Land of the Free?

from The American Thinker:

John M. Horne was born in 1813 in the Land of the Free, an inheritance from several distant uncles who fought against Cornwallis The home of the brave came before the land of the free. 

Shortly after John and Clarissa Warren married in 1843, they made the long journey from North Carolina to western Kentucky. Their simple farm life was free from any king or tyrant in a distant capital. In the land of the free, no one could tell them what to do with their property or how much of their money they could keep.

John died sometime between 1860 and 1870, perhaps in the Civil War. His teenage son, John C., took the responsibility of caring for Clarissa and his sister, and later had his own family and care for two orphaned grandchildren. Courage to take personal responsibility is required to live in the land of the free. 

An older John C. witnessed the “soak the rich” campaign resulting in the 16th Amendment, the income tax. For the first time in the nation’s history, government was positioned against the individual citizen. How much of that citizen’s property could be confiscated and for what purpose was limited only by the “wisdom” of Congress. Taxpayers later found their funds going to subsidize indolence, to groups with political connections, and for other uses outside the limits on the federal government the Founders clearly wrote into the Constitution. read more

The Liberal “States of the World”

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Recently Mark Levin suggested, as has Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and even little old me, to allow the liberals of this country to pick the states of their choosing and form their own leftist nation – The Liberal States of the World”.

Mark suggested that they pick 10 states, all move there, and have a ball. They can even pick the nicest states – the coastal ones, although with the sure onset of global warming, maybe not. We wouldn’t want all those lefties to be washed out to sea.

So let’s just say they will occupy both coasts and we conservatives will move into the crappy flyover states. We’ll even throw in Washington DC as a bonus.

They would now be free to do anything they want – enact any legislation – raise any tax – mandate any regulation and pack any court, with no unreasonable conservatives to stop them with their religious dogma.

They may rewrite the Constitution, or better yet, scrap the whole thing and replace it with FDR’s Second Bill of Rights.

If you’re unfamiliar with them or need a review, here are a few of the real standouts:

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

The right of every family to a decent home.

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

The right to adequate protection from economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.

The right to a good education.

Wow – where do I sign? That sounds great and completely reasonable and workable. It sounds like manna from heaven, except there is no heaven – so manna from Mother Earth. read more

David Axelrod is Right

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

We have been presented with the opportunity of a lifetime and that’s not hyperbole.

To paraphrase David Axelrod: the government is so “vast” it’s impossible to know what’s going on.

That’s probably the only intelligent thing he has ever uttered.

Well, he’s absolutely right. It’s gotten so large and out-of-control that it requires storm trooper like tactics to control the flow of the vast amount of money collected to run it.

Now we’ve learned that the collection department, the IRS, has been targeting groups that oppose the administration.

As an aside – if this scandal is what has surfaced, it’s a cinch there is much more that hasn’t. Just an observation.

Anyone who has been audited knows it may be the most stressful and painful experience this side of childbirth (or so I’ve heard). I thought the government was supposed to work for and be accountable to us, not the other way around.

So for this and a myriad of other reasons, the IRS should be abolished.

We on the right have been putting forth this tired refrain for decades, but there will never be a better chance than now to start advancing this notion.

We could learn a little from the left. “Never let a good crisis go to waste”. Well, this is a crisis we must not squander.

But the government needs money to operate, you say. You might add that without the threat of IRS persecution (and I do mean persecution), no one would ever pay their taxes.

Nonsense. Other than the most rabid antigovernment lunatics, virtually all citizens are willing to pay.

Most citizens just want the collection to be fair and transparent. The current system is neither (and that is deliberate). As Marco Rubio might say: “let’s bring those who do not pay taxes ‘out of the shadows’.”

The only truly fair and transparent tax is the consumption tax, not the flat tax. Yes, a national sales tax, but let’s not call it that. People already dislike sales taxes.

A flat tax is still based on income thus is not fair. Not everyone will pay and everyone should pay, at least a little. Skin in the game at all that.

One can still cheat the flat tax system by simply hiding their income. The consumption tax is fair and less apt to be corrupted. Black markets will only spring up if the rate is too high.

Of course the consumption tax would have to be an amendment, not just simply a law and take the place of the 16th amendment, which would have to be repealed first.

The consumption tax is also the epitome of a free-market system. It is also, with few exceptions, the only purely an absolutely voluntary tax. If you don’t wish to pay the tax, don’t purchase the item or service.

It would also take care of those pesky nonprofit tax-free organizations. No one would be tax-free because everyone and every organization must purchase things.

