Maduro Kicks CNN Out Of Venezuela, Accuses It Of Spreading Fake News

Tyler Durden's picture

While tensions between President Trump and CNN dying down, a new scandal has erupted for the cable news network after Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro said on Sunday he wanted CNN out of the country, accusing it of spreading fake news, misrepresenting the truth and meddling in issues that are not of its concern.

"CNN, do not get into the affairs of Venezuelans. I want CNN well away from here. Outside of Venezuela. Do not put your nose in Venezuela," said Maduro during a political statement. Quoted by Fox News, Maduro made the comment after blaming the U.S. network of distorting the facts when reporting on irregularities at a Caracas public high school.

"Some media like CNN tried to manipulate. They cannot manipulate! That is our business, of the Venezuelans," he said.

Last week PanAmPost reported that a student demanded on national television that the president improve the conditions of his school, asking for security, infrastructure and food so his classmates wouldn’t faint from hunger anymore. CNN en Español visited the high school and talked with the staff about the student, and whether Maduro had made any improvements since that incident only to discover he had not.

Maduro said the young woman “uncovered a situation that had to be spoken about” adding that “I want the youth to tell the truth, to be critical and revolutionary, for us to go to solve the problems,” he said. “To attend to those problems, we must build a sense of belonging in each school. Lyceum belongs to me and I must take care of it.”

The demand for CNN to leave the country also came a few days after CNN en Espanol broadcast and posted online an in-depth investigation into how officials of the Venezuelan Embassy in Iraq allegedly sold Venezuelan passports and visas to suspected terrorists. “Passports in the Shadows” was the result of a yearlong investigation showcasing an account by a whistleblower, a former legal adviser to the Venezuelan embassy in Baghdad, and the government officials’ dismissal of the allegations.

Earlier on Sunday, Venezuelan police arrested and expelled two Brazilian reporters after they toured a structure built in 2012 by Odebrecht, the Brazilian company being investigated for a vast corruption scheme that allegedly touches several Latin American governments and heads of state.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Belrev's picture

Meanwhile Russian hackers play phone prank on fool Democrat Maxine Waters

Russian hackers called US Democratic representative Maxine Waters and informed her that she is speaking to Ukraine's prime minister Vasiliy Groysman and that Russian army is now occupying all of Ukraine. Also, from this conversation Maxine learned that Russian hackers interfered in elections of a country called Limpopo and installed their puppet president there by the name of Aibolit.

Raffie's picture

Should JAIL THEM for being fake news.


Jayda1850's picture

And the authoritarian Trump supporter makes his voice heard.

Raffie's picture

An the Progressive Liberal Left Goose Steppin Nazi replies.

Paper Boy's picture
Paper Boy (not verified) Raffie Feb 13, 2017 1:51 PM

Parker!! Where is my fake story??

knukles's picture

This is getting way too screwed up

silverer's picture

Could they be even worse in Venezuela? Geeeeezzz.

knukles's picture

Guess they could be, but I been more fixated on whether I need to shave my back to get into Tibet.  Hadn't thought of Venxualialh.  And I can't find my keys.

NidStyles's picture

I see the Israeli shills are all up in this joint today.

InjectTheVenom's picture


>>>>  FAKE Tapper

>>>>  JAKE Tapper

barndoor's picture

It's heartening to see US rhetoric come more in line with that of Venezuela.

That really says something.

nope-1004's picture

CNN is the biggest joke of a news org we've ever seen.  I'd kick them out of my country too.  CNN sucks donkey balls by virtue of adoring Hillary Criminal Clinton.


Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

I thought there was absolutely nothing I could agree with Presidente Maduro on.

I was wrong. Kick their sorry asses out.

Manthong's picture

Can Trump kick CNN out of the US?

peddling-fiction's picture

"Can Trump kick CNN out of the US?"

Pull it.

The license that is.

Never One Roach's picture

How can everyone be so calmly discussing fake news CNN when Jerry Brown is crushing hundreds of endangered smelt with his boulders and sandbags?

I don't get you guys sometimes.

Mike in GA's picture

I know, right?  Maduro finally says something factual that I can agree with.  First time for everything, I guess.  Just shows how screwy the world has gotten.

