Wikipedia covers A:FTF, but with a pro-tax paradigm

Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", made an entry about Aaron Russo's new movie, America: Freedom To Fascism. It's surrounded by websites that covered Russo's movie, like Ludwig von Mises Institute and Michael Rivero's WhatReallyHappened.com. Now, Mises got it exactly right. Mises says the film is focused on the Federal Reserve. WhatReallyHappened is focused on the income tax. Both gave A:FTF excellent reviews. Wikipedia, like WhatReallyHappened, is focused on the tax. However, since Wikipedia is pro-tax, pro-government, pro-welfare mentality mindset, Wikipedia is anti-A:FTF, and it shows.

Wikipedia, in covering this movie, uses only 5 different angles to see this movie, and the best angle is "neutral". In the first part (the best part), it gives the documentary a background. It states who wrote it, when the movie will screen at Cannes, when the movie will be showing in America, and what the movie is all about--a neutral background.

But after, the film became negative.

The second part, it shows what the federal income tax issues, as well as interviews in the film. The first thing in the film is the notorious "tax protester argument". The Wikipedia "TPA" page, it states, "Tax protester arguments are a number of 'heterodox' theories that deny that a person has a legal obligation to pay a tax for which the government has determined that person is liable." This is true, if the law itself is a "heterodox theory".

And the first interview is Irwin Schiff. Wikipedia says about Schiff, "Irwin Schiff is a prominent member of the group which refers to itself as the 'tax honesty movement', and which had been referred to by the Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies as the tax protester movement." From the quotation marks around "tax honesty movement", Wikipedia implies that "honesty" is a joke. Besides, if you link on "tax honesty movement" from Wikipedia's "Irwin Schiff" page, you will get the "tax protester" page. However, when you type on the address bar Wikipedia's "tax honesty movement" from scratch, you will find Wikipedia's "Tax honesty movement" page, but that page is left blank.

Dave Champion posted the "Tax Honesty Movement" page on Wikipedia at the beginning of this year, but later, BD Abramson (?) wants to take that page off. 3 weeks later, it is off. You can listen to Champion's radio show if you want (it's the beginning to around 6:30). Champion's entry is 5 sentences long (less than a page) with references to "tax protester" twice, and it talks about Original Intent and American Radio (his businesses), but it doesn't talk about his other business Nontaxpayer.org. Why is that? The Tax Honesty Movement's message is this: after searching the Constitution, statutes, regulations, court decisions--in other words, the law, for many months or years, there is no doubt that there is no law that requires a person like me to file a tax form and pay taxes. If one does, then show the law. Champion thinks that the "pro-tax protester" group was behind the "Tax Honesty" page taken down. I maybe wrong, but I think Wikipedia was the culprit. I really don't know. However, Dave Champion's entry to Wikipedia is one page, and the infamous "tax protester (argument)" is right behind the Tax Honesty Movement, twice. "Tax protester" has a link; "Tax Honesty" doesn't.

And finally, behind the IRS opinion, is what Russo believes this movie is all about. His biography said, "The film is an expose of the Internal Revenue Service, and proves conclusively there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay an unapportioned tax on their labor." But a foot note, it says, "See tax protester arguments about taxation of labor or income from labor." All rebuttal court cases except three came from the Tax Courts, and Tax Courts are not Criminal Courts. In White v. United States, they refer to Section 6702. If you don't file, you can't be charged with Section 6702. In United States v. Buras, all the court said that they reject the claim, and in Carter v. Commissioner, the court said the case per se was "frivolous"(I thought I was on defense?). And it drifted away from the core but simple and basic question. Question: is there a law or laws (i.e, 26 USC __) that requires the vast majority of Americans to file and pay taxes? A truthful answer: There is no law. In all that--case dismissed!

Sorry, Wikipedia.