Inaccuracies in AFTF

[LibertyEagle]

I have heard several times on here that there are several inaccuracies in America: Freedom to Fascism. So, I wanted to ask what those are.

 

[AlexAmore]

All the bullshit spewing from this man's mouth:

 

[trispear]

Lol!

 

[noxagol]

Well, the DOD budget is NOT equal to corporate income tax. It is infact MUCH larger. It might have been equal when the movie was made though.

 

[BuddyRey]

All the bullshit spewing from this man's mouth:

LOL!!!!!!!!!

That pretty much sums it up. If there were really any holes in tax protestors' arguments, wouldn't they have been spotted by now? In fact, tons of tax evasion cases have already been thrown out on the strength of the evidence offered in AFTF!

 

[american.swan]

Well, the DOD budget is NOT equal to corporate income tax. It is infact MUCH larger. It might have been equal when the movie was made though.

It might have been equal when the study was carried out by the order of Reagan...so that was some time ago

i could be wrong

 

[LibertyEagle]

bump

 

[cjhowe]

[Asking myself if I really want to spend the next several hours debating with conspiracy theorists]

It has been about a year since I've watched it. That said, I apologize if I counter points of Fed Conspiracy and There is no Law, that is not specifically mentioned in the movie.

To begin with, "inaccuracies" may not be the correct word. Misleading would be more correct.

Claim: FIT, there is no law.
From memory, there's a claim that the 16th amendment gave no new taxing authority. That's accurate, but misleading. Since the signing of the Constitution, Congress had the authority to tax income, to tax anything actually. The Constitution put no limitation on what congress could tax, provided it was apportioned based on census or enumeration. The 16th amendment allowed for the income tax, specifically, to not need be apportioned based on census or enumeration.

Basic history of the law...
1. Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 imposed a tax on income. (there were previous taxes on income that were that were repealed, as well as laws afterwards that superseded this law)
2. Supreme Court Ruling Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. deemed the the income tax unconstitutional because its proceeds were not apportioned based on census or enumeration.
3. Congress and the States ratified the 16th Amendment overruling the SCOTUS in Pollock.

From memory, there was another claim that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. Secretary of State Knox proclaimed it ratified on 2/25/1916. By that date 40 states had ratified it, only 36 were required. Within two weeks of Knox's proclamation, an additional two states had ratified it. IIRC, A:F2F makes a claim that 3 states did not ratify it for what ever reason, the argument is moot (while also unfounded) as even without those three, there were sufficient states in agreement for ratification.

Claim: Fed Reservce Conspiracy
There is a quote flashed on the screen by Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."
Then Russo narrates something to the effect that Rothschild knew that he and the other bankers would now control the laws of the nation after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A little hard for Rothschild to know this when he died 101 years prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.


As far as the overall conspiracy, this link gives a pretty good synopsis: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html of the reality of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve.

Misc. misleadings
There's a quote attributed to Bill Clinton in the film that reads
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
The actual quote was:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles—it's something I strongly support—we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation—no other nations—has permitted to exist."

While I can agree that Bill Clinton is wrong in his line of thought, he's not suggesting some world government.

 

[Thunderbolt]

...

 

[Wyurm]

I recommend AFTF as good viewing for critical thinkers ONLY. If you can't think critically, then it can have a negative effect. Most people who watch this movie and say it led them to Ron Paul or opened their eyes are already critical thinkers who can take the good and toss the misleading info.

The movie is however correct. The goal was to show how taxes and our money system are working to enslave us. Whether it started intentionally to enslave us or was just a natural course it took is a completely different debate. After all, slavery has appeared many times in human history. Its an easy way to get things done without having to give up profits. So, its only natural that if liberty is not safeguarded, those with power and influence will rise up eventually to enslave the "have-nots". The difference this time is how quietly its happening. It has been a silent shift toward slavery rather than an obvious shift.

Also important to note is that most of this type of program that wish to expose what is really going on in government fail to show the "big picture". The agendas are often lumped together as if its one massive conspiracy to achive whatever goal is being spotlighted. The truth is that there are a great many seperate agendas (not all with bad intentions either) which have similar goals toward meeting their respective ends. For example, La Raza (Pro-reclaiming western states for Mexican nationals) would love the NAU, but they would love it for the open-boarders policy not for the stepping stone toward globalization. The fed would love an invasion of Iran for propping up the US dollar, not for enacting UN resolutions, and it goes on. The thing is that there is so much of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense occuring with these special interest groups that it gets confusing to seperate their individual agendas. The result is that often an action that actually belongs to one group is mis-assigned to another in documentaries such as this.

The important thing is not to get too involved in picking apart the seperate agendas, rather its to focus on the root of the problem. The root of the problem here is that these agendas are being allowed to be acted on despite their anti-American natures. In other words, the real problem is our government's failure to uphold the vow each government servant takes when they take the oath of office. The promise to obey and protect the Constitution. Instead they have torn it to pieces. The Constitution is what prevents these agendas from having a place in our government, while failing to follow it is asking for the death of America.

I'm sure there might be one out there, but I would prefer a documentary that shows each of the violations of the US constitution that have occured since 1912. This would be more valuable than just trying to expose one or two conspiracies.

