Monday, December 31, 2012

Planned Layoffs Surge To 3-Month High, And Bloodbath May Not Be Over

 planned layoffs

Planned layoffs at U.S. firms rose for the third month in a row in November, partly driven by the bankruptcy of Hostess Brands, a report showed on Thursday.

Employers announced 57,081 job cuts last month, the highest level since May and up nearly 20 percent from 47,724 in October, according to the report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

November's job cuts were also up 34.4 percent from the 42,474 seen a year ago.

With one month left of 2012, employers have announced 490,806 cuts in 2012, lower than 2011's total of 606,082 layoffs.

Twinkies To Blame?

The recent surge in layoffs is at least partly attributed to the bankruptcy of Twinkies maker Hostess in November. That accounted for 18,500 of the jobs lost. The computer industry, which has led layoffs for the year, cut 3,313 jobs last month.

"Job cuts this year have really been driven by a handful of large-scale cuts," Rick Cobb, executive vice president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said in a statement.

The approach of the Christmas holidays does not necessarily offer respite, Cobb said, pointing to the 11,000 job cuts that Citigroup announced on Wednesday as an example.

Wall Street Wields An Axe

The Citigroup job cuts were part of a larger bloodbath taking place on Wall Street in 2011 and 2012. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Wall Street eliminated some 300,000 financial services jobs in the last two years. And experts predict that more layoffs on Wall Street will be coming in 2013.

"The knives are sharpened and ready," Jason Kennedy, chief executive officer of London-based search firm Kennedy Group, told Businessweek. "...Unless the markets pick up, there will be more cuts in the first half."

The Challenger report comes a day ahead of the key U.S. jobs report, which is forecast to show job growth slowed sharply in November in the wake of superstorm Sandy.

AOL Jobs contributed to this report.

If the Chinese Raided Ft. Knox, What Would They Find? (1/4 of What We Owe Them)

A great scene in the James Bond film “Goldfinger” is the dawn raid on Ft. Knox where Goldfinger and his Chinese henchmen break into the vaults and attempt to set off a nuclear explosion.
Fast forward to today. Chinese is the larger holder of Federal debt outside of the US ($1.16 trillion), while Japan holds $1.13 trillion. The Federal Reserve, of course, is the largest holder of the Federal debt overall.
Ft. Knox in Kentucky allegedly holds 147,200,000 ounces of gold bullion. At today’s price of $1,655.80 per ounce, a raid on Ft. Knox would yield $243,733,760,000.00 (or $243 billion). Or just about one quarter of the amount we owe China.
Stated differently, the entire gold reserve in Ft. Knox is not quite 25% of the current Federal budget deficit FOR ONE YEAR! THAT is how big of a problem government spending has become.
Of course, I don’t recommend that Goldfinger, the Chinese or Japanese raid Ft. Knox. But it might make for a tempting target for Democrats and Harry Reid trying to raise even more money to spend.
Is it my imagination or has Harry Reid gained a lot of weight since re-election?

Peter Schiff: Bond Market Leading to the Real Fiscal Cliff?

Watch this link ..... via

Gerald Celente On Fox Business News ~ We Look At 2013 As More Of The Same ... But Worse

Watch this link 。。。。

‘Unimaginable number of veterans homeless’

American military veterans who have returned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are homeless in “almost unimaginable numbers,” says Gordon Duff, senior editor at Veterans Today.

American veterans are returning to the United States “where our economy is in total shambles, where we have massive unemployment in the non-veteran work force,” he in a phone interview on Saturday.

“Despite our lowered unemployment figures, a large percentage of those are people that are no longer even bothering to look for work because there is no work in the U.S.,” he added.

The number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who are homeless or at risk of losing a roof over their heads has more than doubled in the past two years, according to government data.

Through the end of September, 26,531 of the veterans were living on the streets, at risk of losing their homes, staying in temporary housing or receiving federal vouchers to pay rent, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reports. That's up from 10,500 in 2010. The VA says the numbers could be higher because they include only the homeless the department is aware of.


‘Unimaginable number of veterans homeless’

American military veterans who have returned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are homeless in “almost unimaginable numbers,” says Gordon Duff, senior editor at Veterans Today.

American veterans are returning to the United States “where our economy is in total shambles, where we have massive unemployment in the non-veteran work force,” he in a phone interview on Saturday.

“Despite our lowered unemployment figures, a large percentage of those are people that are no longer even bothering to look for work because there is no work in the U.S.,” he added.

The number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who are homeless or at risk of losing a roof over their heads has more than doubled in the past two years, according to government data.

Through the end of September, 26,531 of the veterans were living on the streets, at risk of losing their homes, staying in temporary housing or receiving federal vouchers to pay rent, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reports. That's up from 10,500 in 2010. The VA says the numbers could be higher because they include only the homeless the department is aware of.


Graham -- turn over Social Security or I shoot the economy

interview on Fox News Sunday this morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threatened to oppose this must-pass bill unless Social Security benefits are taken away from millions of future retirees:

I’m not going to raise the debt ceiling unless we get serious about keeping the country from becoming Greece, saving Social Security and Medicare [sic]. So here’s what i would like: meaningful entitlement reform — not to turn Social Security into private accounts, not to take a voucher approach to Medicare — but, adjust the age for Social Security, CPI changes and means testing and look beyond the ten-year window. I cannot in good conscience raise the debt ceiling without addressing the long term debt problems of this country and I will not.

Don't be fooled by the word "income"

Income Tax is the Second plank of the Communist Manifesto.  Income tax IS communism.  People thought Communism would never happen in America.

