Of course the Administration is prejudiced!

Of course the Administration is prejudiced!
Al Ritter

Last week we saw Eric Holder being questioned about Arizona Law sb1070, and he admitted he hadn’t read it, but that didn’t stop him from forming an opinion and commenting on it. With that being said, wouldn’t you think that any other member of the cabinet would take the time to read the bill before being caught with their collective pants down again?

Yesterday DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was commenting on the bill to Sen. John McCain, when she admitted that SHE hadn’t read the bill either, but like Attorney General Eric Holder, she too had a formulated an opinion without knowing the facts.

This exhibits a very troubling history for the Administration in Washington, they are prejudiced plain and simple. If we look at the word prejudice we see that it is a “premature judgment based on bias.” The history of the last 18 months of this Administration has been one of prejudice.

President Obama commented on the Professor Gates issue with clear and intentional prejudice. Obama has clearly misrepresented the Arizona Law in his personal comments, and now he is being followed by two of his employees making equally offensive and prejudicial statements.

If Napolitano and Holder are having problems finding the actual wording of Arizona’s law SB 1070 here it is guys, read it, and try to understand it. Arizona Law SB 1070

THE REASON FOR OUR NATIONS GROWTH and PROSPERITY

THE REASON FOR OUR NATIONS GROWTH and PROSPERITY.
William G. Burmer

The Constitution opened the doors to the emigration of a number of inventors, and scientists to develop and sell their ideas. They were able to receive personal patents, and to capitalize from their discoveries. For centuries European growth languished because any inventions or discoveries made, if exposed for use, became the property of the state. Little or no incentive was given to the provider of an invention or discovery to reveal their secrets. The new Union became a refuge for their talents.


“Congress shall have power to promote the Progress of Science and useful arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” (Article 1 Section 8, U.S. Constitution.)


This new industrial boon in the United States created immediate wealth for some individuals. However, divisions between those who provided the jobs, and those who provided the labor arose; small business successes lived and died at the whim of larger monopolies. There also arose divisions between the individual states over apportionment.


Apportionment meant that some states were required to pay higher excise taxes than another. The economic status previously enjoyed by the farmer declined in favor of urban industries. Railroads for instance were unrestricted on how they administered fees for service. Numerous social and economic ills developed not anticipated by leaders in government. In addition the nation’s money supply had not kept up with the population growth; and as a result was worth less. The nation was now experiencing growing pains, and was struggling to meet new and unanticipated demands upon government for solutions to these ills.


Beginning with Benjamin Harrison’s election in 1888: “The administration attempted to solve pressing economic problems by passing four important laws in 1890. The Sherman Antitrust Act, outlawing trusts and monopolies that hindered trade, met the demands of farmers and small businessmen who sought protection from corporations that controlled market prices and destroyed competition. The Sherman Silver Purchase act, increasing the amount of silver that could be coined, reassured farmers who believed that the free coinage of silver would avert bankruptcy and foreclosures, which were threatening because of failing farm prices. The McKinley Tariff Act, setting tariffs at record highs, was designed mainly, to protect American manufactures during a period of rapid industrialization. The Dependent Pension Act, which benefited all Civil War veterans who could not perform manual labor, was passed despite the fact that the resulting cost of pensions would rise from $88 million in 1889 to $159 million in 1893.”2.


The issue of silver coinage to boost the falling gold price during the 70’s and 80’s became moot with the discovery of gold in the Klondike in 1896 and in South Africa ten years previous. This new discovery eventually enlarged the national money supply. Silver thereafter remained a useful means of boosting the money supply in the United States. It has always been used as a medium of monitory exchange in Europe, most notably in Spain.


In the interim, Congress enacted legislation introducing a flat tax of 2% on all annual incomes over $4,000.00. This was the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act, or the income tax act of 1894. Challenged in the Supreme Court under Pollock vs. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co. 157 U.S. 429 and at 158 U.S. 601 (1895), this decision defined the issue of a direct tax.


Pollock filed a stockholders suit against the Trust Company to prevent it from complying with the Statute, which imposed a direct tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. Mr. Chief Justice (Melville Weston Fuller 1833-1910) delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court:


“Our conclusions may, therefore, be summed up as follows: First: We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes. Second: We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes. Third: The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, Constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.” 3.


One needs to study carefully the entire text of Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., however, in brief; the Court held that the Congressional power to levy a direct tax was only to be used in cases of necessity such as in the Civil War, where greater sums of money were needed to support the troops. In addition, direct taxes were to be collected according to apportionment (Census). If a particular states population represented 2% of the total population, then the State would collect 2% from the taxpayers to be paid to the National treasury.


Another element, which controlled the Direct Tax, was that of Representation. The taxpayer requires their representative to qualify any continued need for the tax or risk a voter’s judgment, as to their devotion to duty, at the ballot box. Here again the people controlled the purse strings in the Congress. (Taxation with representation). The people determined the need to continue any direct tax.


“In his dissenting opinion Justice Harlin . . . complained that parts of the statute which were not unconstitutional, may be reenacted by Congress.


“The decision, said Brown . . . made the tax burden fall most heavily and oppressively upon those having the least ability to pay. “With the defeat of the 1894 Tax Act, (--the Pollock case—has never been challenged)


Congress raised almost all of its revenues from excise taxes and tariffs, whose burden fell mainly on the consumers. The Democratic Party, in the mean time, recommended an amendment to the Constitution vesting Congress with the power denied by the Supreme Court. For another 18 years while Congress, the legislators, educators, and bankers argued the merits of amending the Constitution, Americas misdistribution of wealth intensified while the great fortunes went un-taxed.” (Ital. Added)


President Theodore Roosevelt suggested that a “Graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the supreme court will declare Constitutional.” 4


President Taft on June 16, 1909 said: “Although I have not considered a constitutional amendment as necessary to the exercise of certain phases of this power (the direct tax), a mature consideration has satisfied me that an amendment is the only proper course for its establishment to its full extent . . . I have become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of . . . an income tax.” Spoken like a true politician. Ital. Added


Mr. McCall, of Massachusetts, in the Congressional record, Vol. 44, Part IV, p 4391 stated: “I imagine that nothing which I may be able to say will defeat the prearranged program . . . for the House to . . . pass a joint resolution without first considering it by committee, strikes me as a proceeding of extra ordinary levity.” Here again if the bill had gone to committee our representative would have been made aware and so might the taxpayer. “The object of the pending Constitutional Amendment is to simply remove this discrimination (direct tax) and to make it possible to tax incomes without apportionment.” Ital. Added


Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, No35, said, “It is dangerous to use only one kind of taxation. If great revenues are needed in time of war or a national emergency, the tax rates for this single tax will become excessive. This will foster evasion and hurt commerce.” (Our income tax has certainly done that, that is,” foster evasion”)


Hamilton’s thinking is as sound today as it was then. When great revenues are needed Congress should have many sources, thereby spreading the burden over all wealth, not just income . . . Make our federal tax system indirect as much as possible. An indirect tax is one that is not assessed against the individual. See original intent as engrossed in the constitution, Article 1, Section 9, and Paragraph 4. Montesquieu, a French philosopher whose political ideas influenced the writers of our Constitution said: “Direct taxes are the badge of slavery, and indirect taxes the badge of liberty” 5.


“. . . A government may make all kinds of laws and regulations for the good of a society, but when it came to tax, tax laws had to have the consent of the taxpayer; other laws did not. Lord William Pitt, who tried hard to prevent the Revolution in the colonies, explained the concept with these words: “taxation is no part of the governing or legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone. 6.


