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.

Washington State’s I-594 is A Universal Handgun Registration Scheme

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” – Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Any law which violates the Constitution is NOT law. It’s a blight against our governmental system, a violation of our Constitutional I-594rights and freedoms. No U.S. citizen or law enforcement officer at any level is under any obligation to either follow or enforce an un-Constitutional law. In fact, is it our duty to ignore it, if not stand firm against it and toss the Constitution-violating legislators out of office.

State and Federal legislators take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution in order to PREVENT this from ever I-594happening. They are NOT authorized to “do it anyway” and let the courts legislate from the bench. That’s a heinous dereliction of their duty, and no matter what other good they may have done or might be doing, it’s completely undermined by their bad.

Allowing them to remain in office is like allowing a horribly abusive spouse to remain in the home because “he/she only beats me to a pulp every once in a while.” GET RID OF THEM!

Washing State’s I-594 bill regulate transfers, not just sales, of all firearms in the Evergreen State. It’s a universal handgun registration scheme, an INFRINGEMENT on the right to keep and bear arms. Those legislators who voted for it are VIOLATORS of our Constitution. Get rid of them!

Law enforcement officers not only swore to protect the Constitution, but put their lives on the line every day.  They oppose I-594.  They’re smart enough to know how dramatically this violates the rights of the people.  They’re also experienced enough to know that it will do NOTHING to keep the criminals in check.

So who did this to the people of the State of Washington?  The people themselves.  They’re the ones who elected the Constitution-violating traitors into office.  They’re the ones who refuse to vote them out.  They’re the ones who, 7 out of 10 support universal background checks.

They’re the blithering idiots who allowed this to happen.

UN Arms Trade Treaty

A lot of fear-mongers are claiming the UN Arms Trade Treaty “takes effect” today (Christmas Eve).  In fact, this “treaty” has UN Arms Trade Treatyabsolutely zero effect on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here’s why:

1.  Our Constitution mandates treaties adhere to a simple yet rigorous legislative and governmental process.  No matter who in our government signs a treaty, if the treaty didn’t go through the appropriate review and approval process, it is NOT binding in any way shape, fashion, or form.

2.  Our nation remains sovereign.  No treaty may usurp any portion of our Constitution without a Constitutional amendment to that effect.  Thus, even if a treaty were to go through the appropriate review and approval process, if that treaty violates the Constitution, the treaty remains null and void.

Finding evidence which supports these claims is both simple and straightforward.  In fact, we need look no further than the Constitution itself.

The Treaty Review and Ratification Process

Article. II. Section 2. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which the President can make a treaty:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

Did the President seek and obtain both the advice and the consent of the Senate?  Did two-thirds of the Senate concur?  Both of UN Arms Trade Treatythese requirements must be present before the President or his designee can legally sign a treaty.  On the day John Kerry signed this treaty, the Senate had been consulted, and their advice was a big fat “NO,” with a majority voting in opposition to the treaty.  Thus, neither Kerry nor Obama had obtained the consent of the Senate.  Furthermore, not only did two-thirds of the Senators present not concur, the majority of the Senators vehemently opposed the treaty.

In addition, there is serious doubt among Constitutional scholars that the President can appoint anyone to sign a treaty on his UN Arms Trade Treatybehalf without express, written authorization to do so.  General Douglas MacArthur had such authorization.  On September 2, 1945, MacArthur accepted the formal Japanese surrender aboard the battleship USS Missouri, thus ending hostilities in World War II.  John Kerry most certainly did not have any such authorization.

Regardless, neither Obama nor Kerry had either the consent or the a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate.  Therefore, Kerry’s signature on the treaty is invalid, null and void, and without any lawful authority or substance.

The Amendment Proposal and Ratification Process

Article. V. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which Amendments are proposed and ratified:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Put simply, this clause requires the following for all Amendments to the Constitution:

1.  Two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress (or two-thirds of the state legislatures)

2.  Ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures (or three-quarters of a Constitutional Convention).

3.  All Amendments are valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution.

Thus, even if Obama and Kerry had the advice and consent, along with a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate, the treaty would still be invalid simply because it violates our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  As the Second Amendment clearly states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The UN Arms Trade Treaty infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  It is therefore Constitutionally null and void.

The key thing to remember here is to never allow anyone to tell you otherwise.  When the entire populace of the United States of America knows its Constitution and the rights and freedoms respected and protected therein, no amount of government chicanery can take that away from them.

Know your rights!  Stand up for them, not merely often, but always!

It’s called FREEDOM, people, and it is very, very good.

Net Neutrality: Obama vs Ted Cruz

I was originally opposed to Ted Cruz on this point, as it appeared he was railing against Net Neutrality.

