The Last Ship and our Oath of Office

While watching The Last Ship: Scuttle, Captain Slattery of the Nathan James said the following: “We always have a choice.” The situation was the same as that faced by officers of all ranks and types throughout history: Should we follow orders when they conflict with law, instruction, regulation, and even what society at large would consider wrong?  I think he was directly referring to our oath of office.
 
Not only was I taught in several schools of military education that the answer is usually “No,” but that’s what our law says, as well.
 
An officer’s oath isn’t to obey the orders of those appointed above him.  Instead, it’s rooted quite firmly in the Constitution itself.  Indeed, a Presidential Commission expects precisely this behavior from all officers, regardless of rank, such that the entire collection of military, civilian, and law enforcement officers of our nation at all levels throughout our nation from a butter bar to the Commander in Chief him/herself are all bound by the same inescapable oath to our United States Constitution.
 
It’s high time Congress, half of the U.S. Supreme Court, and judges at all levels start taking it seriously, for they have ALL sworn by the same oath:
 
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
 
Judges take a second oath, further binding them to follow “the supreme Law of the Land” (U.S. Constitution, Article VI: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript).
 
“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” – 28 U.S. Code § 453 – Oaths of justices and judges
 
My question is clear: Why are so many judges, mayors, local and state legislators, and members of Congress NOT following our nation’s laws?  Furthermore, why do so many people in our nation keep electing these anti-Americans to office?
Following our oaths of office has nothing to do with keeping you out of trouble.  It has everything to do with your accomplishment of the duty you swore to uphold.  Similarly, electing politicians who will actually follow their oaths of office has nothing to do with assuaging your conscience.  It has everything to do with your duty as an American citizen to your fellow citizens in ensuring only the most trusted and reliable persons are ever placed in positions of our public trust.
 
https://www.hulu.com/watch/1073461

ResistBot, Tallies, and other forms of Congressional Bias

To the Honorable Congressman X:
 
Please be aware that much of the anti-Trump sentiment you may be receiving these days is fake, auto-generated babble produced by a program called, “ResistBot.” When someone wants to send you their negative comment or position about President Trump, but are either too lazy to or incapable of sitting down and composing an actual letter (or person-to-person phone call) using their own brain, complete with a premise supported by relevant facts and a summary conclusion), all they need do is use ResisBot. This phone app begins with, “Hi, I’m ResistBot and I’m going to help you write your officials. First, what name would you like to use to sign your letters?”
 
The app’s next question is more chilling: “Welcome to the resistance Kate. Nice to meet you. Will you tell me your zip code so I can look up who represents you in Congress?”
 
The final result looks like a formally typed letter, but with a fairly short message from the young liberal:
 
“As a young freelance journalist with few opportunities to get healthcare through work, I urge you to keep the ACA intact.”
 
I’m sure you can see the horrendous problem this represents, Congressman X. Now, instead of receiving self-directed input from those constituents who have taken the time and energy to actually craft their inputs to you, with apps like ResisBot, you’re now being inundated by volumes of 20-second thought-bytes which have not been thought out at all.
This is why I am strongly encouraging you to resist ResistBot.  It gives you the illusion of reality while strongly and grossly distorting input from your constituents.
 
The fact is that most people rarely bother to call or write their representatives and senators who oppose their political point of view. That has already created huge diversity of input, with liberal members of Congress thinking all their constituents are liberal and the same for conservatives. Any good statistician can easily solve the problem. They simply require all input sent to all members of Congress before they systematically adjust the numbers based on constituent demographics throughout the nation, including which members from which party are more or less likely to voice their opinions. Quite frankly, this is one of the major reasons why “all the polls” indicated Hillary was going to win. It’s caused by a mix of biases, including confirmation, ingroup, neglecting probability, observational selection, negativity, the current moment, and anchoring.
 
Quite frankly, Congressman X, your office, as are all offices of all government officials, are besieged by bias, and ResistBot has already begun making that much, much worse. It’s creator even says, “What staffers need are tallies,” and it’s entire aim is to screw up your tallies.  Now you will be flooded by input from those constituents who think nothing of grossly distorting your picture of your constituents, so long as they get their way.
If all you’re doing is conducting a simple count of issues and a pro/con/dk tally, you have already succumbed to these biases.
 
At least for now, ResistBot works by sending electronic faxes, making those inputs appear legit, as if sent from older people who may still be using outmoded fax technology.  The solution is obvious: Simply block the number(s) of ResistBot’s fax server farms. Very soon, however, they may migrate to sending e-mails, at which point you’ll have to screen your inputs by IP address, return e-mail, sent from e-mail, and a number of other means used by spammers.
 