Prisoners_dilemna's picture

Well its not fake but it's a story


The newest CTC educated victory. A hat trick by Mark Voorhes.   He amended a past "taxprotest" with a knowledgable and accurate filing which resulted in the IRS sending him all his money back (meaning every penny of Social security tax, Medicare tax, and all the rest withheld from him) plus interest. The other two victories he achieved were original filings.


Get learning Bitchez!

GadExp's picture



I haven't mis-filed a tax return since 2011.  


The fetchers won't let me amend that far back!


It's really nice to not be plundered anymore!



Prisoners_dilemna's picture

Yes. Making errors on a document which we swear, under penalty of perjury, that we have knowledge and belief that everything on it is true and accurate can lead to very painful consequences. While the IRS is a bumbling bureaucracy if ever there was one (they still use a 1970s era computer system), when they do discover errors and ommissions on the returns of working Americans, the IRS just loves to pounce and scare the shit out of people. They have to use such a disproportionate response to keep us in fear.

We can also realize freedom though once we learn that "income" means money derived from the exercise of a federal privilege. We can then attest with full knowledge and belief that we do not owe a tax on our private sector pay, as we didn't get the benefits of a federal privilege. Learning to rebut erroneous payer information returns is much much more valuable than my college education. And it only cost me $28, although I also spent a helluva lot of time to learn and wrap my head around the information presented in Cracking the Code and at

"Taxpayers", (custom defined Term in Title 26) are someone who is lawfully liable for the excise income tax, because they engaged in a federally connected privilege and derived benefit from it in the form of "gains, profits, or income". "Taxpayers" only have 3 years to correct their returns. Post office employees are entitled to 3 years to make a correction. Same for US Marshalls. etc etc.

Courts have determined that in the case of non-taxpayers, the 6 six statute of limitations apply.

However we can correct the record as far back in time as we like. This is particularly useful for those who have not engaged in a federal privilege and realized gains but have been victimized by the IRS/DOJ and had a federal lien filed against them. By correcting the record the rug is pulled out from under the Feds. The lien can lawfully be removed at that point with a simple request, as the record now reflects there was no money due to begin with.

As a bonus, most states with an income tax will have language in the state law which say something like....

"A wyoming citizens income means their federal adjusted gross income".

The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 gave the states permission to tax the pay of federal employees.

So if you engage in a federally privileged activity you must pay the federal excise tax, but in some states, the state is allowed to take a cut too.

No wonder federal employees get paid 1/3 more than their private sector counterparts.

I say "most states" as I'm not familiar with all states' laws. You must read it for yourself for the state you are in.

GadExp's picture

You are right about the 6-year statute of limitations.  I studied this particular issue inside and out.


The only problem is that the IRS will never honor the 6-year statute because they operate under the assumption that you are a taxpayer - not by the law, but by the mere fact that you are a human being on the planet earth.  (Whether you are a "taxpayer" or not has little bearing on the fact that the income tax applies only to federal priviledge.)


I also talked with Pete about this.  He has the same perspective.


I have searched far and wide for examples of successful amendments that extend beyond the 3 year statute.  I have found none.  Please, if you know of any, share them.  I would love to feel like it would be worth my time to amend a full 6 years back.  Right now, I only see it as a waste of time.

Prisoners_dilemna's picture

What I did was head over to the local Ivy League University Law Library.

I asked for a clerk to teach me how to use Westlaw to search for cases that dealt with this issue.

With the clerks assistance I did a search for the relevant statute (which I can't recall at the moment) and then emailed to myself about 20 District Court cases.

You may also ask Pete to write on this topic. I suspect he would be more than happy to.

A westlaw subscription is obscenely expensive. Go to your local law library and continue your education there!




26 U.S. Code § 6511 - Limitations on credit or refund

This only deals with "taxpayers". 


You may find this discussion informative.

Even though it deals with Indians it may set you on the right path.


*edit 2* The above article Mentions the Tucker Act. I suggest you learn about that and read 28 U.S.C Sec 1491 Claims against the United States Generally

28 U.S.C. § 1491 : US Code - Section 1491: Claims against United States generally - See more at: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 : US Code - Section 1491: Claims against United States generally; - See more at: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 : US Code - Section 1491: Claims against United States generally; - See more at:
GadExp's picture

Sweet!  I'll check into it more!  If I can find some precedence, then I'll owe you big time for helping convince me to amend an additional 3 years!


Did you successfully amend for a full 6 years then?  


