Talk:America: Freedom to Fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 8/10/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Separation of criticism and fact[edit]

First, let me state that I have seen the film and found the points to be in line with my views, though I am open to opposing points of view. I have a problem with the way the entire article is presented. The entire article is comes off as a rebuttal of every single point in the film, with no distinction between what is criticism and what is fact (by that, I do not mean that there is no fact in the criticism).

There are many valid points on both sides of the argument, but I do not believe that they should be mixed in the way they currently are. As it is currently structured, the article goes from restating a point of the film, immediately followed by a rebuttal of that point.

Again, I am not against the information presented, but in the uneven way it is presented (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Ray B

Why should the points not be "mixed in the way they currently are"? Why do you think the rebuttal structure is objectionable? And what is meant by the phrase "distinction between what is criticism and what is fact"? Famspear (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The points should not be mixed because it gives the article an overall negative tone. Most Wiki articles have a separate "Criticism" section whether it's about a movie, a company, a politician, you name it. I think it would help keep the balance of the article, especially considering that there are no supporting arguments, only opposing arguments. I'd like to reiterate: I'm not saying there isn't fact in the criticism, but the criticism of the film seems to be the central point of the article the way it is currently structured. -- (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Ray B

Are we reading the same article? After the introduction, the first main section is on the Federal Reserve System. Based on a quick re-read, I see no critique or "con" arguments at all -- only a summary of the arguments made by the filmmaker. The second section, the one on federal income tax, does contain both "pro" and "con" arguments on that. The third section is devoted to critiques. So how can criticism of the film be "the central point of the article"? Again, what you refer to as a quest for balance may be simply a desire to give equal weight to all sides, which would not be proper. Famspear (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
In addition, the section on "Other topics" contains only a list of arguments by the filmmaker, with no rebuttals or "against" arguments at all. Famspear (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with Ray B. This article seems biased. To begin with, the statement "The film's claims about the illegality of the income tax in the United States have been critiqued as factually dubious by some reviewers" is referenced by one reviewer who has no clear claim of why the facts may be dubious. I cannot believe the article that Scott Moore has written has actually been quoted on Wikipedia. All it does is attack Russo's character with an unbelieveable bias with no relation or discussion of the points therein. Furthermore 'some' implies more than one reviewer, where are the other references? And of good reviews, to make the article balanced? The consistent use of 'claim' and "assert" in the "Federal Reserve System issues and interviews in the film" section is ridiculous, as there are references to other wiki articles in which such assertions are made, and therefore such terms only serve to provide doubt on the subject. If there is an inaccuracies section, then the accuracies must be highlighted in the body of the article, such as the dollar has no backing argument. Ndarlington (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ndarlington 30/6/09
Total nonsense. If we list the film's idiotic* POV, we should list reliable rebuttals. (I'm not saying the filmmakers are idiots, just that the film's thesis is objectively bogus, and that anyone who would believe it, given even the material in the film, is an idiot.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't realized we were WP:WEASELing. The correct statement is: "The film's claims about the illegality of the income tax in the United States have been critiqued as factually absurd by all credible reviewers." "Dubious" certainly appears weaselly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Your obvious POV is noted. I should probably just revert any edits you made. (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As of 12/26/09 the article has a biased POV. As already stated, the article seems to include a lot of non-neutral language and preface a lot of assertions in the film with words such as "supposedly", "alleged", . If we are reading an article on the documentary, we don't need to constantly see "According to the film", before an assertion made in the film. It's obvious that the original writer did not believe in the assertions, and wanted to make the distinction, ie. non-neutral. (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Steve