“He was supported by a large number of leading British statesmen, one none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Camden, who served from 1766 to 1770 and who helped in the repeal of the Stamp Act; Said Camden: “My position is this---I repeat it---I will maintain it to my last hour, ---taxation and representation are inseparable---this position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it is itself and eternal law of nature, for whatever is a man’s own, is absolutely his own; no man hath a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or representative; whoever attempts to do it attempts an injury; whoever does it commits a robbery; he throws down and destroys the distinction between liberty and slavery. Taxation and representation are coeval (coexistent) with and essential to this constitution.’ Ital. Added


“. . . A hundred years later the concept was still alive, and had been very much alive in the nineteenth century. Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional law scholar of the age, explained the meaning of arbitrary taxation: “Taxes are distinguished from arbitrary levies in that they are laid according to some rule which apportions the burden between the subjects thereof. An exaction, which is made without regard to any rule of apportionment, is therefore not a tax. “If it is not a tax, what is it? Justice Cooley, like so many in the nineteenth century, was probably a disciple of Adam Smith, or at least a scholar who respected the founder of modern economics. Smith had said when you abandon the principle of apportionment; you enter the realm of extortion.” 7.


2. Encyclopedia Americana, The. Vol. 13 p 819-20.

3. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. p 1423

4. The income Tax pp. 471-2 York. Oxford University Press.

Seligman, Edwin R. A. The Income Tax. A Study of the History, Theory, and Practice of.

5. Ibid. p 468.

6. Ibid. p 282-3

7. The Income Tax pp. 464-465


Next: THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE A Short story.



“WE THE PEOPLE” and the American Constitution

By: William Grant Burmer ISBN 978-1-4363-2186-0

Available at Barnes and Noble and other fine book stores

Post- Colonial Taxation 1789 to 1895

Post- Colonial Taxation 1789 to 1895
William G Burmer


Taxation being at the very heart of our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, gave leaders in our emerging government pause; for they were keenly aware of the damage they could do to their re-election plans by foolhardy taxation.


We The People should not hesitate to remind our elected servants from time to time that the government is not a producer of income or of wealth, but is the beneficiary of the labor of the people. Hence the people necessarily must control the Legislatures taxing policies in a Republic.


It only follows that the legislature should be limited in its power to tax or have any control over property, including the individual lives and liberty of our society. Article I sec 8 of the Constitution provides that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, . . . To borrow Money on the Credit of the United Sates; . . . To Coin Money, Regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . . To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; . . .” Take special note that our currency was by design; tangible-- precious metals, Gold and Silver. Gold, for instance, is the most stable investment one can make. Its value has never changed.


As the colonies struggled under the Articles of Confederation to provide revenues for the revolution the sums of taxes were not enough. After the revolution, and under the new Constitution, individual States provided to the Federal Government funds by taxing property, excises, and tariffs. The burden became too much for some states to bear. The states thus burdened with taxing the Citizen inevitably ran the risk that its Citizens may rebel; and rebel they did.


Farmers were the chief instigators of rebellion; which would appear logical since they owned most of the property, which was taxed. Again, as when the colonies began to organize, Committees of correspondence began to appear among the several states and rebellion over taxes ensued. Beginning in Massachusetts, Courthouses were occupied by insurgents demanding redress of grievances, questioning the taxing authority of the Constitutional Government.


Between August of 1786 and February of 1787 Daniel Shays led a group of approximately 3,000 farmers and forcibly closed the courts of five counties in Massachusetts. Many farmers were losing their land over high taxes and foreclosures brought on by declining farm prices. The federal legislature had previously repealed the legal-tender status of paper money. Banks were requiring the farmers to pay their debt with hard to obtain specie (Gold and Silver). Some farmers were put in to debtors prison because of none payment.


A superior force of federal soldiers defeated Daniel Shay’s men when they tried to seize an arsenal in Springfield in January of 1787. They were again defeated at Petersham in February of the same year. The federal legislature met in Philadelphia later that month (February) and reduced court costs, paid interest on securities from excesses, and reaffirmed their commitment to the use of Gold and Silver coin as legal tender. In the spring John Hancock was elected Governor of Massachusetts.

With the help of the state legislature the governor reduced the poll and estate taxes, and ended jailing of debtors. The new Governor ultimately pardoned Daniel Shays and other leaders of the rebellion. Their cause had stirred up unrest in neighboring states creating a demand for a stronger national government. In the end, the American farmer insisted that taxes should be low. 1


During the Civil War, President Lincoln, in an effort to raise funds, enacted what was to be known as the Civil War Income Tax Law. The “Bureau of Internal Revenue” was born as a collector of the taxes. The Court ruled it Constitutional saying that “Direct Taxes as expressed in the Constitution, are only Capitation Taxes that taxes on real estate are excise or duty.” 2.


In 1863 Lincoln created the National Bank Act, which gave the country our first National Currency called “Green Backs”. There followed a long train of excise taxes on liquor and tobacco, manufacturer’s, professional men (doctors, lawyers, insurance companies) railroads and banks. Congress also enacted and income tax on inheritances. They relied on tariff duties and excise taxes for most of their revenue. This tax remained in effect until 1872 when the statutes regarding the war taxes were revised.


New sources of taxes were becoming available because of the rapid industrialization of our nation. Friction between the rich planters of the South and the rich industrialists of the North highlighted the struggles within the new nation for seventy-five years. Finally, in 1861, after Lincoln’s election, the southerners walked out of Congress and formed the Confederate States of America with a new constitution to check the power of their new government to tax.


Secession by the South was a reaction against Lincoln’s high-tax policy. In 1861 slavery was (at least in the administrations mind) not a critical issue. Lincoln and the Congress gave unequivocal assurance that slavery in the South would be respected; yet the South would not budge from its secessionist plans.


The Leaders of the South believed secession would attract world trade to Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, replacing Boston, New York, and Philadelphia as the chief trading ports of America, primarily because of low taxes. This was the pot of gold behind secessionist dreams. In addition the south stressed the importance of States Rights by opposing emancipation of slaves.


Economics in the south was dependent upon slavery; many in the south were not going to take any chances with this commodity. Slavery was a matter of ownership; slaves were property, and a way of preserving their economy and way of life.


1 The American Heritage Encyclopedia of American History, Ed. By John M. Faragher, Henry Holt and Co. Inc. pp. 45-46.

2. See Unbridled Power inside the Secret culture of the IRS. By, Shelley L. Davis c1998. Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. New York, NY


Next: THE REASON FOR OUR NATIONS GROWTH and PROSPERITY.




“WE THE PEOPLE” and the American Constitution

By: William Grant Burmer ISBN 978-1-4363-2186-0

Available at Barnes and Noble and other fine book stores

Only in America do pennies cost more to make than they are worth!

Only in America do pennies cost more to make than they are worth!
Al Ritter

According to The United States Mint’s 2009 Annual Report , the coins we use as currency are costing us more to make than they are worth! Because of the rise in cost of various metals pennies now cost us 1.6 cents apiece to make, and a reported 9 cents to mint a nickel.

All these additional costs pile up, in 2009 it cost us $32.2 million to mint 3.2 billion pennies, losing $19.8 million in the process. They minted 207 million nickels at a loss of $2.2 million dollars. Because of the physical size of dimes the mint made $15 million on them. Quarters were similar, raking in $132 million, and a huge profit of $318.7 million on dollar coins.

The commemorative coin sets serve to offset some of the current losses on circulated coins, but a break even point could be turned into a profit if the alloys are more closely monitored in the future. The most likely alloy to be used would probably be aluminum.

While the markets in metals rise and fall, the recipe or alloys can be changed, but require an Act of Congress to do so. There is some behind the scenes scrambling by the Obama Administration to have those alloys changed as we speak.

