Welcome to Thetruthnews.info
Freedom to Fascism: Outing the Constitutional Criminals
Thursday, February 22nd, 2007
We’ll talk some details. But, in the last analysis, Aaron Russo’s 2006 film, “America: Freedom to Fascism” is a force of nature. It rips through the secret society corruption culture’s history, from 1913 on.
Aaron Russo’s film is a deal-breaker. The deal — the social compact between Americans and their secretly-fascist-since-1913 national government — will be broken for most ethically normal Americans at the film’s first viewing. The Russo-shepherded truths are self-evident. The corrections obviously needed are massive.
Russo has outed the constitutional criminals and class-war slavers of the US-national-govt / private-central-banks partnership. And he’s done it in such a way as to present one of the first coherent-whole, high-impact pictures of their sneak-thief moves against Americans.
“America: Freedom to Fascism” is available in hi-Q DVD and pay-per-view. It’s also available for free viewing online through lower-Q Google Video. In its “final cut”, it runs 1 hour, 49 minutes, and some change. Go to Russo’s site at –
and scroll down through the list of options. Free viewing is at “Watch the Movie Online”. Just click on “Go”. Or, of course, you can purchase it and support Mr. Russo’s work.
Less than two minutes into the film, Russo has nailed together the events of the unconstitutional personal income tax (February 1913 fraudulent ratification of the insufficient 16th Amendment) and the unconstitutional Federal Reserve (December 1913 illegal delegation of one of Congress’ essential legislative functions — the coining and valuing of money).
Money from the “voluntary compliance” personal income tax pays toward the national debt that the usury of the Federal Reserve stacks against the nation in daily windrows.
The Federal Reserve usury is like a giant magnifier for the superrich. Its treasonous “fractional reserve” hocus pocus creates indebtedness with every dollar created and loaned. The lawful counterfeiting of unsecured “fiat” money out of thin air — horrendously unconstitutional — multiplies the money supply ad nauseum, automatically reducing the value of the dollar while it creates automatic inflation. Every dollar created out of thin air has its bogus and usurous “interest rate” attached (read, “usury fee”), drawing very real compound interest. The overall effect is one of superprofits to the superrich private bankers who own the Federal Reserve — an ownership list that is as secret as is the amount of currency in the money supply — and daily increases of power within the Federal Reserve to go right on magnifying its profits and power.
The purpose of the personal income tax is to redistribute wealth upward and to control the civil society. The purpose of the Federal Reserve is to redistribute the wealth upward and to control the civil society. The receivers of the redistributed wealth and the controllers of the society are the private owners of the Federal Reserve — not the government.
The timing of the secret societies’ income tax and Federal Reserve machinations is no mystery. It was the Reform Era. We the sovereign people were demanding state-level citizen lawmaking to end the Gilded Age’s Robber Baron corruptions. By December 1913, citizens in seventeen states had rammed direct democracy down the elitist throats of their state constitutions, and it looked like there would be many more. We were on the brink of a new political dynamic that could shut down all of the elites’ corruption machines. Courts across the country, including SCOTUS, had rejected the elites’ arguments and ruled citizen lawmaking intrinsic to the Constitution. We were scaring the hell out of the murderous elites. The only answer to their corrupt situation was more corruption.
For days after my first viewing of “Freedom to Fascism”, my mind continually replayed Russo’s quote from Paul Warburg, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and architect of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. The quote is from Warburg’s speech to the US Senate, 17 February 1950: “We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent”.
Predator elitism’s strategies for world government have been clear to them since the 1694 founding of the first central bank, the Bank of England. The authors of the Constitution knew and despised usurous central banks. They did everything they could to ensure that no such creature would ever hold power in the US. Surprise. Since the 1913 founding of the Federal Reserve, the intentions of the Constitution’s authors have been the laughing stock of the secret societies from Skull and Bones, to the CFR, to the Trilateral Commission, to the Bilderberg Group. Americans are way out on the edge of the near-future Owellian world government.
The central bankers knew, from their approx 220 years experience with the Bank of England and other European central banks prior to 1913, that American indebtedness would grow so large that the central bankers would eventually own the American nation.