In 1799 Thomas Jefferson, while he was Vice-President, in the Kentucky Resolves, reassured them that there are only three federal laws that apply to a state citizen. The three mentioned in the Constitution: piracy, treason and counterfeiting.  How about you?

A right cannot be taxed.  If your wages are taxed, then either: You do not have a right to earn wages, or you waived your right to earn wages.  Let's try to find out which one.

Many people insist that the 16th Amendment authorizes a tax on everyone's wages.  But does it?

Note: Government employees have had their wages taxed since 1862, long before the 16th amendment.  The comments here do not apply to government wages.

Direct taxes must be Constitutionally apportioned to your State by the proportion of your State's representation (Art.1, Sect.2, Clause3 & Art1, Sect.9, Clause4).  -- And, NO.  The 16th amendment did not change this, the 16th amendment did not alter, add or remove any words from the original constitution, and the US Supreme Court confirmed in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103 (1915) that "… the 16th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation"  - That's right!  There is no such thing as an unapportioned tax on the wages of state citizens. 

If state citizens' wages were not taxed before the 16th Amendment, then the 16th amendment did not confer a new power of taxation.

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.

This is very different from the original proposed amendment in Senate Joint Resolution 39 as published in Congressional Record June 11, 1909 page 3377."The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population"
[highlight added so you can spot the changes]
The Senate Finance Committee revised it as Senate Joint Resolution 40, to what we have today. (published on Page 3900 of the Congressional Record of June 28, 1909)
The word "direct" was removed from the original proposed amendment
The words "from whatever source derived" were added.

Nothing was changed by the 16th Amendment.  There is no new taxing authority.
The amendment DID NOT eliminate apportionment, nor convert direct taxes into indirect taxes.
The tax is still on the income, not on the source.
Since the word direct was deleted, it can never be argued that there is a direct tax on incomes.
There is not now, nor can there ever be a direct tax on incomes. (except for federal employees who are already subject to fed jurisdiction)
The Senators who swore oaths to uphold and perpetuate the Constitution did not circumvent it.
Since tax collectors could always seize assets without regard to their source, no new taxing authority was created.

The income tax was to be a tax on the profits earned from savings accounts.  When the States ratified the 16th Amendment, they did so only upon the assurance, over and over again, that salaries would not be taxed. Only profit from savings was to be taxed, and only then as an indirect tax.  Not as a direct tax on people.

Here are proofs that the 16th Amendment was never intended to tax wages:
  • New York Times August 3, 1909 front page.  Excerpt. "The only interruption to his speech was a query by Representative Glover…  - who wanted to know if the amendment would affect salaries." If you have the same question, then read the response.
  • Congressional debates, Congressional Record, August 28 1913 Senator Lawrence Y. Sherman on page 3843 debating the income tax amendment, insisted that the word "income" referred only to earnings on savings accounts: "The savings from the income by professional effort or by any form of skilled labor or unskilled hand becomes property.  At the end of any given period that saving is a principal, and any income derived from it is an income from property, not an income from the earning capacity or the personal ability of the taxpayer in question… Those investments that produce an income from a property I think are properly to be distinguished from those arising from the earning capacity of the individual."  
  • Also on page 3843 Senator Cummins :"I assume that every lawyer will agree with me that we cannot legislatively interpret the meaning of the word 'income'.  That is purely a judicial matter.  We cannot enlarge the meaning of the word 'income'.  The word 'income' had a well-defined meaning before the amendment … If we could call anything income that we pleased, we could obliterate all the distinction between income and principal….  Congress can not affect the meaning of the word 'income' by any legislation whatsoever…. obviously the people of this country did not intend to give to Congress the power to levy a direct tax upon all the property of this country without apportionment."

“None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe that they are free.”
~ Goethe