The War of 1812

The War of 1812
William G. Burmer

It is a temptation for me to elaborate upon the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812; however, I will avoid the urge and attempt to highlight their consequences instead. President Washington’s declaration of neutrality (specifically, Washington’s attitude towards relations of any kind with Europe were that of an Isolationist) with regards to involving itself with wars in Europe failed under President Jefferson and finally President Madison.


Our Congress and our nation’s first depression would, eventually, demand some actions against France and England for unprovoked aggressions. Between 1800 and 1815 European conflicts under France and its Monarch, Napoleon Bonaparte, spread across all of Europe. When England was threatened, they naturally defended themselves and became enemies of France.


Commercial intercourse between the United States, France and England were strained. Diplomatic resolutions failed. Neither England nor France believed that the U.S. should be doing business with their enemy. American ships were seized and sold by both countries; far greater abuses were had by Britain, where American sailors were coerced into British naval service for faced death when their vessels were captured at sea. These abuses coupled with the desire for war by certain members of the Congress forced America into conflict in 1812.


Wars, treaties, lawyers, Monarchs around the world, and bankers; those who could be bribed or paid off, all have had a hand at the destruction of our Republic. Was there a conspiracy to destroy Americas Republic? I am certain there was, as a historian I can see that all the events that have made “history,” especially wars, have been used for nefarious, and selfish ends by our politicians at home, as well as by foreign Monarchs in other countries. For those of us who grew up, witnessed, and participated in the events of the Vietnam era is an example of such tyranny sanctioned by our leaders in government. As Solders we wanted to win that conflict but the politicians drug the war on for 10 years, many became wealthy while 50,000 young men and women died in a protracted conflict a police action. Congress never declared war in East Asia!


When George Washington left office in 1796 he was weary, bound by events over which he had only limited control. Washington’s service to our country was, however, magnanimous in proportions. His example as a leader in war, as our first President, and as Chief Administrator over the federal government is incomparable in history. Above all, his integrity should be remembered. Few may leave this earth with their integrity intact President Washington would be one.


While the war was supposed to be confined within the borders of Canada, unexpected consequences brought the war into the very heart of American soil. In 1814 a large squadron of British ships entered Chesapeake Bay, landed their troops and marched through Maryland into Washington DC. The Capital was burned along with the White House before the British finally withdrew. Many important historical documents were consequentially destroyed. Coincidence?

In the end neither side could claim a victory. By December 1814 a treaty was finally signed in Ghent Belgium. This Treaty ended the war and restored the boundaries previously had between the U.S. and Canada. It had lasting effects on the United States, inspiring a spirit of nationalism among the people, and for a short time a return to isolation from Europe. By 1817 relations with Britain improved through diplomatic venues, and by other treaties, which disallowed war ships in the Great Lakes. Thus Canada, the U.S., and Britain were able to restore commerce and co-exist peacefully.


The United States increased its efforts to industrialize and move westward. These efforts shortly led to the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, and a dim never the less, generally accepted respect for American sovereignty by all of Europe. The American Citizen should have learned from this experience that they ought to be about the business of seeing to it that they elect the best people possible to represent them; those who will preserve and protect their liberties, regardless of party affiliations, and or, political preferences. These notions may sound idealistic; however they of necessity need to be enforced if our Liberties are to be protected. We need to be especially alert during war, and during times of tragedy, when fear and emotions may cloud our reasoning. Politicians are most likely to work there tricks during these times, involving us in controversy with other nations, and invading our liberties with bogus legislation. George Washington once declared “The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will, be recalled.” And at his inauguration “The Constitution of the United States, and the laws made under it, must mark the line of my official Conduct.”


TELL THAT TO OBAMA.



Next: Our Republic



“WE THE PEOPLE”

And The American Constitution

WILLIAM G. BURMER

Available at www.xlibris.com

Republicans: Enough money and enthusiasm to go around in Maryland?

Republicans: Enough money and enthusiasm to go around in Maryland?
Al Ritter

Last weekend, the Republicans of Maryland had their spring get together in Ocean City, Maryland. The meeting didn’t have the same air of a conservative wave to take back America. Instead of an aim to replace a few democratic seats in the house and senate with Republicans, it took on more of a feeling of an Ehrlich pep rally.

Granted the seat of Governor is the most powerful seat in Maryland, but unless the Governor can garner the support of the legislature, his position becomes merely an exercise in futility. Unless Bob Ehrlich approves of a candidate for the legislature, that campaign is doomed to fail.

The spring meet for Republicans in Ocean City turned out to be a meeting for supporters of Ehrlich. The primary has yet to be decided and yet Mr. Ehrlich’s challenger was treated as an outsider. Ehrlich spoke at the meeting, and yet his challenger Brian Murphy, was not even handed the microphone the entire weekend.

Why is the Maryland Republican Party afraid to address this issue? Could it be that they would rather keep it a run between a moderate Republican vs. a far left Democrat? Is it not ironic that the only Republican candidate who has actually filed was the candidate who wasn’t allowed to speak at the state party function?

With a national message being sent to run more conservative candidates, why does Maryland ignore those very rumblings? Why would they ignore up and coming strong conservative candidates, to merely invest enthusiasm in one man, Bob Ehrlich, when his leanings are not 100% conservative?

What does the Republican Party, or for that matter, the republican voters in Maryland actually know about Brian Murphy? Why wasn’t he given a chance to stump for office in the spring meeting? Are all the Republican donations going to the governor’s race alone?

Is this the very same cronyism that plagues the Democrats, or a brand new “old boy’s club” started by Ehrlich?

Arizona Kool-Aid

Arizona Kool-Aid
Kevin Bryant

I wasn’t going to get into the Arizona Immigration Law debate. I seriously thought that people had enough common sense to know that if the Federal Government wasn’t going to do a job that they are responsible for, then the state has the not only the right to do it for them but the responsibility to their citizens to see that the job is carried out in the manner that it is supposed to be.

Kris Kobach, a lawyer in the Kansas City Metro and a candidate for Kansas’s Sec. of State is a frequent guest on Chris Stigall’s morning radio talk show here in KC. And sometimes fills in for Chris when he is on vacation. Kris Kobach helped draft the Arizona legislation and has repeatedly stated and backed up the claim that the Arizona Law is almost a mirror image of the federal immigration enforcement law.

If the federal immigration law is constitutional then why, under the 10th amendment isn’t a state law that only reinforces a federal law constitutional if it does not exceed the federal law or in violation of any other existing law? My favorite RINO Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) can’t even answer that question. You would think that someone from South Carolina would be able to easily answer that question. The Civil War started in South Carolina. The Civil War was fought over in the idea of “State’s Rights.

The far out left is portraying this as some sort of “American Holocaust” only without the actual murdering of 6 million innocent people. Then you have those that want you to believe that this will lead to profiling, unlawful detention and illegal search and seizure. If anything, the Arizona law is more humane and protects the rights of individuals more than the federal law. The state law specifically states that you can not be sought out simply because of your nationality. You actually have to be in violation of an existing ordinance or law BEFORE your legal status can be questioned. The highest probability of a person here illegally being caught by state law enforcement is in a routine traffic stop. One of the first things a cop asked for is: License, Registration & Proof of Insurance. If I get pulled over for speeding and I do not have my license on me, the police have every right to take me into custody and hold me until I can satisfy the requirements of proving that I am who I claim to be. I am an American citizen and this is not violating my civil and constitutional rights. Sorry, but the federal law is specific. People who are here illegally do not have civil or constitutional rights. Law enforcement has the duty to treat that person with respect so long as they do not pose a threat to the officer. The officer also has the duty to keep that person safe from harm while in their custody and afford them the same rights and privileges as they would any other detainee.