Has that happened? We have (1) a national debt of $8.6 trillion, (2) the value of the dollar reduced to 4 cents in 1930 dollar-value by the continual inflation of the Fed’s unsecured currency watering down dollar value by continual increases of the money supply, (3) the Bush-Cheney package of tax cuts for the multinational, stateless superrich helping to skyrocket the national debt, (4) the absurd, unconstitutional, felonious, and treasonous war in Iraq helping to skyrocket the national debt, while it provides war profiteering for the central bankers who finance it, with their phoney “interest” usury added on, (5) corporate taxation at an all-time low, and corporate tax evasion at an all-time high, helping to skyrocket the national debt, (6) a back-door, undebated, and undeliberated “Real ID Act” effective May 2008 — attached as a rider to a May 2005 funding bill for the Iraq war by the “Conference Committee” (one of the most evil, stupid, anti-democracy, and unAmerican corruption machines in the national government) — set to turn us into a very real police state for the benefit of money-power in May 2008, and (7) the fascist leaders of the US, Canada, and Mexico — unchecked by their civil societies — about to use the media-hushed and secretive North American Union to reduce our three nations to the slave pool that the EU “Constitution” nearly achieved in Europe last summer, and to replace the dollar with the central bankers’ Canusmex currency, the Amero, in the process.
Do the central bankers own our nation? Russo thinks so. Most of his film is about the details of that ownership. And the more details he lays on, the more persuasive his sustained argument is.
Near film’s end, he gives a 1991 quote from David Rockefeller, a member of predator elitism’s Council on Foreign Relations. It trumpets the criminal CFR’s secrecy, national ownership, and world-governing arrogance.
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.
“It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
“But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.
“The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
I’m doomed to fail the CFR sophistication test. I’m convinced that the elites want to take away our rights, freedoms, and liberties to cut their costs, increase their profits, make their power over us predictable and safe, and turn our children into corporate zombies with short and miserable lives. There is no group of them that I’m willing to trust with the time of day, let alone the governance decisions that will rule human life worldwide. I’m unfit for their world. They’ll just have to kill me.
As such thoughts sink in and spread because of Russo’s work, Americans will become more and more combative. We didn’t come all this way to be gang-banged by a bunch of prissy superrich. The unconstitutional IRS wreckage of American lives like those of Joe Louis, Willie Nelson, and John Colaprete will beg vengeance. The unconstitutional wreckage of our rights, freedoms, and liberties under the 3-branch, Bush-Cheney fascist despotism will beg vengeance. There is a new wall-slamming, smash-mouth American politics coming.
In the first two minutes of film, Russo has already said that US Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently certified the 16th Amendment’s ratification. Because of this fraud, Russo says, the American people were led to believe that there was a legitimate, graduated tax on their labor and wages, when there was not.
Per several SCOTUS rulings since, the 16th Amendment granted no new taxation power. Constitutionally, we still have only indirect taxes, which are avoidable and must apply nationwide (excise tax is an example), and direct taxes, which are unavoidable and must be spread equally among the people (”apportioned” in tax jargon). The “graduated”, unapportioned, direct income tax, Russo and many of his conmmentators argue, is as unconstitutional today as it was the day after its fraudulent ratification in 1913.
The fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment is a minimum-mention item. Go for the evidence.
The evidence shows that, instead of the approving 36 states required for and certified by Know, there were only two — two — state ratifications that were constitutionally and legally valid (if the minor defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctualization are ignored).
As the evidence is examined, it becomes clear that Knox knew, or should have known, that he was certifying many invalid ratifications as genuine ratificaitons. The prima facie case for intentional fraud in Knox’s certification is overwhelming. See especially, the synopsis of William Benson’s research on the We the People web site; William Benson’s own site, The Law That Never Was; and the expanded Benson research — with defects chart — on Political Resources
To point the viewer at a recent piece of 16th Amendment evidence, Russo quotes US District Judge James C. Fox in a 2003 ruling: “If you … examined [the 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment”.