If it has worked for one person ever, then it is worth it for me to try!  I want a little of my labor to contribute to world destruction as possible.  The inconvenience of amending 6 years prior is nothing compared to the peace of mind I would have! 

Prisoners_dilemna's picture

I did not. I've always worked for myself. "Self-Employed" is yet another custom defined Term in Title 26.

As no one submitted any information returns about me I wasn't even required to file.


Like I've said in prior comments, the fog, smoke, mirrors, and traps are pervasive.

Those dishonorable criminals who wrote the code really built one all-encompassing trap for the trusting American populace.

They even gave "self-employed" a custom definition to mislead us.

The dishonorable crooks seem to have forgotten that the first thing the French did after the revolution was cut of the heads of all the tax collectors.



As you can see I love to spread this word far and wide. The more I write about it the more I can just copy and paste wherever I desire.

Any other questions?

GadExp's picture

No other questions - Thanks!


Way to fight for the truth!  I"m excited for the day that victory is won against this lie!


As for me, I work at a CPA firm doing auditing.  Everyone around me works on tax returns.  It's like working with the Body Snatchers!  I would lose my job if openly encouraged the truth!


I'm now designing an 'escape plan'.  Once I can find an alternate bread-winning option, I will take the same openly aggressive campaign for the truth that you are. Can't wait!

Prisoners_dilemna's picture

HAHA you rent-seeker. I agree though, CPAs have their heads buried the deepest. I've only converted 3. They were often trained on material produced by the IRS. They learned about deductions etc. But never learned about the 16th amendment or the Brushaber decision, or what is written in Title 26.  CPAs can be powerful tide-turners and I always enjoy a challenge. Besides no one likes paying a tax they dont owe. Any CPAs hate reading tax code. I like it but I also like being eternally vigilant.

As to the "campaign".... I couldn't help but notice you've never mentioned CTC in any of your past comments.

Consider splattering the web with the truth, under an assumed name.


You'll be a super hero. CPA by day. Freedom fighter super-hero by night.

You can start right here on zerohedge by telling others about your experience or pasting copies to statutes, codes, cases.

Start now even...

Can you provide to the rest of ZH a court case citation where the court clearly says the income tax is an excise?

Let's keep this rolling!! I can always link back to it in future comments.


I'll go first!!

"The income tax... an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.”

Former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard in testimony before Congress in 1943


As to losing your job... sometimes to certain people things like Liberty are worth sacrificing for. You are not required to. But that does say something about your character. Joseph bannister and Sherry Jackson Peel.. they left very cushy jobs as IRS gun-toting investigators on principle. They are admirable Americans.

GadExp's picture

Rent-seeker my A$$!  I'm only temorarily in defense mode! :)


Good challenge!  You'll be quicker than I since you can copy and paste all your data from previous interactions.


How about:

Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) "It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Strattons' Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include "profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets," there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court."


Here is a simple challenge for you.  Why don't you provide for all of ZH to see the US Tax Code references that define a few simple terms:

"Taxable Income"




Prisoners_dilemna's picture  Bitchez

"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege..."

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

Don't be a dolt. I invited you to play the game and we're sticking with court decisions.

Hows the weather in Ogden?


Here's another good one,

Case law recognizes no distinction between a privilege tax and an excise tax. See Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Senter ,260 S.W. 144, 148 (Tenn. 1924)

“Whether the tax be characterized in the statute as a privilege tax or an excise tax is but a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is an indirect or privilege tax.”; American Airways, Inc. v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880 (M.D. Tenn. 1937)

“The terms ‘excise’ tax and privilege’ tax are synonymous and the two are often used interchangeably.”; see also 71 AM JUR.2d State and Local Taxation §24,

“The term ‘excise tax’ is synonymous with ‘privilege tax,’ and the two have been used interchangeably. Whether a tax is characterized in the statute imposing it as a privilege tax or an excise tax is merely a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is a privilege tax.” Thus, the excise tax now before us is, by more complete description, purportedly an excise upon a particular privilege, assessed according to the quantity of substance possessed in enjoyment of such privilege. Waters, et al. v. Chumley No. E2006-02225-COA-RV-CV, Court of Appeals of Tennessee

And the best one yet...

Since the right to receive [commonly-defined] income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.” Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960)

GadExp's picture

I give up.  You win!  I have lots of auditing to do.


Sunny and warm!