 

[Thunderbolt]

...

 

[lucius]

[Asking myself if I really want to spend the next several hours debating with conspiracy theorists]

It has been about a year since I've watched it. That said, I apologize if I counter points of Fed Conspiracy and There is no Law, that is not specifically mentioned in the movie.

To begin with, "inaccuracies" may not be the correct word. Misleading would be more correct.

Claim: FIT, there is no law.
From memory, there's a claim that the 16th amendment gave no new taxing authority. That's accurate, but misleading. Since the signing of the Constitution, Congress had the authority to tax income, to tax anything actually. The Constitution put no limitation on what congress could tax, provided it was apportioned based on census or enumeration. The 16th amendment allowed for the income tax, specifically, to not need be apportioned based on census or enumeration.

Basic history of the law...
1. Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 imposed a tax on income. (there were previous taxes on income that were that were repealed, as well as laws afterwards that superseded this law)
2. Supreme Court Ruling Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. deemed the the income tax unconstitutional because its proceeds were not apportioned based on census or enumeration.
3. Congress and the States ratified the 16th Amendment overruling the SCOTUS in Pollock.

From memory, there was another claim that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. Secretary of State Knox proclaimed it ratified on 2/25/1916. By that date 40 states had ratified it, only 36 were required. Within two weeks of Knox's proclamation, an additional two states had ratified it. IIRC, A:F2F makes a claim that 3 states did not ratify it for what ever reason, the argument is moot (while also unfounded) as even without those three, there were sufficient states in agreement for ratification.

Claim: Fed Reservce Conspiracy
There is a quote flashed on the screen by Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."
Then Russo narrates something to the effect that Rothschild knew that he and the other bankers would now control the laws of the nation after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A little hard for Rothschild to know this when he died 101 years prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.


As far as the overall conspiracy, this link gives a pretty good synopsis: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty1.html of the reality of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve.

Misc. misleadings
There's a quote attributed to Bill Clinton in the film that reads
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
The actual quote was:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles—it's something I strongly support—we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation—no other nations—has permitted to exist."

While I can agree that Bill Clinton is wrong in his line of thought, he's not suggesting some world government.

"The use of ‘conspiracy theory’ is a derogatory epithet. It is something the propagandists have deeply embedded [into the collective American psyche] and has been perfected over the decades. It is a useful tool to eliminate articulate dissent, other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda." Chris Sanders, Political Economist--Sanders Research

 

[cjhowe]

I recommend AFTF as good viewing for critical thinkers ONLY. If you can't think critically, then it can have a negative effect. Most people who watch this movie and say it led them to Ron Paul or opened their eyes are already critical thinkers who can take the good and toss the misleading info.

I don't want to detract from the rest of what you wrote, because it's very good and very true. I only have a contention with your recommendation that it is good viewing for critical thinkers. It's the same milk v. meat argument that religious people give. It's not good viewing for anyone. If you have to misrepresent something to get someone to agree with you, there's a problem with your viewpoint. In regards to documentaries, you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the baby cannot survive on its own, it's already dead....[apologies if I took that analogy too far]

The movie is however correct. The goal was to show how taxes and our money system are working to enslave us. Whether it started intentionally to enslave us or was just a natural course it took is a completely different debate. After all, slavery has appeared many times in human history. Its an easy way to get things done without having to give up profits. So, its only natural that if liberty is not safeguarded, those with power and influence will rise up eventually to enslave the "have-nots". The difference this time is how quietly its happening. It has been a silent shift toward slavery rather than an obvious shift.

Also important to note is that most of this type of program that wish to expose what is really going on in government fail to show the "big picture". The agendas are often lumped together as if its one massive conspiracy to achive whatever goal is being spotlighted. The truth is that there are a great many seperate agendas (not all with bad intentions either) which have similar goals toward meeting their respective ends. For example, La Raza (Pro-reclaiming western states for Mexican nationals) would love the NAU, but they would love it for the open-boarders policy not for the stepping stone toward globalization. The fed would love an invasion of Iran for propping up the US dollar, not for enacting UN resolutions, and it goes on. The thing is that there is so much of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense occuring with these special interest groups that it gets confusing to seperate their individual agendas. The result is that often an action that actually belongs to one group is mis-assigned to another in documentaries such as this.

The important thing is not to get too involved in picking apart the seperate agendas, rather its to focus on the root of the problem. The root of the problem here is that these agendas are being allowed to be acted on despite their anti-American natures. In other words, the real problem is our government's failure to uphold the vow each government servant takes when they take the oath of office. The promise to obey and protect the Constitution. Instead they have torn it to pieces. The Constitution is what prevents these agendas from having a place in our government, while failing to follow it is asking for the death of America.

I'm sure there might be one out there, but I would prefer a documentary that shows each of the violations of the US constitution that have occured since 1912. This would be more valuable than just trying to expose one or two conspiracies.