How is the film's POV idiotic? And how is that polite ? What is idiotic about pointing out that the FEDERAL RESERVE is a cartel of private banks expressly controlling currency - strictly forbidden in the constitution - section 8 - "The Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;". The Federal Reserve is not Congressional and therefore their control of currency is unconstitutional. Broken Evolution (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with what some are saying here, unlike most wikipedia entries that are mostly factual even with controversial topics and include a 'critic' section, this whole article is critical of the movie.
It is too bad because income tax is one of the biggest frauds in history. The movie does have a few inaccuracies and had NO info on how to LEGALLY STOP PAYING TAXES, but mostly it is very good. I just won a victory over the IRS by getting them to admit I did not owe ANY taxes for 2008 (I have the CLOSING NOTICE to prove it).
The info I followed is on the website And I am amazed that there is no entry for that site on wikipedia, or the author's book 'cracking the code'. Because he shows exactly how anyone who doesn't make money directly from the government is NOT required to pay.
The key to doing this correctly and getting the IRS to agree, is to fill out ALL 1099s and w2s (corrected with 4852) with $0 income, then also put $0 on the 1040. Then you don't have to pay and there is NOTHING they can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The film's POV is idiotic. In particular, he film's claims about the illegality of the income tax in the United States are factually incorrect, as determined by every court of record which has considered the issue. (And the webmaster of is now in jail, for tax evasion and other related crimes.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone who argues against taxes and the Federal Reserve ever read the Constitution? Congress is allowed to delegate its powers, which it did with the Federal Reserve Act, therefore, it's constitutional and the film's POV is idiotic. (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As Arthur Rubin has noted, the owner of the losthorizons web site, the author of "Cracking the Code," is in federal prison, having been convicted of using the scheme on his own federal income tax returns (filing false tax returns). This is his second term in federal prison, having been previously convicted of a federal tax crime back in the early 1990s. He also lost his civil tax case in connection with the "Cracking the Code" scheme, and every single one of his followers who has gone to court in a civil tax case over using the scheme has also lost. The courts have ruled the "Cracking the Code" interpretation of tax law to be "frivolous and false." Additionally, the government has announced that it will be targeting other users of the scheme. Famspear (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and both the author of Cracking the Code and several of his followers have had literally thousands and thousands of dollars in civil monetary penalties imposed on them for using the Cracking the Code scheme on tax returns, or for arguing in favor of the scheme in federal court. The idea that the author of Cracking the Code supposedly "shows exactly how anyone who doesn't make money directly from the government is NOT required to pay" is incorrect. The idea that you "don't have to pay and there is NOTHING they [the government] can do" is also both blatantly false and laughable. Famspear (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Feminism and Russo[edit]

I was surprised that the criticisms section didn't mention Russo's charge that the Rockefellers had invented feminism. Since feminism goes back at least to Mary Wollstonecraft who lived well before the Rockefeller family rose to prominence, the assertion that it was invented by the Rockefellers is certainly ripe for criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Aaron russo never claimed the Rockefellers INVENTED feminism, what he actually said was they were INVOLVED in the feminist movement by funding it and helping popularize the movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

> Wrong, Aaron russo never claimed the Rockefellers INVENTED feminism, what he actually said was they were INVOLVED in the feminist movement

Actually Russo did claim that Rockefeller had told him that they created feminism. You're trying to retroactively rewrite Russo's ramblings into a form which is more consistent with reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Authenticated quote?[edit]

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."

I've seen the above passed around by a number of crackpots, but have never been given a clear reference for it. Does anyone know of an actual source for the above? It may be a creation of fascist propaganda. William Dudley Pelley cooked up some phony Benjamin Franklin quotes in the 1930s which Charles Beard debunked, and I think this alleged Rothschild quote began circulating about the same time. But I don't know of any actual attempts to track it down and verify or debunk it. Is there more information available somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote comes from the senate hearings for the Bill in 1914, and is actually a quote from a man named T Gushing Daniel ( He was loosely attributing to Rothschilds by saying it was the "maxim of the house of Rothschilds". It was a play on words which comes from an expression about music. More detail can be found here: Socratesone (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The above is not polite, not neutral, uses weasel words,

This article seems to be spoiled by professional writers with an agenda to discredit subjects of this nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

> The above is not polite,

Which is not polite? Do you mean the fake quote attributed to Rothschild? Or do you simply mean my having noted that it is a fake quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is not polite? The use of the word "crackpots" to describe people who use the quote.Socratesone (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