Prisoners_dilemna's picture

Here's another good one,

Case law recognizes no distinction between a privilege tax and an excise tax. See Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Senter ,260 S.W. 144, 148 (Tenn. 1924)

“Whether the tax be characterized in the statute as a privilege tax or an excise tax is but a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is an indirect or privilege tax.”; American Airways, Inc. v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880 (M.D. Tenn. 1937)

“The terms ‘excise’ tax and privilege’ tax are synonymous and the two are often used interchangeably.”; see also 71 AM JUR.2d State and Local Taxation §24,

“The term ‘excise tax’ is synonymous with ‘privilege tax,’ and the two have been used interchangeably. Whether a tax is characterized in the statute imposing it as a privilege tax or an excise tax is merely a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is a privilege tax.” Thus, the excise tax now before us is, by more complete description, purportedly an excise upon a particular privilege, assessed according to the quantity of substance possessed in enjoyment of such privilege. Waters, et al. v. Chumley No. E2006-02225-COA-RV-CV, Court of Appeals of Tennessee

And the best one yet...

Since the right to receive [commonly-defined] income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.” Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960)


"[Although the Legislature may declare as privileges and tax as such for State revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right, the Legislature has no power to declare as a pivilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right."]

“The right to engage in an employment, to carry on a business, or pursue an occupation or profession not in itself hurtful or conducted in a manner injurious tothe public, is a common right, which, under our Constitution, as construed by all our former decisions, can neither be prohibited nor hampered by laying a tax for State revenue on the occupation, employment, business or profession. ...Thousands of individuals in this State carry on their occupations as above defined who derive no income whatever therefrom. But, where an income is derived from any occupation, business, profession or employment, then the Legislature may lay thereon a tax...” Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 SW 720 594, 595 (Ark. 1925)


How does one work but derive no "income"??

This is why you wanted to get into those definitions. Nice try.

Those Terms are addressed in Cracking the Code. The fog and smoke is so thick around the definitions of those Terms of Art it takes multiple chapters to wade thru.

You've been outed you piece of shit.

Let it be known to all of Zerohedge. I just exposed an IRS employee; GadEXP, account age less than 1 year.

GadExp's picture

Ha!  What's wrong with referencing the code?  Seriously?  


The 3 definitions I requested (along with "taxpayer" - which you already provided) from the code are all you need to understand that the law does not apply to non-priviledged labor.  I can make as good an argument as any with those 4 definitions alone.  All the Supreme Court mumbo-jumbo is merely for back-up.  

Furthermore, (if I remember correctly) all of the court cases you are referencing are found in CtC.  So why go further than that book alone?  In my opinion, most of the other half-qualified sources for truth on the topic just muddy the water.  I tell everyone I talk to that they should just rely on the book.


Now it makes sense why you asked how the weather is in Ogden!  You are a suspicious little guy, aren't you?  I don't live (or work) in Odgen.  Have you ever been there? The city is a dump!


btw - How's the weather in SLC!?  801-750-X681 - Ha ha!   

Prisoners_dilemna's picture

...   Tell ya what.

As you say you're not IRS then why dont you explain to all of ZH what those Terms mean. You challenged me, lets see if you can do your own challenge. Anyone who's read CTC knows those Terms of Art you requested are deliberately misleading and often require multiple other custom-defined terms to decipher, this task will take pages. So let's see it. You didn't want to use clearly worded court cases. You wanted to trip me up. You asked me for three custom defined terms from Title 26.

So go ahead. It's simple like you said.

I'll just chime in as necessary.

Of course if you need to do more auditing... we can finish this tomorrow.

Go ahead and write out the definitions for those Terms so that all of ZH can see what they truly mean.

If you need to refer back to this thread simply copy and paste this,

Prove to us you are not an IRS troll.

Nows your time to become a super hero. Lets see it.

Reference the code for us and give us an honest rendering of its meaning.

Only one of the cases I presented is in CTC.

Prove yourself.

Make your arguement.

I will gladly read whatever you present, retract my accustion which you didnt deny, and apologize in every comment i make on ZH for the next 2 months...

if you give an honest rendering.

GadExp's picture

I don't need to prove who I am.  Actually it's quite entertaining to me that my identity is challenged.  That's awesome!


btw - You still haven't answered my question about what is so bad about referencing the tax code to clarify the truth!