And the courts agree:
  • U.S. v. Ballard 400 F2d 404:
      "The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code."
  • Wilby v. Mississippi, 47 S 465:
      "It certainly was not the intention of the legislature to levy a tax upon honest toil and labor."
  • Edwards v. Keith, 231 Fed 1:
      "One does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them....  IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute"
  • US Supreme Court in Evens v. Gore, 253 US 245 concerning a tax on salary:
       “After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question”.
      "The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety… is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it.  Not only this but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the Treasury Department… It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not 'salaries, wages or compensation for personal services' that are to be included in gross income.  That which is to be included is 'gains, profits and income derived' from salaries… "
  • US Supreme Court in M.E. Blatt Co. v. U.S. 59 SCt190: "Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress."
  • Oliver v. Halstead 86 SE 2d 859:
      "Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law."
  • Olk v. United States, Fed 18 (1975):
      "Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."
  • United States v. Snider, Fed 645 (1974):
      "Listing three billion dependents on his W-4 was ruled as proper. His refusal to stand for judge was held legal by Fourth U.S. Court of Appeals.  Original action and conviction was under 26 USC 7205."
  •  Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner (32 Tax Court page 681):
      "that which is not income in fact manifestly cannot be made such by the legislative expedient of calling it income …"
  • Spring Valley Water Works v. Barber 33 P 735:
      "A right common in every citizen such as the right to own property or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation CANNOT, however, be taxed as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and then permitting its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money.”
  • Tennessee Supreme Court in Jack Cole v. Commissioner MacFarland 337 SW2d 453 (1960): "The right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, and realization and receipt of income is therefore not a "privilege that can be taxed." [from:Taxation West Key 933]
      In this 1960 case, the Tennessee Supreme Court also quoted prior decisions that defined the term `privilege' in contradistinction to a right:
      "Legislature ... cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege." "Privileges are special rights, belonging to the individual or class, and not to the mass; properly, an exemption from some general burden, obligation or duty; a right peculiar to some individual or body"
  • US Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316:
      "If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a right, this would enable the state to destroy rights guaranteed by the constitutions through the use of oppressive taxation. ... The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
  • U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher's Union v. Crescent City 111US746:
      "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. ... to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property."
  • In the 1959 Tax Court case Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner (32 Tax Court page 681): “The rule of Eisner v. Macomber has been reaffirmed on so many occasions that citation of the cases to this effect would be unnecessarily burdensome... Moreover, that which is not income in fact manifestly cannot be made such by the legislative expedient of calling it income....”
  • Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 A 239, and 47 A.2d 277 (1946): “Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”
  • US Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, at 113 (1943):  "A state may not... impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal constitution."
  • U.S. Supreme Court in Magnano Co. v. Hamilton 292 US 40 "The power to tax the exercise of a [right] ... is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."
  • President Jefferson, concluding his first inaugural address, March 4, 1801:
      "... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government… "
  • Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. Mclain, 24 SCt 382 (1904):
      "the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language".
  • Oregon Supreme Court in Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 813, pg 819 (1930):  "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing.  The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state: but the individuals' right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." 
  • Long v. Ramussen, 281 F 236, 238 (1922):"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection.  They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers.  The later are without their scope.  No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.  With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue law."  Reaffirmed in Gerth v. US, 132 F Supp 894 (1955) and in Economy Heating Co. v. US, 470 F2d 585 (1972)
  • Regal Drug Co v. Wardell, 260 US 386: ”Congress may not, under the taxing power, assert a power not delegated to it by the Constitution." 
  • US Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California 110 US 516:
      "The state cannot diminish the rights of the people."
  • Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 946(1973)
      "... there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights"
  • Miller v. US, 230 F2d 489
      "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
The current income tax law has been amended over the years, but it all started with one sentence written by congress to implement the Income Tax Amendment.   This is the first paragraph of the 1913 Income Tax law 38 Stat 166. This is the ONLY law that the government says applies to federal citizens.  It is only one sentence.  The rest of the 37 pages are for income tax of corporations.   As you study this sentence, remember that Congressmen cannot and do not impose direct taxation contrary to the Constitution Article 1, Section 9 -- which did not change with the 16th Amendment -- "… the 16th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation" Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.  240 US 103 (1915).
" That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States , whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States , though not a citizen thereof , a tax of 1 per centum per annum upon such income, EXCEPT as herein after provided; and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere."

Thomas Jefferson said “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”  -- The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 2, p. 545

Quote from Frederic Bastiat in 1850:

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in a society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Back in 1988 I wrote a letter to my congressman asking what made me liable for income tax, and documenting my search of the tax laws.  I never got an answer.  Warning: do not try this at home unless you want to get on the IRS hit list.  By 1989 I was writing letters to tax experts trying to get answers to most of my tax questions. Do not try this at home

The slaves under Pharaoh only had a 20% tax on income. Genesis 47:24.  They got to keep 80% of what they made as a living allowance.  God considered this to be slavery and freed them. 

The opinions expressed on this web site are solely those of the author
Steven D. Miller.   Please report any factual errors.

Debt-hit soldiers are targeted by 3,300% payday loan firm... in MOD's own magazine

  • Loans company sold advertising space in Ministry of Defence magazine
  • Rising concern about the number of soldiers getting into debt
  • New recruits earn less than £14,000 a year and private are paid £18,000

  • The Ministry of Defence was condemned last night for cashing in on the debts of its poorest soldiers  by selling advertising space in its staff magazine to a payday loans company.
    For an undisclosed fee, Forces Loans, which charges an APR of more than 3,300 per cent, is promoting its loans in Defence Focus – a magazine published by the MoD and read by British troops worldwide.
    The revelation comes as Army commanding officers are expressing concern about the numbers of soldiers getting into debt, and when thousands of troops are expecting to be made redundant in the latest round of job cuts.
    A new recruit to the Army earns less than £14,000 and a private is paid just under £18,000.
    Debt campaigners – such as the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and Labour MP Stella Creasy – have called for the introduction of legislation to cap the rates charged to soldiers on short-term loans at  six per cent.
    When told about Forces Loans’ adverts appearing in Defence Focus, Ms Creasy told The Mail on Sunday: ‘At the end of 2011 I received assurances the Government was taking the issue of payday loan companies targeting soldiers very seriously.
    ‘To find out a year later the MoD is making money from this situation is shocking. These loans are toxic for family finances. One in three payday loans is taken out to pay  off another.
    ‘I am horrified and I will be demanding answers. Only last week I was approached by a senior Army officer urging me to do more to highlight the issues.
    ‘The MoD shouldn’t be lending these companies a veneer of  respectability. I would expect a greater duty of care towards military personnel. Their pay varies considerably depending on whether they are deployed overseas.’
    The MoD has admitted accepting Forces Loans’ advertisements since mid-2012. The advert in the December/January edition of Defence Focus offers cash loans designed exclusively for soldiers.
    Concern: The loans revelation comes as Army commanding officers are expressing concern about the numbers of soldiers getting into debt and thousands of troops are expecting to be made redundant
    Concern: The loans revelation comes as Army commanding officers are expressing concern about the numbers of soldiers getting into debt and thousands of troops are expecting to be made redundant
    The advert carries the codeword ‘MIL’ that soldiers can use to gain access to the Forces Loans website. Another code is required to access the page offering similar deals to police officers and support staff.
    Forces Loans claims it is the No 1 lender to the military. Its website sets out the terms for an immediate loan of up to £1,000 paid directly into a customer’s bank account without any credit checks taking place.
    The basic amount repayable on £1,000 is £1,250 – if the money is repaid within 31 days. This is an APR of 1,284 per cent based on  31 days, but the amount can increase significantly if soldiers fail to pay up within the agreed period.

