Business Bankruptcy Law | Small Business Bankruptcy Laws

- taxes – internal revenue service which collects taxes in america is a privately owned company { yes u read that right } although the public are lead to belive it is part of the government . in 1863 the bureau of internal revenue was fromed to collect taxation , but in 1933 three members of the prescott/bush family helen and clifton barton and hector echeverria formed the internal revenue tax and audit service registered in deleware . side story – prescott bush is the father of george bush and the grand father of our current president . in 1953 , the original bureau of internal revenue was disbanded , leaving the privately owned internal revenue service to collect all the taxes .

i bet your thinking how did all this get started well my friend , to understand this we have to travel back in time to the first president george washington . { tune in some soothing music } when george washington became president he appointed alexander hamilton as his secretary of the treasury . hamilton introduced the bank to the united states , a privately owned central bank which began to lend money to the newly established u.s. government so creating control by debt { i think you can figure that out } . however the bank of the united states as it was called caused so much poverty , bankruptcy and rebellion that it was eventually closed down , but soon after came its replacement – the federal reserve . interesting to mention the bankers who wrote the bill for the united states bank were hated by the public because of what i mentioned above . however they are the same people that wrote the bill for the federal reserve , and whenever they were in public they vehemently opposed the bill for the federal reserve that they wrote themselves !!! it was clear manipulation as the public hated these guys and they were so unpopular that support for the federal reserve bill increased ten fold . the bill was then pushed threw congress just before christmas in 1913 when many congressman were at home with their families for the holidays . however to ensure an endless supply of funds for the government they introduced the federal income tax bill also in 1913 . they did this very sneaky as they needed an amendment { we know today as the 16th } and that required 36 states to agree . but philander knox , the secretary of state at the time simply announced that the required majority had been achieved and the bill was then introduced . to this day the federal income tax is illegal yet they continually get away with having americans pay .

- side note – there is no law { that’s right let me say that again } no law , that says americans must pay federal income tax but they go on paying year after year after year because they think they have to and those that know its illegal do so anyway because they are in fear if they don’t . as they would lose their house , business , car you name it .

the federal reserve the so called central bank of the united states isn’t federal nor does it have any reserve . the federal government of the united states does not own a single share in the federal reserve and the american people cannot purchase them . profits exceed 150 billion dollars a year and the federal reserve has not once , in all its history , published audit records .

another piece by me , any questions ?
by the way i don’t deal with conspiracy , this is fact , look it up .

……… he can’t come out and say it’s constitutional, because it’s not, but don’t take it from me, see for yourself. Just watch the videos in the links below.
The first two links are to two different videos from the c-span video library. Click on the flash player in the upper right hand corner of each page. The window that opens up allows you to search for keywords in the upper left hand corner of that new window after checking the show transcripts box in the lower left hand corner. You can then click on the highlighted parts of the transcript to watch the discussion, or just read it.
For the video in the first link search the keywords "seizing private business" and you can read everything else the congressman who said that, said to Geithner and what Geithner said back to him. You might have to wait several seconds for the rhetoric to show up highlighted.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_11&products_id=284882-1&highlight=

For this second video, search the keyword "Bachmann". You can again follow the discussion, this time between Geithner and her. This is very important. She asks if the things the treasury has recently been doing are constitutional. Realize this includes them asking for the power to seize and liquidate "systemic risk" businesses. After failing to answer the question for a while the best thing he says is that " it’s in the laws of the land," which boils down to her asking "specifically, where is this in the constitution," and him saying "Oh, it’s in there." This is not a real answer. The truth is, this sort of power is not explicitly or implicitly given to the federal government anywhere in the constitution. That’s why he didn’t give a real answer.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_11&products_id=284797-1&highlight=

To let you be sure Geithner is asking for this, read from a link to a third source from a British publication. Hit "contol f" to search for "liquidating." In the surrounding sentence and material you clearly see they express a need for "federal powers to take over a non-bank financial firm and allow an orderly process for liquidating it." This is to support what you see in the c-span clips. Also, they want this authority to be permanent, of course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/5052866/US-Treasury-chief-Geithner-seeks-power-over-hedge-funds-private-equity-and-derivatives.html