Hear's the answer to my challenge.  In my opinion, this is the BEST way to educate people of the truth.  Anything else is peripheral. 


"Taxable income"

This term is used in the very first sentence of the IRS income tax code, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income..."

This imposition is obviously circular!  But at least we learn that we cannot understand a single bit of the tax code if we don't understand what "taxable income" is!



26 U.S. Code § 63 - Taxable income defined

In general 

Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter  Section 7701(a)(14) 


The problem is, we can't understand the term unless we know what "Gross Income" means.




"Gross Income"

26 U.S. Code § 61 - Gross income defined

(a)General definitionExcept as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:


...then it lists a ton of things  (see



The problem is that none of those items specifically (nor indirectly) include "Wages", which, everyone on the planet knows, is what we are reporting to the IRS for income taxes.  Also, "Wages" are specifically identified in the code as the item to be withheld from our paychecks,


26 U.S. Code § 3405

(1)Withholding as if payment were wages 

The payor of any periodic payment (as defined in subsection (e)(2)) shall withhold from such payment the amount which would be required to be withheld from such payment if such payment were a payment of wages by an employer to an employee for the appropriate payroll period.






26 U.S. Code § 3401 - Definitions

(a)Wages For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer...



Thus wages, as far as the entire tax code is concerned, and as far as the entirety of the income tax code is concerned, is relative to our status as an "employee"






26 U.S. Code § 3401 - Definitions


For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.



It is clear by the definition of "employee" that the status is based on activities that SPECIFICALLY "include" federal priviledge!


No "taxable income" is ever created unless one's "gross income" includes "wages", which definitionally require the status of "employee", which definitionally requires federal priviledge!



You can chime in all you want, but the law, however intentionally obfuscated, is clear and my logic is flawless.  What's amazing is that the code is even Constitutional (in a sick, distorted sense)!  Our problem, as "We the People", is that practically noone is interested in ACTUALLY READING THE LAW!!!


Oh, and btw - I love your "less than a year old account" assertion.  I've used it myself against others - though only with accounts that are a few days old.  Either way, it doesn't logically hold any water, since all of us on ZH at some point or another were only a few days old, or "less than a year".  


I admit my youthful status as a ZH-er.  But I have also studied the truth more than most ZH-ers appear to have done.  I'm not afraid to attack and question scary topics (such as income tax).  So, though I'm a relative newbie on so many topics, I find I am still much more alert than most of the other 'seasoned' ZH-ers.


All in all, I'm quite happy with where I'm at! :)



Prisoners_dilemna's picture

In reference to withholding you cite 26 U.S. Code § 3405 - Special rules for pensions, annuities, and certain other deferred income and quote from this statute. This is incorrect and I suspect you are using it as a misdirect.

The relevant section of code is 26 U.S. Code § 3402 - Income tax collected at source

 (a) Requirement of withholding  

        (1) In general

  Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall...


You correctly cite the definition of "employee" but you fail to explain the definitions of the custom defined Terms "United States" and "State" used in the definition of "employee". If you actually read CTC you would recall these definitions are essential to breaking the code open. How convenient that you left this out...


The Term "includes" is utilized in the definition of "employee". How could someone read CTC and leave this one out?!?!?!

The word includes is itself given a custom definition and becomes the legal term "includes". It's right there in the definitions list and its essential to understanding the ploys and misinformation the IRS has used against the American people. Yet you neglect to mention it.

Explain for us the legislative principle of Inclusio est Unius Exclusio and the Judicial Principle of Calculated Indefiniteness as well so that we can all learn how to interpret a section of law that utilizes the custom defined legal Term "includes".


Look at you typing all smug as if you actually succeeded. You have failed. You have been exposed. You obviously ont know the relevant statutes and I suspect you are attempting to mislead ZH and hope I'm not able to call you out. Youve been exposed.

With all due respect, you both are making a great case for FairTax! Sheesh!

Prisoners_dilemna's picture

Sir, we are emulating our Founding Fathers.

You are welcome to join in! Click that link at the top of this thread and learn!!!!

You can contribute to this contest!


I AM suspicious of GADexp. He has said things that led me to believe he is disingenuous. If we are going to educate our fellow Americans on the truth of these matters we need to accurately convey what that law actually says.

GADexp alluded to not paying taxes, yet has demonstrated, to me anyway, that he doesn't really know his stuff.

I interpretted this as trolling with intent to deceive.

