Scottish Cities, Income Taxes, and NATO Article 5

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in order to protect against an alleged Soviet threat to Western Europe. With cessation of the USSR in 1991 all raison d’etre for NATO vanished. Yet for some reason NATO not only persisted but expanded.

According to Russian President Vladimir Putin he requested of United States President Bill Clinton in 2000 that Moscow be allowed to join the NATO alliance. Putin claims Clinton merely laughed at him.

Instead, despite repeated assurances from American officials, NATO extended again and again until it had encroached most of Eastern Europe, setting the course for events in Ukraine we witness today.

Last week Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) stated the United States should deploy its infantry to Ukraine. Both Finland and Sweden have recently indicated they intend to apply for NATO membership.

Repeatedly throughout the Ukrainian Crisis American officials have reiterated the "sanctity" of Article 5, claiming an attack on any member country is an attack on all member nations…but what if…it isn’t?

The Scotch Dilemma

If you have never been to Europe you may find yourself befuddled when someone tells you to visit “Edinborough” and you try to find it on a map.

Obviously, you know “Edinborough” is one of the largest cities in Scotland. In fact, it’s the capital city. Yet for some reason all you can locate in the Baedeker is “Edinburgh.”

Eventually you will inquire or perhaps figure out yourself they are the same place. For in Europe is a grand tradition of pronouncing the moniker of an area the way it has been historically spoken without taking account of its spelling.

You can argue about what is “right” or “wrong” but this is the reality.

The Income Tax is Illegal – You Still Need to Pay It

There is perhaps no finer piece on hidden history than the book The Law That Never Was which makes a compelling, perhaps even unassailable, case the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution never even came close to being properly ratified.

The “Income Tax Amendment” as it is commonly known was, as one might suspect, never very popular to begin with being in direct contravention to the intention of the Constitution itself. Hence, the need for an Amendment in the first place.

Those with a legal background will recognize certain…idiosyncrasies…of the court system. Particularly, that you can never – under any circumstances – imply a Judge reaches a foregone conclusion and then “fits” the facts to his intention. Clearly, that would never occur in America and you will be sanctioned by the Bar for saying so aloud.

All the same, there are circumstances in which everyone knows something and at the same time everyone pretends not to know that very thing. This is much the case with the 16th Amendment.

Any honest legal scholar or legitimate historian who has examined the facts must ultimately conclude at bare minimum there exists a strong argument the process of making the law was flawed in the extreme.

Except, what is the remedy?

The Federal government could never allow it to be decided the “Income Tax” was illegal. How would the leviathan then be funded? Would massive reparations to defrauded Citizens be in order? Under what conditions could another "Income Tax" Amendment be reinstituted under proper processes?

Clearly, all of the above are in practical terms impermissible. While the balance of the facts may be obvious, Lady Justice is going to tip the scales.

There will never be an admission the 16th Amendment was fraudulently recognized. Court historians, in the sense of being loyal to the prevailing system, will feverishly assent to the official narrative. Legal actors with any stature, or hope of professional advancement, will never acknowledge the charade.

It is quite simply an “agreed upon lie” which is pointed out at your peril – which means anyone reading this should know the 16th Amendment is not legitimate…and at the same time absolutely pay every single cent the government assesses you under that farce.

The NATO Article 5 Obligation to Commit Global Suicide

With the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in full swing there have been calls from the more extreme members of Congress, both Liberal as well as Conservative, to institute a “No-Fly Zone” over Kiev.

This would require American or other NATO partners to engage with Russian forces to clear them from the area. In all likelihood, the Russians would decline to comply. At which time, either the Americans and NATO retreat or they shoot down the Russian opposition.

Even if no United States forces were directly involved, the Article 5 designation every NATO member must go to war with anyone who fights against another NATO member would come into effect.

So it would be World War Three in a matter of days.

At the very least, it would mean America at war with Russia. Maybe America at war with China as well. Probably America back at war with various parts of the Middle East.

Currently the call for aircraft is on the decrease while America and most of Europe is increasing shipments of offensive weaponry. Last week the United States sent another $800 Million and President Biden vowed he will request further dispensation from Congress for even more weapons for Ukraine.

Germany has already increased its military budget by 2% last month.  Switzerland has shrugged off its generations of neutrality to enter the fray. Even Finland and Sweden are sending armaments.

Howitzers and Homilies

At the precise moment this transpires is coming a steady sermon of sanctimonious zealotry regarding the NATO treaty itself.

Thus on June 14, 2021, President Biden called Article 5 "a sacred obligation." On August 20, 2021, President Biden called Article 5 "a sacred commitment." On December 8, 2021, President Biden again called Article 5 "a sacred obligation." On April 26, 2022, President Biden further called Article 5 "a sacred commitment." When politicians begin to slam the pulpit and breathe brimstone you had better worry.

Given copious amounts of military hardware being caravanned all over Europe conditions are ripe for a miscalculation and what then? Conversely, what if NATO eventually proceeds with a “No-Fly Zone” over Ukraine and they wind up in direct confrontation with Russia? What should be our "sacred" response?

Nothing. Not one thing.

Oh, oh, oh, but the Article 5 “Assurance!” Our noble commitment! Avowed honor as a nation!


All of it is absolute nonsense. When it comes to World War Three and global nuclear conflagration Americans owe nothing to nobody.

It doesn’t matter what treaties we signed – time to break our oath.

The world and 8 Billion people not perishing is more important than Ukraine, it is more important than grandstanding, and it is far more important than “our Allies.”

Crucially, the NATO Treaty was signed in 1949 and everyone whose signature is on the document is dead. We are the living. There is no obligation for any of us to honor the suicide pact of those already in the ground if their "sacred" duties serve only to harm our earth.

There was once a thing known as American Practicality…it took its most famous form in the phrase, "Lafayette, I have arrived!" That was spoken by General John Pershing when Americans arrived in France during World War One. Because while we had made a "sacred obligation" to France when they aided the United States in 1776 we avoided helping out in the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian Wars and various other skirmishes because those battles simply were not in the interests of our nation.

Americans were not always quite so injudicious as we are today.

There are truths and there are Truths

In Europe dozens of towns are either misspelled or mispronounced – and you aren’t going to alter either habit.

In America the “Income Tax Amendment” was illegally ratified and it is not a legitimate law – but you had better pay everything they say you owe.

In Existence it is preferable to act with nobility and honor – right up until the moment those principles meet the practicalities of the world becoming a wasteland.

NATO and “Our Allies” may be eager to stake out Armageddon in Ukraine but Americans have no obligation to die with them there no matter what aging parchments and senile politicians may claim.

Guy Somerset writes from somewhere in America.

2 thoughts on “Scottish Cities, Income Taxes, and NATO Article 5”

  1. Informative ramble.

    NATO Article 5 is almost a joke.

    When Turkey shot down that Russian SU-24 fighter-bomber, then tried to hide behind NATO Article 5, the correct interpretation came out as “NATO members can respond to an attack on a member as they deem appropriate.”

    Of course, Turkey wasn’t attacked, but it was obvious that NATO wasn’t going to back Erdogan in any meaningful way against Russian anger in a fight he started.

Comments are closed.