    Forces Loans is a private company founded in 2004. According to Companies House records, Forces Loans’ accounts have been dormant since 2006. The Office of Fair Trading confirmed that Forces Loans renewed its consumer credit licence number in October 2012.
    Last night, Defence Minister Andrew Robathan thanked The Mail on Sunday for highlighting issues surrounding Forces Loans. He promised the company’s adverts would not appear again.
    He said: ‘I am grateful to you for raising this matter. While we do not wish to restrict the private lives of defence personnel, we do not want to be seen to support them taking out such expensive loans.
    ‘I don’t think such an advert should appear in Defence Focus and it will not in the future. I would not want any soldier being charged such a rate of interest on a loan. This is not healthy. I can see the spiral of debt into which they could fall.’
    The Mail on Sunday approached Forces Loans and its director,  Neville Gothold, for a comment. Both declined.

    Uploaded videos (playlist)

    UBS Libor Manipulation Merits a Death Penalty

    By William D. Cohan, The National Memo
    28 December 12

    here is no point in mincing words: UBS AG, the Swiss global bank, has been disgracing the banking profession for years and needs to be shut down.
    The regulators that allow it to do business in the U.S. - the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency - should see that the line in the sand was crossed last week. On Dec. 19, the bank paid $1.5 billion to global regulators - including $700 million paid to the CFTC, the largest fine in the agency's history - to settle claims that for six years, the company's traders and managers, specifically at its Japanese securities subsidiary, manipulated the London interbank offered rate and other borrowing standards.
    Libor is a benchmark index rate, off which trillions of dollars of loans are priced on a daily basis. According to the Wall Street Journal, two of the many victims of the Libor fraud - a scandal that so far has nabbed Barclays plc and UBS but will probably include other large global banks - were the quasi-federal housing agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together claim to have lost more than $3 billion as a result of the manipulation.
    The same day of UBS's global settlement, which included the Japanese subsidiary pleading guilty to fraud, two former UBS traders, Tom Hayes and Roger Darin, were sued by the Justice Department and charged with "conspiring to manipulate" Libor.
    "The alleged conspirators we've charged - along with others at UBS - manipulated the benchmark interest rate upon which many transactions and consumer financial products are based," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. "They defrauded the company's counterparties of millions of dollars. And they did so primarily to reap increased profits, and secure bigger bonuses, for themselves."
    To see the level to which UBS employees descended, one need look no further than their written communications, as per U.S. prosecutors' document dump. "Mate yur getting bloody good at this libor game," one broker told a UBS derivatives trader. "Think of me when yur on yur yacht in monaco wont yu."
    But, then again, UBS and bad behavior have become nearly synonymous. During the financial crisis, UBS took writedowns totaling some $50 billion, prompting the company to produce a 76-page, single-spaced, Orwellian transparency report. "In the aftermath of the financial market crisis it was revealed," the report said, "that UBS had taken a serious turn in the wrong direction under the leadership of the senior management then in charge of the bank. The result was an enormous loss of trust."
    In February 2009, UBS entered into a deferred-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department and admitted to helping American taxpayers defraud the Internal Revenue Service. UBS agreed to provide the names of some clients whom it had helped to avoid U.S. taxes and to pay a fine of $780 million.
    Then, last month, came the conviction of former UBS "rogue" trader, Kweku Adoboli, on charges that he hid trading losses totaling more than $2.3 billion. The U.K.'s Financial Services Authority fined UBS some $47 million and charged that its oversight of London traders was too trusting. The bank seems more than a little out of control.
    The latest example of the bank's shameful behavior can be found in the false bravado of the traders who for years manipulated Libor and thought they could get away with it. The gruesome details can be found in the Dec. 19 report from Britain's Financial Services Authority.
    It found that unidentified UBS traders entered into "wash trades" - described as "risk-free trades that canceled each other out" and had no commercial rationale - in order to "facilitate corrupt brokerage payments" to three individual brokers at two other firms.
    In a Sept. 18, 2008, telephone conversation, Hayes promised that if one broker kept the six-month Japanese yen Libor unchanged for the day, he would in exchange "pay you, you know, 50,000 dollars, 100,000 dollars … whatever you want … I'm a man of my word." Lovely.
    We also find out that a year earlier, Hayes had a chat on his Bloomberg terminal with Darin in which he pushed to find out what rate for Japanese yen Libor UBS would submit to the governing body that set the rates. "Too early to say yet," Darin replied, before estimating that 0.69 percent "would be our unbiased contribution."
    Hayes repeated his request for a "low" submission on the three-month Japanese yen Libor. Darin messaged back: "as i said before - i dun mind helping on your fixings, but i'm not setting libor 7 [basis points] away from the truth i'll get ubs banned if i do that, no interest in that." Darin eventually submitted a Libor rate two basis points less than the "unbiased" figure of 0.69 percent.
    In levying the record $700 million fine, David Meister, the CFTC's director of enforcement, said that "when a major bank brazenly games some of the world's most important financial benchmarks, the CFTC will respond with the full force of its authority." That's good as far as it goes, and the CFTC is to be commended for rooting out the global Libor manipulation scandal.
    But an even more emphatic message needs to be sent to UBS by its prudential regulator in the U.S.: You are finished in this country. We are padlocking your Stamford, Connecticut, and Manhattan offices. You need to pack up and leave. Now.

