I hate to bring up OTHER people, but Martin Armstrong and his "theory" indicate this could be the perfect time for a new political party.

Don't flame me, but it is very interesting what he says about public/priate waves, and the 224 year POLITICAL CHANGE CYCLE. Let see.....Washington began serving in 1789. +223 years = 2012. Next Presidential election? 2012
He is a also a big believer in the phrase IT IS TIME!!!!!

I'm in. I have only one minor sticking point. I feel there are better ways than the Federal Reserve system & act, and I'm not sure such a corrupt construction can be cleaned up without being burned. However, I'm willing to attempt to restore it to a lawful institution, before burning it if necessary. There are lessons to be learned from Colonial Scrip, and that's all I have to say about that. I am also thankful for the stance on the war on drugs. With that said...

I know for a fact that people here in TX, including myself, are ready for something other than Republicans or Democrats. I don't make much money, and like it that way. However I am willing to contribute a pittance here and there monetarily, as well as contribute my time. I would even consider running for an office. I may not be much as measured by our society, but I am well read, articulate, and I have a wicked tongue. I will be contributing in the AF forum, and I'm looking forward to challenging the beast with two heads. Let constitutionality, pragmatism, and common sense reign throughout the land.

Quote:

Congress has refused to enforce the law

A point here. CONgress cannot ENFORCE law - they can only create it or amend it. It's the executive branch that enforces.

They can, however, impeach for refusal to enforce the law. I believe that's the only option available to them.

Yes, yes, I know they'll never go that route, but it is something to consider.

On the contrary Tesla.

Congress could repeal the Federal Reserve Act. That threat is quite effective as "enforcement."

Yes.

OK, good point. Agreed there. I was thinking more of the comment about enforcing existing laws.

It's about ******N time Karl.

I broke my self imposed posting ban here to respond to this ticker.

I can support all the parties platform with much vigor and enthusiasm except one.

This is the same sticking point that Thomas Jefferson and many other Statesmen have warned about. The central bank, AKA the Fed Reserve. I think enough of the populace has educated itself on this issue to know the insidious nature of this beast. The thing must go away, for any change to last, longer term. I'll take anything else, as long as Congress has total control and offers total transparency. This thing is beyond fixing, because it was designed to do exactly what it's been doing since 1913. It's a great success for it's intended purpose. If you recall, this was the year the income tax was enacted to pay for the beast.

Do the math. Of all "private" income taxes collected, it all goes to pay the interest on the national debt. If we had no national debt, we would not need any income tax for individuals, and thus be compliant with the existing Constitution. Furthermore, it's evident that that these 2 balance sheet items would cancel each other out.

Is there room in the party for discussion of this topic?

Genius.
Simply Genius.
Indeed, IT IS TIME

Time for LEAP options

With the VIX at its lowest point in a year I would suggest NOV 10 Call Options on the Anti-Federalist party (ANTFED)

If you're asking if I will insert this into the founding version of the platform the answer is no.

Of course once the party is running the members control where it goes. If it goes in directions I cannot support then it does, but it will, at that point, go there without me.

Do you thing the Fed can be forced to submit to the rule of law? Has it ever?

I'm not being argumentative, but just don't understand your stand on this.

I understand the need for a CB and fractional lending. I don't understand the real possibility of reforming a monster that has arguably caused the entire fiasco of our economic situation. Sure, you can argue that Congress has not done it's job, but I see no hope for THAT to change it's course either, in my lifetime at least.

A little clarity, please.......WE keep the Fed, but remove all the 535?, or what?

Of course it can MM.

Its not even particularly difficult. The current FRA does not include criminal penalties. Those can be easily added, then governors could be indicted and jailed.

The Fed could be de-funded.

A statute could be passed making all FRB meetings open, public events. That would be fun.

There are DOZENS of ways to compel compliance with the law.

Do you want Barney Frank setting the money supply, or Chris Dodd? If you throw away the concept of an independant central bank, that's what you get.

That may or may not be a good choice but making the decision on the premise of disgust with what is going on how without first addressing the problem and determining that you're not just going to make it worse would be a good idea, no?

FINALLY!!!! I've been telling you this for months, about time you listened . I am in, for whatever is needed; maybe we can save whatever remains of this once great country.
By the way, you've been asking people to do something for months now, but most of us have recognized that calling the bought *****s we call congressman is a waste of time. Now we really can do something.

Mr. Denninger, I'm very happy to see a move towards organizing against the criminals currently usurping power in our once-fair country. In reading through the current party platform, I am excited to see many references and facts which clearly state the federal government's purpose - and limits - with proposals to reduce the monstrosity back to its black-letter-law legal limits.

One item sticks out like a sore, thumb, however: the platform item entitled "The Tax Code". The "Fair Tax", as reasonable as it sounds at first, has some fatally critical flaws in my humble opinion, not the least of which would be the extraordinary increase in federal power due to the ability to legally and directly spy on anyone's purchasing history.