> This article seems to be spoiled by professional writers with an agenda

Do you mean the person who put the faked Rothschild quote in the article? Or do you simply mean me for pointing it out in the Discussion section without having touched the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OP: I've often wondered about this quote myself; I'm also skeptical of its authenticity. I'm not aware of the source, so I will mark it as an "alleged" quote. Cool Hand Luke 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have a primary source.[1] Would not be surprised if it's a junk quote. Many other urban legend "quotes" were used in this film, and it's hard to take this one at face value. Cool Hand Luke 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Warburg representative of Rothschild?[edit]

Who put that rubbish in here? Warburg did make an effort to look at banking systems in Europe, but the characterization of him as a "Rothschild representative" is just crapola from G. Edward Griffin. Griffin is a Right-wing huckster who was first trained by the John Birch Society and later branched out on his own. Nothing from any books by him should ever be cited on these pages except for the study of Right-wing yahooism. Griffin is not a valid source on banking. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The film is subtitled 'from freedom to fascism', not 'freedom to fascism'[edit]

I will repair this frankly daft error as best I can. Someone also please work on editing the title of the article.Racooon (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Racoon: No, actually the film is titled both ways. Or, rather, the film was titled both ways. In the early promotions for the film right before its release, Aaron Russo showed title with the word "From" in the title. Then, when the film was released, at least some versions (maybe all versions) deleted the word "From". As I recall, the name of this Wikipedia article was changed accordingly. Famspear (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, how silly of me.Racooon (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

First Amendment section problem[edit]

problem: i have made a couple attempts to add the following one line to the First Amendment section:

The Supreme Court has yet to define the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment, "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

yet, Arthur Rubin has removed the statement. i merely added this statement to inform those browsing this Wiki listing that regardless of the facts/opinions presented in the film, or those of the critics of the film, the fact remains that SCOTUS has never ruled on the meaning of the "Accountability Clause", which is the last 10 words of the First Amendment.

while it is helpful that this Wiki listing includes the ruling by judge Emmet Sullivan, along with his following quote & the poster's opinion:

"He also cites a previous decision that says that the government is not obligated “to listen, to respond or, in this context, to recognize the association and bargain with it.” Thus his conclusion, which was consistent with previous rulings, was precisely that the first amendment does not guarantee that the government answer anyone's questions."

... showing that the court's ruling entirely dismisses the Accountability Clause as being relevant to mandating the government respond to alleged grievances against the People of the United States.

however, it also leaves the reader wondering what this clause actually means, being that the American framers thought of it important enough to include in the First Amendment.

it seems readers might also like to know that the Supreme Court has never made such a ruling on its meaning. is there some kind of problem with making mention of this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfinityBBC (talkcontribs) 15:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there may be several problems with the proposed statement about the Supreme Court. First, it may be prohibited original research, although I'm not sure about that. Second, I believe that some federal courts have issued rulings on the meaning of the words "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I just don't remember off the top of my head whether the Supreme Court itself has ruled on that. Third, the statement seems to imply some sort of "significance" to the fact (if it is a fact) that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on that phrase. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on many, many points of law. The Supreme Court actually hears relatively few cases.
For example, since the mid 1970s, tax protesters have mounted countless impotent attacks on the constitutionality of the federal income tax -- yet in all that time the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, and has ruled on, only one case. Yet, the constitutionality of the federal income tax is well settled, and the meanings of most of the "tax" provisions of the Constitution are well settled. Lack of a Supreme Court decision on a given point of law -- even a point of constitutional law -- is not necessarily notable.
I'll check and see, though, whether the Supreme Court has ever ruled on this particlar provision. Famspear (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

InfinityBBC (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

i find it interesting that with all the "not so sure about that" remarks, the statement which i had added to the First Amendment section was removed prior to any of the "wiki-gods" first checking it to be, in fact, true. is this the standard protocol of wiki? i thought wiki was supposed to be a collaborative effort of people working together toward the goal of making knowledge available to all. however, with regard to certain areas of knowledge, the "wiki-gods" seem to allow personal biases to get in the way of this goal... and that's really too bad, as it seems that various criticisms regarding the very "wiki" concept are being proven correct.