What are you going to do, Congressman X, when it morphs yet again, to the point where this computer application can call your office directly, and upon detecting a human voice, simply say, “I’m in a bit of a rush, but I just wanted to let you know that I support keeping the ACA alive, thank you, and good-bye…” Are your staffers going to dutifully check the “ACA – pro” box on some tally sheet, thereby giving you the false impression that this was even a real person at all? Or worse, causing you (or many in Congress) to vote one way on an important issue when you should have voted another?
 
The fundamental problem is that the very act of creating tallies is itself already grossly biased, and while there are ways of partially mitigating some of these biases, many will remain, giving you a false picture of your constituents’ actual positions on various issues across the board. A periodic poll crafted by experts in statistical researchers and analysts would be far more informative, and it would also weed out the opinions of those who refuse to take the time to participate in our Republican government process.
 
Another good way is to have faith in your voters, that they voted for you because of your historic positions on the issues, and trust you to represent them on that basis alone. They trust you to be smart enough so as not to be swayed by the faxes generated by ResistBot and similar leftist apps, and to instead examine each issue on its own merits and make decisions that are best for our nation as a whole, commensurate with the U.S. Constitution and all lawful legislation following therefrom.
 
Sincerely…

Constitutional Limits on Federal Ownership of Land

Just what are the Constitutional limits on federal ownership of land?  Are they defined in the Constitution, federal law, or both?

Many Americans, including politicians in our government, are under the distinct impression that our Federal Government can use eminent domain to lay claim to whatever land and natural resources they see fit.  After all, the federal government runs the country, right?

Wrong.  That is not what the Constitution says.  In fact, it says something

quite different.

We the People run our country.  In fact, our Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI), says so in its opening words, the Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a m

Founding Documents
We The People – US Constitution

ore perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Each and every U.S. citizen is one of “We the People.”  We the People run our country, hence the name of this website.  This fact is thoroughly woven throughout our Constitution and its Amendments, particularly the first ten Amendments we know as the Bill of Rights, and for very good reason.

Before our Constitution was signed 1787, and even before our Declaration of Independence eleven years earlier in 1776, certain factions in our government wanted to create a strong, authoritarian government.  The problem is that such a government was reminiscent of the  Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed, knowing full well that such governments strongly tend to creep towards dictatorship.  They also rejected democracy, a democratic form of government, knowing full well that when Rome allowed itself to be transformed from a republic into a democracy, its end soon followed, eventually collapsing under its own excesses.

A republic is defined as a government under the rule of law.  Because it’s principles are well-defined and codified, it tends to be far more stable than a democracy, whose principles can be changed by a single vote.  Thus, a republic works quite well.  Democracies, however, are not stable, as they’re determined by the will of the people.  When those people have either been deceived or have merely grown ignorant, the democracy is easily weakened, making it ripe for being overrun by another country, or worse, being rendering so dysfunctional that it collapses under the weight of its own excesses, inefficiencies, and corruption.  Sadly, the United States under Democrat control reflects this tendency and has become a clear and present danger to our nation, as clearly evidenced not only by our current and exorbitant level of debt, but also by the abject failure of most cities run by strongly Democrat governments.

Because our Founding Fathers were such keen students of history, knowing full well what works and what doesn’t, when these factions attempted to create a strong central government whereby states ceded most, if not all of their rights, the calmer heads crafted, “by the Unanimous Consent of the States present,” a “Constitution for the United States of America” that specifically required ratification “by three-fourths of the several states,” the same as for all Amendments (Article V).  Rhode Island, distrustful of a powerful federal government, was the only one of the thirteen original states to refuse to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention.  Thus, with only twelve states present, three-quarters of which equal nine, they including the following Article VII’s opening clause:  “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”

Furthermore, our “country” isn’t like France, Japan, or Egypt.  By law, specifically our U.S. Constitution, the United States of America is a collection of independent states (countries) organized into a union.  The term “state” and “country” are synonymous, hence the universal terms “heads of state” and our “State Department,” both of which deal with other countries.  In fact, the word “country” is not found anywhere in our Constitution, whereas the word “state” is found 133 times.”

Much like the European Union, each U.S. state remains its own sovereign entity, have ceded only certain specific and quite limited powers to the union as a whole, under the federal government, in order to normalize activities and relations between the states, which to this day retained the vast majority of powers under each state government.

