Guest Commentary – Coalition, Evolution, Movement… Is It Time?

guest-commentaryFriday night comes to us again and with it is that wonderful thing we call guest commentary. I have to say how happy I am with the guest commentary submissions that continue to come in. As I have stated in the past, I know how much I enjoy the idea of sharing my thoughts with everyone and debating them. And I want everyone to at some point have the joy of having their work published in the public forum. To that end I hope to eventually have a guest commentary from every single reader here sent to me for publication. If I get overwhelmed with them, I will go to publishing a couple every Friday instead of one! Tonight I offer a piece that was sent to me a couple of months ago. As many of you know I have had so much going on the last several months, I struggled to keep up. So I now ashamedly offer this article long after it was written to run.

However, I still think that the article is extremely important to the discussions that we continue to have. We continue to discuss an out of control government, and we continue to struggle with how we can do anything to regain control. So tonight, there is an idea from a regular reader here. He is also a repeat performer on the guest commentator stage. I welcome back Common Man, while simultaneously apologizing for the long delay in getting to posting this article.

Coalition, Evolution, Movement… Is It Time?
by Common Man

In many recent articles and subsequent discussions, many people have been talking about taking effective action to stop the madness running amuck within our government and government’s non-representing representatives. The majority of those speaking out were unsure how to go about it, and/or if it would make a difference.

A new political party was suggested, one that would challenge the current two party system, which has become indignant of the public’s freedoms and voice. Some thought it was a good idea and some thought it would be a wasted effort. I even commented that starting a new party would be a long and tough challenge.

But maybe a new party will arise out of a movement; an Evolutional Movement.

Obama and his regime won the election on a campaign of “Change”, although that “Change” sure seems to be costing a lot of dollars. (Maybe we have another T-shirt) Their ideals were based upon universal prosperity through fairness and service. They promised a turn-around and an evolutional government dedicated to serving American interests. The majority of American’s bought into that philosophy. They saw hope in a time of despair, they believed in a new order, they chose an ideal that provided a promise in some way or another.

We did get change, although not for the better, but is it all bad?

I see a huge awakening across America, an inspirational awakening. People in all parts of the country are getting involved and speaking out against a tyrannical regime. They are questioning what is being done and how it is being done. They are getting angry at their ‘representative’s’ and their ‘representative’s’ actions. They are forming independent groups, parties and organizations in an effort to speak out against perceived and realized government discretions. For the first time in years more people are paying attention to what is going on in Washington.

It is starting to gain some momentum as a movement, because Americans are evolving.

If we look back at our history pre-1776 there are a lot of similarities with our forefathers mind set and how we as a people evolved into an independent country. There was an initial feeling of distaste for the then controlling government, and as more restraints were invoked, that distaste grew. Free men began to question and voice their dissatisfaction, asking for audiences focusing on representation and relaxed taxes. They formed alliances with others, and spoke about secession. And finally, when all other avenues were exhausted they declared their independence.

They didn’t strive to form another political party, the started a movement independent of the repressing government.

NOW LET ME BE PREFECTLY CLEAR: I AM NOT PROMOTING OR SUGGESTING WE START A MILITIA BASED REVOLUTION; AS THAT WOULD BE SUICIDAL AND IT IS ILLEGAL.

But we should start, organize and promote an evolutional MOVEMENT for American Liberty and a Republic that promotes a people’s form of government.

BF has said that fighting, fleeing or attempting to change the government and/or its rules is fruitless and will result in loss. We must ignore it as it is its own eventual demise. How about we just help it along, and at the same time develop a new standard to use when the demise has come about.

That being said I suggest that we focus a couple of nights to generating ideals, sound philosophies and standards, and we use the Storyboarding concept as a foundational theme. That means that initially there are no ‘bad’ ideas, because everyone has good intentions. Afterwards we can build from those ideas to form a foundation of principals that will focus our movement’s standards and direct our actions.

I would also suggest that the following nights be directed at initiating action to further along the movement, inspire additional participation abroad, and organize nationally.

USW, JAC and even BF, to a certain extent, all agree that the current non-representing representatives and their parties are not the way. I concur; those dogs just won’t hunt, because they are too wrapped up in their entrenched and obliging ways.

Starting another party is too dangerous and I truly believe will leave us in the dust, but a movement has wheels, it is not beholding to political influence, and it collects support as it rolls along.

JAC said in a past post:

“There are many other organizations, groups and individuals out there trying to do something. We will have to reach out to them pretty soon or they will wander in different directions. I had originally advised some here to think of VDLG as a COALITION not a party. A powerful group of like minded patriots dedicated to the resurrection of our constitutional Republic and the principals of individual freedom and liberty”.

He is correct and whether it is a COALITION or MOVEMENT is not relevant, only that it is initiated, organized, evolving and sustained.

I posted some initial questions during that debate months ago, here they are:

1. What are our core principles?

2. What do we want to accomplish? What are we willing to accept as an alternative?

3. How should we start and with whom?

4. How do we get the word out?

5. What is the definition of our success?

6. Can we become an influential lobbyist like institution?

7. Who should we contact to assist us?

8. Can we petition our current representatives to assist us?

9. How are we going to financially support this effort?

10. Does anyone have influence with the media, local or national?

11. What about Beck and others as catalyst’s for our cause?

12. Do we start at the local or go straight to the top and petition both parties as an alternative or at least a voice they need to accept?

13. What’s everybody think and are you all willing to participate?

Common Man

In previous posts centered on the philosophy discussion we heard that we needed to adopt a new set of beliefs driven by morals, equality, independence and freedom. We needed to ensure we did so in a way that would sustain them. In more recent posts we have discussed the lack of control in government and the fact that the average American has somehow fallen to accepting far less in the way of ethics and morals from our “leaders” than they would accept in any other person they allowed into their circle. Common Man has seen this and offers us an idea for a path forward. I would like for all of us to discuss what he has written here. If everyone agrees that this is the time and the place to hold the further discussions that he suggests, I will certainly help to facilitate them. I would work with several people here on the site to form the best plan for doing so in this format. I look forward to everyone’s thoughts.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Very interesting – I look forward to the constructive discussions!

  2. I think that everyone who has read my thoughts and ideas that I have submitted here and on my own blog know what I am going to say.

    We already have a document that if we just hold our politicians to it will work much more effectively than creating a new “movement” and direction for our country. All we have to do is get up off our potato couches and get it done. The currant wave of T.E.A. party’s are just the very beginning and I believe that all concerned should get behind that movement and give it some momentum.

    Fractioning up into dozens of seperate groups is just what the Obamatrons want.

    Remember: Divided we fall and united we stand.

    • bottom line says:

      “We already have a document that if we just hold our politicians to it will work much more effectively than creating a new “movement” and direction for our country. All we have to do is get up off our potato couches and get it done.” – G.A. Rowe

      Exactly.

    • Ummmmm….GA….forgive my stupidity here….but where is your blog?

      • Rowevings is linked from this site, upper right.
        Good morning D, having a hot coffee to get brain working, to early for DP.

      • bottom line says:

        click on his name

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi D13,

        If you click on GA’s name at the beginning of his post where it says, “G.A. Rowe Said”, you’ll get to his website.

        Thanks and I hope you have a great day.

        Best Regards,
        RS

      • D13 recognizes that he obviously cannot count…there are 13 questions and not 10…..sigh. Did not have my DR Pepper early enough.

        • oops….posted in the wrong place….D13 cannot obviously read a blog either… Dr Pepper is kicking in now.

        • Oh, I see…you mean to click on the obvious? Wellllll….alllllllrighttyyy then. And this from a Colonel who prides himself on the obvious……don’t I feel stupid. (sheepishly hiding his head seeing if anyone buys it).

  3. The simplest way to enforce change: Declare your independence from the two-party system. Cease voting for Democrats and Republicans. Vote third party and independent.

    • Except, there is no viable third party or independent. I am an advocate of voting, as everyone knows. But, I cannot vote to simply vote against republican or democrat. I could be voting in something worse, albeit interesting to find something worse right now. So to blindly vote against something without knowing what it is is worse than not voting at all.

    • We have a 4 party system in which deals within deals within deals is the order of every day. At the very least it makes damned sure what you guys are seeing now doesn’t happen again… EVER! Also after seeing your congress and what its able to accomplish, breaking things down into 3 groups at least would not slow ANYTHING down or raise the level of indecision and direction shown by that government body. Were this the case right now, the centrists would NOT be in Obama (the far left) corner but with the far right in stopping the blind spending. Were the centrist an actual party, pandering to them would be the rule not being berated by either end of the two party extremes. In the end wouldn’t you all do that much better with the middle in charge? At the very least, they’d never be doing something directly opposed to either end. No more cutting off of noses to spite their faces sounds good to me but I’m a Canadian and maybe the majorities of the two American political groups are extremists?

      My opinion only but ditch the unionists who would bleed a company dry, the corporates who dole out preferred shares to themselves for showing up and take hold of those in the middle who understand profit sharing and the like. They will be the ones to save your country from itself.

  4. bottom line says:

    Here’s an interesting piece.

    Gil Scott Herin – “THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED” – 1970

    You will not be able to stay home, brother.
    You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
    You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
    Skip out for beer during commercials,
    Because the revolution will not be televised.

    The revolution will not be televised.
    The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
    In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
    The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
    blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
    Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
    hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
    The revolution will not be televised.

    The revolution will not be brought to you by the
    Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie
    Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
    The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
    The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
    The revolution will not make you look five pounds
    thinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother.

    There will be no pictures of you and Willie May
    pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,
    or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.
    NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
    or report from 29 districts.
    The revolution will not be televised.

    There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
    brothers in the instant replay.
    There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
    brothers in the instant replay.
    There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being
    run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
    There will be no slow motion or still life of Roy
    Wilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
    Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
    For just the proper occasion.

    Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Hooterville
    Junction will no longer be so damned relevant, and
    women will not care if Dick finally gets down with
    Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people
    will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
    The revolution will not be televised.

    There will be no highlights on the eleven o’clock
    news and no pictures of hairy armed women
    liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose.
    The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb,
    Francis Scott Key, nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom
    Jones, Johnny Cash, Englebert Humperdink, or the Rare Earth.
    The revolution will not be televised.

    The revolution will not be right back after a message
    bbout a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
    You will not have to worry about a dove in your
    bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
    The revolution will not go better with Coke.
    The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
    The revolution will put you in the driver’s seat.

    The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
    will not be televised, will not be televised.
    The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
    The revolution will be live.

  5. Ray Hawkins says:

    How out of touch am I! Thursday, Glenn Beck was a hop, skip and a jump from where I live. He visited Exton, PA for a book signing. Reports in the local newspaper (Philadelphia Inquirer) estimated approximately 1000 people waiting in line for hours to get his book and get it signed. This is not entirely shocking, Chester County, PA is solidly conservative, sort of a sore thumb for liberal SE Pennsylvania. FWIW I had just returned from Atlanta the night before and was buried with work. A few protesters did show up to the signing.