    1421: The Year China Discovered America? (playlist)

    On March 8, 1421, the largest fleet the world had ever seen sailed from its base in China. The ships, huge junks nearly five hundred feet long and built from the finest teak, were under the command of Emperor Zhu Di’s loyal eunuch admirals. Their mission was “to proceed all the way to the end of the earth to collect tribute from the barbarians beyond the seas” and unite the whole world in Confucian harmony. Their journey would last more than two years and circle the globe.
    When they returned in October 1423, the emperor had fallen, leaving China in political and economic chaos. The great ships, now considered frivolous, were left to rot at their moorings and the records of their journeys were destroyed. Lost in China’s long, self-imposed isolation that followed was the knowledge that Chinese ships had reached America seventy years before Columbus and circumnavigated the globe a century before Magellan. Also concealed were how the Chinese colonized America before the Europeans and transplanted to America, Australia, New Zealand and South America the principal economic crops that have fed and clothed the world.


    “FBI documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) … reveal that from its inception, the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat … The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park and other Occupy actions around the country.”

    How the FBI Coordinated the Crackdown on Occupy

    By Naomi Wolf

    New documents prove what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy: totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent
    t was more sophisticated than we had imagined: new documents show that the violent crackdown on Occupy last fall – so mystifying at the time – was not just coordinated at the level of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local police. The crackdown, which involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were injured, people held in bondage till they were forced to wet or soil themselves -was coordinated with the big banks themselves.
    The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request. The document - reproduced here in an easily searchable format - shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens.
    The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas and New Year, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world: six American universities are sites where campus police funneled information about students involved with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations’ knowledge (p51); banks sat down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security; plans to crush Occupy events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI – and offered to the representatives of the same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire – by whom? Where? – now remain redacted and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when there is a threat against a political leader (p61).
    As Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF, put it, the documents show that from the start, the FBI – though it acknowledges Occupy movement as being, in fact, a peaceful organization – nonetheless designated OWS repeatedly as a “terrorist threat”:
    “FBI documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) … reveal that from its inception, the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat … The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park and other Occupy actions around the country.”
    Verheyden-Hilliard points out the close partnering of banks, the New York Stock Exchange and at least one local Federal Reserve with the FBI and DHS, and calls it “police-statism”:
    “This production [of documents], which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI’s surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors organizing with the Occupy movement … These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.”
    The documents show stunning range: in Denver, Colorado, that branch of the FBI and a “Bank Fraud Working Group” met in November 2011 – during the Occupy protests – to surveil the group. The Federal Reserve of Richmond, Virginia had its own private security surveilling Occupy Tampa and Tampa Veterans for Peace and passing privately-collected information on activists back to the Richmond FBI, which, in turn, categorized OWS activities under its “domestic terrorism” unit. The Anchorage, Alaska “terrorism task force” was watching Occupy Anchorage. The Jackson, Michigan “joint terrorism task force” was issuing a “counterterrorism preparedness alert” about the ill-organized grandmas and college sophomores in Occupy there. Also in Jackson, Michigan, the FBI and the “Bank Security Group” – multiple private banks – met to discuss the reaction to “National Bad Bank Sit-in Day” (the response was violent, as you may recall). The Virginia FBI sent that state’s Occupy members’ details to the Virginia terrorism fusion center. The Memphis FBI tracked OWS under its “joint terrorism task force” aegis, too. And so on, for over 100 pages.
    Jason Leopold, at, who has sought similar documents for more than a year, reported that the FBI falsely asserted in response to his own FOIA requests that no documents related to its infiltration of Occupy Wall Street existed at all. But the release may be strategic: if you are an Occupy activist and see how your information is being sent to terrorism task forces and fusion centers, not to mention the “longterm plans” of some redacted group to shoot you, this document is quite the deterrent.
    There is a new twist: the merger of the private sector, DHS and the FBI means that any of us can become WikiLeaks, a point that Julian Assange was trying to make in explaining the argument behind his recent book. The fusion of the tracking of money and the suppression of dissent means that a huge area of vulnerability in civil society – people’s income streams and financial records – is now firmly in the hands of the banks, which are, in turn, now in the business of tracking your dissent.
    Remember that only 10% of the money donated to WikiLeaks can be processed – because of financial sector and DHS-sponsored targeting of PayPal data. With this merger, that crushing of one’s personal or business financial freedom can happen to any of us. How messy, criminalizing and prosecuting dissent. How simple, by contrast, just to label an entity a “terrorist organization” and choke off, disrupt or indict its sources of financing.
    Why the huge push for counterterrorism “fusion centers”, the DHS militarizing of police departments, and so on? It was never really about “the terrorists”. It was not even about civil unrest. It was always about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens – it was always, that is to say, meant to be about you.


    Eisenhower Death Camp

    Some history you will not see. i don't agree with some of the stuff at the end, still very good.

    Ron Paul On The Fiscal Cliff: "We Have Passed The Point Of No Return"

    In a little under three minutes, Ron Paul explains to a somewhat nonplussed CNBC anchor just how ridiculous the charade that is occurring in D.C. actually is. This succinct spin-free clip should be required viewing for each and every asset-manager, talking-head, propagandist, and mom-and-pop who are viewing the last-minute idiocy of the 'fiscal cliff' debacle with some hope that things will be different this time. "We have passed the point of no return where we can actually get our house back in order," Paul begins, adding that "they pretend they are fighting up there, but they really aren't. They are arguing over power, spin, who looks good, who looks bad; all trying to preserve the system where they can spend what they want, take care of their friends and print money when they need it." With social safety nets available to rich and poor, there is no impetus for change and "the country loses," but Paul concludes, the markets are starting to say "there is a limit to this."

