America: From Freedom to Fascism

I invited a friend along and went out to take in "America: From Freedom to Fascism" this last Sunday night.

As a long time member of the Libertarian Party, I was already pretty familiar with a large portion of the central argument in the film; the unconstitutional nature of the Income Tax and the Tax Honesty movement that is trying to shed a little light on the subject. However, the film certainly doesn't limit itself to this subject alone.

Done much in the style of Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, which brought Michael Moore critical acclaim, Aaron Russo is trying to bring some popular attention to arguably the most serious problem in America today, the growing size and power of government.

So I was prepared for sensationalism, and I was prepared to hear many arguments I'd heard before. What I wasn't prepared for were the interviews with several former IRS agents who are now the targets of the agency they worked for. I wasn't prepared for the frank conversation with a juror from a failure to file case who simply states "they never produced the law". I wasn't prepared for the (former) IRS commissioner who showed nothing but contempt for court rulings and questions from citizens concerning the nature of the laws that govern us all.

I found these sequences to be the most illuminating, since they involved people who aren't in the "tax honesty" movement. Not that G. Edward Griffin, Bob Schulz and others don't deserve respect for at least standing up in the face of tyranny that is the IRS; but that these people had no axe to grind, and yet found themselves unable to answer the very simple question "what is the law that requires an American to file and pay income tax?" In the case of the (former) commissioner, he could not present a reasonable argument concerning the existence of the law, even though he 'wrote' the tax code.

In the end, it was Dr. Ron Paul's answer that I think is the most 'truthful'. To paraphrase the gist of it, he said he knew of no law that requires Americans to file and pay the income tax on the face of it; but since those who carry the guns and enforce the IRS code think they are authorized to do so, it makes very little difference.

...Which is pretty much my opinion on the matter in a nutshell.

The remainder of the film tallies up a rather frightening list of programs, executive orders, and laws that together with the current electronic voting nightmare, and police largesse, paints a pretty grim picture of the future. Anyone who has visited Alex Jones' sites is probably familiar with the gist of it. Whether you take any of it seriously is entirely up to you.

The problems with the film are visible the moment you sit down and it starts rolling. First, the film was shot on DV, and hasn't been transferred to film for projection purposes (at least it wasn't in the theatre that I went to) so the quality of the viewing experience is less than most people would expect. The pixelization on the screen makes the production appear to be amateurish, something I'm sure Russo wasn't looking for when he made the film. If the theatre had been equipped with a decent DLP projector, the results might have been different.

Second, the theatre I attended was only about a third full. The people who need to see this film will never attend it of their own free will. They are far to willing to have their minds numbed by watching films of the caliber of "You, Me and Dupree" to ever do the requisite thinking required to appreciate the message Aaron Russo is trying to communicate.

...And since they make up the majority of "We the People", the sovereigns who are supposed to be "Eternally vigilant" in order to preserve our freedom, it leaves me very little doubt that the future described in "America: From Freedom to Fascism" really isn't too far away.

1 comment:

  1. Adam Selene wrote:
    If the U.S. federal legislature were to pass a law now authorizing an income tax (including if necessary constitutional amendment and ratification), would those who object to income taxation on a "legality" basis simply say "Okay, it's legal now, I'm good." and pony up?

    It would take more than just "passing a law". It would take a
    constitutional amendment, which stands even less chance of passing now
    than when they told us it passed (when it was in fact, rejected) at
    the beginning of the last century.

    There is, in fact, no way to comply with income tax requirements
    without voluntarily surrending your fifth Amendment rights. So, no, I
    don't think anyone is going to be willingly complying with any new tax
    laws that are passed.

    Adam Selene wrote:
    Furthermore, do they object to federal income taxation but are perfectly fine with income taxation by New York State, California, etc, and by most foreign countries. Or do they expect to find legal ambiguities everywhere?

    Most of the state income taxes contain language that relate them back to the federal income tax. Most of them will have to be re-written. However, with the bill of rights now being applied to state laws as well, I don't see how a state income tax can be enforced, either.

    Adam Selene wrote:
    Taxes ought to be religiously avoided, minimized, evaded, and paid when necessary; and time is better spent living life than complaining about the "squeeze".

    Spoken like a true enabler of the system. Change only comes from
    resistence. Resistence is strengthened by attention being paid. You get that by complaining.

    Personally I plan on complaining long and loud until listened to.

    ReplyDelete

Ad Hominems, Spam and Advertisements will be mercilessly deleted. All other comments are eagerly anticipated.