 

[cjhowe]

"The use of ‘conspiracy theory’ is a derogatory epithet. It is something the propagandists have deeply embedded [into the collective American psyche] and has been perfected over the decades. It is a useful tool to eliminate articulate dissent, other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda." Chris Sanders, Political Economist--Sanders Research

However, it is primarily a useful tool to point out those who have a victim mentality and are not capable of having articulate discussions that are based in reality. It is similar to a car being capable of being used as a means for transportation and as a home.

 

[Wyurm]

I find it a shame that so many people send this DVD out with Ron Paul materials. The law is whatever a judge says is the law. There are hundreds of thousands of unconstitutional laws on the books. So whether or not it is constitutional makes no difference at all.

I about spit out my drink all over my keyboard when I read this. How can you even say that? The constitution IS THE LAW. It is the law that all laws are supposed to abide by. A judge does NOT make laws a judge is only there to determine whether or not a law has been broken. If a judge is not doing their job, then they should be removed. How you can say this and yet be supporting liberty astounds me.

I am afraid that all the people that I have heard who saw this because it was sent to them by Ron Paul supporters are now against Ron Paul because they think he is nutjob that backed this DVD and is trying to get people into trouble implying that they do not have to pay his taxes.

Then they likely would not be Ron Paul supporters if they are so gullible. Just like anyone that visits the Fred Thompson forum and decides they won't vote for Fred Thompson because of what they see there. Very soon, once Ron Paul reaches the "top tier" to a point where the MSM can't deny it anymore, there will be a massive amount of attacks against his character, voting record, etc... If they can't handle a supporter giving them AFTF, then how on earth would they be able to handle the MSM blasting RP?

I wish people would just send out Ron Paul speaking. A good DVD, professionally made, with good video quality, that just shows Ron Paul and uses his words. Trying to convince people that there is no law to pay taxes to try to get them to support Ron Paul seems silly to me. You will only convince a few young kids, turn off all adults and what does this have to do with Ron Paul anyway? Nothing.

This works fine, however, to each their own. What works for one supporter, won't always work for you. You don't have to like how each supporter supports, I know I don't, but its counter-productive to argue against it. Who have you converted by issuing this complaint?

What is a law? It is a thing that when you break it there are consequences. Now, you think you won't have any consequences for not paying taxes... When you can convince me of that, then you will have convinced me there is no law, but I don't think anybody in the film seemed to know what a law is. There is more to law than written statutes. There is case law. There is administrative law. There is tax law and tax courts. If a tax court tells you you have to pay, guess what, that is a law.

This DVD has just enough accuracy to make it dangerous and to confuse people. Do a search for Sheldon Friedman and paying taxes. He has written some excellent stuff on the topic.

I'm just going to end with this. If there is no law written on the books, then there is no law. Thus if there is no law requiring that you pay income taxes, yet you are being forced to anyway, then you are not living in a free environment, you are living under tyranny. This is what we have now (a tyranny) and we are seeking to get Ron Paul elected to restore our liberty. So no, there is no law and why is this important? because its part of waking people up.

Do I recommend AFTF as a tool for this? not really, Aaron Russo (may he rest in peace) used a journalistic style that I'm not very comfortable with. Its they same style that Michael Moore and Alex Jones use. I like Alex Jones, Moore goes overboard and often misrepresents what he is exposing by only spotlighting a select few that support his argument. So no, I wouldn't use it to introduce people to Ron Paul. But this does not mean I don't agree with the points in the movie.

 

[Thunderbolt]

...

 

[Thunderbolt]

...

 

[lucius]

However, it is primarily a useful tool to point out those who have a victim mentality and are not capable of having articulate discussions that are based in reality. It is similar to a car being capable of being used as a means for transportation and as a home.

Very poor analogy, but it does demonstrate that you have a pedestrian mindset. I would suggest you broaden your reading with a first edition reprint of Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by Carroll Quigley. Quigley was mentor to young Bill Clinton while he attended Georgetown University. Former President Clinton said in 1992:

"...As a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so.".

What was one of Quigley’s “pearls” that cause the pulling and destruction of his first edition of Tragedy & Hope?

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies...but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

It’s good read, but might be a little tough for you, you can always return to something softer like ‘Alice in Wonderland’.

 

[cjhowe]

Very poor analogy, but it does demonstrate that you have a pedestrian mindset. I would suggest you broaden your reading with a first edition reprint of Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by Carroll Quigley. Quigley was mentor to young Bill Clinton while he attended Georgetown University. Former President Clinton said in 1992:

"...As a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so.".

What was one of Quigley’s “pearls” that cause the pulling and destruction of his first edition of Tragedy & Hope?

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies...but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

It’s good read, but might be a little tough for you, you can always return to something softer like ‘Alice in Wonderland’.

Alice in Wonderland is appropriate. How many friggin rabbit holes do you people have? "Dead end over here...how bout that one over there...nope, nothing there, how bout that one?..." it never ends.

 

[noxagol]

ACTUALLY, the final ineterpretor of the law are the 12 men and women in the jury box. They have more power than even the Constitution through something called Jury Nullification.

They can be presented with evidence that clearly shows someone killing another person. That person could also have no valid reason for wanting to kill the other, IE cold blood.

The jury can still decide that he is not guilty. The final decider is the jury not the judge. Who is the jury? WE THE PEOPLE!