    Couple this with a David Brooks article in yesterday’s NYT regarding the empty shirt movement from the last election. Brooks was calling out the colossal failure of folks like Rush, Hannity and Beck to a lesser extent to marshal resources and people to first oppose McCain on the right and then, gasp, vote Billary on the left just to undermine Obama. As memory serves, there was a lot of talk and bombast, but when push came to shove, those who filled the waves with ‘hell yeah’ said ‘no thanks’ to the calls for action.

    Anyway – curious if ‘this time around’ is any different. Perhaps the effect of ‘grass roots’ from the left actually stirred some roots on the right. I don’t know. I am not sure some tea bagging parties and a 9/12 hatefest qualify, surely we will know soon enough in 2010. I assume you will see some turnover, seats changing hands from the thieves on the left back to the thieves on the right. To the extent it is attributed to this ‘movement’ and Beck and his Merry Pranksters (sorry folks – cannot resist comparing Beck to Kesey no matter how flimsy) is highly debatable.

    Thanks CM – interesting read.

    • “9/12 hatefest”?????

    • Ray,

      I’m finding it more and more difficult to take you seriously BECAUSE you demean opposing views. Tea bagging parties? 9/12 Hatefest? Don’t claim ingorance. I know you know the difference between a sexual practice and the history of the Boston Tea Party.

      This is your last opportunity to convince me to actually read your posts. Not that I expect you to care what I think, or if I can be bothered with you anymore, but there may be others out here who are feeling the same way, whose opinions of you do matter to you.

  6. Ray Hawkins says:

    Tongue in cheek (hopefully)……

    Our Obama, who art in office,
    Hallowed be thy Name.
    Thy Socialism come.
    Thy Socialism be done,
    Across America as it is in Europe

    Give us this day our daily rationing.
    And forgive us our values,
    As we forgive those who have killed us.
    And lead us into temptation,
    And deliver us from Glenn Beck.
    For thine is the kingdom,
    and the power, and the glory,
    for ever and ever.
    Amen Obama.

  7. Common Man,

    A good article. I was watching Beck last night, he has started putting together a “million mom” group from his 9/12’ers. It looks like he is trying to be the unifying force for the Tea Parties and other protest groups. I have stated several times that our problem is our lack of organization, and as you stated, the outrage this government has generated may be its undoing.

    As for the rest, I echo G.A., I think we have an original blueprint that may need some updates, but certainly not a complete
    re-write. For example, a clear statement on the second amendment
    so every city or town cannot deny its citizens the right to defend themselves.

    And Beck is getting hard for me to watch, I get his points, but get tired of his rants. The guy must love the sound of his own voice way too much.

    • bottom line says:

      “For example, a clear statement on the second amendment” – LOI

      Just my opinion, but it’s pretty clear already. The confusion is created by those who are against gun rights.

      • v. Holland says:

        “Just my opinion, but it’s pretty clear already. The confusion is created by those who are against gun rights.”

        That answer is too simple. IMO writing anything so that it can’t be misinterpreted is very hard. Gun rights-does that include the right to have any kind of gun, does that mean anyone can have a gun-what about having to register guns, so that crazy people can’t get them, which is good but then the government knows who has them and can take them away which seems to be the exact opposite of what the protection was put in for-this isn’t a simple problem

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          The right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          Doens’t sound all that ambiguous to me…

          • “The right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

            Doens’t sound all that ambiguous to me…”

            Unfortunately as someone who writes requirements for a living, there’s always lots of problems with seemingly simple statements. For starters, “arms” is not defined, and could be interpreted to mean just about anything, to the point of limiting the citizenry to only being able to wield BB guns.

    • >>I get his points, but get tired of his rants.

      What is it with these guys… I dont “like” any of them – tone of voice – attitude, but I tend to agree or they tend to posit the same points I have. (of course I get clobbered)

      Since I can’t stand listening to Limbaugh its hard to refute people who make derogatory remarks and associate that with what I say. And I am not a ‘great american’ just because I call up and happen to get thru to Hannity !! LOL

      I still remember back in the early nineties or eighties?? (I think) when I was on long drives and found Limbaugh and he’d make what seemed like an outrageous assertion, someone in the MSM would pick it up and put him down, but then it would turn out that he was 100% correct in what he said.

      At least Beck seems to be as outraged at all politicians that make stupid decisions. But I’ve only watched him 3 /4 times for 5-20 minutes.. I do get the 9/12 meetup emails. Such as this one:http://www.the912project.us/group/maine/forum/topic/show?id=2881797%3ATopic%3A449103

  8. Very interesting, Common Man….and spot on. However, it will be very difficult without a grass roots movement, in my estimation. But, in order to get things started, I will offer my answers to your questions.

    Question 1. What are our core principles?

    D13 answers: Can you imagine what it was like when the framers of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were trying to agree? In law school, I was told that to write a contract that covered every conceivable out would stretch around the world three times and never solve the problem. That statement has proven true over the years. However, would it have not been pretty neat to be a fly on the wall watching and listening while a group of well intentioned men were trying to get everyone to agree to a set of principles with everyone thinking THEY were right. I bet the fist fights and arguments were pretty pretty intense. Friendships were made and lost, I can imagine. This would be the most important question of your ten. Because, without agreement, the other nine are not relevant. I would hope a Black Flag and a Ray Hawkins could get together, or myself, for that matter, and find a common ground. I would find it very difficult to find common ground with Black Flag, for example, because I see his premise as immovable. Black Flag is consistent in his belief and, therefore, uncompromising, in my estimation. I would have to also rethink my position as well for I am equally steadfast in my beliefs. We spend a lot of time on this blog tearing each others beliefs down under the premise of trying to explain our own. There are a lot of well intentioned individuals on this blog….both male and female….and there are a lot of great ideas. But, when you look at it in a whole, it is a target hit with a shotgun. Everyone is on target to some extent, but there is no shot pattern. It is scattered. Core principles have to be established to which a MAJORITY can agree. Therein is the hardest and most difficult obstacle to overcome.

    Question 2. What do we want to accomplish? What are we willing to accept as an alternative?

    D13 answers: Question 1 will answer question 2. Core principles will decide what to accomplish and any alternatives available.

    Question 3. How should we start and with whom?

    D13 answers: We learn from the same premise that started our country before our independence was declared. The biggest problem that I see, is that in the 1700’s America, there was no sitting government to compete against. You had a tyrant that was 3,000 miles away. You had a communication gap that allowed things to happen. If a revolt started then, it took months to communicate across the ocean. Now it takes seconds. So, it would take a group of concerned citizens to be ready to give all, families included, to stand up to the well oiled machinery already in place. Remember that the repubs and the dems are like the warring factions in Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan. They fight each other like hell…until there is someone to fight against that threatens both of them. That is what you can expect from a third party. O concertive effort to defeat it from the established order.

    Question 4. How do we get the word out?

    D13 Answers: Easy. Do it the same way Obama did. Learn from the dems on how to get the word out. They did it and they motivated. Remember that most people are sheep. They follow and they follow blindly.

    Question 5. What is the definition of our success?

    D13 answers: Success is usually measured in achievement of objectives. There are small steps to every objective. One must crawl before they walk, and walk before they run. Define your objective and the stpes to get there……success.

    Question 6. Can we become an influential lobbyist like institution?

    D13 answers: Sure… but is that the objective? Do we lobby or do we organize? I surmise that you cannot do both for to lobby…does that not mean to change one’s or someone’s perspective? Do we change a perspective of a party or start our own?

    Question 7. Who should we contact to assist us?

    D13 answers: Interesting question. An established biased media? No. An established biased base already in power? I would think not. I think that it would take that same concertive effort of what we often refer to as the silent majority. It will take the independents and non voters to get out and do something….to be a part and not sit on the sidelines and wait for collapse and then pick up the pieces. What if collapse never comes but only a void that something more sinister can move in. (Fiddling while Rome burns concept).

    Question 8. Can we petition our current representatives to assist us?

    D13 Answers; I know you were serious on this question, but I had to actually stop laughing. I do not…seriously…do not see any representatives currently in office as helping. A new movement will need to recruit and start at the local levels….my opinion of course.

    Question 9. How are we going to financially support this effort?

    D13 Answers: It will take independent minded people. Supposedly, Obama received tons of donations from unregistered people over the internet. we would have to start in some major local areas that would have impact and get the attention of the electorate. As much as there are some that do not think an electorate is necessary, I cannot, in reality, see where it can not be there. People are sheep, remember. Most WANT things done for them and are willing to pay for it. You have to tap that.

    Question 10. Does anyone have influence with the media, local or national?

    D13 answers: Some of us do. I do.

    Question 11. What about Beck and others as catalyst’s for our cause?

    D13 Answers: I think these hosts are shooting themselves in the foot. Having said that, people like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc, seem to have far larger audiences than the more liberal side. We need to observe and learn why that is? They are striking a chord…even being blowhards and arrogant. BUT, are they in it for themselves and would sell out to the dollar. I still believe that this country is freedom loving and conservative by nature. Obama did not actually get a mandate because the country did not vote. Only a small portion of it voted. Like local elections, it amazes me how a city, like Fort Worth, with a voting population of 600,000 only turns out 40,000 in local elections and taxing referendums. Amazing that no one does anything locally….and then they bitch about it. So, the catalysts will have to be like minded and willing to sacrifice time, family, and money.

    Question 12. Do we start at the local or go straight to the top and petition both parties as an alternative or at least a voice they need to accept?

    D13 answers: I personally think that the only way to get the attention of the big boys is to start locally. Become an example on a smaller scale. Like the leak in the dam, I believe it will grow.

    Question 13. What’s everybody think and are you all willing to participate?

    D13 answers: Count me in. Most of you already know that I have started an effort in Fort Worth and it is actually succeeding. We have pissed off some of the established good old boys but they cannot shut us down. It is working but hard choices are being made. We are successful in parts of Fort Worth in the illegal immigration issue. We are shutting apartments down and forcing the local gendarmes into enforcing the laws on the books. We are shutting business’ down or forcing them to hire legals immigrants. It is already having an impact on three local area hospitals in that it appears that there is a 22% drop in emergency room visits. There are things to do and it is catching on. Fort Worth is not a huge metropolitan city…only a little over a million…but it is catching on in Irving, Farmers Branch, Aledo, and a lot of suburbs. It saves money. We picked immigration because it is our largest problem in Texas. It is gaining ground and moving right along. But the biggest find so far, is that people are beginning to stand up and not be “politically correct” and worrying about being racist. Our little movement, which is unnamed as of now, has grown from 17 to over 160 active participants and has the attention of the media and the local representatives. We are policing ourselves and our objective….enforce the laws in the books. You don;t like the laws? Change them. But we are doing something positive and it is working. We will be taking on the education system next. That is being organized now and we have over 300 parents signed on willing to read text books and attending school board meetings. But it takes work and it takes dedication. This is a small portion of what needs to be done…but think of the impact if other cities had constituents willing to do the same?