    Forward to 5:45 for the Ron Paul interview (ignore everything else)

    City council leaders say deeper cuts will spark civil unrest

    Top officials in Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield call for halt to 'unfair' measures and say north-south divide will widen

    Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, MP for Sheffield Hallam
    Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, MP for Sheffield Hallam. Sheffield is one of three cities where council leaders are warning of civil unrest. Photograph: David Jones/PA
    Alarming predictions of social unrest and the break-up of civil society have been delivered by the leaders of three of England's biggest cities, amid new evidence that government policies are widening – rather than narrowing – the economic divide between north and south.
    In a letter to the Observer, the council leaders of Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield – where Nick Clegg is an MP – issue a plea to government to halt cuts that they say unfairly penalise the north relative to the south, before crime and community tensions erupt on the streets.
    Their joint assault comes as fresh analysis shows that one of the government's flagship policies to promote housebuilding and economic activity across the whole country, the New Homes Bonus, is draining money away from northern councils, while swelling coffers in their southern equivalents.
    Reacting to the latest cuts announced to council budgets this month – under which a further 2% of spending reductions were unveiled by the chancellor, George Osborne, in addition to the 28% already in train – the council chiefs say ministers in Whitehall appear to be adopting a "Dickensian" view of the world, which is a betrayal of traditional one nation conservatism.
    Calling for a change in the way funding is allocated, to make it fairer to the north, they say that while everyone agrees on the need for savings, the coalition austerity programme has gone too far and will soon backfire with chaos on the streets and further economic stagnation. "Rising crime, increasing community tension and more problems on our streets will contribute to the break-up of civil society if we do not turn back," they write.
    "The one nation Tory brand of conservatism recognised the duty of government to help the country's most deprived in the belief that economic and social responsibility benefited us all.
    "The unfairness of the government's cuts is in danger of creating a deeply divided nation. We urge them to stop what they are doing now and listen to our warnings before the forces of social unrest start to smoulder."
    The council leaders argue that under the coalition, northern cities have been hit far harder than those in the south, partly because of the withdrawal of government support to deprived areas that was received under Labour. The situation is made still worse, because during economic hard times the demands for services in poorer areas are greater.
    Having already budgeted for cuts of hundreds of millions of pounds since 2011, the council leaders – all from Labour-run cities – say the latest cuts have blown further holes in their finances, meaning that by 2018 they fear being unable to provide acceptable levels of essential services including social care for the elderly, refuse collection, and others such as libraries and sports facilities. On top of that they say their attempts to generate local economic activity are running into the sand because of lack of funds.
    There are also complaints that the New Homes Bonus, under which local authorities all fund a bonus pot that rewards local authorities in whose areas new homes are built – is sucking money from the north as developers build more homes in the south because of the bigger demand and the higher prices that they command.
    Analysis done by the public services union Unison shows that all the top 10 gainers from the scheme in cash terms were in the south while all top 10 net losers were in the north. The figures from the last year show Liverpool was a net loser from the bonus scheme by more than £2m while Basingstoke and Deane gained by £1m. Most of the councils gaining are Tory-run and those losing out are controlled by Labour.
    Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said: "It is grossly unfair that the government is using its New Homes Bonus scheme to shift scarce resources from the hard hit north to wealthier parts of the south. Over 60% of money is spread between London, the south-east, east of England and south-west. It cannot be a coincidence that the Tory heartland is where most money is being directed."
    The north-south economic divide is a headache for David Cameron's Conservatives, who are desperate to make inroads in the north of England where they must win more seats at the next election if they are to secure a majority. However, it is also emerging as an issue for Labour leader Ed Miliband who, while needing to support his heartlands in the north, knows he has to speak for the whole country if he is to return his party to power in 2015.
    In his new year message Miliband specifically addressed the need for his party to speak to southern voters. He said that "one nation Labour is about reaching out to every part of Britain, it's about a party that is as much the party of the private sector as the public sector, a party of south as well as north, a party determined to fight for the future of the United Kingdom, and a party rooted in every community of our land."
    A spokesman for the Department of Communities rejected the idea that the north was getting a bad deal. "Every bit of the public sector needs to do its bit to help pay off the inherited budget deficit, including local government which accounts for a quarter of all public spending. This is a fair settlement – fair to north and south, fair to rural and urban areas and fair to shires and metropolitan areas. Newcastle has spending power per household of £2,522 which is over £700 more than the £1,814 per household in Wokingham – Liverpool is receiving £2,623 per household and Sheffield £2,221. Changes to the spending power is close or in line with the national average reduction of just 1.7% per cent, less than last year's figure of 3.3%.
    "The government is also helping councils grow their local economies through bespoke city deals, New Homes Bonus, 24 enterprise zones and £770m in Growing Places funding. The New Homes Bonus has provided £1.3bn of funding since 2011 and to suggest it favours councils in the south is wrong.
    "In addition we are offering a £450m third year's council tax freeze – potentially worth over £200 to band D residents.

    Sunday, December 30, 2012


    Jean-L�on G�rome - Sklavenmarkt in Rom
    In the good old days, after George Washington and the boys won the war to free us from the bank of England's predatory and impoverishing practices, they set up a "revolutionary" economic system. The government created and issued all the public currency, spending it into circulation to purchase what the government needed, then after the currency circulated through society to fuel commerce, was taxed back to the government to balance the books. Simple!