NOT TRUE.

Ted CruzHe’s railing against Obama’s very warped version of it. Put simply, Obama’s version of Net Neutrality isn’t Net Neutrality AT ALL.

Here’s what Net Neutrality has looked for the last 30 years, since the mid-1980s, back when the Internet was known as Darpanet:

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) charged one price for each bandwidth tier. For example, $30 for 3 Mbps; $65 for 25 Mbps, etc.

The put reasonable caps on total bandwidth per month, which was ok, such caps prevent abuses and keep the prices lower for the rest of us.

Prices are set by the market, and free market competition keeps prices reasonable. When prices become outrageous, it opens the doors to more competition, which usually appears as either more bandwidth for the same price, or the same bandwidth at lower prices, while maintaining the same quality at lower prices.

Obama’s version of Net Neutrality, however, is to “reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the DoJTelecommunications Act,” and he would have to power to back up his restrictions with the long arm of the Department of Justice.

Title II outlines the granting and licensing of broadcast spectrum by the government, including a provision to issue licenses to current television stations to commence digital television broadcasting, the use of the revenues generated by such licensing, the terms of broadcast licenses, the process of renewing broadcast licenses, direct broadcast satellite services, automated ship distress and safety systems, and restrictions on over-the-air reception devices.

Obama wants strict controls and regulations on content providers, Obamabut he’s not limiting his aspirations to traditional Internet sources.  He wants to control mobile devices, too, and he wants to control all aspects of what you can see and hear on your mobile device, as well as what you can send.

Under Obama’s plan, each and every individual in the United States of America, if not the world, would be regulated as a “broadcaster.”  The business ramifications of this would be extreme:

As noted by J.D. Tuccille (2014), “In a 2001 examination of decades of antitrust policy for the Cato Journal, George Bittlingmayer, now at the University of Kansas, wrote that “It turns out that whatever the ability of antitrust to lower prices and increase output in theory or in isolated circumstances, one actual effect of antitrust in practice may have been to curtail investment.” In particular, he attributed low investment in the late 1950s and early 1960s to “aggressive antitrust and related initiatives””

Much of the incredible innovation that has occurred over the last twenty years would grind to a halt.  Many of the current services you enjoy may very well become illegal if Obama gets his way, and because they would fall under the strong arm of the FCC, if ISPs refused to comply with the new rules, they would simply be shut down.

As Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier noted, “This changes a relentlessly innovative and growing part of our economy into one that must wait for permission for any new ideas.”  Most companies cannot afford to sit idly by, waiting on approval from the federal government.  That’s largely what killed the U.S.S.R.  Companies would bail left and right for greener pastures.  Put simply, the Internet would start looking like a redneck road sign at the end of a lean hunting season.

The deleterious impact on innovation, however, isn’t the half of it.  Since every producer of content, including those who blog or video blog would now be regulated by the FCC, they would be as subject to abuse by the FCC as conservative groups have been abused by the IRS in recent years.  Although Obama specifically stated some limits in his proposal, five years of history have clearly and rather incessantly reminded us of the miniscule value of Obama’s promises.

Before implementing yet another Obama”care” fiasco, take a look around you.  Sure, ISP prices are higher than we want.  Their revenue models have reached the end of their useful lives, and they’re beginning to make some changes.  However, alternative sources of programming blitzed pass them like a kid chasing down an ice cream truck on a hot August afternoon.  Both Google and fiberAT&T are laying the infrastructure for the future in the form of fiber.  We are not in trouble here, folks.  For around $25 a month, I enjoy programming from the top three on-demand sources:  Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon.  That’s far more content that would ever have time to watch.  My Ooma IP phone allows me to make unlimited local and long-distance calls for $3.85 a month.  E-mail services are robust and free, as are some blogs and website hosting services.

It doesn’t GET any better than this, folks.  We are enjoying the benefits of unbridled innovation in the form of reasonable prices and a massive selection of content and services.

Obama wants to change all that.  Whatever you do, don’t let him!

net neutrality

References

Tuccille, J. D. (2014).  Obama’s scheme to regulate the U.S. into ‘net neutrality’ nirvana could kill broadband.  Reason.com.  Retrieved from http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/13/obamas-scheme-to-regulate-us-into-broadb

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

How I Voted in the 2014 Elections

“…a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” – Martin Luther King

The 2014 elections are by far the most important elections to date of this century.  Despite governmental reassurances to the contrary, America is tottering over the brink of economic collapse.  Vote wrong, and we most certainly will lose.  Vote right, and we might be able to haul her back from the edge.

As a registered Independent, I spent all afternoon Sunday reviewing not only the positions, but also the voting records of allMartin Luther King, Jr. 21 positions (42 candidates — half Republican, half Democrat) on my ballot. Given my “preaching” here on Facebook, I wanted to be absolutely certain I was electing the best candidate for each position, and not just “voting party line.”