Specifically, the federal government exists solely for the purposes as given in the Preamble.

If the federal government were allowed to change its powers merely by passing a single bill, especially in a way that modified the limits established by our Constitution, then such an action would not only be inconsistent with our Constitution, but would disenfranchise our voters.  Fortunately, that’s not how our government works, or at least is supposed to work.

So…  Where does that leave us with respect to the federal ownership of land?

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress many powers.  However, when it comes to the purchasing and ownership of land, it limits the federal government’s powers quite specifically:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

Put simply:

  1.  Congress may exercise exclusive legislation over the District.
  2. The District is not to exceed exceed ten miles square.
  3. The District is to be formed by land ceded by particular states, as accepted by Congress, to become the seat of the U.S. government
  4. If Congress needs additional land, it may purchase places by the consent of the legislature of the state from which they’re being purchased
  5. The only reasons Congress may purchase such lands are for the erection of forts (Army bases), magazines (place where ammunition is stored), arsenals (place where firearms are stored), dock-yards (places where ships are stored aka “ports”), “and other needful buildings.”

NOTE:  The entire collection of Constitutionally-authorized Congressional purchases is limited to buildings and structures.

These limitations gave rise to the easy to remember moniker, “forts, ports, and ten miles square.”

While it is reasonable to extend this to Air Force bases and large ranges used for firing, bombing, and testing, Congress does not have any Federally Owned LandConstitutional authorization to buy land used for other purposes, particularly vast quantities of land as they own out west.  Furthermore, they have absolutely zero lawful authority (power) to “appropriate” (take without buying) land, as the Constitution specifically requires Congress to obtain land only if “purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be.”

Some people will argue that the next clause gives the federal government to expand their powers as they see fit, that doing so is in the best interests of our nation.  Again, WRONG.  Nor does the federal government have any authority to erode our rights.  The two Amendments which guarantee both of these precepts are found at the end of the Bill of Rights as stop-gap final limits on federal powers:

Amendment IX:  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In modern parlance, just because a right isn’t mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate right.  Furthermore, no one – not Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, nor any business, organization, entity, man, woman, or child can lawfully either deny us those rights nor even “disparage” our retention of those rights.  Disparage means “to describe (someone or something) as unimportant, weak, bad; to degrade; to lower in rank or reputation; speak slightingly about.”  These are the rights of We the People!  They’d better not attempt to degrade them.

Amendment X:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Again, in today’s language, this simply means that all powers not specifically given to the federal government are not to be held by the federal government.  Unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the states holding a specific power, such as negotiating international treaties, then that power belong to the states (NOT the feds), or the people.

Put simply, the Federal Government of the United States of America has vastly overreached the Constitutional limits of their authority.  NO land is legitimately “their land” except the buildings and structures required for forts and ports, and the ten miles square required for the seat of the U.S. government.  All other lands in these United States belong to the States or to the People.  Sometime long ago federal politicians convinced themselves that it was OK to flagrantly ignore, if not extremely violate the U.S. Constitution, and for some unfathomable reason, the American People weren’t paying attention!

Well, people of America, you’d better start paying attention now, and remind each and every member of Congress — often, as in at least once weekly — that We the People are watching, and that those who fail or refuse to do their duty, irregardless of willfulness or ignorance, to FULLY “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” most certainly WILL be ejected from office with extreme prejudice, and replaced by one of us who actually knows and follows the United States Constitution.

Solving America’s Problems Requires Clear Thinking

Yesterday I stumbled across a rather insightful editorial by Bart Hinkle at the Richmond Times.  He demonstrated such clear thinking that I wrote the author a letter, presented here with minor corrections for spelling, punctuation, and grammar:

I found your recent article to be very insightful.  It is a fascinating look at what ails America today. It boils down to dereliction of duty to “support and defend the Constitution” at ALL levels of government.

I concur with you that Congress has failed to do its duty to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic,” almost certainly because the loyalty of many Congressman to their party or various idealistic excursions has increasingly eclipsed their loyalty to the proven reality of the Constitution.  Sadly, we see the same thing in the Supreme Court, which should never be the case.  With respect to the points you made in your article, I believe additional factors have come into play, including the increasing fear of being labeled politically incorrect, and the corresponding unwillingness to take necessary and more permanent actions against elected officials who refuse to abide by “the supreme Law of the Land.”

