by Kurt Nimmo

Romain Hatcheul’s largely passed over article on the Wall Street Journal’s website was revisited last week by Simon Black over at the Sovereign Man blog. Black spells out the latest IMF scheme to steal wealth from the producers and enslave billions of people: a taxation rate over 70 percent.

“The IMF’s team of monkeys has been working around the clock on this one, figuring that developed nations can increase their overall tax revenue by increasing tax rates,” Black writes. “They’ve singled out the US, suggesting that the US government could maximize its tax revenue by increasing tax brackets to as high as 71 percent.”

Black notes that the latest criminal plot by the “grand wizards of the global financial system” is telling. It “might be the clearest sign yet that the whole house of cards is dangerously close to being swept away.”

Can a person still be considered “free” when 71 percent of what s/he earns is taken away at the point of a gun by a bankrupt, bullying government? Or are you merely a serf then, existing only to feed the system?

Hatcheul explains that taxation schemes like the one cooked up by France’s socialist government – a 75 percent tax on income above one million euros – will not produce the result desired: the wealthy will avoid taxation, as French actor Gérard Depardieu did when he turned over his passport and became a tax exile. French billionaire Bernard Arnault applied for Belgian nationality in response to socialist thievery and penned a piece titled: If U.S. Had 75 percent Tax Rate, You’d Leave Too.

Hatcheul:

Of course these measures won’t return the world’s top economies to sustainable levels of debt. That could be achieved only through significant economic growth (the good way) or, as the IMF puts it, “by repudiating public debt or inflating it away” (the bad way). In October the IMF floated a bold idea that didn’t get the attention it deserved: lowering sovereign debt levels through a one-off tax on private wealth.

Think Cyprus.

The IMF is suggesting government should go into your bank account and clip what it deems appropriate and give it to the bankers. Hatcheul says the internationalist loan sharking operation is looking at 10 percent of bank held savings.

“From New York to London, Paris and beyond, powerful economic players are deciding that with an ever-deteriorating global fiscal outlook, conventional levels and methods of taxation will no longer suffice,” he writes. “That makes weapons of mass wealth destruction – such as the IMF’s one-off capital levy, Cyprus’s bank deposit confiscation, or outright sovereign defaults – likelier by the day.”

Old-fashioned taxation is out. Expect outright grand larceny at the local bank enforced by the government.

Even if this highway robbery is limited to a few million rich people – and it won’t be, only a large and unprecedented fleecing will satiate the thieves – we can expect the economic results to be significant.

Stealing from producers who create wealth and prosperity will result in lower standards of living for all except the mega-rich who, of course, never pay a dime in taxes (and the really insidious ones employ government to steal even more from you to pay for their monopolistic enterprises and cover their financial market gambling loses).

The latest IMF scheme is the result of a century of brainwashing that insists taxation is part of a social contract between individuals and government. The internationalist banksters now insist we no longer have use for the social contract concept. In order to prop up a corrupt financial system, outright robbery will be required.

This is part of the reason we have a militarized panopticon police state in place. Burglars usually arrive armed and will easily resort to violence if their plans are challenged or resisted.

In other news: City cites “International Code” in effort to evict off-grid woman

Florida resident who generates her own electricity targeted for not being dependent on the state

by Paul Joseph Watson

After a Fox affiliate did a feature story on the off-grid lifestyle of a Cape Coral, FL woman she was almost immediately hit with an eviction order from the city which cited “international code” as a reason for turfing the woman out of her own home because she was not dependent on city water or electricity supplies.

Just one day after the feature story about how Robin Speronis was living off’ grid by generating her own power via solar panels and collecting rainwater, city code enforcement officers visited her home to declare it unfit for human habitation. The code enforcers were able to make this determination despite not even venturing inside Speronis’ house.

“There’s a good chance they just looked at the water bill for that address and realized the city monopoly had been thwarted,” reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Despite the fact that Speronis’ home looks the same as every other on her street from the outside, because she is not dependent on government, the state is presumably worried about the threat of a good example and is attempting to evict her from her own fully owned property.

A city code compliance manager told Fox 4 that the eviction notice was issued because the home did not have running water or electricity.

Furthermore, the notice posted to Speronis’ property by city officials cites “international property maintenance code” as a justification for the eviction.

The ‘international property maintenance code’ is a lengthy set of regulations published by the International Code Council which, although not law, are “available for adoption and use by jurisdictions internationally.”

The regulations are another example of how global directives in the spirit of the United Nation’s Agenda 21 are being imposed on Americans outside of the law which eviscerate traditional property rights as defined by constitutional protections.

Agenda 21 demands that member nations adopt “sustainable development” policies that are little more than a disguise for the reintroduction of neo-feudalism and only serve to reduce living standards and quality of life.

In response to the eviction threat, residents rallied in support of Speronis, filing hundreds of complaints with the city council, while attorney Todd Allen said that the city’s powers of eviction were non-existent.

“Cape Coral needs to be afraid of me. I’m not afraid of them,” said Speronis. Infowars.

by Kit Daniels
Infowars.com

In a coordinated attack on families, a Democratic state senator in Ohio introduced a bill this month that requires parents to submit to a social services investigation, including background checks, before being “permitted” to homeschool their own children.