    D13 has said enough.

    • “D13 has said enough.”

      Uh,no, not in my opinion. If you look at what you wrote here D13, all except for the “count me in” statement, you and your folks are doing EXACTLY what needs to be done to put us back on the right track. We did not get here overnight, and it will not be corrected overnight.

      When we retired and moved out of SoCal to Northwestern AZ after living in the same house for over twenty some-odd years (and forgetting that we moved dozens of times during my military career), my wife stood in the middle of the living room in tears as after four hours of the movers unloading the truck and carting things into the house. “When will it stop?” she asked me. I understood that she was literally overwhelmed with all the boxes and such. It was such a shock to her that we had actually accumulated so much stuff over the years without realizing it. After the movers left, we looked around us at the sheer enormity of the situation. Literally EVERYTHING we owned – our entire lives – were packed up “in a box, somewhere” around us. Why am I telling you all this? Because that is what will happen, and is actually currently happening, in this country today – that is the feeling anyone will get if they actually try to develop a brand new form of government, or even a brand new political party. Eventually my wife and I developed a mini-philosophy of “by an inch it is a cinch, by the yard it is hard” and began un-boxing our life one box at a time. That is what you are doing D13, one small thing at a time and you are getting things done, making a difference. That is how we get this country back on track, but not scrap what it is that we have developed over the last 200+ years. We DO have a history, we DO have traditions that are unique to US and we CAN be a shinning example to the rest of the world as to what freedom really is and what it can accomplish – remember “By an inch, it is a cinch!”

      • We are determined to make a difference and 90% of us are veterans. Disciplined and purposeful and we do not scare easily.

    • D13,

      Just wanted to say thanks for what you are doing. It is very encouraging to read of your progress in Ft. Worth. Please keep us posted as things progress. I am becoming quite fond of reading your posts.

      I wonder what ever happened to Madmom, she was having lots of results in Rhode Island, if I remember right.

  9. Develop a VDLG Constitution or charter which would contain core principles. JAC and Peter from Indy would be good at putting together some type of document and BF would be the trouble shooter.

    The Constitution was to serve this purpose but it failed and I see no way of going back to following the Constitution as envisioned by the Founders. It’s not going to happen no matter how strongly anyone believes otherwise.

    • “It’s not going to happen no matter how strongly anyone believes otherwise.”

      Oh yes it is!

      • I wish I had your positive views on the Constitution being followed again. Have you ever listened to Dr. Walter Williams? He doesn’t think it will happen. Dr. Williams states that if he campaigned on following the Constitution nobody would vote for him. Williams sees Secession as the answer and New Hampshire has a movement called the Free State Project where they intend to take over the state legislature legally through the election process, negotiate with Congress to follow the Constitution, and then secede if necessary. The Free State Project needs approximately 20,000 to move to NH so they can take over the state legislature.

        I went to a town hall meeting in late August. I was the 2nd person to speak. I said that Health Care is not constitutional. The only way Congress can impose it upon all 50 states is with an ammendment to the Constitution, like they did for prohibition. Congress could not just pass a bill imposing health care with a majority vote. There was complete silence in the room. Nobody understood and nobody cared to understand. My representative did but he wasn’t going to use his influence to argue that the bill was unconstitutional and he didn’t think the U.S. Supreme Court with the current justices would see it my way.

        I agree that the Constitution, if followed as written, would have kept us out of the mess we are in. The American people didn’t want to follow it and allowed it to become just a piece of paper.

        • The push behind the 9/12ers is that we all want to get back to what the constitution was meant for us. This “grassroots” movement is what is needed to get this show on the road. I urge all who read this to read the tenth amandment and then do your level best to get enough people in your state to petition your state legislature to pass a “Tenth Amendment Referendum” that has teeth in it. If enough states will do this, then push for a constitutional convention and introduce amendments that will give more power to the people (you know – “We The People”) to control the government, then we can get back to what this country was meant to be.

          The problem with intellectual PHD’s is that they think that they know everything there is to know about everything there is to know about everything there is to know about everything there is to know about everything . . . Get my drift?

          • G. A. Rowe

            Go to the library and get the book The Black Swan

            If you hack through it, you will might be able to get some clarity regarding your disdain of thinkers.

            It would show you why some of those you claim to be thinkers actually do not (and are doing what you disdain), while some you complain about being thinkers are doing what you should be doing, and are not.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        As BF so fondly likes to point out, either the Constitution was designed to give you exactly what you have now, or there are flaws in the Constitution that allowed you to have exactly what you have now.

        Many of the IDEAS in the Constitution are very good. Much of the what is there is quite good.

        Much of what we are currently doing has no resemblance to what that document says whatsoever.

        If you attempt to “go back to it” you had better figure out what the problems are with it and fix those problems, or eventually the country will end up right back here again.

        If you want a government at all, but you would like the freedom and liberty of the people to be protected from their own government (which is what the Constitution was supposed to do), it is fine to use it as a foundation.

        It is NOT fine to go back to it as it is written without any modification whatsoever, because we routinely document on a daily basis that the Constitution FAILED TO DO WHAT WE CLAIM IT IS INTENDED TO DO.

        You can use all of the good ideas from it, and try to design a more idiot-proof system, and that is fine.

        Go back to this exact document as the foundation, and failure WILL occur again, because, clearly, just by looking at the politicians that run the show these days, the original document is FAR from idiot-proof.

        • PeterB:

          I concur 100% with your comments!!!

          If the Constitution could be repaired with all the holes fixed, then maybe it could work but only if a Super Computer could be designed and programmed to interpret it. Man cannot be relied upon to interpret the document. The Supreme Court, with men and women, failed to properly interpret the Constitution. You cannot trust man to interpret the document because they will find a way around it.

          • Birdman

            As many Americans are, you miss a significant issue.

            To understand this issue, Please find the word “interpret” or any other synonym of that word anywhere in the entire document.

            When you do that, contemplate for awhile what that means….

            • Black Flag:

              Point taken. There should be no interpretation. It either is or is not constitutional. It’s black or white and no shades of gray. However, the Supreme Court does “interpret” the document when they should not. Man cannot be relied upon to enforce the document because they interpet the constitution to fit their political/social/economic agenda. That’s why I said get a computer to do it since man cannot be trusted.

              Am I still off track?

              • You are more on the track then off….so let’s see if we can get the rest of the wheels in alignment.

                A Constitution – in its theory – is to provide power to the powerless in politics.

                The powerful do not need a Constitution – they use their power to force themselves – they need not a piece of paper.

                The powerless use the piece of paper to prove illegitimacy of action of the powerful.

                The intelligence supported (and still does) the fact that the Taliban was a direct supporter of Al Qaeda. As a side, I know BF and some others argue against this mattering on the basis that they do not believe Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. I won’t get back into that argument. 9/11 or no, Al Qaeda is responsible for multiple terrorist attacks on United States interests over the years. There is no other way to paint it… Al Qaeda is an enemy of the United States and much of the rest of the non-Muslim world. And I mean all of it. They have attacked Buddhist and Hindu and Christian and Jewish cultures. Don’t argue it. Do your research. I have. They are an enemy of the US. Period.

                Taliban Executing Women on Famous Soccer Killing Fields

                I figured we would go in, whip the Taliban, stomp any insurgency, burn the poppy fields, set an example for anyone else that might want a shot at the champ, and go home. Hindsight being 20/20, had I known we would fight the war the way we have, I would not have been nearly as supportive. I know some of you won’t think much of me for that. It seems brutal of me. But it is honest.
                We started out well enough. We whipped the Taliban. This isn’t surprising considering that the US had been working on plans to dismantle the Taliban well before the attacks on 9/11. The way I would have wanted things to go stopped about right there, however.
                Option 1. Take off our chains and let the military do its thing. As I said, I don’t like war. It sucks. But if you are going to be in one, the stupidest thing you can do is to fight it by agreeing to terms that your enemy won’t agree to. I know people don’t like the idea of civilian deaths. Me either. But it is a necessary evil if you are going to fight a war. These people have the ability on their own to force the Taliban out of hiding and not allow them to hide among the population. If they don’t do that, then they are unfortunately setting themselves up for a bad day at the office. I know that BF is chomping at the bit to tell me how hypocritical and immoral I am. Allow me to share a short piece of my learnings.

                Imagine if you can… being outnumbered 100 to 1. You have superior weaponry and training. They have the numbers. When you peer over the windowsill, you see their “snipers”. They are laying on the ground taking aim. On each side of them, an inch from their arm is a woman sitting their as a shield, not held there as a captive. She is doing it because she wants to do it. Sitting on his back is a little boy, maybe 8 years old, further voluntary protection. See these guys know that Americans don’t like shooting women and children. So they surround themselves with them, knowing we won’t shoot. There are dozens of these rifleman. They are throwing rounds at you like mad. You can move. You can’t retreat. Now you are faced with a decision. What would you do?

                That the US is fighting a losing battle because the “4th generation warrior” is slicker, sneakier, and won’t face you head on. I will tell you that if you unleash our military, take off their restraint and allow them to do their job, they will finish off the 4th generation warrior just as fast as they finished off the others. Will it be brutal? Yes. Will it result in more innocent deaths than the “play nice” attitude of modern US warfare? Yes. Will we be done with the war and have out boys home a whole lot quicker? You betcha.

                Option #2. Stop now. End this war and come home. It doesn’t matter how long we stay in Afghanistan, we will never change what it is. We will never install a government that operates the way that we want it to

                Taliban Version of Honor

                USWep

                Re: Taliban and Al Qaeda

                Your “research” should have informed you that the Al Qaeda was a CIA creation – so perhaps the first bombs should have been dropped on Langley.

                The US is harboring international terrorists today. Are you suggesting that other countries have a right to attack the People of this nation to bring those terrorists to justice – since the US government has prohibited extradition of these terrorists?

                Or is the US position simply another example of hypocrisy in action?

                It is technically impossible for Al Qaeda to have committed 9/11. Evidence today points to far deeper and dangerous pockets such perhaps a Mossad and/or ISI (Pakistani Secret Police) operation.

                The sudden rush to judgment against the Taliban is bizarre.

                First, they have not been implicated whatsoever to any action against USA. Ever.

                So your first argument is wholly faulty.

                Second, their agreement to hand over Bin Laden (whether or not he was involved) was irrelevant. US assets were far more then capable of taking out him and his followers without any (significant) action against the Taliban. The Taliban had no air force, and their armor was impotent. Further, the location of Bin Laden was far away from the operations of the Taliban – and in the areas of the Northern Alliance who were the enemies of the Taliban.

