US Government’s War on Cash & Personal Privacy Began Over 100 Years Ago

Photo Credit:

By the late 1890’s to the early 1920’s, the U.S. government abandoned the policies of the founding Republic and advanced a new global military adventurism, which required a new taxation scheme beyond the restrictions of the U.S. Constitution, and to subdue the American people and suppress dissent.

It’s not a coincidence that the singular concept of private central banking is the dominant mindset around the globe. Despite a history of national currencies replete with utter failures, governments nonetheless continue to operate with a blind eye in favor of central banking. Through its machinations, including inflation, this monetary model is responsible for stealing the hard-earned income of generations of people.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild is famous for having said: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”

Rothschild was the patriarch of the family’s banking dynasty, one that began in the late 1700’s and still prospers today. This man’s children went on to influence central banks in Germany, England, France, Italy and others in Europe. Today, it is speculated that the family’s total wealth runs in the trillions and the family’s tentacles extend all over the world.

take our poll - story continues below

What is your top alternative to Facebook? - FIXED

  • What is your top alternative to Facebook?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Get Ready: 2019 Will Be the Year of Gun Confiscation with Democrats in Power

As the world continues to change, this political and economic machine maneuvers with deft, yet subtle, responses to the times. The meteoric rise of the United States as a world power in the 19th century is a direct consequence of a financial model lacking central banking.

The 1800’s was a period that saw the U.S. largely fend off aggressive attempts to create central banks. President Andrew Jackson was a vehement opponent of the idea of central banking; is it any wonder that he faced at least two failed assassination attempts? Between 1890-1920, the U.S. government abandoned the policies of the founding Republic and advanced a new global military adventurism under:

All were used to subdue the American people and suppress dissent.

The U.S. Constitution was severely tested during periods such as these, and attacks against it are ongoing.

This military global expansion required a new taxation scheme beyond the restrictions promulgated in the U.S. Constitution which severely limited the power of the federal government. During this period, one sees the establishment of a central bank and the passage of the 16th Amendment, and most Americans still think the Federal Income Tax was imposed upon them. (It wasn’t.)

Adele Weiss, founder of Weiss+Associates, a European-based consultancy firm specializing in the Federal Income Tax, discovered the politicians’ game behind the way they got the 16th Amendment (creating the Federal Income Tax) passed through the Supreme Court.

“President Taft pushed for an income tax upon the federal government itself, the statutory ‘United States,’ ” he explained. “There are two entities called the ‘United States,’ and they used this wordplay to create confusion. They continue to use this confusion to their advantage today.”

Taft saw that the federal government could tax itself, and those who live in non-states (District of Columbia) and territories (Puerto Rico and Guam). Congress allowed outsiders to join the U.S. Tax Club by choice, but to avoid violating the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery and involuntary indentured servitude, it had to include an option for outsiders to exit the U.S. tax system.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated to then President Taft in the Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Company decision that there can be no direct taxation placed upon Americans without the Rule of Apportionment being adhered to and “would be an unconstitutional act.” Furthermore, a direct tax would be a one-time tax and not an annual tax.

During the debate over the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909, President Taft wrote a letter to (June 16, 1909) to Congress about the proposed legislation (Congressional Record, Volume 44, Part 3, page 3344, June 16, 1909):

“Second, the decision in the Pollock case left power in the National Government to levy an excise tax, which accomplishes the same purpose as a corporation income tax and is free from certain objections urged to the proposed income-tax measure. …

“The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckles Sugar Refining Company against McCain (192 U.S. 397) seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power without apportionment according to population. The tax on net income is preferable to one proportionate to a percentage of the gross receipts, because it is a tax upon success and not failure.”

With the passage of the 16th Amendment, when one reads it, there is the clear avoidance to the required Rule of Apportionment based on population as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was only possible for Congress to pass (ignoring the Rule of Apportionment requirement) if the tax was levied on the federal government — the District of Columbia and, post Spanish-American War, the new territories acquired from Spain. (Territories are not states of the Union and its people fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.) This was the only jurisdiction to which the Federal Income Tax can be legally applicable toward.

Monied interests were relentless, and in 1913, the Federal Reserve Bank was created with the stated reason to provide stability to the financial markets. The Creature from Jekyll Island details all of the clandestine meetings that occurred in order to get the Federal Reserve Act passed– and the sales job it took afterwards to manufacture the public’s acceptance of it. There was a concerted effort to conceal this fascistic partnership between the private banking industry and government’s power to enforce this ideology upon the people.

To go along with this destructive act, the Internal Revenue Service was also created in 1913 as yet another attempt to weaken wealth distribution.

“They tried very hard to get a progressive income tax passed, and finally, they were successful,” said Weiss. “These people were truly craftsmen, but their craft involved an unholy alliance between governments and banks.”

Today, the U.S. dollar has roughly a 3 cents value of its purchasing power in 1913. Its decline was greatly accelerated by President Nixon’s removal of a gold-backed monetary system that was the basis of the Bretton-Woods Agreement. Yet, as of this writing, the “greenback” is still the world’s reserve currency, stealing purchasing power from all who continue to use it. The USD is still used as the baseline for all the world’s petroleum trade in spite of the fact it is a fiat currency.

The United States has gone from the largest creditor nation in the world to the world’s largest debtor nation in the span of under 50 years.

Norm Franz wrote in Money and Wealth in the New Millennium:

Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”

As the end game approaches for the “almighty” USD, the U.S. government, in particular, will use all methods to force people to remain in its insolvent banking system. In addition, it will continue to discourage alternate money and currencies like gold, silver and Bitcoin. In its attempts, the federal government continues to stomp on the 4th Amendment, which guarantees privacy in the absence of explicit probable cause.

“Governments are doing everything they can to keep the games going,” added Weiss. “Which is why we must do everything we can to unplug from the matrix.”

Government tactics, together with support from the banking system, are promoting the end of cash, which is yet another means for sovereign people to act anonymously.

Those tactics include messages used in the media to suggest anyone wanting anonymity must be criminals. This amounts to a slap in the face to the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Weiss’ Revocation of Election document provides qualified clients the legal “Exit Door” to end participation in the U.S. Tax Club. This “Exit Door” was the creation of the U.S. Congress and is published in the Internal Revenue Code. To date, his firm has helped over 2,000 clients remove themselves from the U.S. tax system and eliminate any further involvement in the destructive idea of a progressive income tax.

Weiss says that banks today, via the Bank Secrecy Act, FISA, and FDIC, are essentially discreet arms of the federal government, and sovereign Americans born in the 50 states must use every lawful avenue they can to maintain any measure of privacy. He adds:

“The right to privacy is one of the basic tenets of a free society. In an increasingly digital world, personal data becomes especially targeted. Digital currency continues to be touted as a convenience, but its pitfalls far outweigh its pluses. Consider how the National Government is going after Apple to institute a backdoor to all iPhones. This is a huge threat to our personal privacy and sovereignty.”

For more information of the Revocation of Election, readers can click here, view a YouTube video, or email

Patrick Vermeister

Patrick Vermeister is a communications professional, privacy advocate, and partner at Weiss+Associates, located in Paris, France. His published work covers topics ranging from economics, banking, taxation, individual sovereignty, and sports. Weiss+Associates, founded by Adele Weiss, over 25 years ago, are Financial Freedom Consultants who specialize in the U.S. Federal Income Tax, constitutional tax law, and Americans' voluntary election into the U.S. Tax Club.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.