavily from the Rothschilds and must pay interest on these loans. Our personal income tax offsets these interest payments. All usurious, of course. And all illegal.
In the coming months, I’ll share more with you. I realize that this information is hard to take, given we’ve been raised on the notion that we live in a free and democratic society, and our hard-earned money goes toward our benevolent US government.
In effect, my fellow Americans, it is all a lie.
The good news is that these bare facts are now more visible than ever and, with sufficient time and effort, people like me will get this word out. We have already seen the power of the American people against the healthcare reform bills: a stunning backlash against the Brzezinski Cartel and The First Sphere of Influence.
Backlashes like we’re seeing now are just the beginning of a new American Revolution, one that we actually win. This time.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: William Dean A. Garner is a New York Times bestselling ghostwriter and editor of many fiction and nonfiction books. A former biophysicist, US Army Airborne Ranger, and Corporate Mercenary, Garner did 211 overseas missions over a nine-year period, escorting clients out of hostile territories so they could have a voice of peace, freedom and liberty. He writes and speaks about the dangers of The First Sphere of Influence, a global cartel controlled by the family Rothschild.
This entry was published on Saturday, January 23rd, 2010 at 14:52 and is filed under Absurd, Brzezinski, Business, Communism, Democracy, Economics, Entertainment, Evolution, Fascism, Freedom, Healthcare, IRS, Income Tax, Politics, Power, Socialism, Terrorism, US Constitution, US Treasury, Wall Street. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
The U.S. Personal Income Tax: It Goes to The Family Rothschild | That's Just Plum Dumb