Furthermore, any legislation which is promoted by people using weasel wording and misdirection to promote their agenda should be instantly suspect by anyone who has spent time studying history. The matter of promoting the "Fair Tax" as a '23-percent inclusive' tax, instead of the much more familiar terminology meaning 'a tax of 30% of the purchase price' is the chief example.

Better writers than I have summed up the most egregious examples of problems with the proposed "Fair Tax", one of my favorites being presented by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Much like you, their focus has been forced away from the core issue (markets, second amendment) in the face of blatant crimes and offenses by those who claim to be our representatives, and forced onto the core issue of a government comprised of rogues and criminals. Here is a link to JFPO's rebuttal to the arguments in favor of the "Fair Tax":

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/fairtax.....

I have an alternative suggestion: please consider a adopting a neutral tax policy outside the abolition of the IRS and the current income tax system, and allow the replacement taxation schemes, including "no taxation", to be debated on their own merits.

As it is, as much as I agree with the vast majority of your views and concerns, which I believe at the core are similar to my own in a wish to see America return to the rule of law as dictated by the legal documents and supported by the writings of those who fought and died to set up a country in which the role of government was to "secure the blessings of liberty", the advancement of the "Fair Tax" scheme is something I cannot participate in, and furthermore, oppose vehemently.

Please consider a change in this matter regarding the current platform for the Anti-Federalist political party.

Quote:

One item sticks out like a sore, thumb, however: the platform item entitled "The Tax Code". The "Fair Tax", as reasonable as it sounds at first, has some fatally critical flaws in my humble opinion, not the least of which would be the extraordinary increase in federal power due to the ability to legally and directly spy on anyone's purchasing history.

No it doesn't.

Don't read the garbage on the Internet. Either read the bill or if you want the book.

The Fair Tax is administered through visibility into merchants, which already exists for state sales tax. It is also administered by the States who are paid a small percentage to collect and forward the money.

Jpfo is lying and their first entry in opposition is proof; the legislation specifically prohibits the imposition of the Fair Tax alongside any other form of federal taxation other than excise and tariff (go read the bill.)

The second point is true but immaterial as its a REPLACEMENT of the existing colossal tax structure.

The "inflation" argument is horse****, as in order for inflation to be sustained wages must rise. It is thus a push and in fact is in FAVOR of the Fair Tax, not in opposition, since the income tax has a progressive rate (which they do point out) but the Fair Tax does not (which they fail to point out.) In other words, they do the analysis but put forward a false, reversed conclusion.

And by the way, under the AFP, once states rights are restored?

The Fair Tax rate might be zero, except in times of war, as what's left and Constitutional for the Federal Government would likely be able to be funded with excise taxes.

Ok, thanks for the explanation, KD. Now it makes sense to me. I can support the party on this, with my focus on putting the Fed on notice. No pardons, either. Jail the sunabitches.

Of course, I REALLY want a strict interpretation of the Constitution. If that means re-evaluating some 'eh "problematic" areas, then I'm all for that, too.

A strict interpretation would solve most of our problems, immediately.

I'm now looking for a current seat to run against. Should I go for a sure win, or aim higher for the exposure? State level or county, IOW?

I am not a legal eagle, although I can usually follow the logic of most laws I force myself to sit through and read. I've read parts of HR25, though at your suggestion I have obtained and will read the full text in short order.

I recognize that inflation cannot be a long-term consideration as you mention, for the reason you mention, and this is one of the more serious errors in the rebuttal.

However, you state that JFPO is lying by stating:
"Even if legislation required abolition of the income tax (as HR 25 does), a “national crisis” would soon cause the income tax to be “temporarily re-instated” and the Internal Revenue Service would remain in our lives on an “emergency basis” that never ended."

I read this as conjecture, as they do explicitly state that HR 25 requires the abolition of the income tax in the first sentence, quoted above.

Each of the objections stand by themselves, however, and to further state my humble opinions, each is sufficient by itself to call the "Fair Tax" into question. My choicest objections are:

- forces the entire country on the dole, or smartly financially punishes those who staunchly refuse (I refuse such already, and plan to continue as a matter of principle)
- double-taxation of savers
- forcing merchants and service providers to become defacto federal tax collectors (yes, I know many states do this already. It's a "less stealing is still stealing" issue for me, but at least it's on the state level)

Quote:

- forces the entire country on the dole, or smartly financially punishes those who staunchly refuse

No it doesn't. How is rebating the taxes you paid forcing you on the dole? If you overpay a tax and get it back, is that being "on the dole"? That's horse****.

Quote:

- double-taxation of savers

No its not. The bulk of those "savings" are in tax-advantaged accounts. No tax has been paid. For savings post-enactment, no double taxation exists either.