                Taking out the Taliban was for far different reasons than Bin Laden.

                You are more on the track then off….so let’s see if we can get the rest of the wheels in alignment.

                A Constitution – in its theory – is to provide some sort of power to the powerless in politics.

                The powerful do not need a Constitution – they use their superior strength and power to force themselves – they need not a piece of paper.

                The powerless use the piece of paper to prove illegitimacy of action of the powerful.

                That is, they expose the powerful use of violence to be illegitimate and hence criminal. Even the powerful are overwhelmed by those that resist criminals – thus, the powerful do not wish to act without legitimacy – they would rather be seen as ‘doing good’ then acting like criminals.

                But here is the problem. A Constitution is enforced by the government upon the government. The government is seized by the powerful – this is self-evident. Weak people do not succeed in politics. Thus, it is the powerful who decides whether the Constitution is invoked or not!

                The powerful will read the Constitution in the most widest breadth possible – whereas the weak apply the Constitution to the most intense limits upon power as possible. But it is the government that decides which limits to use – and since the government is held by the powerful – all governments will always read the Constitution within the widest breadth of power possible.

                Therefore, the Constitution cannot protect the weak – but, worse, it is used to justify the use of power on the weak! It actually makes the use of power on the weak worse.

              • Argg! I hate squishy!

                Too many posts concurrent.

                See below fo….

                sigh

  10. v. Holland says:

    Just a thought-in my limited knowledge of history it seems to me that whenever the people have stood up and formed a new party-that it has caused one party to collapse, so instead of having 3 viable parties, we have simply replaced one party for a new party.

    • Hi V…the D13 party….has a ring to it. LOL….jus’ teasing of course.

      • v. Holland says:

        From reading your post D13, I suspect a party formed with your principles would be fine by me.

        I just have to wonder if this movement, which in my opinion should be back to our Constitution with some loop holes plugged as I believe JAC has said, would not be better off attempting to change an existing party back to what they are supposed to be, than to try and make a brand new party viable.

  11. Barberian says:

    Excellent article Common Man. I feel perhaps another Social Singularity coming!

  12. I have often posted about taxation and its purpose.

    In these posts, I have stated that taxation is not required for funding the government, but as a tool to manipulate the economy and the people of the country – and such, a purposeful act of evil.

    No one deserves to be artificially manipulated by anyone – let alone by the government.

    I came to understand taxation and its purpose by my own reasoning and observation.

    I came across this speech recently. It confirms many of my concepts about taxes.

    It also demonstrates something else important.

    Often on this blog, the participants are too short-sighted. They blame the current administration or the just-past administration for the problems faced today.

    I’ve said it many time – today’s problems are a consequence of decades, if not a century – of government actions accumulated.

    This speech was made in 1946 – after the 2nd World War and just before the start of the Cold War.

    You can see that back then, the policies that are in action today was publically described but not refuted.

    The consequences are what we suffer today.

    Ruml was a very powerful man. He had been on the Rockefeller payroll for over 40 years by the time he delivered this speech.

    He was the inventor of withholding taxation.

    He proposed it when he was working with the Treasury Department in 1942.

    He got Congress to pass the law.

    Ruml was Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank when he gave this speech: the most important banker on earth.

    In those days, he was more influential than the Chairman of the FED’s Board of Governors. At the same time, he was chairman of Macy’s department stores.

    He argued that a central bank frees the government from the need to tax directly. Therefore, taxation is for social policy, not revenue.

    The implication of this speech should be clear.

    No tax revolt will work.

    The government can circumvent it by borrowing from the FED. The FED offers an escape route from the voters, at least until the dollar dies.

    This really means the Independence of the government from tax protests.

    What he did not say was that this power, if exercised, would destroy the dollar.

    That would inflict death and destruction in the United States. This policy would break the government and the banks. The rulers would lose legitimacy. I don’t think he understood this back then

    I think Bernanke does today. Or I hope he does.

    -BF

    ____________________________________

    This article was first published in the January, 1946, issue of American Affairs.

    The speech was delivered to a meeting of the American Bar Association.

    TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE

    by Beardsley Ruml,

    Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

    The superior position of public government over private business is nowhere more clearly evident than in government’s power to tax business.

    Business gets its many rule-making powers from public government. Public government sets the limits to the exercise of these rule-making powers of business, and protects the freedom of business operations within this area of authority.

    Taxation is one of the limitations placed by government on the power of business to do what it pleases.

    There is nothing reprehensible about this procedure. The business that is taxed is not a creature of flesh and blood, it is not a citizen. It has no voice in how it shall be governed — nor should it.

    The issues in the taxation of business are not moral issues, but are questions of practical effect: What will get the best results? How should business be taxed so that business will make its greatest contribution to the common good?

    It is sometimes instructive when faced with alternatives to ask the underlying question. If we are to understand the problems involved in the taxation of business, we must first ask: “Why does the government need to tax at all?”

    This seems to be a simple question, but, as is the case with simple questions, the obvious answer is likely to be a superficial one. The obvious answer is, of course, that taxes provide the revenue which the government needs in order to pay its bills.

    It Happened

    If we look at the financial history of recent years it is apparent that nations have been able to pay their bills even though their tax revenues fell short of expenses.

    These countries whose expenses were greater than their receipts from taxes paid their bills by borrowing the necessary money. The borrowing of money, therefore, is an alternative which governments use to supplement the revenues from taxation in order to obtain the necessary means for the payment of their bills.

    A government which depends on loans and on the refunding of its loans to get the money it requires for its operations is necessarily dependent on the sources from which the money can be obtained.

    In the past, if a government persisted in borrowing heavily to cover its expenditures, interest rates would get higher and higher, and greater and greater inducements would have to be offered by the government to the lenders.

    These governments finally found that the only way they could maintain both their sovereign independence and their solvency was to tax heavily enough to meet a substantial part of their financial needs, and to be prepared —if placed under undue pressure — to tax to meet them all.

    The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government.

    Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.

    The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks.

    The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.

    Free of the Money Market

    Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.

    The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements.

    Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy.

    All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.

    What Taxes Are Really For

    Federal taxes can be made to serve four principal purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:

    1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;

    2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;

    3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;

    4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.

    In the recent past, we have used our federal tax program consciously for each of these purposes. In serving these purposes, the tax program is a means to an end.
    The purposes themselves are matters of basic national policy which should be established, in the first instance, independently of any national tax program.

    Among the policy questions with which we have to deal are these:

    Do we want a dollar with reasonably stable purchasing power over the years?

    Do we want greater equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone?

    Do we want to subsidize certain industries and certain economic groups?

    Do we want the beneficiaries of certain federal activities to be aware of what they cost?

    These questions are not tax questions; they are questions as to the kind of country we want and the kind of life we want to lead.

    The tax program should be a means to an agreed end. The tax program should be devised as an instrument, and it should be judged by how well it serves its purpose.

    By all odds, the most important single purpose to be served by the imposition of federal taxes is the maintenance of a dollar which has stable purchasing power over the years.

    Sometimes this purpose is stated as “the avoidance of inflation”; and without the use of federal taxation all other means of stabilization, such as monetary policy and price controls and subsidies, are unavailing.

    All other means, in any case, must be integrated with federal tax policy if we are to have tomorrow a dollar which has a value near to what it has today.

    The war has taught the government, and the government has taught the people, that federal taxation has much to do with inflation and deflation, with the prices which have to be paid for the things that are bought and sold.

    If federal taxes are insufficient or of the wrong kind, the purchasing power in the hands of the public is likely to be greater than the output of goods and services with which this purchasing demand can be satisfied.

    If the demand becomes too great, the result will be a rise in prices, and there will be no proportionate increase in the quantity of things for sale. This will mean that the dollar is worth less than it was before — that is inflation.

    On the other hand, if federal taxes are too heavy or are of the wrong kind, effective purchasing power in the hands of the public will be insufficient to take from the producers of goods and services all the things these producers would like to make. This will mean widespread unemployment.

    The dollars the government spends become purchasing power in the hands of the people who have received them. The dollars the government takes by taxes cannot be spent by the people, and, therefore, these dollars can no longer be used to acquire the things which are available for sale. Taxation is, therefore, an instrument of the first importance in the administration of any fiscal and monetary policy.

    To Distribute the Wealth

    The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income. It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures.

    The third reason for federal taxes is to provide a subsidy for some industrial or economic interest. The most conspicuous example of these taxes is the tariffs on imports. Originally, taxes of this type were imposed to serve a double purpose since, a century and a half ago, the national government required revenues in order to pay its bills. Today, tariffs on imports are no longer needed for revenue. These taxes are nothing more than devices to provide subsidies to selected industries; their social purpose is to provide a price floor above which a domestic industry can compete with goods which can be produced abroad and sold in this country more cheaply except for the tariff protection. The subsidy is paid, not at the port of entry where the imported goods are taxed, but in the higher price level for all goods of the same type produced and sold at home.

    The fourth purpose served by federal taxes is to assess, directly and visibly, the costs of certain benefits. Such taxation is highly desirable in order to limit the benefits to amounts which the people who benefit are willing to pay. The most conspicuous examples of such measures are the social security benefits, old-age and unemployment insurance. The social purposes of giving such benefits and of assessing specific taxes to meet the costs are obvious. Unfortunately and unnecessarily, in both cases, the programs have involved staggering deflationary consequences as a result of the excess of current receipts over current disbursements.

    The Bad Tax

    The federal tax on corporate profits is the tax which is most important in its effect on business operations. There are other taxes which are of great concern to special classes of business. There are many problems of state and local taxation of business which become extremely urgent, particularly when a corporation has no profits at all. However, we shall confine our discussion to the federal corporation income tax, since it is in this way that business is principally taxed. We shall also confine our considerations to the problems of ordinary peacetime taxation since, during wartime, many tax measures, such as the excess-profits tax, have a special justification.

    Taxes on corporation profits have three principal consequences — all of them bad.

    Briefly, the three bad effects of the corporation income tax are:

    1. The money which is taken from the corporation in taxes must come in one of three ways. It must come from the people, in the higher prices they pay for the things they buy; from the corporation’s own employees in wages that are lower than they otherwise would be; or from the corporation’s stockholders,

    in lower rate of return on their investment. No matter from which sources it comes, or in what proportion, this tax is harmful to production, to purchasing power, and to investment.

    2. The tax on corporation profits is a distorting factor in managerial judgment, a factor which is prejudicial to clear engineering and economic analysis of what will be best for the production and distribution of things for use. And, the larger the tax, the greater the distortion.

    3. The corporation income tax is the cause of double taxation. The individual taxpayer is taxed once when his profit is earned by the corporation, and once again when he receives the profit as a dividend.

    This double taxation makes it more difficult to get people to invest their savings in business than if the profits of business were only taxed once. Furthermore, stockholders with small incomes bear as heavy a burden under the corporation income tax as do stockholders with large incomes.