You would think there would be a major uprising from Hispanics if they thought the Arizona law was racial. I have an acquaintance at work. His name is Carlos. Carlos works for a moving company here in KC that my employer frequently uses. He is the lead crew boss for this company and the company hires a lot of Hispanics. Carlos came to America when he was 19. He could barely speak a word of English. He applied for and received a work visa, primarily taught himself English and 6 years later became a legal citizen of the United States. Carlos is now in his upper 30’s, has a wonderful family, nice home & good income. He is living his dream, and that which many come here seeking. He, like so may others of his nationality, believes that Arizona is fully within their rights to enact this law and supports the law. After receiving his citizenship, he sponsored his parents and a few relatives, all of whom have since become citizens of this country. He will be the first to tell you that anyone who does not come here legally does not need to be here.

It’s OK for Carlos to think this way but if I or anyone who is not Hispanic believes as Carlos does, then we are called racist, bigots and Nazi’s.

Since when did enforcing the law itself become a crime? The federal government is quick to give constitutional rights to those who are not legally covered by the constitution but wants to strip the citizens of this country of their constitutional rights. The fed wants to impose more laws and restrictions on its citizens but is not willing to enforce the laws when it comes to non-citizens. There is something wrong here in the United States. What happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave? It has become the land subject to confiscation under eminent domain and the home of a government that thinks rights and freedoms are granted by the government and the government can take them away.

Creating a New Government

Creating a New Government
William G. Burmer


Creating a new government was a daunting task. For months there were heated debates amongst the delegates about procedures and content. Arguments ensued and tempers flared. The Convention seemed to be getting nowhere. On June 28, Benjamin Franklin made his famous speech recommending that sessions be opened with prayer: “The small progress we have made after four or five weeks . . . is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own Want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it . . . In this situation . . . groping as it were in the dark to find political truth . . . how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding? . . . I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of the truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” 3.


By mid-September the work of the Convention neared its end. The New York members, except Hamilton, had already withdrawn in disgust. Others, for various reasons, declared they could never sign. Governor Morris of New York cleverly devised a form to make it seem unanimous: “Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17 September.” At 4:00 p.m., September 17, 1787. The members adjourned to the City tavern, dined together, and took cordial leave of each other. America now had its Republic, a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ “The Federal Constitution gave new meaning to the term “federal,” by setting up a sovereign union of sovereign states,” this federal government is supreme and sovereign within its sphere, but that sphere is defined and limited by the constitution. Explicit in the Constitution is the statement (Article VI, section 2) This Constitution,

and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the supreme Law of the Land; Implicit is the principle that the Tenth amendment of 1791 which made clear that “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.” The states are co-equally sovereign within the sphere of their reserved powers; in no sense are they subordinate corporations as the British insisted that the colonies must be. Both federal and state governments rest on the same broad bottom of the popular sovereignty.” 4.


“The first presidential and congressional elections were set for 4 March 1789. It however was the 6th when the electoral ballots were finally counted. Another week before Washington learned officially that he had been chosen. No one was sure the Constitution would work. As Ben Franklin stated at the conclusion: “Thus, I Consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.” 5.


On the 30th day of April 1789, George Washington stepped onto the balcony of Federal Hall overlooking New York’s Wall Street and took the Oath of Office for President of the United States of America. Thus, he became our first President and the “Father of our Country.”

About one year later, sometime in 1790, our Capital was moved to Philadelphia. The new location was considered more befitting the status of a Capital city. Philadelphia in 1790 was popularly regarded as the jewel of the Union, quite modern and clean. To spite these amenities it was hot in the summer time and produced mosquitoes carrying yellow fever evidently brought in by ships from the West Indies. This intolerable situation plagued the city every year and in 1793 killed about 4,000 people in a two-month period. The yellow fever was not discriminatory and infected almost all who came in contact. Congress would leave town and government business ceased.


This consideration plus a practical need to locate the Capital closer to the southern boarders, where it could better serve the political interest of both the north and the south prompted a move of the Capital to the District of Columbia in 1800.




“WE THE PEOPLE”

And The American Constitution

WILLIAM G. BURMER

Available at www.xlibris.com

If You Don’t Like It

If You Don’t Like It
Kevin Bryant

Went to Walmart yesterday and picked up a CD of an old 80’s band and was listening to it on the way to work this morning. The title to one of the songs was “If You Don’t Like It. Back when it first came out, I never really paid attention to the lyrics much but this morning for some reason I did. The song actually reminded me of our “illustrious” (meant sarcastically) President.

Every President from Washington George W. Bush has done things that were unpopular with the majority of Americans but President Obama makes a habit of it. I dare anyone to list a simple three things/actions he has taken since taking office that a majority of Americans have supported. His mindset is that of “If you don’t like it, I don’t care”.

He really doesn’t care. During his last State of the Union address, he said that JOBS would be his number one priority. The only effort he has put into it was to let Pelosi and Reid craft another $15 Billion dollar payout that benefits primarily unions. All he had to do was send Biden out to promote it and he signed it. That really wasn’t much of an effort. But then again, it was exactly what we have come to expect from this President.

Gitmo, the majority wanted it left alone. The stimulus, a majority wanted the companies to go ahead and fail. GM & Chrysler, the majority wanted the government to keep their paws out of them. Jobs Bill (Stimulus II) the majority wanted it dead on arrival on the senate floor. Healthcare, the majority wanted the version that passed dead on arrival. Immigration reform, the majority just want the current laws enforced. Is there anyone besides me that sees a pattern of “I don’t care what you think” going on here?

What is Obama up to now? Something like 175 broken campaign promises? Is there anyone out there that really believes that he cares or worries about keeping promises, except those he has made to the unions and the leftist thugs that he serves whenever they pull his strings?

In the bible is tells us to pray for our leaders. Sorry, I just can’t do it for this President. He doesn’t care about the country, the constitution or the people. I care absolutely nothing for the man. An entire nation mourned the day JFK was shot. If Obama was ever to meet the same demise, I’d probably go out and get drunk celebrating. My order of importance; God, Family, Country, Self. He ain’t God but he thinks he’s every bit as perfect as God. He ain’t family and if he was, he would have been disowned a long time ago. He certainly doesn’t care about the country because if he did, he would stop trying to undo everything that made this country the greatest nation of earth. As for the self part, he most certainly doesn’t give a damn about me so I really don’t give a damn about him. In fact, if I were a member of congress, at the beginning of every day I would introduce legislation to formally charge him with treason.

Mr. President, so long as the constitution exists, I will continue to exercise my first amendment rights and guess what? If You Don’t Like It – I Don’t Care.

Running a campaign from the top down

Running a campaign from the top down
Al Ritter

I have written about politics for quite a while now, but had never really been involved from the inside until this election cycle. It is no secret that Maryland is a notoriously Democratic. The entire government basis (federal and state) is dominated by Democrats. The only major seat to have been occupied by a Republican is that of the Governorship.

I am finding that this seat is only one of ceremony, and holds only one benefit to the state I love so much, and that is the ability to veto a bill of entitlement that the legislature deems necessary.

I have also learned that the State of Maryland’s Republican base is unfortunately very weak, not only in leadership, but is also weak it the ability to raise money to challenge the Democratic domination.

In this next election cycle the main thrust of the Republican Party seems content to elect a governor, but they can’t seem to spend the time or the money to help elect what they really need most. The Republicans need more of a balance in the house and senate, and yet not much of an effort has been expended in that direction at all.

To build a house, a contractor needs a good foundation to support the rest of the structure. That contractor would never start with a roof, and then pretend there is structure under it. The Republicans will never truly succeed in this state by relying on individual dynamic personalities, they need to play as a team, they need to learn how to share resources, and need to band with one another.