I based my decisions mostly on their voting records. The criteria was simple: Had they supported and defended the Constitution,
voting records“the supreme Law of the Land,” as per their oaths of office? Or were they perverting our government by actions which undermined our Constitution and the rights and freedoms it recognizes and protects?

It was close in only 5 of the 21 open positions. The other 16 positions were slam-dunks.

In ALL cases, however, the records of the Republican candidates made it clear they stood for our rights and freedoms, while the records of the Democrat candidates made it clear they stood for bigger government at the EXPENSE of our rights and freedoms.

Sunday’s exercise was yet another of countless confirmations that the Democrat Party itself is no longer American, that it has been usurped by a mix of communists, fascists, socialists, muslims, opportunists and just plain idiots, to be used solely for the purpose of pulling the wool over the eyes of mostly lower to middle-class voters in order to remain in power, raise taxes, and siphon off a great deal of our hard-earned tax dollars into their own pockets and those of their friends.

To be fair, some Republicans are doing this, too, but I continually find they’re doing so to a far lesser extent.

Bottom line: I remain an Independent voter, yet cast all my votes towards the Republicans. My decisions were not based on the color of their party, but on the content of their character.

I’ll leave you with one last observation.  Five years of digging into what goes on behind the curtains in both parties have lead me to conclude what the Democrats say about the Republicans are largely lies, often made up on the spot, and that the elements in the following graphic are largely true:

Truth

 

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, not a Democrat, and for many very good reasons which are even more sound today than they were back then.

No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion

Islam takes yet ANOTHER stab at stealing the souls of our children:

“As the department’s first Muslim captain, he said, he feels he can inspire young Muslims to join the force and serve as an
ambassador for a faith that is often viewed negatively.”

Islam

This sounds so nice, doesn’t it? Until you realize Muslims are getting away with proselytizing our youth, when Christians
can no longer pray, witness, or otherwise share their face in the public schools.

So, this will be allowed for no other reason than the fact that its Islam?

Who else sees the heinous preferential treatment being given to Islam? “Congress shall make law respecting an establishment
of religion…” Translating the vernacular of that day into ours, this Bill of Rightsmeans, “Congress shall make no law giving preferential treatment of one religion over another.” The term “respecting” in that day meant “holding in high esteem.” An establishment of religion could have Quakerism, Methodist, etc. If Congress passed any law holding one denomination in high esteem, without doing the same to others, they would have been giving them preferential treatment.

Meanwhile, SCOTUS long ago held that the term “Congress” should be expanded in scope to include “any Office or public Trust
under the United States,” as given in Article VI’s “no religious test” for public office.”

Taken together, they mean one thing: You cannot either select or Constitutiondisqualify a person for “any Office or public Trust under the United States” on the basis of their religious beliefs, but NEITHER can they or their office be “respecting an establishment of religion.”

Neither the Boston Police Chief nor anyone in “any Office or public Trust under the United States” can legally “be an
ambassador for Islam” or any other religion or creed.

That is not merely “the law,” it is “the supreme Law of the Land.”

Violating it means he would be violating his oath of
office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” It means the
Boston Police Chief would be making himself a domestic enemy of the United States of America.

Boston police Captain Haseeb Hosein is violating the law. He is thumbing his nose at the Constitution while attempting to
indoctrinate (brainwash) our Children about Islam.DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!

DO, however, recall that headlines in countries where Islam has exceeded certain levels usually read like this:

 

Muslims killing Muslims: Syrian Shia child who watchedIslam parents killed has her heart cut out

Woman stoned for refusing to have sex with her husbandIslam

Teenagers hung for being gay

Public school teachers Islamconduct field trip to Mosque where they force students to learn Muslim prayers while kneeling and bowing their heads to Allah

Women and children slaughtered “just because”Islam

Christians slaughtered for refusing to pay jizya

This greatest question is this: If Boston police Captain Haseeb Hosein is willing to toss the Constitution out the window

on something as important as our First Amendment, what will he do when it comes to our Second Amendment? How about the
Fourth Amendment? Any others? The Constitution itself?
“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also
be dishonest with much.” – Jesus, in Luke 16:10.

IslamBoston police Captain Haseeb Hosein has NOT been honest, in either very little or much. He can NOT be trusted in either.

The question is, what Muslim can? The entire written foundation of their faith, the Qu’ran and the Hadith, dictate they MUST override all other religions and promote Islam above all others. Islam is NOT compatible with the very essence of the United States of America.

Islam is an ABOMINATION in the eyes of the one and only true God, and his name is NOT “allah.”