Judge Fox’s quoted statement can be found on page 23 of the ruling’s 26 pages. The ruling was in Sullivan v. U.S., 03-CV-39, US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Wilmington, 21 March 2003. (Most readers will find the entire ruling riveting. Colonel Sullivan had asked for the court’s injunction against the US invasion of Iraq, arguing in depth that the president does not have the constitutional power to declare war, that only the Congress has that power, and that it was unconstitutional for Congress to delegate that power to the president. The hearing was held one day after the invasion formally began.)
There is nothing about Judge Fox’s ruling that is out-of-context with the case that Russo is making against government and private corporation unconstitutionalities.
Judge Fox used the invalid ratification of the 16th Amendment as an example to argue that some parts of the Constitution are in there because of long-term usage, despite those parts’ being properly unconstitutional. Judge Fox comments that no federal court will throw out the 16th Amendment, no matter what evidence of its improper ratification is brought, precisely because of its long-term use.
It is exactly that federal bench motiff — that nothing be done about past unconstitutionalities — that Russo rightfully attacks throughout his film.
David Cay Johnston of the NY Times provides a pro-elites review of “Freedom to Fascism”. Under a mile-high headline that says, “Facts Refute Filmaker’s Assertions on Income Tax in America”, Johnston asserts that “every court that has ever ruled on those issues has upheld the constitutionality of the income tax”.
Whoa. Russo’s commentators provide eight SCOTUS decisions that squash the constitutionality of the income tax. Those SCOTUS decisions ruled that the 16th Amendment gave no new power of taxation, and did not alter the restrictions on taxation given in the Constitution. Equals unconstitutional income tax every time.
In fact, as the constitutionality argument unpacks, Russo documents that nobody in the IRS, from top to bottom, is willing to go on-camera to discuss the issue. He gets a former IRS Commissioner (Sheldon Cohen) on camera only to have him assert that SCOTUS rulings are “inapplicable” to the tax code. And he shows that lower federal courts continually bar SCOTUS decisions from being brought as evidence.
For example, US District Judge Dawson (presiding over his railroaded conviction of author Irwin Schiff) is quoted as saying, “I will not allow the law in my court room”. He rejects SCOTUS rulings as “irrelevant”. And he tells the jury, “You must follow the law as I give it to you”. Schiff was convicted on Dawson’s enforcement of jury ignorance.
Russo’s material shows conclusively that no recent or lower court that has ever ruled on the constitutionality of the income tax is to be trusted. The juries that get the text of the law safely acquit the defendant. The judges are pro-elites mouthpieces who force convictions whenever they can. They are not about to rule against the cash cow that has financed the corruption machines since 1913.
And then NY Times towering giant Johnston writes: “… Mr. Russo says in the film that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and thus a tax on wages is unconstitutional. This claim has been made in various forms by thousands of tax protesters since 1913, and so far their batting average with the courts is .000.”
Pretty twisted stuff. The issue bearing on guilty/not-guilty is not the use by thousands of 16th Amendment unconstitutionality. The issue bearing on guilty/not-guilty is whether there is a law requiring US citizens to file an income tax return. “Show me the law”, defendant Harrell says in open court, and he will gladly pay his tax. “Show me the law” is the centerpiece throughout the film’s IRS seqment. IRS officials and judges go dark. No lights on. Nobody home.
Russo asks Harrell-case juror Marcy Brooks why officials don’t just show the law. Ms Brooks replies, “Because there is no law.”
Russo wades through the recent juries’ not-guilty verdicts for Whitey Harrell, Vernice Kuglin, Franklin Sanders (along with his twenty-three co-defendants) and former-IRS-agent-gone-truth-rogue Joe Banister. Against that back-drop of acquitals, he shows a recent video clip of former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti saying: “When the matter is put to the test, which means in terms of court and enforcement action, there is a hundred percent success rate in shooting down these arguments”.
NYT Johnston’s zero batting average for tax protestors and IRS Rossotti’s hundred percent success rate in shooting down anti-income-tax arguments have a suspicious similarity. But neither have a factual basis.
David Cay Johnston’s pseudo-facts crash and burn against his mile-high headline.