And finally, for those who DID pay tax, the gross price at the register (with tax) will not be materially higher (if it is higher at all) due to the fact that all the EMBEDDED taxes currently present in product prices will disappear.

Quote:

- forcing merchants and service providers to become defacto federal tax collectors (yes, I know many states do this already. It's a "less stealing is still stealing" issue for me, but at least it's on the state level)

Not many, "nearly all."

Oh, and let's not forget that we're REMOVING from the tax reporters all the people who are NOT business owners. They conveniently forget that TODAY, everyone is a defacto federal tax collector but MOST of the people would have that GO AWAY under The Fair Tax.

Their presentation is dishonest.

Period.

If your demand is "drop that or you lose me", then I lost you.

Have a good day.

Heck, I'd go for the elimination or at least a major downsizing of the IRS via the FairTax and no income tax. It would be nice to keep The Federal Reserve BUT restructure it and make its powers very explicit along with punishments and enforce these laws, regulations & punishments....Maybe even consolidate all these Agencies that oversee the Banking(Commercial & Investment), Insurance & Other Financial Industries into a coherent well functioning organization that will be the best darn referee of the Capital Markets & Debt Markets & Any other fancy financial vehicle markets! AND NOT be corrupt....

Thank you Karl! I'm all in also.

Karl - you have my full support. I was waiting for this, even thinking about writing or calling you direct to check the progress but here it is. let's do what we must....... I have a tears in my eyes.....

I got chills reading the platform. Sounds pretty fine to me. Count me in.

Minor error:

FAQ: Why the emphasis on the 2nd Amendment:

"As recently as fifty years ago Japan recognized..."

I think "seventy" would be a better number. Fifty years ago the war was over for fifteen years.

Just a little thing.

John

re: being forced on the dole:
"No it doesn't. How is rebating the taxes you paid forcing you on the dole? If you overpay a tax and get it back, is that being "on the dole"? That's horse****."

Please consider that in almost all cases, the reason tax is paid is because if it is not paid, men with guns come for you. I don't think it's fair to call such a thing a "rebate", because the source funds were extorted in the first place. I am not adverse for paying for use, or even paying for something I do not use if I approve of the use. I do not like armed robbers, however.

Furthermore, the matter of how they track who gets the "rebate" check will very likely further the promotion of a national ID - identification papers - something the utterly vast majority of the states have passively rejected. It's now impossible to obtain a driver's license in my state, New Mexico, without providing a "not to be used for identification" Social Security Number. For state matters, one can always move to another state, as I plan to. If it's a federal matter, it becomes inescapable.


re: double-taxation of savers
"No its not. The bulk of those "savings" are in tax-advantaged accounts. No tax has been paid. For savings post-enactment, no double taxation exists either."

It's the folks not "in bulk" whom I speak for in this matter, and they're out there, as I'm one of them. However, as you state, the majority of the modern savings vehicles are immune to double-taxation. 'To make an omlette', I suppose.


re: forcing merchants and service providers to become defacto federal tax collectors (yes, I know many states do this already. It's a "less stealing is still stealing" issue for me, but at least it's on the state level)

"Not many, "nearly all." Oh, and let's not forget that we're REMOVING from the tax reporters all the people who are NOT business owners. They conveniently forget that TODAY, everyone is a defacto federal tax collector but MOST of the people would have that GO AWAY under The Fair Tax."

Perhaps you refer to a piece of the legislation I have not read in that "we're removing from the reporters all the people who are NOT business owners." From what I have read of HR25, service providers who provide no physical goods would be subject to a "sales" tax on the prices charged for service. This also directly impacts me as that is what I am, a service provider. One major reason for pursuing this avenue is the fact that, in most cases, service providers are not required to perform double-duty as state government tax collectors.

This legislation would force any businessperson to become a tax collector, and it would do so at the federal level.

It is pretty obvious by now that I am an advocate of the original limits of the Constitution applying to the taxation powers of the federal government as well as other powers. As most of the Anti-Federalist platform points are squarely aimed at reducing the power of the federal government, not arbitrarily, but as defined by its own source of authority, the Constitution, I find the one platform item which greatly expands federal powers to be a bit out of place.


In closing, I did not intend my notes to take a demanding tone. I found the Anti-Federalist platform as currently written to be factual, direct, plain, and aligned with the intent of the original Founders - except for the one platform item which advocates the expansion of federal powers in, in my opinion, a very dangerous direction: taxation. It was and is my desire to present a concern and open a dialog where the obviously differing viewpoints could be discussed, as they have to a point. You have corrected and clarified points I have supported, which I will attempt to refine after reading the full text of HR 25. Yet, if a goal of the Anti-Federalist party is, as I must assume, to return the restriction of federal powers to limits far, far beneath their current levels, I cannot logically see how a vast new federal program, even as it replaces a current vast federal program, aligns with such a goal.