And how much money could corporations and organizations save by simply closing up K Street and not having to beg and bribe Congress for tax breaks?

Simply put, the lefty wizards of smart have admitted that the government has become too large to manage. They have also admitted that they are a bunch of bungling incompetents. Of course they did so, figuring no one will demand change. I’m sure they think; give it a couple of weeks and the scandals will be forgotten.

The current tax system is tyranny and the IRS tyrannical. However, impossible as the task may sound, it must commence sometime. As I stated; there may never be a better opportunity.

“Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph”, Thomas Paine, 1776.

Just Look to the Government

Changing Definitions Doesn’t Change Reality

 by: the Common Constitutionalist

I’ve decided to change the name of some words and thus their meaning. Anyone having a problem with it or tells me I can’t is a bigot, racist, homophobe, etc.

From now on, the word dog will be asteroid, because I’ve always wanted to walk an asteroid. Wow, that was easy. Let’s do another. I will change the word walk to can opener. Why? Because I want to. Ok, this is working so well, let’s do one more. Let’s change crap to Obama. Now let us use them in a sentence. “Son; make sure when you take the asteroid out for his can opener, you pick up his Obama. I like it.

But, you may say, the old words perfectly describe the act and objects quite well. They’ve been called dog, walk and crap for a long time. Everyone already knows and accepts them as their original names. It’s tradition. Why change them now? Because I want to and if you don’t let me I’ll sue to get the names changed.

Well, obviously that scenario is ridiculous, but is it anymore absurd than changing a tradition that is thousands of years old?

Of course I’m speaking of the term homosexual marriage. I believe the reason homosexuals wish to marry, is not for love, but due to the tax code. Now, don’t you your panties in a bunch. I’m not saying that two women or two men or six men and three women or five men and a penguin can’t love one another. I suppose they can and frankly it’s none of my or your damn business.

What I am saying is that marriage is a tradition reserved for the union of one man and one woman. That’s what God intended and far be it from me to countermand his desire. Men and women have been marrying for thousands of years and not until relatively recently has that marriage had to be sanctioned and interfered with by the almighty government.

I contend that without government meddling in every facet of people’s lives, this would not be an issue.

We all realize that government, through the tax code, have been picking winners and losers. Through tweaking the code they are able to grant favor to one group while disenfranchising another.

What do homosexuals really want? Is it really about the love or is it the benefits? Is it the hospital visitation rights, the transfer of wealth free of taxation or the many other government giveaways that benefit those who have married, have children, day care, own a home or the dozens of other tax breaks.

As if no one would have children, buy a home, or select the correct beneficiary for their estate without financial coercion of the state. Ridiculous!

It is my contention that homosexuals would have never made such a fuss over marriage if the government hadn’t stepped in long ago to promote what they felt was beneficial to society.

It’s like virtually everything else that is wrong with this country. Progressives in government meddle in private citizens’ affairs, attempt to legislate the perfect society and voila, we get the housing collapse, banking problems, gas prices, CAFE standards and on and on. And now we have homosexual marriage. To find the genesis of any problem this country has faced  just look back to when our federal government initially involved itself.

Civil Unions, ok, but marriage, no. That’s one tradition that should be upheld for as long as we inhabit this earth.

Mickelson Retiring??

LA QUINTA, Calif. (TheBlaze/AP) — Phil Mickelson said he will make “drastic changes” because of federal and California state tax increases.

“It’s been an interesting offseason,” Mickelson said Sunday after the final round of the Humana Challenge. “And I’m going to have to make some drastic changes. I’m not going to jump the gun and do it right away, but I will be making some drastic changes.”

The 42-year-old golfer said he would talk in more detail about his plans – possibly moving away from California or even retiring from golf – before his hometown Farmers Insurance Open, the San Diego-area event that starts Thursday at Torrey Pines.

“I’m not sure what exactly, you know, I’m going to do yet,” Mickelson said. “I’ll probably talk about it more in depth next week. I’m not going to jump the gun, but there are going to be some. There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state and, you know, it doesn’t work for me right now. So I’m going to have to make some changes.”  Continue Reading

Middle Class Tax…Increase

13 Tax Increases Just Went Into Effect – Obama: “I Won’t Raise Taxes on Middle Class America”

If I had $100 for every time I heard Barack Obama promise us that he would not raise taxes on middle class Americans, I could afford to take my family on a Hawaiian vacation.

Between the fiscal cliff resolution which wasn’t a resolution after all, and Obamacare, there are 13 new tax increases that will directly or indirectly impact everyone in America, including the middle and poverty class people.