Shortly after retiring from my career as an Air Force officer, I began working to educate people on the dangers facing our nation, particularly from the erosion of the absolute moral base our Founding Fathers cautioned was essential to the long-term health of our nation.  With such a moral base, even an imperfect Constitution and its resulting society would survive, as leaders would retain the same principles, precepts, and moral values held by the framers.  The resolution of unanticipated issues would naturally incline towards the time-tested precepts which have served our nation so well for so long.  Without such a moral base, even a perfect Constitution would eventually fail.  A nation lacking proper morals would be increasingly opposed to Constitutional principles and values, until its leaders began ignoring increasingly larger portions of the Constitution, eventually leaving it behind altogether.

Our Founding Fathers did a miraculous job crafting our Constitution.  It is extremely difficult, however, if not impossible, to create a legal foundation capable of fighting the erosion of society when that society’s elected and appointed leaders, either out of ignorance or willful malice, fail to follow the written legal foundation.

In light of this perspective, I submit to you three additional avenues of failure, along with some proposals for amendments that might be able to stem the flow of our nation’s life-blood, even restore proper function in the presence of decreasing loyalty to the Constitution:

Failure 1:  Education of the people:  Sadly, too many Americans are voting for government officials at all levels not because of what a candidate can do for their country, but because of what a candidate can do for them.  This self-seeking behavior and failure to delay gratification ultimately results in poorer results.  Candidates are rarely able to deliver on their campaign promises.  When a person believes rhetoric promising him or her a better life, and votes for that candidate, they wind up doing little to work hard and secure that life for themselves.  Instead, they wait around for the candidate to make their lives better.  When that fails, they become embittered at the “other guy” their candidate blames as the problem, or they become embittered with the system itself.

The Department of Education and liberal school systems has been largely complicit in this area of demise by lowering and even eliminating the bar in vital areas like civics and history while cluttering the educational landscape with requirements that eclipse a child’s opportunity to obtain a full, well-rounded education suitable for understanding how human society really works.  This is really the root problem of what’s going on in America.  If the people stopped electing those who are undermining our Republic, the problem would largely disappear.  Our Republic would be preserved.  Sadly, many people are no longer capable of correctly assessing the worth of a candidate, or envisioning the long-term effects of electing a candidate.

Possible solutions:  Eliminate the Department of Education and use those funds at the state level to provide for a more graduated pay scale for teachers instead of the current rise and cap pay curves; raise standards required of teachers; ensure those standards reflect the requirements addressed as outlined above.

Failure 2:  Personification of the corporate:  No serious student of the Constitution would ever conclude that our Founding Fathers meant to give business the same access to our government as We the People, much less a 1000% greater influence over Congressional decision-making.  The fallout from this decision has lead to increasingly darker decisions being made by Congress, ones that treat citizens as cattle to be mined for their ability to be skimmed for a fat, corporate/federal profit, instead of the rightful rulers of our once-great nation.

Possible solution:  Check Citizens United with an amendment that declares corporate anthropomorphization to be verboten.  Ensure it reaffirms the Constitution’s focus on We the People under sovereign States as the rightful owners of our own country.

Failure 3:  Senators and Representatives are too similar.  This arose as a result of the 17th Amendment.  Article I, Section 3, which used to read:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…”  The Amendment now reads:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…”  While I understand this was an attempt to solve problems involving legislative corruption and deadlocks, I do not agree it was the best solution.  For all intents and purposes, what we now have are a House and a Senate that look very similar.  Even dividing Congress into two houses makes little sense when the people elect one Representative from their district and two more to represent the State as a whole.  Why not instead simply elect “general Congressmen,” and scrap the two-house system?

Possible solution:  Repeal the 17th Amendment.  The original issue is that “There was a sense that senatorial elections were ‘bought and sold’, changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate.”  That sounds the same as it is today, so what problem was actually solved?  If none, then that’s strike one against the 17th Amendment.  As far as electoral deadlocks, the solution is simple:  Require states to provide for a tiebreaker, much as we have for the Supreme Court and the Senate.  An example might be, “In case of tie, the Assistant Governor will cast the tie-breaking vote.”  They could also flip a coin, roll die, or spin a wheel.  States could choose whatever method they want, so long as it’s expedient.  To help deter delays in breaking such ties, simply stipulate that if the states fail to provide two Senators, those positions will simply remain unfilled and the State will be underrepresented in Congress, something no State wants to face.  Our Constitution set the precedence for that by requiring percentage votes of “members present” for many things, including very important things, such as treaties and impeachment.

Bart, I thoroughly enjoyed your article and have bookmarked you in the hopes of reading many more to come!