After seeing this party from the inside for the first time, I am not encouraged, I hope the message at the Ocean City Republican Convention will be more uplifting in nature than this article, but until basic changes are made, I don’t see a serious challenge to the one party system Maryland has suffered the last few decades.

Simplicity

Simplicity
Kevin Bryant

“I’m just a Bill, yes I’m only a Bill, and I sitting here on Capital Hill”. One of my favorite Schoolhouse Rock clips that they used to show on television during Saturday morning cartoons. Then there was the Preamble, The Shot Heard Around the World, No More Kings and others that were designed to help kids understand the basic concepts of our government. These were simple in nature and easy to understand because they were targeted towards children.

I have at my house a copy of the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence. Not so much now, but in the era that they were written, these were written in plain language that was easy to understand so that anyone who at that time who could read would be able to read and understand them. John Adams, a brilliant lawyer and great legal mind helped draft these documents and even he understood the need for simplicity.

Our government today is supposed to be based on simple concepts. It is supposed to operate so that the average American can understand how it functions. Bills are supposed to be drafted so that it does not require half a dozen lawyers with dictionaries and thesauruses to be able to interpret and understand what is in them. The people were and still are supposed to be in control of the government, not the other way around.

Our founding fathers were smart men. They knew that over time people would evolve. They knew that language would evolve. They drafted the preamble to the constitution and the constitution itself with simplicity so that anyone with a 6th grade education could understand it. It did not matter if it was 1810, 1910, or 2010, the words they chose back then hold the exact same meaning today as they did when they wrote them.

What do we have today? We have a generation who do not study the constitution. Many schools no longer require it to even be read. The first time I read the constitution I was in the 5th grade. I knew the preamble by heart when I was in the 2nd grade. Many of the people walking out of college with a degree in their hands today have never even read these much less have any part of them memorized.

Focusing on the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more 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.

Simplicity at it’s finest. It was written more than 200 years ago and means exactly the same now as it did back then. Notice the first three words. We the People. We do all that, not some chosen few. The government was always meant to be in our hands and we control what goes on through our elected leaders. Today, our elected leaders would have us believe that they have been ordained by some higher power to lead us and know what is best for us.

For far too long, We the People have not demanded that our government listen and obey us. For far too long we have sat back and allowed government to dictate policy in this country. For far too long we have allowed the progressives on both sides of the aisle to chip away at our God given rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. For far too long we have been made to believe that morals and spiritual beliefs must be sacrificed for the greater good of the country because they have no place in politics.

Our forefathers kept things simple so that we could keep our republic as it was intended. We would know our rolls in society and know that all power rest with the population, not centralized in some out of the way corner of the country to be controlled by a few.

“It's the simple things in life that are the most extraordinary” – Paulo Coelho

The United States has been the most extraordinary country ever conceived upon this planet. Founded on the simple understanding that rights come from God, not government and what God gives, government can not take away unless we allow government to.

In sports, when things start to go wrong, how often have you heard commentators say; “They need to get back to basics” or “They are not doing the simple things it takes to win”? As a nation, we need to get back to basics. We need to teach the simple things to our children so they can understand what this country was meant to be. Perhaps we even need our elected leaders to be required to watch episodes of Schoolhouse Rock so they too can understand the basic concepts of government and their rolls in it.

Thanks For Nothing

Thanks For Nothing
Kevin Bryant

Rachel Maddow from the almost non-existent and certainly doesn’t matter network, MSNBC stated that Americans are being unreasonable when it comes to taxes. According to her, personal income tax levels are now at the lowest levels they have been since 1955. President Obama finds humor in the fact that Americans are complaining about the amount of taxes we are paying instead of “thanking him” for lowering taxes.

I may not have a Harvard education like Obama and I certainly wasn’t educated at Stanford and Oxford universities like Rachel Maddow but I do know that I am not as dumb as they believe all Americans are.

Let us examine Rachel Maddow’s statement in very simple terms. In 1955 there was no such thing as Medicare and Medicaid. Since these programs did not exist in 1955, it would have been impossible for the government to tax your personal income to fund them. Now to the un - Harvard or Oxford educated person like me, I consider this a personal income tax since the government has deemed that this money will be taken directly from my personal income paycheck. When combined with the bankrupt social security withholdings, this accounts to more than 7.5% of my gross income going directly to the government in the form of taxes. Add this to what they are withholding for what the government officially deems as personal income tax and that is more than 20% of my taxable income. I really don’t think the Detroit auto workers in 1955 America was shelling out 20 cents on every dollar they made to the federal government before they actually received a single dime themselves.

Now let us move on to Mr. Harvard educated Obama and the cronies that sit in congress who all think we average citizens can’t read, write or do arithmetic above the third grade level. First off, quit lying about lowering taxes. You didn’t. All you did was up the tax credits for certain individuals. Those of us who do not have kids living with us or going to college don’t get breaks. I must be one of those 5% who you were talking about when you said 95% of Americans making under $200,000 would not see one cent in tax increases and would actually see their tax burden go down. I know I saw my federal taxes go up for 2009 but I didn’t get a pay raise during that year. Think of all the hidden taxes we pay and then lie to me some more about how Americans who make under $200K a year saw their tax burdens go down. What are some of the things we pay federal tax on; electricity, natural gas, propane, gasoline, diesel, cell phones, land line phones, cable television, satellite television, internet, beer and alcohol, tobacco and so on and who can forget the latest, a tax on time tanning spas. Then think about all the taxes placed on banks and manufacturers who in turn pass those taxes on to their customers.

Sorry, but in 1955, the average middle class American had more disposable cash on hand than do today. My parents had more disposable cash when Clinton was in office than they had under G.W. Bush and they had more under Bush than they have today under Obama.

If this or any administration were serious about how much people shell out in personal and hidden taxes, they would abandon the current practice used in collecting taxes and go to a flat tax. Even those 40% who do not pay income taxes would benefit more from a flat tax than having to pay more each year in hidden taxes as we are now.
Thanks For Nothing
Kevin Bryant

Rachel Maddow from the almost non-existent and certainly doesn’t matter network, MSNBC stated that Americans are being unreasonable when it comes to taxes. According to her, personal income tax levels are now at the lowest levels they have been since 1955. President Obama finds humor in the fact that Americans are complaining about the amount of taxes we are paying instead of “thanking him” for lowering taxes.

I may not have a Harvard education like Obama and I certainly wasn’t educated at Stanford and Oxford universities like Rachel Maddow but I do know that I am not as dumb as they believe all Americans are.

Let us examine Rachel Maddow’s statement in very simple terms. In 1955 there was no such thing as Medicare and Medicaid. Since these programs did not exist in 1955, it would have been impossible for the government to tax your personal income to fund them. Now to the un - Harvard or Oxford educated person like me, I consider this a personal income tax since the government has deemed that this money will be taken directly from my personal income paycheck. When combined with the bankrupt social security withholdings, this accounts to more than 7.5% of my gross income going directly to the government in the form of taxes. Add this to what they are withholding for what the government officially deems as personal income tax and that is more than 20% of my taxable income. I really don’t think the Detroit auto workers in 1955 America was shelling out 20 cents on every dollar they made to the federal government before they actually received a single dime themselves.

Now let us move on to Mr. Harvard educated Obama and the cronies that sit in congress who all think we average citizens can’t read, write or do arithmetic above the third grade level. First off, quit lying about lowering taxes. You didn’t. All you did was up the tax credits for certain individuals. Those of us who do not have kids living with us or going to college don’t get breaks. I must be one of those 5% who you were talking about when you said 95% of Americans making under $200,000 would not see one cent in tax increases and would actually see their tax burden go down. I know I saw my federal taxes go up for 2009 but I didn’t get a pay raise during that year. Think of all the hidden taxes we pay and then lie to me some more about how Americans who make under $200K a year saw their tax burdens go down. What are some of the things we pay federal tax on; electricity, natural gas, propane, gasoline, diesel, cell phones, land line phones, cable television, satellite television, internet, beer and alcohol, tobacco and so on and who can forget the latest, a tax on time tanning spas. Then think about all the taxes placed on banks and manufacturers who in turn pass those taxes on to their customers.