Taxes with a direct impact on the middle and poverty class:

1.  Right off the bat, the fiscal cliff agreement that would only raise taxes on the wealthy, just raised EVERYONE’S payroll Social Security tax by 2%.  The old rate was 4.2%, but that was raised for everyone across the board to 6.2%.  A family making a combined gross of $50,000 will pay an additional $1,000 in Social Security taxes.  Right there Obama broke his promise and proved to the entire nation that he is a blatant liar and that his word can never be trusted.  Not exactly a trait you want in your national bleeder, I mean leader.  Continue Reading at GodFather Politics 

Quick Hit News

Rep Says Democrats Like Bank Robbers

Sandy Fitzgerald, NewsMax:

Idaho Republican Rep.Raul Labrador said on Sunday that he’s “not really sure”
Democrats want to avoid going over the fiscal cliff, and that they’re like “bank
robbers” who want to raise taxes on everyone.

Labrador, appearing on ABC News’ “This Week,” also believes President Barack Obama has successfully provoked a civil war among Republicans, which has been the Democrats’ goal from the beginning.

“They have tried to get us to fight against each other on taxes when — I’m not really sure that they don’t want to go over the fiscal cliff,” said Labrador.

Meanwhile, Labrador was one of the House Republicans who opposed a plan by House Speaker John Boehner to raise taxes only on people making more than $1 million. But he said if Democrats really wanted to avoid the fiscal cliff they could have voted for the bill.

“There were only about 50 of us in the House who said that we were not going to vote for
John Boehner’s deal last week,” he said. “All they needed was 50 Democrats to vote for the deal, and it would have passed last week.”

But, Labrador said, the Democrats have been trying to divide Republicans “from day
one.”

“They have tried to get us to fight against each other on taxes when — I’m not really sure that they don’t want to go over the fiscal cliff,” he said. “They want to expand the growth of government. They need more revenues. You know, Democrats are like bank robbers. You don’t have the money in the 2 percent — the money is in the 100 percent. They want to raise taxes on everyone.”

Labrador also said history will repeat if leaders talk about raising taxes.

“What happens in Washington is that we talk about raising taxes today and then we talk about cuts 10 years from now,” Labrador said. “It happened under Reagan, it happened under Bush, and it’s what’s going to happen to us once again.”

Milk Prices to Skyrocket

Reuters:

Farm-state lawmakers have agreed to a one-year extension of the expiring U.S. farm law that, if enacted, would head off a possible doubling of retail milk prices to $7 or more a gallon in early 2013.

The extension would end a 32-month attempt to update farm subsidies dating from the Depression era, when farmers were crushed by low prices and huge crop surpluses, to meet today’s high-wire challenges of tight food supplies, high operating costs and volatile markets.

Traditionally, the dairy program sets a minimum price for milk through government purchase of butter, cheese and dry milk. If Congress does not act, the dairy support price will revert on Tuesday to the level dictated by an outmoded 1949 law and which is roughly double the price now paid to farmers.

The potential retail milk price has been estimated at $6 to $8 a gallon versus current levels near $3.50.

Mexican Smuggling Tunnels

Associated Press:

Mexican authorities have discovered a sophisticated smuggling tunnel equipped with electricity and ventilation not far from the Nogales port of entry into Arizona, U.S. and Mexican officials said Friday.

The Mexican army said the tunnel was found Thursday after authorities received an anonymous call in the border city of Nogales, Sonora, south of Arizona. U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed that the Mexican military had discovered the football field-long tunnel with elaborate electricity and ventilation systems.

U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Victor Brabble said the tunnel did not cross into the U.S.

The army said the anonymous caller was reporting gunmen standing outside a two-story house in a hilly neighborhood near the international bridge where motorists travel between Mexico and the United States.

Inside the house, soldiers discovered a fake wall inside a storage closet under a staircase that led to a dark room with buckets and clothes. After lifting a drain cover in that room, soldiers found another staircase at the entrance of the tunnel that went 16 feet underground and measured a yard in diameter. Light bulbs lit the underground passage and pipes stretched across the 120-yard tunnel that Mexican army officials believe was built to smuggle drugs.

It was unclear whether officials made any arrests, but the house where the tunnel was found was seized by the local government. Military officials did not say how long they believed the tunnel had been under construction, but authorities say it can take six months to a year to build such a passage.