With this film, the IRS hierarchy, the Federal Reserve and their international central banking cabal, the Congress, and the predator elites’ secret societies have already lost. However, given their nine-plus decades of arrogant, anti-Constitution winning, only a wall-slamming, smash-mouth American politics will convince them of their loss. Murderers do not stop murdering until they are stopped. And make no mistake, those people are psychopathic murderers anytime it means secret profits.
Ethically normal Americans, who will like the Russo film, will suddenly understand the culture of corruption in which Bush is immersed as he shouts that the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper. Insider Bush, Empire prince of the blood, secret society predator from frat-boy “Skull and Bones” to king of the world in the boss-of-bosses secret society, the “Bilderberg Group”, would see the Constitution from the corruption culture’s point of view. From that point of view, the Constitution is just a godddamned piece of paper.
The corruption culture’s point of view is alien to ethically normal Americans — until they see the Russo film. Then the corruption culture’s point of view crashes home.
For US elected officials who pretend that there is anything about our national fascist despotism that is politics-as-usual until the IRS and Federal Reserve racketeering frauds are repealed, watch your six. Something’s going to be gaining on you. There is a new smash-mouth American politics coming. (See especially the “Unity America” action plan in “Open Letter to Susan–Making Bush-Cheney Null & Void”)
The specter of a Constitution-regaining, bloody revolution/civil-war is looming larger and closer.
Welcome to Thetruthnews.info
Australasia World News
Cheney worried over China's military clout, praises Australia
Posted on : Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:37:00 GMT | Author : James Simpson
SYDNEY: U.S. vice president Dick Cheney said Friday there is growing concern over China arming itself and increasing its influence in the region. In a speech in Sydney, he sad the anti-satellite test of January and the country's fast-paced military buildup are less constructive and not consistent with its stated goal of peaceful rise.
However, he hoped China would come out as a force for stability and peace in the region. He praised the country for its constructive role in the six-party talks that led to an agreement under which North Korea announced it will decommission its main plutonium producing nuclear complex in return for heavy fuel oil.
But, he was doubtful whether North Korea would stick to its commitment.
Addressing the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, he told the members in the light of the nuclear test in October and the record of proliferation the country holds and its human rights abuses, Pyongyang has a lot to prove. Yet, the agreement represents a first hopeful step toward a better future for the North Korean people, he added.
The vice president maintained that it is important that the U.S. and allied forces remained in Iraq until the administration in the country has stabilized. He said, "If our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance of the country."
He praised Australian prime minister John Howard, who sent 2,000 troops to join the US-led invasion of Iraq, and said Australians had won the respect of the world through their support of the fight against terror.
Cheney had reached Sydney after his wide-ranging talks in Tokyo with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. He sought to assure both Japan and later Australia about the U.S. commitment to Asia-Pacific region in spite of problems in Iraq.
While in Sydney, Cheney also faced anti-war demonstrations, with the demonstrators clashing with police outside the hotel.
Copyright © 2007 Respective Author
Welcome to Thetruthnews.info
What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law?
An editorial in the New York Times yesterday pointed out, for those of us who didn't realize it, that the Bush administration had inserted two provisions into last October's defense budget bill that would make it easier to declare martial law in the US. Senators Leahy and Bond have introduced a bill to repeal these changes, and it is important that
voters keep track of this bill and hold their Congresspeople to account on it.
Along with several other measures the Bush adminstration has proposed, the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy. Any senator who does not vote in favor of the Leahy/Bond repeal of these provisions should promptly be recalled by his or her constituents.
That said, and without underestimating the seriousness of these provisions, I have to point out that with this as with other legal maneuvers like the Military Commissions Act, I have to wonder who Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. think they are governing. Were they planning to spring these things on us? One day, we were supposed to wake up, and martial law would be declared, and we were supposed to actually pay attention to it? Where are they keeping the troops who were going to patrol our neighborhoods? Who was it who was going to disarm the population? Who was their base going to be, when they sought public support for martial law? Who was going to round us up and where were they going to put us?