Sorry, but in 1955, the average middle class American had more disposable cash on hand than do today. My parents had more disposable cash when Clinton was in office than they had under G.W. Bush and they had more under Bush than they have today under Obama.

If this or any administration were serious about how much people shell out in personal and hidden taxes, they would abandon the current practice used in collecting taxes and go to a flat tax. Even those 40% who do not pay income taxes would benefit more from a flat tax than having to pay more each year in hidden taxes as we are now.

The Man and the Reason for the Crash of 1929

The Man and the Reason for the Crash of 1929
William G Burmer


Andrew William Mellon (1855-1937) in 1924 complained, like Reagan, that the income tax was part of a Socialist---Communist Conspiracy. Mr. Mellon was well known as Secretary of the Treasury under Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Warren G. Harding. He was a Republican and very conservative. “While Mellon talked about helping the poor and the middle class, and about the need to encourage economic growth---as would others years later---there was but one objective: dramatically reducing taxes on the rich . . .’


“. . . With a big assist from the nation’s largest newspapers, which championed lowering rates for the wealthy---another pattern that would be repeated decades later---he gradually built a base of support for his plan.’


“When Calvin Coolidge succeeded Harding, who died in 1923, he embraced Mellon’s theories and campaigned for re-election on them in 1924. As for Mellon, he came up with a new strategy to enlist support for his cause---a loftier motive than merely reducing taxes.


The real problem, he said, “is not so much one of tax reduction as of tax reform.’ ‘This was one of the first times---if not the very first---that the phrase “tax reform” was used to justify a tax cut for the affluent. It would not be the last. Other secretaries of the Treasury, other Presidents, other lawmakers, would adopt the same tactic, especially in the 1970s’ and 1980s’. Over time, much of the debate concerning tax rates would boil down to two phrases. Tax legislation that would increase the rate on the wealthy was called “class warfare.” Tax legislation that would reduce the rate on the wealthy was called “tax reform . . .’ Emphasis Added.


“Mellon collected his thoughts on taxes and the need for lower rates in a little book called Taxation: The People’s Business. Lobbying organizations, like the American Bankers League, distributed thousands of copies to businessmen. They responded predictably. Albert H. Wiggin, president of Chase National Bank in New York, wrote Mellon: ‘We were fortunate in seeing an advance copy of your {book}, and were so enthusiastic over it that we could not resist the impulse to distribute quite a large number of copies to customers and friends of the Chase National Bank. The men to whom copies of your book were sent included presidents and other officials of larger banking institutions throughout the country, treasurers of important business concerns, stockholders of this bank and many other influential and intelligent men among our clientele.’


“Mellon had carefully targeted his audience, focusing on persons who could exert influence on the legislative process. When an admirer suggested distribution of one million copies to the public at large, he rejected the idea, saying that “the subject is one which might not appeal to the ordinary working man, and I am not certain that there would be any real demand for the book from this class of readers.” Weighty matters like taxation, Mellon believed, were beyond the understanding of the average person.’


A comment here: When I asked a prominent Bank Authority to critique this portion of my book, his only comment to me was “I do not think most people will understand what you are saying.” It is true that we as a nation are ignorant of the inner workings of the banking industry. In any event we should do all we can to learn how our money is produced and how banks work. If you would like as clear an explanation there is, with regards to banking in America, an excellent treatise on the subject; I would encourage you to read G. Edward Griffins’ book (The Creature from Jekyll Island; A second Look at the Federal Reserve.)


“Mellon’s persistence paid off. On February 26, 1926, President Coolidge signed the Revenue Act of 1926 . . .’ “. . . The legislation, sold as “tax reform,” slashed the maximum individual rate from 46 percent to 25 percent on all taxable income above $100,000. It cut the maximum estate tax from 40 percent to 20 percent on estates of more than $10 million. It abolished gift taxes; At the other end of the income scale, the reform legislation nudged down the bottom rate from 2 percent to 1.5 percent on the first $4,000 of taxable income.’


“America’s wealthiest citizens profited handsomely. J.P. Morgan, the financier who frequently complained about high taxes, saved a quarter-million dollars. Mellon himself saved more than $800,000. Henry Ford saved $1.1 million. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., saved $2.8 million, thus acquiring an extra $54,000 a week in spending money.’


“All seemed to be going according to Mellon’s grand scheme . . .’ “But something was amiss. The money was not trickling down as predicted. The $5,000 jobs were not materializing as Mellon had promised. The number of persons reporting incomes under $10,000 went down, plummeting from 7 million in 1920 to 3.7 million in 1928---a 47 percent decline . . .’


“. . . Mellon’s tax cuts pumped too much money into too few hands. That money, in turn, fueled a frenzied speculation in the stock market. Wall Street loved it. Bankers, brokers, and businessmen formed pools. They sold securities among themselves, forcing prices up, and then unloaded the stocks at inflated values.’


“It all ended in the great Wall Street crash, followed by the Great Depression. With America sinking deeper, Mellon set sail for Europe as ambassador to Great Britain---and to escape a looming congressional impeachment inquiry on an array of charges. Among them: Mellon-owned companies received millions of dollars in tax refunds while he was Treasury secretary. And his Pittsburgh bank peddled bonds for $98 that turned out to be worth pennies.’


“Reality had discredited Mellon’s’ theory of low rates . . .’ “Soon everyone, not just the affluent, would be concerned about rates. For the tax system Americans know today was created in World

War II, when the income tax was transformed from one that applied only to the affluent to one that touched virtually every working person. In World War I, well-to-do individuals and corporations picked up a large share of the cost. World War II would require taxes from most everyone.’


“With passage of legislation in 1940, 1941, 1942, and 1943, the bottom tax bracket was cut in half, from $4,000 to $2,000. The personal exemption for married couples was sliced from $2,500 to $1,200. The bottom rate shot up from 4 percent to 19 percent. The maximum rate was kicked up to 81 percent and then 88 percent. The income level at which that top rate kicked in was cut from $5 million to $200,000.’


“For most Americans, the greatest change came in 1943, when payroll withholding was instituted. Never again would the average worker receive a full paycheck.” 10. This type collectivistic mind set is frightening to discover in our government. The IRS considers themselves elitists who would deny men the opportunity to deal one with another by voluntary means, and settling disputes by rational persuasion. It declares that we ought to be dictated to by an omnipotent state.


10. America: Who Really Pays the Taxes? pp. 64-68



Next: The Duping of the American Tax Payer




“WE THE PEOPLE”

And The American Constitution

WILLIAM G. BURMER

Available at www.xlibris.com

Going Forward In Reverse

Going Forward In Reverse
Kevin Bryant

I have heard many times that the federal government is operating like a runaway freight train. This could not be further from the truth. A freight train runs on a specific path and if it jumps the tracks, it comes to a crashing halt.

To me, the government is operating more like the world’s largest bulldozer, heading down hill towards a cliff with a spoiled, destructive little 4 year old at the controls who thinks this is only a video game and not real. The government is going down paths that do not exist in this country and will soon crash into an unexplored abyss.

To know where you are going, you first must know where you are and how you got there. This country was founded by people who knew they were coming here and why. They formed a government that had never been tried anywhere before but they knew enough to know that the old ways would not get them the government they wanted.