to address your comments, sure, SCOTUS has not yet ruled upon many, many points of law. however, this particular point of law — one in which the American founders felt it important enough to include within the First Amendment — has given impetus to challenge the US Government in its continued various Constitutional violations — not just those in regard to the "income tax" (capital gains tax), which over time became a "wage tax". other various Constitutional violations continue to occur, even as we hold this discussion while the US Government wages ANOTHER illegal war with yet ANOTHER foreign nation without a formal declaration of war — in fact, all since WWII have been engaged without the Constitutionally mandated declaration of war.

upon discovering that the process of We the People's petitioning the US Government would be continually ignored by SCOTUS, the challenge was given to SCOTUS to define the "Accountability Clause" (the last 10 words of the First Amendment, "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", however, SCOTUS has refused to do so.

therefore, YES, Famspear, there is great significance in the fact that SCOTUS has refused to rule on the definition of the First Amendment Accountability Clause, but i wasn't attempting to draw such conclusions on wiki. i thought it would be good to allow the readers to come up with their own conclusions. i was merely attempting to state the fact that SCOTUS hasn't yet ruled on the definition of this apparent controversial clause, yet "wiki-god, Arthur Rubin" decided to remove it, giving no reason whatsoever that i could find.

but hey, if that's the way wikipedia is being run, then so be it.

regardless, do let me know when you discover that SCOTUS has yet to define the clause so that you and the rest of the "wiki-gods" might allow the posting of this truth in this most noteworthy place to do so, "America: Freedom to Fascism". i would also like to post other truths about this matter, especially on "Right to petition" wiki entry, but it seems there is little point in doing so, as either you or another "wiki-god" will only remove them without just cause or reason.

in the meantime, perhaps interested wiki readers can discover for themselves what the founders had to say about the Accountability Clause on these "wiki-talk" areas, since SCOTUS refuses to make such a ruling on the matter...

Within an act of the 1774 Continental Congress regarding Petitioning for Redress of Grievances, the founding fathers said:

“If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”

no one with whom i've addressed this issue has been able or willing to deal with this truth, straight from the founders' pen. even the supposed "scholars" at the First Amendment Center literally REFUSED to answer my straight forward questions about this matter of historic fact and simply IGNORED (in IGNORance) that i even cited it... just like SCOTUS — imagine that! 8-)

also funny how the wiki entry for the "Right to petition" omits this statement pertaining to the Accountability Clause as well. perhaps i'll try adding an entry there and see which "wiki-god" removes it! 8-) LOL! what a joke wiki has become...

Bias and improper use of this article[edit]

The entire "Inaccuracies" section is biased. Note the first sentence: "With regards to quotations, Russo often uses partial quotations and quotations out of context to make them appear that something else was meant than what was intended." This is a clear indication of bias on the part of an author of this page. Opinions should be referred to as such, and should be supplanted with references. Instead of the aforementioned sentence, an appropriate course would be to say "Critic X believes that Russo uses quotations out of context" followed with a refenrence to Critic X's original work.

Inserting positive declaration of right/wrong status into Wikipedia content is inappropriate. If you want to see an example of that kind of thing, check out Conservapedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although I see the wording was changed to "alleged inaccuracies", which is improvement.--Dwc89 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


While the language of the whole thing feels biased, I know that the "In Popular Media" section is blatantly biased. Where most wikipedia articles start off with the positive critical reviews of whatever subject is being discussed, then moves to negative critical reviews, this article only has negative critical reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there are no positive reviews? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a US citizen. If you saw the movie you would a) acknowledged that it was partial to a specific view point b) some of the facts on the wikipedia article if valid (making those in the movie invalid) continue to show that something is not right in the system. The government should work for the people and the people should support only a just and fair government. If, and especially, a public association asks for answers from the government, those answerers should be given, refusal to freely inform the people about the law that they should fallow seems a clear case of bad and corrupt governance. In any case even if I agree that the movie is partial and a bit manipulative, there are some good points exposed that just goes beyond what seems logic and fair. Of course I do support that taxes should be paid but that requires that the application of funds should be also openly disclosed and well used (it depends on the specific tax) but for what I've read about the income tax on the US and given the well acknowledged problems on how the FED is managing the currency situation (not at all transparent) something is rotten on that constitutional republic (that is also having world wide implications like the lack of regularization of rating agencies, what they are doing in Europe for instance). -- (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There's something wrong with this article[edit]