    Analysis

    Let us examine these three bad effects of the tax on corporation profits more closely. The first effect we observed was that the corporation income tax results in either higher prices, lower wages, reduced return on investment, or all three in combination. When the corporation income tax was first imposed it may have been believed by some that an impersonal levy could be placed on the profits of a soulless corporation, a levy which would be neither a sales tax, a tax on wages, or a double tax on the stockholder. Obviously, this is impossible in any real sense. A corporation is nothing but a method of doing business which is embodied in words inscribed on a piece of paper. The tax must be paid by one or more of the people who are parties at interest in the business, either as customer, as employee, or as stockholder.

    It is impossible to know exactly who pays how much of the tax on corporation profits. The stockholder pays some of it, to the extent that the return on his investment is less than it would be if there were no tax. But, it is equally certain that the stockholder does not pay all of the tax on corporate income — indeed, he may pay very little of it. After a period of time, the corporation income tax is figured as one of the costs of production and it gets passed on in higher prices charged for the company’s goods and services, and in lower wages, including conditions of work which are inferior to what they otherwise might be.

    The reasons why the corporation income tax is passed on, in some measure, must be clearly understood. In the operations of a company, the management of the business, directed by the profit motive, keeps its eyes on what is left over as profit for the stockholders. Since the corporation must pay its federal income taxes before it can pay dividends, the taxes are thought of — the same as any other uncontrollable expense — as an outlay to be covered by higher prices or lower costs, of which the principal cost is wages. Since all competition in the same line of business is thinking the same way, prices and costs will tend to stabilize at a point which will produce a profit, after taxes, sufficient to give the industry access to new capital at a reasonable price. When this finally happens, as it must if the industry is to hold its own, the federal income tax on corporations will have been largely absorbed in higher prices and in lower wages. The effect of the corporation income tax is, therefore, to raise prices blindly and to lower wages by an undeterminable amount. Both tendencies are in the wrong direction and are harmful to the public welfare.

    Where Would the Money Go?

    Suppose the corporation income tax were removed, where would the money go that is now paid in taxes? That depends. If the industry is highly competitive, as is the case with retailing, a large share would go in lower prices, and a smaller share would go in higher wages and in higher yield on savings invested in the industry. If labor in the industry is strongly organized, as in the railroad, steel, and automotive industries, the share going in higher wages would tend to increase. If the industry is either competitive nor organized nor regulated — of which industries there are very few — a large share would go to the stockholders. In so far as the elimination of the present corporation income tax would result in lower prices, it would raise the standard of living for everyone.

    The second bad effect of the corporation income tax is that it is a distorting factor in management judgment, entering into every decision, and causing actions to be taken which would not have been taken on business grounds alone. The tax consequences of every important commitment have to be appraised. Sometimes, some action which ought to be taken cannot be taken because the tax results make the transaction valueless, or worse. Sometimes, apparently senseless actions are fully warranted because of tax benefits. The results of this tax thinking is to destroy the integrity of business judgment, and to set up a business structure and tradition which does not hang together in terms of the compulsion of inner economic or engineering efficiency.

    Premium on Debt

    The most conspicuous illustration of the bad effect of tax consideration on business judgment is seen in the preferred position that debt financing has over equity financing. This preferred position is due to the fact that interest and rents, paid on capital used in business, are deductible as expense; whereas dividends paid are not. The result weighs the scales always in favor of debt financing, since no income tax is paid on the deductible costs of this form of capital. This tendency goes on, although it is universally agreed that business and the country generally would be in a stronger position if a much larger proportion of all investment were in common stocks and equities, and a smaller proportion in mortgages and bonds.

    It must be conceded that, in many cases, a high corporation income tax induces management to make expenditures which prudent judgment would avoid. This is particularly true if a long-term benefit may result, a benefit which cannot or need not be capitalized. The long-term expense is shared involuntarily by government with business, and, under these circumstances, a long chance is often well worth taking. Scientific research and institutional advertising are favorite vehicles for the use of these cheap dollars. Since these expenses reduce profits, they reduce taxes at the same time; and the cost to the business is only the margin of the expenditure that would have remained after the taxes had been paid — the government pays the rest. Admitting that a certain amount of venturesome expenditure does result from this tax inducement, it is an unhealthy form of unregulated subsidy which, in the end, will soften the fibre of management and will result in excess timidity when the risk must be carried by the business alone. The third unfortunate consequence of the corporation income tax is that the same earnings are taxed twice, once when they are earned and once when they are distributed. This double taxation causes the original profit margin to carry a tremendous burden of tax, making it difficult to justify equity investment in a new and growing business. It also works contrary to the principles of the progressive income tax, since the small stockholder, with a small income, pays the same rate of corporation tax on his share of the earnings as does the stockholder whose total income falls in the highest brackets. This defect of double taxation is serious, both as it affects equity in the total tax structure, and as a handicap to the investment of savings in business.

    Shortly, an Evil

    Any one of these three bad effects of the corporation income tax would be enough to put it severely on the defensive. The three effects, taken together, make an overwhelming case against this tax. The corporation income tax is an evil tax and it should be abolished. The corporation income tax cannot be abolished until some method is found to keep the corporate form from being used as a refuge from the individual income tax and as a means of accumulating unneeded, uninvested surpluses. Some way must be devised whereby the corporation earnings, which inure to the individual stockholders, are adequately taxed as income of these individuals. The weaknesses and dangers of the corporation income tax have been known for years, and an ill-fated attempt to abolish it was made in 1936 in a proposed undistributed profits tax. This tax, as it was imposed by Congress, had four weaknesses which soon drove it from the books. First, the income tax on corporations was not eliminated in the final legislation, but the undistributed profits tax was added on top of it. Second, it was never made absolutely clear, by regulation or by statute, just what form of distributed capitalization of withheld and reinvested earnings would be taxable to the stockholders and not to the corporation. Third, the Securities and Exchange Commission did not set forth special and simple regulations covering securities issued to capitalize withheld earnings. Fourth, the earnings of a corporation were frozen to a particular fiscal year, with none of the flexibility of the carry-forward, carry-back provisions of the present law.

    Granted that the corporation income tax must go, it will not be easy to devise protective measures which will be entirely satisfactory. The difficulties are not merely difficulties of technique and of avoiding the pitfalls of a perfect solution impossible to administer, but are questions of principle that raise issues as to the proper locus of power over new capital investment.

    Can the government afford to give up the corporation income tax? This really is not the question. The question is this: Is it a favorable way of assessing taxes on the people — on the consumer, the workers and investors — who after all are the only real taxpayers? It is clear from any point of view that the effects of the corporation income tax are bad effects. The public purposes to be served by taxation are not thereby well served. The tax is uncertain in its effect with respect to the stabilization of the dollar, and it is inequitable as part of a progressive levy on individual income. It tends to raise the prices of goods and services. It tends to keep wages lower than they otherwise might be. It reduces the yield on investment and obstructs the flow of savings into business enterprise.

    • BF says: I’ve said it many time – today’s problems are a consequence of decades, if not a century – of government actions accumulated.

      D13 agrees: Not only just right….but damned right.

      • I would say that would be a good goal for a new party, to point out this income tax issue, have a plan for collecting “necessary” revenue, and eliminate the income tax, and NOT replace it with the Fair Tax, or any other sneaky tax.

        That would be a vote getter right there, at least for me.

        • What kind of plan ? So far I think the FairTax is the only viable alternative and it sure isn’t sneaky – it right there every day. And if the power to be need more, then we’ll all ‘see’ it every day!

          • Frank,

            I was not very clear, sorry.

            What I should have said is no more taxing wealth, period. Not when earned, not when spent. There was a time when this country had no income tax and somehow it worked out OK. It was wars that got the income tax started, Civil War and then WW1, as a “temporary” tax…and we got stuck with it. We need to get government pruned back to where it should be, and the wealth left with those that earn it.

      • Barberian says:

        Most notabley around the turn of the century with the establishing of the Federal Reserve and Teddy Roosevelt’s administration .

    • Hi BF,

      “In these posts, I have stated that taxation is not required for funding the government, but as a tool to manipulate the economy and the people of the country – and such, a purposeful act of evil.”

      I remember you saying that many times. How would revenue be raised, assuming there would be a need even for a small government? Previously you mentioned tariffs and excise tax, correct?

      What has been really bugging me is that we ever got to this point, where to hell were the independent, freedom loving people when the income tax was passed, and when withholding was passed? I’m talking about my parents, grandparents, etc. I can remember election talk as a kid, but nothing like we are seeing now with the tea parties, 9-12, and general discontent. It’s a wonder we even remember we HAVE a constitution!

      • Dee

        That’s like asking Gandhi how to murder people.

        All taxation embeds evil.

        There is no ‘good way’ to tax – it is all manipulation of people against their will.

        If I hold a gun to your head, and say “I won’t shoot you, if you sing “Mary had a little lamb” – the act of violence is forcing you to do what you would not do normally or freely.

        There is no good consequence – other than not dying – comes from it.

        Import and export taxes (excise) is probably the least damaging – temporarily.

        • OK, BF, got that settled.

          All taxes shall be voluntary, and those that decide to pay will designate which programs they wish to support.

          • Dee

            Sounds free market system to me!

            (Small detail: voluntary ‘tax’ is an oxymoron – tax, by definition, cannot be voluntary, -voluntary ‘payment’ it is a ‘fee’)

    • BF, Taxes, corrupt legislature and judiciary… I fear that you’re right — the problems with the US are beyond fixing. Systems theory suggest defining and isolating the problem, but that rests on the assumption that there is a single underlying problem — and that leads back to your solution, but, to be totally honest, I fear the change that a pradigm shift implies.

      Have you ever heard of Martin Armstrong, formerly of Princeton Economics? He has some interesting thoughts on reform in general and the outcome of eliminating income taxes in the following document

      It’s a scribd document, so I can’t cut and paste the text for you. It’s on page 16. all is well, I hope c

  13. Hi there

    Thought you guys might be interested in this. I’m praying really hard that Reid finally gets dumped in the next election.

    While the health care reform legislation making its way through Congress aims to protect millions of uninsured or underinsured Americans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is pushing to begin debate in the full Senate at mid-month, may need it to protect his political career.

    Reid is trailing two GOP candidates in next year’s Senate race and the Democratic-sponsored health care bill could determine whether he stays in power or suffers the same stunning fate as his predecessor, Tom Daschle, who failed to win re-election in South Dakota in 2004 despite being the Senate’s top Democrat.

    GOP candidate Danny Tarkanian, a former University of Nevada-Las Vegas basketball player and son of the legendary basketball coach, leads Reid 50 to 43 percent. GOP candidate Sue Lowden, former chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Party who officially launched her campaign Thursday, is beating Reid 50 to 40 percent, according to a recent poll by Rasmussen Reports.

