Friday, October 26, 2012

12 Days

Kevin Bryant 

12 days from me writing this, the general election will be in full swing. Myself, and I hope each and every person reading this will cast their vote for the next President of the United States. For regular old fashion conservatives like me, the choice is clear as to which candidate to vote for. For those new to the conservative world, thanks is great part by the actions of the current administration, realize we cannot and must not remain on the path we are currently going down, so too the choice is clear.  

What I doubt will happen, but is possible, those grassroots conservatives (Tea Party) who are unhappy with the choice of the GOP candidate, may decide to stay home because not voting for Romney may override their passion to oust Barack Obama. All those I know that are conservative by nature but are unhappy with Romney as a candidate, I have tried my best to persuade them to go and cast their votes. Unfortunately, I fear my daughter and her boyfriend still feel as though it’s not worth their time to vote though they both have felt Obama’s worsening economy hit their household.  

Romney may be in the lead but with 12 days to go anything can happen. We all know Obama doesn’t play by the unofficial conventional rules as all have played by for centuries. In 2007-2008 and even more so in 2012, we have witnessed the most disgusting, mean spirited campaigns waged against Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. Lies after lies have been told by Obama and his campaign and administrative staffs for 5 years now. Almost all those lies have been hailed as truth by many in the mainstream media. Lies that have millions of seniors believing the GOP wants to end their Medicare and Social Security. Lies that have millions of young adults (and those soon to be young adults) believing the federal government is the answer for everything and to move America forward, even more power must be taken away from the states and the population as a while for the betterment of the country and create one central power.  

If this race was taking place not in 2012 but in 1972, Obama would lose this election worse than George McGovern did. If this race was taking place in 1984 instead of today, Obama would lose and likely not even win that one lone state like Michael Dukakis did. McGovern was a good and honorable man when he was alive and Dukakis still is a good and honorable man. They didn’t lose because of who they were; they lost because of their ideas for the future of America. If Obama wins this election, it’s not because of his vision for America. If Obama wins, it’s because there are not enough independent, free thinking Americans left who have not made up their minds to realize America can’t afford 4 more years of Obama.  

Talk to your kids. If you can convince them that Romney is the better choice, Romney will stand a good chance of becoming our 45th President and we won’t have to wait until 2016 see #45. If you can convince your kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews that Romney is a better choice for America, each one of them stand a good chance of convincing another young adult not to vote for Obama, but vote for their own futures. Those disgruntled grassroots conservatives too may be persuaded to vote by you or perhaps your kids and grandkids. Anything is possible. 

12 days until the election. I still don’t feel secure in a Romney victory and neither should any of you.  

Monday, October 15, 2012

Dear Patriots

Dear Patriots:
William G Burmer

RE: Fair Share.
When we hear the often quoted term “Fair Share” by much of the media and our politicians our immediate reaction is that they are referring to the “Have” and Have-nots,” or the Rich vs. Poor. This is a programmed response for us to be sure as it relates to our current political climate.

During World War II the term was attached to the need for rationing. No one, regardless of ability, could just walk into a shop and buy as much sugar, butter, or meat as you wanted, nor could you fill up your car with gasoline whenever you liked. The government introduced rationing because certain things were in short supply during the war, and rationing was the only way to make sure everyone got their “Fair Share,” as it was called at that time.

I looked the term up in the dictionary just for fun and discovered, as you might deduce that like any other term or word, its definition would depend upon what situation or condition it is used. OK. As you are aware the leftist politicians and media alike use the term to divide “We the People” as to how much we all pay in taxes under our current unconstitutional system

Let’s review the constitution Article 1, Section 8, clause 1. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. . .” and in Section 9 clause 4, “No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Be aware that the Congress is governed by delegated constitutionally authority to deal only with foreign nations which happens also to include Indian Tribes as they issue Tariffs , Duties and Excises charged on goods entering the individual States.

These two sections of the Constitution guaranteed the Sovereignty of the American Citizen from having to pay capitation or direct taxes. Taxes upon the Sovereign American Citizen were made indirect and the amount was determined by the Census. All Citizens regardless of personal wealth thus paid their “Fair Share” and nothing more.
Politicians would argue quite convincingly that Clause 4 of Section 9 was obliterated by the 16th Amendment, however, history correctly records that of the 35 states that supposedly ratified the amendment Most all failed to do so in its proper form, or it was not signed by the Governor, or both. History also records that Philander Knox knowingly and fraudulently certified that the 16th amendment was properly ratified February 25th 1913. He effectively terminated on paper the Peoples sovereignty, making them subjects of the very Government they created; turning the constitution figuratively, on its head.

It is also a historical fact that the Supreme Court has ruled in two different cases that the people retained their rights to sovereignty in 1886 by saying “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law. For it is the author and source of the law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.” (The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution.)