Sincerely…

Here is Bart’s response:

Thank you for the note. You raise some very interesting points.

All the best,
B.

It was my pleasure.  

Second Amendment Definitions: Well Regulated – Militia – Arms – Shall

Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court have continually tripped over the meaning of these four simple words:
well regulated
militia
arms
shall
Their ineptitude astounds me.  The only plausible explanation is that instead of examining what the words actually mean, and supporting and defending them as required by their oaths of office and the trust of the American people, they instead decided to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms and have spent the better part of more than two centuries in a mind-numbing attempt to deprive the American people of their God-given right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of hunting, self-defense, and protection again criminals, despots, and tyrants — basically, any use envisioned by the people themselves, provided such use did not infringe upon the rights of others.
The question remains, what did our Founding Fathers mean by the term “well regulated?”  To answer that, we only need turn to the Oxford English Dictionary and bracket in time the writing of the Second Amendment:
 
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
 
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
 
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
 
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
 
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
 
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
 
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to “the property of something being in proper working order.” Something that was well-regulated was “calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.”
As for the term “militia,” the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Armso revealed the precise meaning intended by our Founding Fathers.  They considered every man, woman, and child able to carry arms as part of the “militia” (p. 16).  Another section from this report specifically distinguishes the difference between the militia and the National Guard:
national guard
What about the term, “arms?”  What was meant by that?  Did they mean to say “firearms” and somehow just screwed up?  Or did they mean the proper definition, “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense” (Merriam-Webster).  If the latter, then a slingshot would be an arm, as would knives, sticks, spears, hand guns, long guns, cannon, and mortar.
Again, the intent of our Bill of Rights wasn’t to limit the right of the people, but to limit the power and authority of the government.  In the case of the First Amendment, it was to absolutely and unequivocally prevent the government from infringing on the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press (two different things), the freedom of religion, and the right of peaceable assembly.  In the case of the Second Amendment, it was to prevent any and all entities, including — but not limited to — all levels of government from local through federal levels.
The phrase, “shall not be infringed” isn’t an option.  It’s an absolute mandate, one without recourse or avenue of redress:
second amendment
This graphic makes it clear that any infringement on our right to keep and bear arms is absolutely forbidden, whether that be a waiting period, a permit fee or a denial.  Our Founding Fathers held the right of the people to keep and bear arms as an absolute right, one in which no entity had any business meddling.

When our Founding Fathers wrote our Second Amendment, they had absolutely zero intention of establishing any sort of government oversight of the people’s arms.  Instead, the intent behind their use of the phrase in the Second Amendment was — precisely — to render the government powerless to have any such authority whatsoever. 

Bottom line:  According to the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment itself is the only gun “permit” required of “the people” (U.S. Citizens), and all other permits, restrictions, fees, and denials of ownership (“keep”) and any type of carry (“bear”) are an infringement against our right to keep and bear arms.

Tell your Congressmen, your President, and the U.S. Supreme Court to…

BACK OFF!

 

And YES, Armed Citizens really DO stop mass shooters!  In fact, for each one of these ten events, there’s probably another ten that flew under the radar.

U.S. Tax Code: BROKEN – Time for the Fair Tax!

High Time for the Fair Tax:  Keep Your Entire Paycheck!

 – Everyone Pays His or Her Fair Share
 – Pay Tax Only on What You Spend
 – The IRS is No Longer Necessary

 

Before we examine what is meant by “Fair Tax,” let’s first take a look at why it’s necessary, as well as how it would greatly benefit our nation:

Acording to National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olsen, “The U.S. Tax System’s most serious problem is the 4-million-word code’s excessive complexity that makes it tough for taxpayers to comply with and difficult for the government to administer.” – Source.

The cost to both individuals and corporations is immense:  $168 Billion in 2010.  Most individuals aren’t equipped to handle it, and many opt out, falling off the grid, or worse, winding up behind bars.  Corporations divert a large chunk of their profits to minimize their tax liability, even to the point of reorganizing themselves around the tax code instead of focusing on productivity.

Our tax code has grown way beyond a leash or muzzle.  It’s become a ball and chain, so much so that most corporations have expanded operations into other countries simply because it’s far cheaper.  Those countries benefit, while Americans lose.

Taxes are are necessary to pay for services common to the community as a whole.  When the burden of taxes becomes too great, however, they are a disservice to the community as a whole.  Then the act of merely calculating the right amount of tax becomes so complicated that it costs a significant portion of a corporation’s or individual net income, the system is broken.  It has become a “parasitic expense,” one that doesn’t contribute anything towards increasing productivity or revenue, or even the welfare of the community as a whole, but instead merely sucks the life blood out of human effort.