The proof here is for those skeptical of conservative pundits etc. This stuff comes straight from the source, not a short clip on Glenn Beck.
Remember, the federal government is given specific powers by the constitution and all others are reserved for the states and the people. If something is not explicitly described as a power of the Federal government like this, the burden of evidence lies not in proving why it is not constitutional, BUT WHY IT IS constitutional. The government loosely interprets the interstate commerce clause to allow for all sorts of regulations on business. That’s good. The real solution is preventing powerful, influential corporations from becoming "systemic risks" in the first place (with reasonable regulations). If they get to the "systemic risk" point, the govt. has already failed. Bankruptcy already exists and at least gives a risky business a chance to restructure, instead of forcing it closed. So, there is no need for what Sheiztner is proposing. I’m all for regulation, but closing businesses deemed a "systemic risk" is a great leap towards a planned economy. Realize that if you interpret this clause as loosely and far removed as possible, it would technically allow for the planned economies of failed communist states of the past, to be constitutional in America! Just because it may not explicitly say in the constitution the government cannot control everything about all businesses, doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. Surely, the framers of the constitution did not envision an America like that, and remember, it is they who said the constitution must be interpreted according to history at their point in time. This is unconstitutional. What really makes it wrong though, is that the government is worse at making big business decisions than the big businesses can be. If you think this is helping, realize this is somewhat analogous to taking a loaded gun from a 5 year old and giving it to a 2 year old! I’m for all regulation short of something that will never work like this, and again, let’s not forget, this is unconstitutional. The planned economies of the past failed. This is a giant leap towards a planned economy. Do the math.
To try and put this in perspective for those who don’t necessarily believe that Obama can do no harm, despite supporting him, you should ask yourselves "would I want a Republican government with this same authority…. if the Bush Admin. asked for power like this would I still be for it, and not qu
Link 1 will highlight the keywords in the transcript when you follow the directions, you will see who said them. Bachmann is the congresswoman speaking in link 2.

………. he can’t come out and say it’s constitutional, because it’s not, but don’t take it from me, see for yourself. Just watch the videos in the links below.
The first two links are to two different videos from the c-span video library. Click on the flash player in the upper right hand corner of each page. The window that opens up allows you to search for keywords in the upper left hand corner of that new window after checking the show transcripts box in the lower left hand corner. You can then click on the highlighted parts of the transcript to watch the discussion, or just read it.
For the video in the first link search the keywords "seizing private business" and you can read everything else the congressman who said that, said to Geithner and what Geithner said back to him. You might have to wait several seconds for the rhetoric to show up highlighted.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/in…

For this second video, search the keyword "Bachmann". You can again follow the discussion, this time between Geithner and her. This is very important. She asks if the things the treasury has recently been doing are constitutional. Realize this includes them asking for the power to seize and liquidate "systemic risk" businesses. After failing to answer the question for a while the best thing he says is that " it’s in the laws of the land," which boils down to her asking "specifically, where is this in the constitution," and him saying "Oh, it’s in there." This is not a real answer. The truth is, this sort of power is not explicitly or implicitly given to the federal government anywhere in the constitution. That’s why he didn’t give a real answer.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/in…

To let you be sure Geithner is asking for this, read from a link to a third source from a British publication. Hit "contol f" to search for "liquidating." In the surrounding sentence and material you clearly see they express a need for "federal powers to take over a non-bank financial firm and allow an orderly process for liquidating it." This is to support what you see in the c-span clips. Also, they want this authority to be permanent, of course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finan…

The proof here is for those skeptical of conservative pundits etc. This stuff comes straight from the source, not a short clip on Glenn Beck.
Remember, the federal government is given specific powers by the constitution and all others are reserved for the states and the people. If something is not explicitly described as a power of the Federal government like this, the burden of evidence lies not in proving why it is not constitutional, BUT WHY IT IS constitutional. The government loosely interprets the interstate commerce clause to allow for all sorts of regulations on business. That’s good. The real solution is preventing powerful, influential corporations from becoming "systemic risks" in the first place (with reasonable regulations). If they get to the "systemic risk" point, the govt. has already failed. Bankruptcy already exists and at least gives a risky business a chance to restructure, instead of forcing it closed. So, there is no need for what Sheiztner is proposing. I’m all for regulation, but closing businesses deemed a "systemic risk" is a great leap towards a planned economy. Realize that if you interpret this clause as loosely and far removed as possible, it would technically allow for the planned economies of failed communist states of the past, to be constitutional in America! Just because it may not explicitly say in the constitution the government cannot control everything about all businesses, doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. Surely, the framers of the constitution did not envision an America like that, and remember, it is they who said the constitution must be interpreted according to history at their point in time. This is unconstitutional. What really makes it wrong though, is that the government is worse at making big business decisions than the big businesses can be. If you think this is helping, realize this is somewhat analogous to taking a loaded gun from a 5 year old and giving it to a 2 year old! I’m for all regulation short of something that will never work like this, and again, let’s not forget, this is unconstitutional. The planned economies of the past failed. This is a giant leap towards a planned economy. Do the math.
To try and put this in perspective for those who don’t necessarily believe that Obama can do no harm, despite supporting him, you should ask yourselves "would I want a Republican government with this same authority…. if the Bush Admin. asked for power like this would I still be for it, and not question anything."

The question: Does this give govt. too much (unconstitutional) power, and would it even work instead of failing, like unenforced regulations govt. already had in place (Madoff)?
My effin links won’t work! Sh!t !
Copy paste these into your browsers.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_11&products_id=284882-1&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_11&products_id=284797-1&highlight=

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/5052866/US-Treasury-chief-Geithner-seeks-power-over-hedge-funds-private-equity-and-derivatives.html

Sorry!
Tried to copy these out of wordpad. Worked on my computer, hope they work for yours.