First they tried the Articles of Confederation but what they got was almost complete anarchy. Having the good sense to know when to give up and declare the Articles of Confederation a lost cause, they go back and examine what worked and what failed. Putting this knowledge to use, they come up with the Constitution of the United States and it has worked well for more than 200 years.

The current administration has not once looked towards the constitution or history for guidance. They are literally flying by the seat of their pants being guided only by ideology. This is the same ideology that has been tried and failed every time it has been implemented. One definition of stupidity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.

Harvard has a reputation of having educated and graduated some of the greatest minds this world has seen in recent history. By recent I mean that past 150 or so years. President Obama is a product of this very distinguished institution. It is a shame that someone with a Harvard education and is supposed to be brilliant according to his peers does not have the good sense to following the example set forth by his predecessors and study the results of the past and use them for guidance when moving forward.

Ideology has blinded this president from seeing that every decision he has made has been tried and failed at some point in history. Arrogance keeps him from seeing the destruction he is doing to the country he swore an oath to. Or has it?

This man was brought by Marxist parents and grandparents. This is a man who sought out Marxist progressives to associate with during his college days. This man gets his spiritual advice from self-declared Marxist. This man has filled his administration with Marxist, Communist, Tax Cheats and Felons. This man was educated by some of the finest professors to found in an institution that has prides itself on quality education. I have said before, this man is stupid but he most certainly isn’t dumb. He knows exactly what he wants to achieve and he knows that he only has a limited amount of time to achieve it and whatever it is, it can’t be good.

So what do conservatives need to do to stop it? One way is to not only look to the past for guidance by actually move the country back to the Constitution like Ronald Reagan did but this time include strengthening the laws in the Constitution so that it can never again be moved this far left of center. To get this country moving forward, as a nation, we will have to go in reverse to get there. Undo almost all that the previous administrations have done. End bailouts, defund healthcare and eventually repeal it, reverse the tax increases, eliminate targeted tax increases, fully commit to and fund the war or bring the troops home, put the national guard on the boarders and secure them once and for all, drug screen welfare recipients and cut their welfare if they fail, cut the number of government departments and total employees by 50%, cut federal spending by 60%. Give real tax breaks to small businesses. This list could go on for forever. I know not all of these will ever come to pass, but if we never get anyone elected to office that is willing to try, then we will never again have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

How do we do this? Look for candidates in all upcoming elections that believe in preserving the Constitution and our way of life as the founder’s intended. Find a candidate that believe in smaller and less intrusive government and will listen to those who got them elected to office. Candidates willing to support capitalism yet do not think any company is too big to fail. When we find the right candidate, volunteer our time to support their election. Display their posters in our yards and don’t worry about it if the neighbors are liberals and believe differently than we do. Come November we need every vote because every vote actually will matter. Encourage your neighbors and your friends to vote. Drive them to the polls if you have to. The 2010 November general election is the most important election you and I will participate in since we were born. This general election and the next 2 are not about just who we elect to office but they are also about who we are as individuals and who we are as a nation.

Maryland first state to adopt socially responsible designation on businesses

Maryland first state to adopt socially responsible designation on businesses
Al Ritter

Governor Martin O’Malley has just signed into law a new type of corporation. Deemed “Benefit Corporation,” the guidelines are simple, the corporation must by law create a material positive impact on society; consider how decisions affect employees, community and the environment; and publicly report their social and environmental performance using established third-party standards.

This is the first such legislation in our country, and for the first time brings the notion of social consciousness to the corporate world. Every decision one of these new companies makes must follow guidelines of positive employee interaction, environmental impact, community interaction, then report their decisions to a board that will judge then against standards which they set.

This legislation was offered by State Senators Jamie Raskin and Brian Frosh and Delegate Brian Feldman, passed the Maryland Senate with a vote of 44 - 0 and the Assembly 135 - 5. Brian Frost was recently in the headlines for his stance against mandatory sentencing of child molesters under the “Jessica Law.”

This latest partisan vote will allow a “third party,” to decide whether a company operates in the guise of betterment to society, which the Democrats seem to think is the proper way. No longer will companies just answer to their stockholders, but now a more sinister objective seems to be brewing. These companies will only be allowed to continue if the liberals say it may exist, bestowing an air of arrogance towards the legislature and Gov. Martin O’Malley.

The very fact that this went totally unreported by the main stream news sources speaks volumes about this Administration, and this socialistic policy.

Who is John Galt?

http://www.csrwire.com/archive/our_pick/319

http://www.csrwire.com/press/press_release/29332-Maryland-First-State-in-Union-to-Pass-Benefit-Corporation-Legislation

15 Questions

15 Questions
Kevin Bryant

Greetings fellow conservatives and also to anyone who is not. I like good old fashion honest, no spin type debate. Today though, I have no intention of debating anyone. I am just looking for good old honest opinions from readers.

I thought it would be interesting to see who would participate in this little game and just see what answers would be given. Remember, the more that play, the more interesting it will be to read the comments.

The game is played like this:

I will be asking questions and I would like to know not only your opinion of the question but also how you think our president, Barack Obama would answer the question as well. You can give just your own opinions to the questions if you like or you may just try to answer them as you think our president would, or state what you would have done differently if you were POTUS. Be sure to annotate the difference. If you want to play but do not wish to post your responses online, please send them to me at bryantkd@hotmail.com and here we go…………..

Subject: The Economy / Jobs
1) What actions that you have taken since being in office has made a positive impact on the economy and what, if anything, would you consider less than successful?

2) When congress passed the stimulus plan, you stated that unemployment would not go above 8%. What would you say were the contributing factors resulting in those numbers being higher than projected?

3) During the presidential campaign, you stated that companies would be allowed to build more power plants and drill for oil and other natural resources but they do so at their own peril because you intend to make it so costly that it would not be profitable for them. In order to stimulate the private job sector, would you be willing to suspend up front fees and give tax breaks to those companies in order to stimulate job growth in the private sector?

4) California is bankrupt. Michigan, New York and some other states are close to bankruptcy. Have you given any thought into providing bailout money to these states?

5) Many of the houses that have been foreclosed on or will soon be were purchased by people who bought more house than they could afford before the housing and the job market collapsed. If the government bails out those who purchased more house than they could afford before the collapse, would that not be rewarding them for making bad judgments?

Subject: National Security
1) With the increase of terrorist activity around the world, are you now reconsidering your stance on immigration reform?

2) Phoenix has the second highest kidnapping rate in the world. El Paso and other border towns in the U.S. are seeing an alarming increase in violence spilling across the border from Mexico. Would your administration ever entertain the thought of putting National Guard troops on the borders to back up our border agents?

3) You just agreed to an arms reduction treaty with the Russian President. With North Korea, Iran and many also believe China to be included as well to the list of growing military threats to the United States, how does this reduction make us safer?

4) You recently stated that the option to use nuclear weapons against those who would use biological and chemical weapons against us is no longer on the table. If Iran or North Korea were to use biological or chemical weapons against our troops or set them off here in America, what options would you consider using?

5) It is projected that Iran will have nuclear weapons capabilities before your first term as President expires. Would you, as President, support Israel if they were to attack Iran to knock out their weapons capabilities?


Subject: Random Questions
1) The Tea Party Movement has been around almost as long as you have been president. Many in the media and some of your own party have called them rednecks, racist, Nazis and many other not so nice terms. As president, do you support these types of verbal attacks against the Tea Party members?

2) Other than the CBO, every think tank and numbers crunching agency in America believes that the recently passed healthcare bill will likely cost much more than the congressional estimates and that the government will have to scale back on authorized treatments. How do you counter this belief?

3) You came into office with one of the highest approval ratings in history. Since that time your approval job approval rate has dropped more than 20 points, and is now in the lower to mid 40’s. What do you need to do to stop your numbers from declining?