Our Constitution mentions the word “tax” six times, four of which are relevant to the Fair Tax concept:

  1. “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…” – Article I, Section 2
  2. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…” – Article I, Section 8
  3. “No Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” – Article I, Section 9
  4. “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” – Article I, Section 9.

If you thoroughly examine each provision in the Constitution against what is happening today, you’ll see that personal income tax is NOT Constitutional, regardless of how the Supreme Court twisted their ruling to make it sound otherwise.

If you examine how much people and corporations are actually taxes (net effective), you see there’s plenty of room for the Fair Tax to replace all other taxes and provide the same measure of income to the federal government.

If you consider the cost of implementing the current tax code, you’ll find that the IRS budget of $11.8 billion alone is a mere drop in the bucket compared to how much money people and businesses spend on handing taxes.  When you realize the entire tax industry is parasitic, that is, it doesn’t actually generate wealth at all, but merely shifts it one segment of society to the other, you’ll realize it isn’t healthy at all.  It boils down to a protection racket.  Pay tax people to keep you out of trouble, when the real issue involves such a grossly over-complicated tax code in the first place.

If you examine the federal budget for other parasitic, non-wealth-building waste, you’ll find at least one third of the federal government’s $3.504 trillion is parasitic in nature.  That is, it does little, and adds nothing to the overall health or wealth of our nation.

If we ever did implement the Fair Tax, a mandatory cap would be required.  That’s necessary, given the Congressional tendency to add “just another half a percent…”  Well, that’s 10% in 20 years, so how about a big fat NO and a max at 10%.  If they can’t make do with 10%, they’re not doing their job.  Fire them and give someone else a chance.

Do You Know Ed Mezvinsky?

He was born January 17, 1937, but you’re probably saying, “Who is Ed Mezvinsky?” and “Why should I care?”

Bear with me for a minute, as the answer has to do with Hillary Clinton’s run for the 2016 elections, and a great deal more.  The “more” part will boggle your mind.

Ed Mezvinsky is a former Democrat congressman who represented Iowa’s 1st congressional district in the United States Ed MezvinskyHouse of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977.  He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon.

He was outspoken saying that Nixon was a crook and a disgrace to politics and the nation and should be impeached.

He and the Clintons were friends and very politically intertwined for many years.

Ed Mezvinsky had an affair with NBC News reporter Marjorie Sue Margolies and later married her after his wife divorced him.

In 1993, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, then a freshman Democrat in Congress, cast the deciding vote that got President Bill Clinton’s controversial tax package through the House of Representatives.

In March 2001, Ed Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.  He had embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a Ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams (yes, he’s “that guy”).  He was found guilty and sentenced to 80 months in federal prison.

After serving less than three-quarters of that time, he was released in April 2008.  He remains on federal probation.  To this day, he still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

About now you are saying, “So what!”

Well, this is Marc and Chelsea Mezvinsky.  Ed Mezvinsky is Chelsea Clinton’s father-in law.  Chelsea married his son.

Marc and Chelsea are in their early thirties and purchased a 10.5Chelsea Clinton million dollar NYC apartment (after being married in George Soros’ mansion).

Has anyone heard any mention of any of this in any of the media?  No?

Gee…  I wonder why…

If this guy was Jenna or Barbara Bush’s, or better yet, Sarah Palin’s daughter’s father-in-law, the news would be an everyday headline and every detail would be reported over and over.  The liberal rags, however, are owned by the same corrupted cabal to which the Clintons, the Mezvinskys, and Soros belongs.

People are already talking about Hillary as our next President, and there is a distinct possibly Chelsea will run in the future.  The Hillary Clintonheadlines are already proclaiming, “How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms.”

Apparently, the cycle of the rich and corrupt never ends.

The Democrat’s ongoing scheme is simple:  Promise anything to the masses in order to keep being reelected, then abuse the power of their office to line their own pockets, the pockets of their friends, and the pockets of people and companies who funded their campaigns — at your expense.

Lying and corruption seem to make Democrat candidates more popular, yet Democrats who are repeatedly suckered into voting for them keep wondering when they’re going to get their slice of the pie.

The answer is, “Never, so long as you keep allowing yourself to be suckered in to voting for Democrats.”  If the Democrats have you on a hook, and want to keep you on that hook, the only only solution is to get off the hook.  Stop voting Democrat.

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abraham Lincoln