    Click for larger image Banks existed, of course. But they were kept off to one side, and use of the banks was optional for the people of the United States. It was possible to go through one's entire life without dealing with a bank if one chose to do so.

    Click for larger image This system not only reserved the choice whether to use the bank to the people, but it was a stable system, because as debt increased, the people could voluntarily choose to stop borrowing from the bank! That was one of the most important freedoms won during the revolution; the freedom to say "no" to the banks!

    Click for larger image Then, in 1913, a corrupt Congress and a corrupt President changed the structure of the nation's economy and stole your freedom to say "no"! The economic system was reverted to a mirror of that same system the nation fought a revolution to be free of. The power to issue money was taken away from the government and given to the bankers and from that day onward, ALL money in circulation was created as the result of a loan at interest from the bankers to the government, to business, and to the people. There is no exception. Every dollar paid in salary, spent to purchase food or gas, or paid in taxes, began as an interest bearing loan. There is no money in circulation in the United States that did not start out as a loan at interest from the bankers at the privately-owned Federal Reserve system.

    Click for larger image From that moment on, the freedom of the people to refuse to borrow from the banks and to refuse to pay interest was stripped away. To participate in the commerce of the United States at all means being forced to use money loaned at interest, to the profit of the bankers and the impoverishment of the public. Your freedom to say "no" was stolen by Congress in 1913, without your permission and before you were born.
    When you have lost the freedom to say "no", when you have no choice but to pay a percentage of your earnings as interest to the bankers whether in private debt or taxes to cover the gargantuan debts by the US Government itself, you are a slave to the bankers. And because more money is owed to the bankers than actually exists, because of the interest charged on the loan that created the money, the debt-slavery is permanent! No matter how hard you work, no matter how much you sacrifice, the debt can never be paid off. The system is intentionally designed to trap the nation's population permantly in unpayable debt, to make them slaves to that debt and to the bankers. This is the purpose behind the design of the Federal Reserve, the International Monitary Fund, the European Central Bank, and indeed every private central bank issuing the public currency as a loan at interest. This is why today every nation is drowning in created debt, and slaved to the private bankers. That is the reason for ever increasing taxes and decresing benefits; to pay the bankers their unpayable interest on the public currency.
    For that enslavement to succeed, your right and freedom to refuse that bank's interest-bearing money must be stripped away. The government must force you to use that private central bank's currency, loaned to you at interest, via the Legal Tender Laws. Therein lies your slave chains. You are ordered by the government, on pain of prison, to use the banker's money, and to pay the interest charged by the bankers through your taxes.
    Free people have the right to say "no." Free people have a right to decide for themselves what medium of exchange they will use and to choose not to involve the bankers!
    There is no freedom without the freedom to say "no." Slaves cannot say "no" when ordered to surrender the products of their labor to their masters.
    You are a slave.
    "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson 1919
    Slavery exists only because the slaves have been taught to believe that slavery is the way the world is supposed to be. Beliefs are chains used to enslave free people. No chains of steel ever bound a human tighter than the chains made of the beliefs with which we are indoctrinated while young in the state schools and the churches.
    Slaves used to be held prisoner by their belief in rule by divine right. Then the slaves regained their freedom when they realized that divine right is only an illusion created by the enslavers to trick the people into obedient servitude.
    Then slaves were held prisoner by their belief in rule by chattel ownership of one's body. Then the slaves regained their freedom when they realized that one person owning another is an illusion created by the enslavers to trick the people into obedient servitude.
    Today the modern slaves (that is YOU) are held prisoner by their belief in compound interest; that they owe money that never existed to repay money created out of thin air. And you modern slaves will regain your freedoms when you realize that private central banking is just another illusion created by the enslavers to trick you into obedient servitude.
    Stop believing.
    Cry freedom!

    This Chilling Economic Report Is Getting Passed Around By CEOs

    Over an early-morning coffee with the chief executive of an FTSE 100 business last week, talk turned to the outlook for 2013. Where I had expected some guarded optimism, instead I heard a chilling analysis.