In (1895), by a ruling of 5–4, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the un-apportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. As late as 1926 the Supreme Court re-affirmed in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 , the 16th Amendment did not change any part of the Congresses Constitutional powers to tax.

So, my T-Party friends, our next step, after the elections this November, our goal ought to be to reclaim our rights of Sovereignty over our Constitution and remind our Legislators of their duty with regards to Article 1, Section 8 Clause 1, and Section 9, Clause 4 as originally framed. We will also need to repeal the 16th and the 17th Amendments. This will be no easy task without a united effort.

For those who are not aware our original U.S. Constitution gave state governments a strong voice in the national government by requiring them to select U.S. Senators to serve much like ambassadors today in foreign countries. Thus the U.S. Senator was created to be a political look out between state government interests and national government interests. This ability along with the 10th amendment made it possible for the individual States to have a form of veto power over the Federal Government’s ability to impose unjust authority over matters of social policy and taxation. The 17th Amendment in actual effect took away the states power to protect itself, and their Citizens from Federal tyranny. Today I think those differences are self evident such as we have seen in Arizona.

In Conclusion My Fair share means that all Americans have a right to equal opportunity under the Constitution, not equal outcomes; further, and most importantly, Fair Share means all American Citizens would pay the same apportioned tax, lastly you can save or invest your surplus’s in your own future Like Mitt Romney or any other Capitalist.  

Did you notice that Fair Share under the Constitution does not include IRS intercession? Did you also know that the IRS is in fact one of those foreign entities alluded to in Article 1, Section 8? The non citizen on the other hand would be subjects of the IRS (Their Foreign) just thought you ought to know.

I have studied these things for over 20 years; some call us Constitutionalists, government protestors and conspiracy freaks. I can tell you that if this were 1776 we would be on the side of George Washington and the Continental army. On the 17th day of September, 1787 our founders gave us our Constitution, a Republic, and our liberty. Today our duty is to recover what we have lost to apathy on our part, and to corrupt politicians over the past 120 years as they have never let a tragedy go to waste. It is past time for OUR FAIR SHARE under the law.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Debate- Round 2

Debate – Round 2
Kevin Bryant 

With the first presidential debate finally out of the way, it’s now time to look ahead to round 2. 

What did we see from round 1? We saw an incumbent president falter. This is nothing new. Throughout the history of televised debates, the incumbent has historically lost the first debate to his challenger. Carter’s defeat of Reagan in 1980 is the only time an incumbent clearly defeated his challenger in their first debate. So, Romney winning the first round is not uncommon, it’s actually to be expected. 
You would think in Round 2 of the debates, with Romney soundly defeating Obama, the same is to be expected. This could not be farther from the truth. Obama has everything working for him in the next debate. Romney has a huge uphill climb to make in order to knock out Obama and make the last debate virtually meaningless. Here’s why: 

Obama did such a poor job in Round 1, even if he only does a little better in the second debate, it will appear to his support he improved by leaps and bounds from his first showing.  

The media is already in the tank for Obama. Any improvement in the second debate by Obama will give the media something positive to write about and at the very least it will give them a way to portray the debate a draw. 

If the debate is a draw in reality, just the idea of Obama making such a drastic recovery will have everyone but the most honest of reporters and columnist hailing his performance as a sound and decisive victory. Those 45% of the voting population who are uninformed and get their news and talking points strictly from mainstream media will eat up the media’s hyping and re-energize themselves. 
The next format is a Townhall setting. This is where Obama is at his best. In 2008 in the same type setting, Obama wiped the floor with John McCain. Not being tied to a podium is a real positive for Obama. Obama is a much better creative thinker when he is allowed to move around. His abilities as a showman and entertainer can and will be part of his debate strategy.   

In order to have a chance at sweeping all three debates, this is the one Romney has to shine in the most. Not only does Romney have to do as well as he did in the round 1, he has to be better. 

I personally think part of the Obama strategy was to lose the first debate but not nearly as bad as he did. Obama and his camp knew Romney was a good debater when he is allowed to stay on message, so why didn’t they try to trip him up? They know they have the video of Romney saying (paraphrasing here) the 47% of people who don’t pay taxes don’t matter in this race. Why didn’t they use it? Obama has been hammering Paul Ryan in his stump speeches but barely mentioned him during round 1. Why didn’t he speak of Ryan more? I believe Obama’s team decided to hold these points and others until he would be in his best setting, i.e. the second debate so he would be more comfortable. By not bringing these points up until the second debate, this gives him the opportunity to use his showman and entertainer abilities to their fullest to give viewers the appearance he is “that guy” the media portrays him to be, a tough and confident highly qualified president.  

If Romney isn’t ready for a tougher, more aggressive opponent who is going to throw everything he has into THIS debate, the media will not only declare Obama the winner of round 2, they will declare him the winner and start portraying the Romney campaign dead regardless of results of round 3.