    “Any incumbent who polls below the 50% level is considered potentially vulnerable and Reid is clearly in that category,” the report read.

    But the same report casts doubt on whether health care legislation can save Reid’s sagging political fortunes.

    A majority of Nevada voters, 52 percent, oppose President Obama’s health care plan while 45 percent favor it. Reid is also facing a political environment considered unfavorable to Democrats and a sagging Nevada economy.

    Despite the numbers, Reid continues to push for the most controversial element of health care legislation: a government-run insurance plan, known as the “public option,” that Republicans fiercely oppose and a key Senate committee voted to reject this week.

    “I think Sen. Reid is very vulnerable in pushing an unpopular government takeover of our health care system and clearly people in Nevada aren’t happy about it,” Lowden campaign spokesman Robert Uithoven told FOXNews.com, adding that Reid “had to cancel town hall meetings and hide from the people who elected him” during the August recess. Reid’s re-election campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

    Yet Reid may not need health care to maintain power.

    Political analysts, backed by the report, say Reid might benefit from the problems the state GOP and Nevada’s other senator, John Ensign who was forced to disclose an extramarital affair, are experiencing along with a highly unpopular governor.

    “I’m one of the people who thinks he will win,” said David Damore, a political scientist at the University of Nevada Las Vegas

    Damore said Reid is not the type of politician that will draw 65 or 70 percent of the vote but he has a track record that may give him the edge over his opponents.

    Reid has successfully lobbied Democrats to add the Nevada caucus to the first round of presidential voting, shifting candidates’ attention and time usually reserved for Iowa and New Hampshire to a state known for its glitzy casinos and hotels. He’s also made inroads with the state’s growing Hispanic population.

    “It’s more of a national clamor, “Damore said of the speculation that Reid will get knocked off next year. He added that Reid might be in trouble in the polls but “at the end of the day, it’s going to be tough for Republicans in the state.”

    But Republicans see the poll numbers differently.

    “There are a number of issues that have driven up his unpopularity in the state,” Uithoven said. “I don’t think there’s been hardly a dollar spent by his Republican opponents. These are numbers he’s earned himself because of his stubborn opposition in pushing legislation that is not popular.”

    But the health care debate has helped Reid, Damore said.

    “This has provided him an opportunity to flex his muscles,” he said, noting that Reid has gotten Nevada exempt from Medicaid increases and has targeted money for the state’s cancer institute.

    Yet Republicans believe Reid will use the reportedly more than $7 million he’s already raised for his campaign to attack the GOP instead of tooting his own horn.

    “The only way he can hold onto the power he has is by making his opponents more unelectable that he is,” Uithoven said.

  14. Looks like he’s at it again. Creating new jobs my a$$.

    After another grim jobless report, President Obama is turning his attention to extending a lifeline to the unemployed and making the case that his health care plan would create jobs by making small business startups more affordable.

    The Obama administration has begun talks with congressional Democratic leaders on moves to extend health insurance subsidies, the $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit and jobless benefits, congressional and administration officials told FOX News late Friday.

    Meanwhile, in his weekly radio and Internet video address Saturday, the president linked one of his biggest challenges — joblessness — with passage of far-reaching changes to the nation’s health care system.

    The economic moves were recently pulled together by White House economic advisers as an act of economic triage aimed at millions of chronically unemployed Americans. The White House is loathe to call this emerging package a second economic stimulus.

    Even so, President Obama tipped his hand that something was coming in Friday remarks on the economy in the Rose Garden.

    “I’m working closely with my economic advisors to explore any and all additional options and measures that we might take to promote job creation,” Obama said after the Labor Department reported that 263,000 Americans lost jobs in September and the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent.

    Embedded in those numbers was this sobering statistic. The number of Americans unemployed for 27 weeks increased by 450,000 and now totals 5.4 million.

    In the weekly Republican address, Rep. Candice Miller of Michigan blamed the continued job losses on Democratic policies and said Obama’s health proposals won’t help.

    Miller said the Obama-backed $787 billion economic stimulus package fell far short of its goals.

    And she criticized a House-passed energy bill that would set limits and costs on greenhouse gas emissions. The plan, which the Senate has not taken up, “would increase electricity bills, raise gasoline prices and ship more American jobs overseas,” Miller said.

    She called for deeper tax cuts for small businesses “to put our economy back on track.”

    As for health care, Miller said, “Washington Democrats intend to fund their government-run health care plan with cuts to Medicare benefits” and with new taxes on businesses.

    The White House may soon ask Congress to extend three parts of the original $787 billion stimulus law signed in mid-February.

    * Extend the current $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit beyond its scheduled Nov. 30 expiration date.

    * Extend the current 65 percent subsidy through the COBRA program so jobless Americans can purchase health insurance for only 35 percent of the premium. After that, the government reimburses the provider for the remaining unpaid amount through a tax credit. The program, which provides nine months of this subsidized insurance coverage, is also due to expire on Dec. 31.

    * Extend the full 79-week unemployment insurance package now available through the stimulus to laid off workers. The stimulus provided extended jobless benefits in high-unemployment states and tacked on a $25-per week stipend. Eligibility for extended benefits and the stipend expires on Dec. 31.

    Congressional Democrats said talks on moving this type of legislation are “preliminary.” But they are gaining velocity as the White House tries to cope with persistent unemployment and the political anxiety it has begun to generate among Democrats preparing to run for re-election in 2010.

    Two White House officials adamantly denied a second stimulus is coming. But a senior administration official confirmed moves are afoot to extend three stimulus-created programs targeted at softening the blow of unemployment and boosting home sales.

    “There’s no big new package under consideration,” the official said. “But there are moves to extend things that are starting to run out.”

    On Saturday, Obama said the passage of his health care proposals would create new jobs by making small business startups more affordable.

    If aspiring entrepreneurs believe they can stay insured while switching jobs, Obama said, they will start new businesses and hire workers.

    He said he has met people “who’ve got a good idea and the expertise and determination to build it into a thriving business. But many can’t take that leap because they can’t afford to lose the health insurance they have at their current job.”

    Small businesses create many of the nation’s jobs, the president said, and some have the potential to become big companies.

    Obama praised the Senate Finance Committee for crafting a health care bill that includes many of his priorities. Small businesses could buy health insurance through an exchange, he said, “where they can compare the price, quality and services of a wide variety of plans.”

    The government would subsidize health insurance for many businesses and individuals, the president said.

    Obama acknowledged that a health care bill is far from final passage in the Democratic-controlled Congress.

    The Senate Finance bill will be merged with another version and sent to the Senate floor, where scores of amendments might be offered and Republicans could mount a filibuster.

    • That’s an interesting post Judy. I wonder if the insurance companies have considered offering a special deal to those who have been laid off. Maybe something with catastrophic coverage for a low, low price, with proof of being laid off since November 2008, or something. Can you imagine what the Dems in congress would say? The insurance companies could deal a major blow to health care reform all on their own. It would be a three birds, one stone thing. They’d improve customer relations, offer some much needed coverage to those who need it most, and prove the that government doesn’t need to do the job of the insurance companies.

      • I have catastrophic coverage effectively thru Anthem/BC/BS for only $200 per month. Whatta deal! It was a deal since I had a quad bypass 2 yrs ago.

        It was almost humorous, since I also had a primary insurance plan a max, so they used just about every excuse not to pay the hospitals. Even so, I’d rather have that and the threat of taking it to the gov’t if they don;t follow thru. Oh well.

        • Frank,

          If health care reform ever does pass, I expect the care to be so lousy that insurance companies will offer an expanded policy, covering the areas that the government plan is lacking in.

          People would end up paying a bunch for the mess, and have more hassles, and the insurance companies will still be in business.

  15. Maybe we should just get out of Obama’s way and let the Democrats pass Health Care, Cap and Tax, amnesty and anything else they want to pass. That may start the beginning of the end of the USA as we know it and allow freedom to prevail in the end. Let the system and government fail so it can be rebuilt with freedom and individual rights. Perhaps the USA will break up into smaller countries with capitalist free states versus socialist big government states and we can choose where we want to live.

    • I just loaded the car !! But where to go !

    • Then I just got this one a few minutes ago..

      So Bush was an idiot, huh? Ok…

      If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

      If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

      If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

      If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD’s, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

      If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

      If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

      If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent” Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

      If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

      If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo) and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

      If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years, like Dan Quayle and potatoe, as proof of what a dunce he is?

      If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

      If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

      If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

      If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest, where more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

      If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

      If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

      If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

      So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

      Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 8 months, so you’ll have three years and four months to come up with an answer.

      Good Luck!

      • Hi Frank

        Great questions.

        Judy

      • I don’t know about what he’s done so far as not a soul in America itself can say anything and back it up with actual fact. I do think however when he writes of the accomplishments of his presidency, a Nebula Award will be a lock. That’s something!

    • Hi Birdman,

      I hear lots of people are moving to Texas. My friend is trying to sell her mobile home. She got a report from her agent saying that Texas has seen a large increase in out of state buyers. The tidbit made several of us wonder what was causing the trend. My Texan friend speculated that Texas is the most independent minded state of all and that the seccession talk is still going. Three or four of us at the table see the US breaking up. Personally, I don’t have problem with it. I’d rather see a peaceful ‘divorce’, than a violent civil war. I’m still researching other countries in which to permanently reside, however, if Texas does indeed become an independent republic, I’d go there. I was stationed at Ft Hood. I love Texas!

      • Cyndi P,

        How about New Zealand? In rankings, they are more free than the USA. However, they do have nationalized health care. It’s hard to get citizenship status. New Zealand has a point system for granting citizenship. Check it out — you may score high depending upon your skill set.

        • When Canada quit accepting highly skilled whites in 68, my uncle Brian took his boat building skills and his money there. He hasn’t left the Island once since then. To him, there was and is no better place on earth. New Zealand is a great choice.

        • NZ is incredibly expense – about twice on average, with an average income 2/3’s of USA.

          • Black Flag:

            You can afford it. Things may get very expensive in the USA when inflation kicks in.

            I’m not sure where NZ stands on gun ownership. I know they are very green/environmental.

            When I was in college, I thought about moving there and wish I had.

            • He may not be able to afford it. The desirability of PREVIOUSLY little-considered New Zealand has become so well known that they have increased the requirement for getting permanent residency status. It used to be (in recent years) about $2.5 million of investment assets brought to NZ in order to qualify for permanent residency, otherwise you can only stay briefly on a visa. They’ve raised it very recently. I think it’s to $5 mil but I’m not sure. Anyone who knows, feel free to enlighten me.