    The CEO said he had been reading a new paper from Boston Consulting Group headed “ Ending the era of Ponzi finance ”. The lessons he had taken from it were miserable.
    The West was not going to find its way to the right economic path with a little tweaking at the edges, the CEO said. What is needed is a wholesale overhaul of the economic system to tackle record levels of public and private debt. Was anyone brave enough to do it, he wondered aloud.
    I asked him to send me the report. He did.
    The BCG study by Daniel Stelter which is doing the rounds of corporate C-suites does not pull its punches. In fact, its punches are really just a softening-up exercise for a barrage of kicks and painful blows aimed at anyone who thinks that kicking the can down the road is a suitable substitute for radical action.
    At the heart of the analysis is the issue of debt. A report by the Bank of International Settlements, the study notes, found that the combined debts of the public and private sector in the 18 core members of the OECD rose from 160pc of GDP in 1980 to 321pc in 2010.
    That debt was not used to fund growth – perfectly reasonable – but was used for consumption, speculation and, increasingly, to pay interest on the previous debt as liabilities were rolled over.
    As soon as asset price rises – fuelled by high levels of leverage – levelled off, the model imploded.
    The issue is brought into sharp focus by one salient fact. In the 1960s, for every additional dollar of debt taken on in America there was 59c of new GDP produced. By 2000-10, this figure had fallen to 18c. Even in America, that’s about a fifth of what you’ll need to buy a McDonald’s burger.
    Coupled with the huge debt burden are oversized public sectors and shrinking workforces. The larger the part the Government plays in the economy, the lower the levels of growth.
    A report by Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson in 2011 – cited by BCG – found that for every increase of 10pc in the size of the state, there is a reduction in GDP of between 0.5pc and 1pc. Across Europe, the average level of government spending is 40pc of GDP or higher, and is as much as 60pc in Denmark and France. In emerging markets, it is between 20pc and 40pc. This gives non-Western economies an automatic growth advantage.
    This material should be gripping politicians in Westminster, not just CEOs in central London. The size of the workforce is falling across the developed world, with the United Nations estimating that between 2012 and 2050 the working-age population in Western Europe will fall by 13pc. This comes at a time when we have a pension system not much changed since the era of the man who invented it – Otto von Bismarck.
    What does the West need to do to right such fundamental imbalances?
    Mr Stelter and his colleagues do offer some solutions. First, there has to be an acknowledgement that some debts will never be repaid and should be restructured. Holders of the debt, be they countries or companies, should be allowed to default, whatever the short-term pain of such a process.
    In social policy, retirement ages will have to increase. People will have to work harder, for longer and should be encouraged to do so by changes in benefit levels that do little – at their present level – to reward work at the margin.
    The size of the state should be radically reduced and immigration encouraged. Competition in labour markets through supply-side reforms should be pursued.
    Where governments can proactively act – by backing modern infrastructure – they should. High-growth economies are built on modern railways, airports, roads and energy supplies. Allowing potholes to develop in your local roads is a symptom of a wider malaise and cash-rich corporates should be pushed, through tax incentives, to invest their money in developed as well as emerging economies. Energy efficiency – to save money, not the planet – should be promoted.
    As Mr Stelter says, many chief executives might understand the problem but not see it as immediately relevant to them. Profit margins across Europe have returned to the levels of 2005. Money is cheap due to the printing presses of the central banks and ultra-low interest rates. Short-term, things look OK – there has been little real pain despite the efforts of some to portray every necessary efficiency move as a “cut” of calamitous proportions.
    But in the end, business needs growth in the wider economy to flourish. There needs to be a radical rethink of the way the West organises itself. Many of the ideas of Mr Stelter and his team are the right ones, although the tax burden being what it is in the UK, many would find it hard to stomach the thought of more tax rises that the BCG report recommends. At some point the relationship between taxed income and willingness to innovate turns negative.
    I would suggest the UK is very near that point.
    BCG’s arguments are, of course, not new. In a recent programme on the Bank of England for BBC Radio 4, I interviewed the Oxford economist, Dieter Helm. “I think it’s important to understand there are very different views about what happened in the crisis,” he told me.
    “Some people think that this was some kind of Keynesian event, that our problem after the crash was deficient demand and therefore what we had to do was stimulate the economy.
    “In other words, where we were in 2006 in terms of our consumption and spending was perfectly sustainable.
    “[But] what’s going on is a massive postponement exercise and I think that means that the sustainable level of consumption we will end up with will be lower than it would have been if we’d faced up to the reality of our economic mess that was created by the great boom of the 20th century and the enormous splurge of spending and asset bubble of the early years of the 21st century.”
    As we know, George Osborne’s austerity plan is not actually much of a plan, with government debt levels increasing for the rest of this Parliament. But in politics, the choice is not simply between what is being proposed and
    Shangri-La. It is about what is being proposed and the alternative – and the Labour alternative is more spending. Most people know which one we should be choosing so that worried FTSE 100 CEOs can sleep a little easier.
    I would like to take this opportunity to wish all our readers a peaceful festive period and hope – whether you are Chancellor or pleb – that December 25 brings all you hope for.









    這架飛機為紅翼(Red Wings)航空擁有,並證實是由捷克飛抵莫斯科。飛機失事原因仍在調查中,當地傳媒報導,事發時莫斯科正下著微雪。


    On January 10, 2008, the Federal District Court in Chicago issued a permanent injunction against Bill Benson on the grounds that by offering information demonstrating that the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified, he was promoting an abusive tax shelter. The Court then refused to look at the government-certified documentary evidence, deciding instead that the facts necessary to prove his statements true were "irrelevant."
    What has America come to when the government we created to protect our rights can accuse us of lying and then prohibit us from presenting a defense in a court of law?
    . . .
    The Premise
    The federal government rests its authority to collect income tax on the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—the federal income tax amendment—which was allegedly ratified in 1913.
    "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 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
    After an extensive year-long nationwide research project, William J. Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states and that nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox had fraudulently declared ratification.
    It was a shocking revelation; it reached deep to the core of our American system of government.
    The Discovery
    Article V of the U.S. Constitution defines the ratification process and requires three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were fourty-eight states in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of thirty-six was necessary for ratification. In February 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that thirty-eight had ratified the Amendment.
    In 1984 Bill Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified. He continued his research at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; it was here that Bill found his Golden Key.
    This damning piece of evidence is a sixteen-page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, among whose duties is the provision of legal opinions for the Secretary of State. In this memorandum, the Solicitor lists the many errors he found in the ratification process.
    These four states are among the thirty-eight from which Philander Knox claimed ratification:
    • California: The legislature never recorded any vote on any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
    • Kentucky: The Senate voted on the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of nine in favor and twenty-two opposed.
    • Minnesota: The State sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
    • Oklahoma: The Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
    Bill BensonBill would like to thank those who've contributed or shown support in the fight against fraudulent taxation. Click here to help.
    When his project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited the capitol of every state from 1913 and knew that not a single one had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. Thirty-three states engaged in the unauthorized activity of altering the language of an amendment proposed by Congress, a power that the states do not possess.
    Since thirty-six states were needed for ratification, the failure of thirteen to ratify was fatal to the Amendment. This occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.
    Important Headlines