4) Traditionally, the party in power during mid-term elections loses seats in both the house and senate. Do you believe that republicans will be able to take control of either house?

5) Who are you picking to win the World Series?

Tax Law and how it affects you

More Tax Law
William G Burmer


Second consideration: What is a Direct Tax and how does it apply to the People?


In the Constitution under Article 1, 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”.


Answer: According to the Constitution any direct tax imposed by Congress must be apportioned. If it is not apportioned, it is an indirect tax. The current “income” tax is not apportioned, and must thereby be an indirect, or excise tax. We will discover from the following Supreme Court cases that this is a tax of privilege, and does not apply to private payment for labor, which the constitution sought to protect.


Question, what is a capitation tax?

The answer is found in the following Supreme Court case:


U.S. Supreme Court

SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880)

102 U.S. 586 102 U.S. 586

October Term, 1880


“Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument,”


Returning to the Pollock case we see how the Supreme Court ruled with regards to “income.”


U.S. Supreme Court

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)


“A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the constitution”


Meaning the tax must be assessed according to the census (must be uniform) or population, neither the individual nor his property can be taxed directly.


U.S. Supreme Court

STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v. HOWBERT, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

What is an excise tax?

“(A)n excise tax (is a tax) upon the conduct of doing business in a corporate capacity, Italics added. . . .Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form . . . property which, considered by itself, was not taxable. . . . This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because (it was) not apportioned according to population as prescribed by the Constitution. . . .The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the Act itself. Flint v. Stone-Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107; McCoach v. Minehill Co., 228 U.S. 295; United States v. Whitridge, (decided at this term, ante, p. 144). Parenthesis added.


U.S. Supreme Court

FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

220 U.S. 107


“The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, IE., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.”


U S v. WHITRIDGE, 231 U.S. 144 (1913)

Argued October 21, 1913.
Decided November 10, 1913.



“As repeatedly pointed out by this court, the corporation tax law of 1909-enacted, as it was, after Congress had proposed to the legislatures of the several states the adoption of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, but before the ratification of that Amendment-imposed an excise or privilege tax, and not in any sense a tax upon property or upon income merely as income.”


U.S. Supreme Court

TRUAX v. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312 (1921)



“This right to carry on business-be it called liberty or property-has value, and he who interferes with the right without cause renders himself liable” A man’s property is inviolable or secure against violation. Blacks law 3rd page 1007


MURDOCK
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and seven other cases.

Nos. 480-487.
Argued March 10, 11, 1943.
Decided May 3, 1943.


“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce”


U.S. Supreme Court

BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)


“It has been well said that “'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.'” Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10


In conclusion then: we have learned from the above supreme court cases about

the Direct tax that it is defined as:

(1) A Capitation tax within the meaning of the constitution. Subject to apportionment.

(2) Property cannot be taxed considered by itself, unless the property is incorporated (which is a voluntary act) and used for corporate commercial purposes.

(3) If you choose not to incorporate, business conducted on your property is not taxable.

(4) The “right” to carry on business has value and the IRS, Federal State, County, or any municipality may be held liable if they interfere with that right.

(5) No state can exact a license to carry on interstate commerce.

(6) A man’s labor is his property; property cannot be taxed and is protected under the apportionment clause of the constitution.


U.S. Supreme Court

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

240 U.S. 1

FRANK R. BRUSHABER, Appt.,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.
No. 140.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915.

Decided January 24, 1916.

See page 3: “That the authority conferred upon Congress by section 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises'. . . it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from the requirements of Art. 1, 8, cl. 1, that 'all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,' and to the limitations of Art I., sec 2, cl. 3, that 'direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,' and of Art 1, sec 9, cl. 4, that 'no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.'

Affirms the Pollock case.

SEE PAGE 6 . . . the Amendment shows . . . that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”

Next: Third consideration: The Internal Revenue Service and their claims to enforce tax law.



“WE THE PEOPLE”

And The American Constitution

WILLIAM G. BURMER

Available at www.xlibris.com

Going Forward In Reverse

Going Forward In Reverse
Kevin Bryant

I have heard many times that the federal government is operating like a runaway freight train. This could not be further from the truth. A freight train runs on a specific path and if it jumps the tracks, it comes to a crashing halt.

To me, the government is operating more like the world’s largest bulldozer, heading down hill towards a cliff with a spoiled, destructive little 4 year old at the controls who thinks this is only a video game and not real. The government is going down paths that do not exist in this country and will soon crash into an unexplored abyss.

To know where you are going, you much first know where you are and how you got there. This country was founded by people who knew they were coming here and why. They formed a government that had never been tried anywhere before but they knew enough to know that the old ways would not get them the government they wanted.

First they tried the Articles of Confederation but what they got was almost complete anarchy. Having the good sense to know when to give up and declare the Articles of Confederation a lost cause, they go back and examine what worked and what failed. Putting this knowledge to use, they come up with the Constitution of the United States and it has worked well for more than 200 years.

The current administration has not once looked towards the constitution or history for guidance. They are literally flying by the seat of their pants being guided only by ideology. This is the same ideology that has been tried and failed every time it has been implemented. One definition of stupidity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.

Harvard has a reputation of having educated and graduated some of the greatest minds this world has seen in recent history. By recent I mean that past 150 or so years. President Obama is a product of this very distinguished institution. It is a shame that someone with a Harvard education and is supposed to be brilliant according to his peers does not have the good sense to following the example set forth by his predecessors and study the results of the past and use them for guidance when moving forward.

Ideology has blinded this president from seeing that every decision he has made has been tried and failed at some point in history. Arrogance keeps him from seeing the destruction he is doing to the country he swore an oath to. Or has it?

This man was brought by Marxist parents and grandparents. This is a man who sought out Marxist progressives to associate with during his college days. This man gets his spiritual advice from self-declared Marxist. This man has filled his administration with Marxist, Communist, Tax Cheats and Felons. This man was educated by some of the finest professors to found in an institution that has prides itself on quality education. I have said before, this man is stupid but he most certainly isn’t dumb. He knows exactly what he wants to achieve and he knows that he only has a limited amount of time to achieve it and whatever it is, it can’t be good.

So what do conservatives need to do to stop it? One way is to not only look to the past for guidance by actually move the country backwards like Ronald Reagan did but this time include strengthening the laws and the Constitution so that it can never again be moved this far left of center. To get this country moving forward, as a nation, we will have to go in reverse to get there. Undo almost all that the previous administrations have done. End bailouts, defund healthcare and eventually repeal it, reverse the tax increases, eliminate targeted tax increases, fully commit to and fund the war or bring the troops home, put the national guard on the boarders and secure them once and for all, drug screen welfare recipients and cut their welfare if they fail, cut the number of government departments and total employees by 50%, cut federal spending by 60%. Give real tax breaks to small businesses. This list could go on for forever. I know not all of these will ever come to pass, but if we never get anyone elected to office that is willing to try, then we will never again have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

How do we do this? Look for candidates in all upcoming elections that believe in preserving the Constitution and our way of life as the founder’s intended. Find a candidate that believe in smaller and less intrusive government and will listen to those who got them elected to office. Candidates willing to support capitalism yet do not think any company is too big to fail. When we find the right candidate, volunteer our time to support their election. Display their posters in our yards and don’t worry about it if the neighbors are liberals and believe differently than we do. Come November we need every vote because every vote actually will matter. Encourage your neighbors and your friends to vote. Drive them to the polls if you have to. The 2010 November general election is the most important election you and I will participate in since we were born. This general election and the next 2 are not about just who we elect to office but they are also about who we are as individuals and who we are as a nation.