Sophisticated secret tunnels stretching across the international border have become increasingly common as drug cartels invent new ways to smuggle enormous loads of heroin, marijuana and other drugs into U.S.

Smoke vs. Toke

by: the Common Constitutionalist

It seems, in so many ways, America is being turned upside down. What seems logical is illogical and vice versa. I can think of no better example than that of cigarettes and marijuana.

Cigarettes are legal substance. They can be purchased at any minimart, megamart and everywhere in between.No Smoking

One may purchase cigarettes in New York City for between $11 and $14.50 per pack, but there is practically nowhere in the city to smoke them. Makes perfect sense.

There is an interesting phenomenon happening in this country. It seems the legal substance cigarettes, is being regulated into illegality, while the illegal substance marijuana, is gaining legality.

At the same time more states and municipalities are outlawing the use of cigarettes, they are enacting legislation to legalize marijuana. I say outlawing the use of cigarettes, not the sale, for governments could never go without the tax revenue.

Could this be the driving force for legalization of pot? Rhode Island, on the heels of the Colorado and Washington state legalization success, has vowed to bring marijuana legalization to vote. They have already estimated a $30 million tax windfall from the sale of a newly legalized substance.

Legalize pot But that could never be. No politician would put tax revenue head of the health of his or her constituents. (I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that one).

I’ve been saying for years; if cigarettes are so harmful, ban them. Ban the sale, not just the use. The whole concept is just absurd.

It would be like being able to purchase a car, but the state telling you, you may not drive it for you may get into an accident and kill someone.

There is no doubt that cigarettes are bad for you and are the source of suffering and death for many. Most in government, as do many ill-informed Americans, claim that smoking puts a strain on the health care system.

From a purely practical and economic standpoint, I contend cigarettes, in the long run, actually save the health care system money and thus the taxpayer. Most chronic smokers develop health problems earlier and thus die earlier than non-smokers, thereby saving money that the taxpayer would otherwise have to pay later in the non-smokers life. I know that sounds heartless but it is logical from a purely economic view.

I would find it impossible to believe that chronic marijuana smokers wouldn’t have similar health problems later in life. So what is the driving force toward legalization of pot?

Could it be that marijuana advocates have become so numerous in these states, as to force legislation or a ballot referendum? Are there that many pot smokers in this country? I sincerely doubt it.

If that isn’t it, what is behind this push for legalization? Also, when marijuana is legalized, where might potheads be able to light up? I ask, due to the dearth of cigarette friendly areas in most states these days.Pot-Head Lobby

For example, in liberal Boulder Colorado, most likely pothead central, cigarette smoking has been banned practically everywhere, even on porches, patios and balconies.

In Oregon there is a statewide ban and a rider within the state law allowing for municipalities to further restrict the use of cigarettes.

California also has a statewide ban on the use of cigarettes and plenty of cities and towns have further restrictions, such as bans on smoking outdoors, at bus stops, parks, and beaches, as well as in apartments and condominiums.

With all the restrictions on cigarettes, a supposed legal substance, will these restrictive municipalities allow pot smokers to light up in Park or their apartment? Might there be a special pothead waiver?

Knowing liberals as I do, I would likely say yes. Marijuana will be allowed were cigarettes aren’t. Yes, we are in bizarro world.

As for why the push to legalize marijuana, I believe there is only one reason and it is not the powerful pothead lobby.california-cannabis Say it with me…Taxes!

States, like the feds, spend money like drunken sailors. My apologies to drunken sailors. They don’t have the spines to cut spending nor do they have the slightest desire to do so. So they must find new streams of revenue. Legalizing and taxing marijuana is the new stream they have discovered. Like the Lewis and Clark of taxes.

It will be interesting to see just how far the spineless political class will go with the neRasta Monw drug legalization thing. The radicals on the left, of course, will never stop at just marijuana. This is simply the jump off point for them. After they’ve tasted success in several more states, they will move on to some other drug. Mark my words!

I have an idea for the most hated industry this side of Big Oil. Phillip Morris could become the most beloved company of the left. They just have to introduce “Marlboro Joints”. Instead of the Marlboro man, the macho cowboy smoking a cigarette, they could introduce the Marlboro Rasta-Mon, standing at the checkout of a 7-11 with the joint in one hand and a microwave burrito in the other.

Shoot the Nullifier!