Introduced by Sen. Capri Cafarao, Senate Bill 248 effectively requires home-schooling parents to be licensed by the state through an application process which includes an investigation, background checks and in-person interviews between social workers and children which the parents are not allowed to attend.

After the investigation, social services would then decide whether homeschooling would be “in the best interests of the children.”

“This bill is breathtaking in its attempt to impose unreasonable government intrusion on Ohio families,” says the Home School Legal Defense Association, which also called the bill the worst homeschooling law ever proposed.

The association also stated that if a family has any record of a child welfare investigation, regardless of its outcome, social services would immediately reject the parents’ request to educate their own children.

Simply put, parents falsely accused of child abuse would be forced to enroll their children into government-run schools, a process that requires immunizations with various vaccines.

If this bill becomes law, it would effectively end homeschooling in Ohio.

SB 248 was written under the socialist belief that children belong to the state and not their parents and that only government workers know what is best for them.

As reported last April by Kurt Nimmo, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry suggested that children don’t belong to their families but are rather owned by the community at large.

“We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities,” she said.

The bill was also written with the intent to protect public schools, which are used by the government to indoctrinate children into supporting the state’s own interests.

These schools are immensely successful at conditioning children to believe what they are told and to never question authority while also failing to properly educate them at the same time.

Instead of learning about the intent behind the Bill of Rights, students are told that the Constitution is “outdated” and must be “revised” to better serve the interests of homeland security.

They are given textbooks which inaccurately define the Second Amendment as “the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.”

The state is ultimately using modern public education to corrupt our youth by instilling collectivist values in them while removed from their parents’ influence.

Whoever controls education controls the future of our culture and that is exactly why politicians are trying to shut down alternatives to government schools.

The following are two e-comments from two different people expressing opposite opinions to the above subject:

Brian: Are bound to be parents that are at least a bit coo-coo on top of being “unconventional” in their beliefs and life-style to the general public that would produce children that can not function in society. No matter how much today’s society can be criticized, a child should have the tools needed to interact with society if they make that choice upon their maturity. Like certifying any public or private school, in theory checking a if a home is fit to be in effect a school isn’t a bad concept. Look at some goofballs in California, or wherever, that had hippie parents and grew up in a commune without any government oversight – do parents have an absolute right to create a person of their choosing any more than the government does? There should be an advocate for the children to help ensure they have the maximum potential of living a full and productive life of their choosing. What organization could do this without a real potential for incompetence or abuse?

Freedomnow: The point is we are not a collectivist nation. We are a nation based on individual freedoms. That is why the founding fathers left other countries and established this once great country and wrote the supreme laws based on INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. The same problems they had back then is what we have now. We are slaves to the banks and you can thank the government for that. A government has no right to just come into your home and inspect to see if a parent is fit to teach their own kids and also interrogate the kids without parental supervision. Parents have the absolute right to create a person, as you put it, more than a collectivist government. Explain these “unconventional” beliefs you talk about. Just because they are not the beliefs that you have does not mean they are bad. You have just as much of a right to your opinion as others and you have a right to speak it, that is the first amendment. The problem with California is the government, not the so called “hippies” who believed in freedom and preached peace and love. Is that so “coo-coo” as you put it? If there are some bad apples in the bunch that does not mean you throw the whole bunch away. Your whole statement reeks of socialism, and authoritarianism. My guess is you, just as I but I have realized it, attended a public school indoctrinated into government beliefs. My eyes are open to the corrupt, socialist, fascist, authoritarian, eugenicist, collection of scum that is the United States government. You should think about your statement and read the constitution over and over for the sake of you, your family, you kids, if you have them, or your future kids, and the future of humanity.

Kveldulf: the real problem doesn’t lie with whatever sounds like a good idea, but whether it is a right one; a just one. The moral high ground is found, not made. We can deliberate all we want about good ideals, but no one has purview over the family unless there is an overt, just cause. A child’s education is not an inalienable right, rather education is an effect, and naturally comes from the family: a decision the family makes for the child. However, In this case, the community again is attempting to be ‘family’.

Civil law is (should be) self-evident. Authority from the king, or mere government, does not start with the agent (king) but first starts with those who allow him power – first God, then the family, then the community. Even if one were atheistic, it would still fall in the order of family first – before community.

This order exists in a logical, and in an observable sense – empirical. We are raised by our mother and father; a natural biological, psychological design – then after a family structure, children are greeted with higher sociological institutions outside of the family; mirroring a similar familial paradigm of order.

If the state wishes to regulate familial power, it does so from a contradictory purview.

Windham: Your conclusion that blanket government oversight over people is a necessity falsely presumes a backwards power relationship. The government is not some sort of parental figure designed to guide us through life. WE make up the government and WE are the majority who ought remind those who proclaim themselves masters over us that their rightful position is that of SERVANT. I’m frankly shocked that we now exist in a society which apparently has rationalized away our own parental rights and increasingly are delegating the mechanical, uncaring, authoritarian, criminal elements of those who rule us to raise our children.