        • Birdman,

          New Zealand does sound great, but I don’t have much in the way of wealth. Just a house in Florida that’s worth less than it was a couple of years ago. Fortunately, I’m not upside down, but if I sold it, I wouldn’t have much left after paying off the note. As for skill set, I’m a degreed and experienced electronics technician, with a BA in Management. I was a Logistics type when I was in the Army. I have a well rounded skill set. I suspect first world countries are expecting to see Americans want to enter their countries. How many Americans will they want? Will they blame the expats for Obama, or will they be smart enough to realize that we’re the type of Americans they would want in their countries? Most of the West has been infected with Liberalism or Islam, so I want to go some place that still has hope. I’m quite partial to the Pacific Island nations. Someone with my skill set could be pretty useful. Of course, the standard of living would be much lower, but at least there wouldn’t be the outright hatred of my skin color and conservative politics. Americans won’t be truely welcome anywhere on earth, but we might be treated with civility in some places if we mind our manners and make a contribution. At least, that is my hope.

          • Cyndi P,

            Let me know your choices within Pacific Island nations. I may join you should things get ugly here.

            Australia may be an acceptable place to live. I’m not sure what the requirements are to become a citizen.

            Maybe we should see where Blag Flag goes to live, if he is willing to tell us.

            Perhaps we are all a little to paranoid. Bad things may not happen but I’d prepare just in case.

            I have another interview next week out West and I’m really, really hoping that I get an offer. Michigan will never recover and it’s time to leave.

            • Will do. Have USW send me your email if you want…..

            • Blag Flag goes to live

              1) Belize – English speaking with English law, stable – easy drive (via Mexico)- problem: hurricanes.

              2) Grenada – probably the most beautiful island I’ve ever seen – smells like Christmas with nutmeg and cinnamon trees – economically a disaster, so ‘getting things’ is hard, but almost everything is very cheap

              3) Argentina – the secret of Latin America – thousands of miles of prime beach front property. However, you need to know Spanish.

              All the above, if you are not an American citizen, you can live tax free.

              • Black Flag,

                Belize sounds good since I cannot speak Spanish. I’ll have to research it on the internet.

                If we see you leave the USA, then we know it’s time for us to get out.

              • Birdman

                Then you are, already, late.

              • Where did you go? When did you leave? I thought you were in the USA.

              • In the past, I’ve explained my strategy.

                Residence in one country, live in another, bank in another, work in another.

              • Black Flag:

                I must have missed this strategy in your past posts.

                Doesn’t matter, I could not follow your strategy as I do not have the financial resources.

              • Birdman

                Yes you do!

                …but maybe not all piled up in one place at one time….

                …so you don’t do everything day one.

                I didn’t.

                It took over 5 years.

                But it will take you 5 years, forever, if you don’t start one day.

      • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

        come on down Cyndi. We will take you. Been a Texan all my life. Most folks dont care for us much but hey If there going to be rude I dont want them in my state so its mutual. If they give you trouble at the border let me know.

        • Thanks Mike! I just may take you up on that offer.

          So Mike, have any of your friends discussed what the US Government would do if Texas declared its independence? Do you think it would be a peaceful separation or would Obama have Americans killing each other? Would the citizens of Texas not be considered Americans, then allowing Obama to claim that he’s having American soldiers fight foriegners? How would the citizens in the remaining states react? Would they support the violent suppression of Texans? When some friends and I discussed it, one person speculated that Alaska would leave too. What then? Has anyone else had the ‘what if’ discussions?

  16. Alan F.

    Ha!

    I just learned that the Maple Leaf on the Canadian flag is a trade mark violation!

    It is thought by some that the final eleven-point design of the maple leaf on our flag may have actually been a copyright violation of a logo used by a downtown Ottawa craft store (Canada’s Four Corners). It had been using a very similar design in its advertisements, notepaper, invitations, and Christmas cards since September 1963 and received a copyright on the logo shortly thereafter, all before the current Canadian flag had been accepted.

  17. I’m with D. Eris on this (even though I’d be voting at the polar opposite end of the political spectrum. I get crazed by liberal democrats who want the same thing I want voting Democrat because they feel “it is the lesser of two evils” and because “Ralph Nader can’t win a single state”. I’m sure many of you on the right go through the same rationalization: If we don’t vote Republican, the Dems will win.

    Well, so long as both ends of the spectrum (liberals and conservatives) shit their pants about who might win, the guarantee is that one of them will win.

    I will be voting for Nader (or someone like him in 2012). I know I don’t stand a chance, but I’ll shoot myself in the kneecaps before I vote Democrat or Republican again. I know I won’t see (or get) what I want in my lifetime, but to continue to enable the two system to continue is akin (to me) to spitting into a hurricane.

    I will advise this (to both ends of the spectrum). If liberals depend on Keith Olbermann and the like, they’re doomed but so is the right if they depend on Glenn Beck, etc. David Brooks wrote a very good (and revealing) column in the NY Times last week about it.

    Hope all is well for all of yous …

    • Put aside the messenger in Beck and replay the message for yourself. Point out where he has been so wrong as to negate the many times he’s been all too right. Anyone thinking what’s been pointed out in Obama’s choices for those around him as having nothing to do with Obama himself is a zealot pure and simple. He didn’t have time to vet those he was bringing in but free time galore for Chicago’s Olympic bid?!? Vacations in place of reading which sections of endangered habitat were to be annihilated for his green agenda?!? Date night in place of the instant payoff in perusing tort reform?!? Really?!? I’ve never heard such intellectual dishonesty as I have in the excuses for Obama’s governance thus far. Even my liberal side is sickened by his having placed repaying those he owed for getting elected ahead of health care for those who voted for him.

      • Read the David Brooks argument. Limbaugh, Beck, et al went after McCain (because he was too liberal) and with all their ranting and crying, McCain won South Carolina (and was the party nominee). They just aren’t powerful. Beck accurate? Please. Then I guess Olbermann is too. I don’t think so.

  18. Common Man says:

    All;

    Thanks to USW for publishing the article and to all of you for posting your thoughts. I do so enjoy my time here, and those who speak out.

    Some additional thoughts:

    Although the Constitution is an aged document it speaks clearly those right minded ideals met to insure the liberty of free men and women. Those whose ideals were warped over time, influenced by greed, power, and an elitist mindset, have interpreted the Constitution as it best served them. Although the Consititution may need some minor editing to strengthen it’s principles, it is for the most part a sound foundation from which to grow, or re-plant a Republic. I believe it mends well with those conversations we have had here relative to limited or no government, and that “Common Law” based upon righteous morals is the ‘tools’ we use to manage ourselves and our society. Couple the Constitution and Bill or Rights with the Ten Commandments and I believe you have all you need to manage a free society. (BTW: I am not promoting any particular religion, it just so happens that most religous folks agree on rules like the Ten Commandments.)

    P.S. I am also one that believes when you have a sound principle already established there is no reason to waste time trying to re-invent a new principle.

    The only thing I struggle with in the Constitution is the right of the Government to collect Taxes. I am not yet sure how that should be handled; especailly after reading BF’s earlier post.

    It appears Mr. D13 is on the right track and accomplishing great ‘movement’, so we should all take a look and consider his lead. Kudos to you D13.

    Voiting those current non-representing representatives out by voting a “lesser evil” in is nothing more than substituting a brass cog for a steel cog; the engine will still run. We must stop the engine by shutting off the gas.

    I think a news item that would serve more fuel for our fire would be that the majority of registered voters, say some 60-70% did NOT vote at all in the next election. The key to this news story would be the reason why:

    “AMERICANS SEND A MESSAGE; NO VOTE MEANS GET OUT!” And the story would go on to indicate that the majority of American’s registered to vote did not because they beleive that not only are those in office corrupt, but so is the system in which those representatives serve.

    BTW: I have come to agree with BF relative to his idea of “No Vote”, but as I indicated earlier this week, we need to take it a step further and let our fellow citizens know why we are not casting a vote: Not only is it a reaffirmation of a corrupt government, we are no longer playing their game or by their rules. We are changing the game and setting the rules.

    Everyone has, and expresses an oppinion about Beck, Hannity, and Rush, but for all their hype and showmanship all 3 of them do hammer a common message: Those currently in power are leading this country to a terrible end. As I said in one of last weeks posts “listen to the message not the messenger”.

    My posting was intended to initiate dialog between those of us on this site to begin a process to plan out a ‘movement’ that would stimulate America to further wake up and take notice of what is going on in government. It would encourage everyone to question, investigate, debate/argue/battle and participate in the re-founding of America. This, I beleive, is a key element to our eventual goal; returning the government to the people for which it was established. Changing the parties is no different than changing Mafia Don’s, you still have a ban of thieves and bad guys. We have to remove or elliminate the power.

    We need to unite as a people focusing on common principles, that really, we all do hold dear: A God/supreme entitiy, honesty, liberty, freedom, family and the pursuit of happiness.

    Despite our disagreements withing this blog I am pretty sure that the majority of us can agree to those common principles. I am also pretty sure that we all agree that the Constitution is (as it was intended by what was actually printed) sound, as was the Ten Commandments. As such we should move forward towards those actions that will help us bring about alternatives (I can know longer use the word ‘change’ for obvious reasons) as we see fit.

    I must appoligise for not taking part on Friday, but work, hunting season, my Goddaughters 10th birthday party, my grandson, and household duties kept me from you all. But, I guess you might say I have my priorities right.

    Start posting ideas, and remember the “Story-boarding” ideal; there are no bad ideas and no critisum of those initial ideas. The endeavor is to get ideas and thoughts flowing, examination comes later.

    Well????

    • “No Vote; Get Out!”

      I think that would make a great protest sign!

      • But if we didn’t vote, wouldn’t that mean they stay in where they are now?

        • If there was a war, and nobody showed up, would there still be a war?

          Legitimacy is a REQUIREMENT of government.

          No vote – no legitimacy

          • Great idea, BF, but no way would you get every single person to not vote. No way.

          • Yes there would still be a war even if no one showed up. With no one present for the war, you’d really have a fight on your hands to keep the war going, and the fewer the number who showed up for it, the greater and harder you’d have to fight to make it into an actual war. By the time you got down to no one at all, the fight you’d have on your hands to make it into a bona fide war would be approximately infinite, which would mean your fight would probably dwarf most of the finite wars of history, and easily qualify as a super-war. And this is just one small example of the logic I am capable of when posing as a politician.

      • Common Man says:

        BF;

        Yes, it is a a great protest sign, as well as a great t-shirt.

        CM

        P.S. I am really looking forward to your thoughts on today’s (10-5-09) post.

      • I lean more toward:

        “No Read; Get Out”

        or “Read the Bill or Get OUT”

        which defaults to “Get out”

    • I too think the Constitution is a good starting point. Strict adherence to the simple well selected words therein is the key. All elected officers and military are sworn to uphold the Constitution, so as long as this is the basis on which the arguments are based and as long as everything is peaceful, you blunt and possibly prevent the intervention of a now philosophically divided military. We are defending the Constition not the institutions of governement. Remember, even in the Revolution, 1/3 supported it, 1/3 supported the British, and 1/3 just wished it would all go away.