I'm not documented enough to make any statement about the topics of the film, but I've never seen a wikipedia article so devoted to destroy its subject. This is an independent, unknown documentary movie and there are like four pages full of bashing on wikipedia? Someone change that, it's incredibly creepy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

See above. Perhaps there are no reliable positive comments about the film? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much. It's well-received among certain groups (basically, groups that agree with the views of the film) but has done poorly with the mainstream. A large part of that is the film puts forth theories that have been thoroughly discredited (see the entire taxes/IRS part), uses quotes out of context and even worse uses quotes that have been shown to be made up. The fact-checking on the film is about at the level of many blogs - calling it a documentary is a real stretch. Ravensfire (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The movie is not really "unknown." It had a huge cult following among tax protesters, etc., when it came out. The movie is a sad end to the notable career of a film-maker. Aaron Russo had major tax troubles, and this was apparently part of the reason he slipped at the end. I still have not seen the movie all the way through, but I agree with Ravensfire -- it's a "documentary" in name only.
At the time the movie was released, and for many months thereafter, this Wikipedia article was bombarded with people trying to use Wikipedia to push Russo's ridiculous ideas -- the ideas he expressed in the movie. Actually, it started even before the movie was released, if I recall correctly. Famspear (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Creepy might be a way of describing it. This is not an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to present things in an unbiased way. It speaks from the first person and continually denigrates the film, the point of the film, and the writer/director. It makes many conclusory statements, and simply asserts many legal points as fact and antithetical to the movies position, without listing any other viewpoints in the public domain. Although the movie absolutely has its faults, many of which are correctly pointed out in this "article", this screed has the feel of an apologist for the government's POV. I don't think I see even one point in this article that supports anything the movie has said. And certainly both support and criticims of the movie need their own sections. It is a hack job, pure and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyonthenet (talkcontribs) 15:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I can only agree. I read the Wikipedia article about it because I haven't seen it yet and wondered if it's worth watching. But already when I read the table of contents I had a strange feeling that the article is somehow biased, as the "alleged inaccuracies" section alone was taking almost half the space. That feeling became even stronger when I saw that this section pretty much only mentions a few quotations being taken out of context or slightly inaccurate. Much of the article seems consciously biased and simply trying to discredit the movie. Maybe the movie really is factually completely wrong and thus as "stupid" as users like Famspear or Arthur Rubin suggest? But in this case I would at least expect some more substantial criticism than a handful of minor improper quotations, because if that's the only criticism about the movie, it can't be THAT wrong. In its current form, it seems like the most biased article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The film purports to be a "documentary" -- yet the film is full of blatant nonsense. I've seen most of the film, and it's virtually complete nonsense -- so it would not be surprising for reliable, previously published third party sources to find the inaccuracies in the film and report on them. If the only problem were "a handful of minor improper quotations", then the article would not have gone into all the other material described therein. No, the article is not a "hack job." And the article does not have the feel of an "apologist for the government's POV." The article describes the assertions in the film and then balances that with, for example, what the law actually is, or what the courts have actually ruled, etc. The reader can draw his own conclusions. Famspear (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely something wrong with the article, and it would seem that Famspear, as an editor, is inherently biased due to having a chosen profession directly related to the IRS (ie: exactly what this film purports to de-legitimize). From Famspear's user page: "In the real world, among other things, I currently represent taxpayers in their dealings with the Internal Revenue Service." Isn't that the definition of WP:COI (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Same question of WP:COI is leveled against editor Arthur Rubin, who also notes himself as a tax preparer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP No, there is nothing wrong with the article. If there were something wrong with it, you would be able to identify the "problem." And please refrain from personal attacks. Please study Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Famspear (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: There is no such thing as "inherent bias" in the sense that user at IP has used the term. Saying that an attorney or CPA is "inherently biased" when editing articles on tax law is like saying that a physicist is "inherently biased" when editing articles on physics, or that a dentist is "inherently biased" when editing articles on dental health. The mere fact that a person has training and experience in a particular subject does not necessarily make that person "inherently biased" when editing articles about that subject. Indeed, the concept of inherent bias is meaningless, as it would imply that all dentists hold the same biased view about dental health, or that all lawyers hold the same biased view about tax law (obviously, such is not the case). To assume the contrary -- that various people in the same field hold various and sometimes contradictory views on specific issues embodied in that subject -- is a much more reasonable, rational assumption.
To say that 99.9999% of all tax lawyers, CPAs, and law professors have concluded that a particular argument about the validity of a tax law is legally frivolous does not mean that these lawyers, CPAs and professors are "biased" or "inherently biased". It probably means (and in the case of the ideas promulgated by Aaron Russo in his film) DOES mean that these lawyers, CPAs and professsors are trained in the law, have studied the law, and have found that under legal principles and 100% of the court decisions to day, the particular argument about the validity of the law is indeed legally frivolous.
Similarly, if 99.9999% of all physicists have concluded that The Moon is not made of green cheese, but is in fact made of moon dust, rocks, etc., the fact that these people are trained as physicists does not mean that they are "biased" or "inherently biased" about the subject.
Get real, folks. Famspear (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the First Amendment is exactly whats needed.[edit]

After reading the discussion about the removed First Amendment section, the "Accountability Clause", I was surprised to learn it was removed. I think such a thing gives weight to the movies statement about the First Amendment and the government answering anyone's questions. This section seems to be a slap in the face of the authors conclusion that the First Amendment doesn't apply. What's needed here is precisely the First Amendment. It seems that "wiki-god, Arthur Rubin" likes to write about the First Amendment but implementation is a different matter. It seems he would rather make the "readers" mind up for him with information left out. As a "reader" myself, I found that insulting. I for one was surprised to read the "Accountability Clause" and didn't know it existed and I my opinion might be swayed in some way with this information. Maybe that's what Arthur Rubin "wiki-god" is afraid of?

Another thing I would like to see in the article is a broader scope. I would like to see more of a response to the movies "The Fed" information. Enough about the income tax, how about the evil entity "The Fed". In my opinion, a much more important subject and something that impacts us 99%ers much more then income tax. How about it "wiki-god, Arthur Rubin"? (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You need a source for your statement, that's your immediate problem. Find a reliable source (hint - read that page) that makes the claim and shows it's relevance to this article and you've got past one hurdle. No source? Not gonna happen. Please though, be more careful than Russo was (see the lovely list of wrong and out of context quotes in the movie). Ravensfire (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculously Opinionated[edit]

This article is ridiculously opinionated.

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are often full of opinions. Many sources used in encyclopedia articles have "opinions." Wikipedia rules do not prohibit the use of opinions -- even biased ones. Wikipedia operates on the basis of various rules, one of which is Neutral Point of View, or NPOV. Under this rule, NPOV does not mean the absence of opinions or even the absence of biased opinions. Sources are allowed to have opinion, and sources are allowed to be biased. NPOV means that conflicting opinions and biases are presented in Wikipedia from a Neutral Point of View -- that is, without Wikipedia itself taking a stand in the article as to whose opinion is "correct." NPOV also means, however, that Wikipedia does not give equal weight to fringe viewpoints. Indeed, no encyclopedia should do that. Famspear (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Quotation of Charles Rossotti[edit]

We need a more detailed source as to what Rossotti was referring. Ref[28] is unclear. Perhaps he was referring to a 100% success rate in 'shooting down' the arguments of individuals who argued that there is no law requiring them to pay taxes. Just because the context of the broadcast related to employers' refusal to withhold, doesn't mean that Rossotti didn't make the (accurate) statement that there is a 100% success rate.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)