It is in these sorts of things that the byzantine thinking and strange psychological make-up of the Bushies comes out. Let's say that Bush imagines (with Gonzalez and Cheney) the enhanced joys of bringing the war home. No longer is his command "over there"--it is now "over here". He can go out onto the White House lawn and issue edicts, and then perhaps he can be driven around Washington, or over into Virginia, and watch civilians obey his orders in a way that the Iraqis seem unwilling to do. I am assuming that the purpose of such an exercise would be to renew and intensify the now-diminishing frisson Bush gets from feeling himself the boss of all he surveys.
But we all know it would not work. Very few people believe Bush or take his needs and desires seriously any more. Bush, or his keepers, know this, too, or they would not have introduced these provisions secretly. There was a time, when the nation was in a panic, when he could purloin things openly, and no one dared defy him. That was the appropriate occasion for these martial law changes. Now, or even last fall, was not that time. The Republicans must have suspected that to make such provisions known would have meant jeopardizing an iffy mid-term election even more than it already was, so they hid them. But the fact that they hid them makes them a hundred times more suspect--are the Bushies planning a coup after all?
And if they are planning a coup, what's the goal? Who is going to fall in line? Arnold Schwarzenegger, my very own governor? Chet Culver? Kathleen Sebelius? Eliot Spitzer? Since the US is a corporatocracy, would we then all be forced to work for $2.00 per hour? Give up all workplace benefits? Attend the religious services of our choice on Sunday? Devote even more of our tax dollars to the war machine and the oil machine? Haven't they taken everything already? Try as I might, I cannot imagine martial law in the US, except as something the population would agree to under threat from...from whom? Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will), but the last time martial law was declared was during the Civil War, and Americans, though the threats to the Union were profound and omnipresent, didn't like it then. I can't even imagine what would happen now.
Our armed forces can't subdue Iraq. I can't imagine that Bush thinks they could subdue New England or the West Coast, much less the whole US. To imagine himself commanding such a thing seems like magical thinking at its most obvious. So, what would you did if Bush declared martial law, laugh?
Welcome to Thetruthnews.info
U.S. Opens Border to First Mexican Trucks in 25 Years
Thomas Black / Bloomberg | February 23, 2007
Mexican trucks will be allowed to make deliveries beyond U.S. border areas for the first time in 25 years, in a test announced by U.S. and Mexican officials.
The one-year program will permit 100 Mexican transportation companies to carry cargo beyond 25-mile border zones, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said in a statement today.
The agreement eliminates procedures that since 1982 have required Mexican trucks to transfer cargo going beyond the border zone to a U.S. carrier. American trucks, which face similar restrictions by Mexico, are to be included in the cross- border program later.
``Through this new pilot program, we are finding a better way to do business with one of this nation's largest trading partners,'' Peters said at the border city of El Paso, Texas.
Mexico ranks third in trade with the U.S., behind Canada and China. U.S.-Mexico trade rose 14 percent last year to $332 billion. Mexico exported $198 billion in goods to the U.S., with more than 80 percent shipped by truck.
Under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, Mexican and U.S. trucks were to gain access to each other's countries by the end of 1995. President Bill Clinton blocked the cross-border trucking, citing concerns that Mexican trucks weren't safe.
The Mexican government ``will begin to consider'' granting permits for U.S. trucks to operate in Mexico, the statement said.
Mexican trucks that will operate in the U.S. must pass a U.S. Transportation Department safety inspection before entering the country. The trucks will be required to have insurance and the drivers must meet license requirements. Salaries of Mexican truck drivers are lower than their U.S. counterparts.
James Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the second-largest U.S. union, said the agreement will make American highways unsafe.
``They are playing a game of Russian roulette on America's highways,'' Hoffa said in an e-mailed statement.
The American Trucking Associations, an industry trade group, said in a statement that the pilot program ``recognized the need to improve efficiency at the border.''
Establishment of U.S. truck inspections in Mexico, announced yesterday by Peters, marked the last of 22 requirements that Congress mandated in 2001.
``Safety is the number-one priority and strict U.S. safety standards won't change,'' U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said in a statement.
To contact the reporter on this story: Thomas Black in Monterrey at firstname.lastname@example.org .