If there is one thing the IRS has an interest in... it is keeping the American people dumbed down, cowering in fear, tilting at windmills, and unable to interpret the relevant law. They utilize disinformation, misinformation, and then prey on the fearful and ignorant.

GADexp has posted misinformation and misdirections.

In addition to the mistakes I pointed out above, he asks "has anyone ever succeeded in getting back improperly withheld monies over 3 years past". I simply can not believe anyone has succeeded in upholding and law and doesn't know the answer to that is a resounding yes. Everything he writes appears to me to be an attempt at ploy and misdirection.

Review his comment history. Often just a single sentence. Sometimes only 4 words. He rarely engages in conversation. Yet I bring up income tax and he is engaged and ready to talk. Combined with the misdirection he posted this speaks volumes.. to my suspicious mind anyway. He commenting is suspicious.

His comment history is unimpressive, snarky, and doesn't contribute anything of value. Call me "suspicious" because I am.The IRS has proven itself to be duplicitous. This is documnted here,, for the very purpose of demonstrating their tactics. Why would we suppose they don't monitor forums with intent to spread their misinformation there, as people start discussing this topic??

The IRS has no purpose other than to mislead the American people as has been so well documented at this point.

Let me be very clear about this; and the book Cracking the Code has exposed the truth about the income tax. Thousands have learned the information presented by Pete Hendickson and are successfully upholding the law. But we are dealing with THE MOST DUPLICITOUS agency known to man (In the US anyway). Do not act on the info presented until you know what you are doing!!!

If you can not follow the contest here, you have no business upholding the law yet. You will only land yourself in a world of hurt! So get Cracking the Code and learn this information so that you can discuss these things and post citations like the ones we have. This is how we #MAGA. This is how we restrain fed-guv. This is how we Keep our Republic!!!


Back to you GADexp,

What say you to this?    HAHA!   over 10 court decisions presented there!

And this!;

"I hereby certify that the following is a true and faithful statement of the gains, profis, or income of _____ _____, of the _____ of _____, in the county of _____, and State of_____, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salary, or from any profession, trade, employment or vocation, or from any other source whatever, from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1862, both days inclusive and subject to an income tax under the excise laws of the United States."

The “affirmation” on the first income tax return form


and this!; (Preamble to the Internal Revenue Code)

The Revised Statutes of the United States and the Statutes at Large of the United States are the sources of the law codified... The seperate enactments carried into the internal revenue title...from the Statutes at Large are over 143 in number... The earliest of these was approved July 1, 1862

and this! (Very first court case to challenge the 16th Amendment in Supreme Court)

"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”

“But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct  tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned"

United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)



gladih8r's picture

It's a good start to kick them out.  Baby steps.  Now about this whole market economy....let's give that a go again.

land_of_the_few's picture

But inevitably outside forces will try to Haiti-ise them. How do they stop that? Pretend to be a small version of Canada? :D

Bill of Rights's picture

Fuck off we can all speak here freely who the fuck are you?

Jayda1850's picture

Someone who would rather have an argument about the free exchange of ideas, but I forgot the so called small government supporters on this site are totally cool with a socialist who wants to ban the media. Hypocrites.

bamawatson's picture

i see no thing in any of your posts indicating a desire, or attempt, to "have an argument about the free exchange of ideas"

i see name calling

possibly the idea of 'intelligent discussion" as opposed to perjorative "argument" might help

Pure Evil's picture

Oh, come on, let the baby have his bottle.

Jayda1850's picture

You are arguing for state censorship of the media and yet you see nothing wrong with that. It's hilarious to me that people on here are backing Maduro.

MasterBaitor's picture


We deserve real news, not deep state fed bullshit by the dick sucking establishment busy lining their pockets. GOT IT?



StanleyTheManly's picture

Who made YOU the decider? You seem to think that CNN has some 'special' power to make them 'THE' media. There are many voices out here. Who are YOU or anyone else to decide CNN has the stranglehold on what is to be heard?

Syrin's picture

Care to explain to everyone here what SOPA is and who sponsored it asshole?

land_of_the_few's picture

Well it is a good start for any country to get CNN out. Their IQ will rise and stress levels fall....

Syrin's picture

Hardly.   We have put up with your shit for a DECADE or more with threats, name calling, intimidation and now violence.   How long did you think you could do this before people responsded in kind, asshole?