FL Senate President Laughs At Constitutionalist

by:  and the Common Constitutionalist

Republican Florida State Senate President Don Gaetz showed the true face of tyrannical RINOs in the Republican Party when he openly laughed and mocked the Constitutional principles espoused by KrisAnne Hall, an attorney and former prosecutor, who supports the Tenth Amendment and the right of the States to nullify unconstitutional laws implemented by the federal government. However, it appears that Mr. Gaetz also indicated his support of the tactic of the seventh President of the United States Andrew Jackson inNullifyObamacare how he would deal with “nullifiers.” He would have them shot and hanged.

According to Mrs. Hall, she not only spoke to Gaetz, but even wrote him and explained the positions of men like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton on State sovereignty. She then received what can only be explained as a violence threatening email from Gaetz to anyone that would support nullification. Here’s what Sen. Gaetz wrote:

Thank you for your email and for your passionate views.

Like you, I believe Obamacare is unconstitutional and wrong-headed policy. I have consistently voted in the Florida Legislature for legislation that affirms our state’s options, obligations and sovereignty under the United States Constitution. I am working every day to ensure the election of national candidates who will repeal and replace this extraordinarily bad policy.

10th-amendmentAs to nullification, I tend to favor the approach used by Florida’s first Governor, Andrew Jackson:

It is said that one evening, while he was president, General Jackson was interrupted in his reading in his bedroom by an alarmed military aide who breathlessly reported, “Mr. President, the “nullifiers” are in front of the Executive Mansion with torches and guns. They are screaming that each state has the right to decide for itself which federal laws to follow. They threaten to burn us down if you will not agree with them.”

Without lifting his head from his reading, Andrew Jackson said, “Shoot the first nullifier who touches the Flag. And hang the rest.

Chaplain, I have sworn an oath on my father’s Bible before Almighty God to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States. And that’s exactly what I intend to do. Count me with Andrew Jackson.

Senator Don Gaetz

From the Common Constitutionalist: Well, at least progressives are consistent. Whether they be democrat or republican matters not. A progressive is always in favor of siding with big government; the bigger the better. It’s also nice to hear Senator Gaetz is a big fan of that swine, Andrew Jackson. Lest you have forgotten or are a new reader, the following is an excerpt pulled from an article I wrote a while back regarding another progressive, Newt Gingrich. In it, I extolled the virtues of President Jackson:

Many believe the Father of Progressivism was Theodore Roosevelt. In fact it was Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson came to prominence as the Founding Fathers died out and I believe the republic that they envisioned also died with Jackson. He could not have done what he did if they had been around.

Jackson believed in Manifest Destiny, which is kind of the perversion of Divine Providence. Divine Providence occurs when you live your life in a good and moral way, try your best and pull yourself up by the bootstraps, God will open doors for you. You know, “Good things happen to good people”.

Manifest Destiny is more of the, “Get out of my way. I’m on a mission from God”. It’s my way or the highway. Like all progressives, he knew better than the people.

Founding Fathers = Divine Providence, Progressives = Manifest Destiny. It’s no surprise Jackson was also the father of the democrat party.

He declared war on the Bank of the United States (B.U.S.). I’m no fan of any national bank but unlike the Federal Reserve of today, the B.U.S. did not wield nearly the power of today’s central bank.

Although he declared it, he was not championing the working class or Ron Paul supporters. He claimed to be fighting for the “little man”. Sound familiar? In fact he just wanted to shut the bank down because he couldn’t control it. Jackson simply wanted to replace it with another bank completely controlled by him and his party. Progressives must control all things for the betterment of society. They arrest control by pretending to be the champions of the “Little Guy”.

Most Americans think the Civil War was fought solely about slavery. In fact AndrewTariff of 1832 Jackson started the ball rolling when he signed the Tariff of 1832 that taxed imported and exported goods. The North grew successfully under this tariff. The tax was rough on the southerners. As Andrew Jackson continued to tax goods, southerners found it hard to sell their products to the English and suffered badly.. South Carolina firmly refused to pay the taxes and threatened to withdraw from the Union if the tariff was enforced. It was eventually rewritten, but the damage between the North & South had been done.

Like the progressives that would follow, he was also a flaming racist. He believed neither Indians nor blacks should own any property in the U.S. He particularly hated Indians.

We have all heard of the “Trail of Tears”. That was Andrew Jackson’s doing. He declared war on the Eastern Indian Tribes, signing the Indian Removal Act. There would be no tribes east of the Mississippi. Many Indians were massacred. Those he didn’t have killed, were driven west along; you guessed it,  “The Trail of Tears”. Many of the Indians died on the trail (roughly 25%), freezing to death.

His excuse for the atrocity was, “Well, we needed the land, so we took it”. Manifest Destiny.