      I do not think boycotting elections will work as those who do not go along with the plan will be in charge. So all you will be doing is opting out and maybe changing things for the worse as the ones attached to the teat of government will just get more. Better if we could write in “None of the Above” or get that as an official position on the ballot. When NOTA wins 50% then all slated candidates are disqualified and the election is a do over without them. The slogan could be “NOTA WON”.

      Getting back to basics will take at least a decade as weening people off the teat of government will take some time, else there will be massive unrest. Sunset laws will need to be enacted to set a deadline for reviewing and revising all current laws on the books. Once SCOTUS is on board, then old decision that deviate from the simple words of the Constituion will need to be challenged and over turned.

      As Mr. Franklin said, death and taxes are inevitable. The government does need some funds to operate and I would rather that they get their funds in an open fashion. It is for that reason that I actully prefer the income tax. At least once a year I total up how much they are getting. All taxes have a collection cost. Reducing the number of taxes to just one will minimize the bureacracy involved. The tax should be simple, easily computed and uniformly administered. All people should pay something even if it is just $10. All taxes ultimately derive from the people os make it direct funding only.

      All bills introduced in Congress should have a section identifying which section of the Constitution underwhich it is being passed. If these arguments are proved specious by SCOTUS, then the bill is void. The bill can be voided for other reasons but this will force some upfront thought on its Constitionality. The Constitution should be amended to this effect.

      Several departments and agencies in the federal government will need to be disbanded as they are doing things reserved for the states. Examples are DOE, D of Ed, etc. Only departments authorized by the Constitution should remain. Some departments will need to down graded to divisions under others. For example EPA should be under Commerce since most pollution is a by product of commerce and industry that crosses state boundaries. EPA’s role should be strictly limited to coordination of state EPA efforts.

      CM does this help?

      • Common Man says:

        T-Ray;

        All good stuff, keep posting ideas.

        CM

      • T-Ray

        Re: Constitution

        …whereas I do NOT think it is a document worth the paper it was written on (unless, like the movie, there is a treasure map on the back of it….)

        The Articles of Confederation was by far superior – though it, too, would have been unlikely to prevent tyrannical government.

  19. Hi All

    So, Greenspan thinks the jobless rate will push over the 10%, he’d better look again, because it’s over 10% here in Nevada. And guess what, I’ll be one of them come the end of this month. That means I will have to go out to look for another job, although I have been the last 2 weeks, but unless you have a degree in something right now, you’re screwed. Not much in the employment department is popping up right now, But I sure am hoping something will come up soon. Just have to keep plugging away at it.

    Hope you’re all doing well today.

    Judy

    ormer Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan predicts that the unemployment rate will push past 10 percent and stay at that level for a while.

    “Pretty awful” is how Greenspan describes Friday’s report that the unemployment rate has risen to 9.8 percent.

    He says the growing number of Americans who have been out of work six months or longer is of particular concern because jobless workers lose skills over such a long period.

    Greenspan says he would advise President Obama to focus on getting the economy going, but not to go too far. He says a second economic stimulus is not called for because less than half of the current stimulus is in effect and because the nature of the recovery is not yet clear.

    Greenspan spoke Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

    • Judy,

      I am pulling for you in your job hunt.

      Would you have any interest in working from home? Does not pay big, $8.00 – $12.00 per hour as an independent contractor. I have done this for the past 5 + years. Let me know if you want more info. In the meantime, I’m sending prayers and good vibes to you. 🙂

      • Hi Dee

        Thank you for your prayers and good vibes. Right now, my pay is $12.00 an hour, and I’m hoping I can find something in that area. Thought about doing work from home, would make it a lot easier, that way I wouldn’t have to take my mom everywhere I go. Not only does losing this job affect me, but it also affects Jim, mu husband.

        What happened was, my brother in law who owns the lab, sold it to his cousin, and his cousin wants to handle everything himself, doesn’t matter what. Personally we think he took on more than he can handle. John, my brother in law wants to retire from doing analytical testing, been doing it for the past 40 years, and he’s had enough. Not all the details have been worked out, but his cousin is suppose to take over by the end of this month.

        Sure, who don’t you send over some info for me, I’ll take a look at it, and I appreciate it very much, very kind of you to do that. It really makes me feel good to know that the people here are willing to help each other when times are hard for others. You can’t imagine how it makes my heart feel. Thank you so much.

        Take Care

        Judy

      • Dee

        Re: Contractor

        What is that do you do?

      • Dee,

        $8-12 / Does that work even if you want to work as many hours as you can?

        • Yes, Frank.

          As a matter of fact you can work for more than one company at a time, in most cases. I know folks working for 2-3 different companies, and more than one project per company, putting in 40-70 hrs. per week, all from home. There are some projects you could work whatever hours you want, 24-7.

          Keep in mind that as an independent contractor, you do not get paid overtime. But a couple of companies do pay you step rates, so the more you work the more you earn per hour.

      • Judy, Black Flag, Frank, and all,

        I am going to give some very general info here, and will follow up with some links for you, in the next post as that will go to moderation.

        The type of work is basically call center in nature. Virtual call center, to be more accurate. Training, meetings, and work are all done online / phone. You will be taking calls from customers dealing with sales, customer service, tech support, etc.

        You are typically paid per talk minute. One company has a guaranteed rate, so even if you don’t get any calls, you still get paid $7-$8 per hour. (This is VERY unusual, however).

        Each company you contract with has their own rules, but there are a few universal requirements:

        1) A land line phone with no additional features like caller ID, call waiting, answering machine. I have a separate phone line just for work, only cost $15 / month.

        2) A quiet work environment: no dogs, TV, kids, anything that would make noise.

        3) A noise canceling headset.

        4) PC specs vary, but mine is over 6 years old and it has never been an issue as far a qualifying for contracts.

        On a personal level you need:

        1) To be a “people” person, able to communicate clearly in a friendly professional manner.

        2) Have experience in sales, customer service, call center type work, so emphasize these talents on your application.

        3) Be PC literate, able to install software and trouble shoot.

        4) Be able to work a minimum amount of hours. One company I work for has a 15 hr. minimum per week, another has 4 hours per month.

        OK, some links will follow.

  20. I cannot believe a fireman makes over $500,000

    I cannot believe any fireman makes over $200,000

    Yet, 32 of the top 50 highest paid employees in Nevada are fireman.

    Who woulda thunk that???

    (Only in government…..)

    • Hi BF

      How you doing BF. Hope all is well with you.

      Clark county is considered Las Vegs, I don’t know what they make here in Reno. Maybe I should try out. NAH! Too short, too old, and I couldn’t pick up anybody over my shoulder if I had too. Besides, I have a bad back anyway.

      • If there was a war, and nobody showed up, would there still be a war?

        Legitimacy is a REQUIREMENT of government.

        No vote – no legitimacy

        • That’s like, if a tree falls in the forest, does it still make a sound?

          • Yes, it does make a sound.

            • I thought I would shed a little light on the sound in the forest discussion by reminding you that light travels faster than sound, and that this explains the common experience of thinking that someone appears intelligent, only to discover your error later when you hear him/her speak.

    • Those guys must have some pretty heavy duty county cars to drive around in! Or maybe they get personal helicopters. Or they must be quite old (longevity pay)

  21. One more time, Birdman

    You are more on the track then off….so let’s see if we can get the rest of the wheels in alignment.

    A Constitution – in its theory – is to provide some sort of power to the powerless in politics.

    The powerful do not need a Constitution – they use their superior strength and power to force themselves – they need not a piece of paper.

    The powerless use the piece of paper to prove illegitimacy of action of the powerful.

    That is, they expose the powerful use of violence to be illegitimate and hence criminal. Even the powerful are overwhelmed by those that resist criminals – thus, the powerful do not wish to act without legitimacy – they would rather be seen as ‘doing good’ then acting like criminals.

    But here is the problem. A Constitution is enforced by the government upon the government. The government is seized by the powerful – this is self-evident. Weak people do not succeed in politics. Thus, it is the powerful who decides whether the Constitution is invoked or not!

    The powerful will read the Constitution in the most widest breadth possible – whereas the weak apply the Constitution to the most intense limits upon power as possible. But it is the government that decides which limits to use – and since the government is held by the powerful – all governments will always read the Constitution within the widest breadth of power possible.

    Therefore, the Constitution cannot protect the weak – but, worse, it is used to justify the use of power on the weak! It actually makes the use of power on the weak worse.

  22. I also think that what our Congress has done by ignoring the Constitution is terrible and could be the beginning of the end of our democracy. And until there are enough votes to elect officials who are willing to abide by the Constitution, one of the only other ways for the average person to protect him or her self is to invest some of their money in gold related assets. Given the rise of the gold price today to new all time highs, I would like to highlight Yamana, which is one a favorite gold mining company of mine and a core holding. This morning it updated production guidance and came in above many analysts’ expectations. I read a good summary and analysis of their news release at http://www.goldalert.com, where it also mentions market speculation that the company may be looking for a competitor to acquire it. I think Yamana, along with many other gold miners who offer leverage to the gold price, will keep outperforming the market due to the government’s insistence on trying to avoid deflation at any cost. The dollar is close to new 52 week lows, and the willingness of our govt to debase the fiat currency should continue to support gold, in my view.

  23. Mike M. Houston Texas says:

    I still say “the Movement of Common Sense” is the best way to start this. You need to get down to the level of your readership. In this case there are more people who are not up to speed on politics than those that are. Start with something everyone can understand.

    Think of it on a T-shirt or sign. Will you vote for common sense? On the back. We dont let people pay $400 for a hammer and $1,000 for a toilet seat.

    You can then move into all the other items in your list. If you only want the smart ones you will end up with 100,000 voters. If you reach out to the lowest level. You will get 10 Million. I am not saying that these are not good people just that they are not capable of understanding all the intracies of where you are going.

    People voted for one word and a color. “Change and well you know”. They really didnt care about the rest.

    Can you get people to vote for “Common Sense”?

  24. About jobs, My son 22 years at U.S. Forest Service, temporary, part time, I had to refinance my house, got a bit of money, so one church program I watched was asking for seeds, you realize what they mean, so I thought, I will try, so I sowed a fairly large seed for me, 2 days later my son got a much better job, permanent, full time at U.S. Forest Service, I told him, he said not relevant, But I still think the seed I sowed helped, after 22 years and with unemployment so high, but as he is with the government, maybe it will be ok. But he told me don’t tell my wife, she is an atheist, and will be angry I didn’t give them the cash. Life can be difficult, the church programs are about all that keep me going during the day, Fox is ok, I like, but then turn on TBN better news, at least it doesn’t make me feel like a terrorist, that Janet Napolitano says I am, as a veteran, hate abortion and gays are strictly an abomination says the Bible. So. thanks everybody. good night

%d bloggers like this: