Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Debt limit deal is not “A Tea Party Triumph” as big media reports!

SEE: A Tea Party Triumph

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

"The tea partiers pride themselves on adhering to the Constitution, which was intended to make political change difficult. Yet in this deal they've forced both parties to make the biggest spending cuts in 15 years, with more cuts likely next year."

Unfortunately, the truth is, this is not a Tea Party Triumph nor a victory for the American People, especially when Article 1, Section 5 of our Constitution is violated which requires at a minimum, a majority of the House and Senate members to be present, “to do Business“, which is the “making of law" and is significantly different from passing a law which only requires a vote.

This bill establishing a “committee of 12” to make law, allowed to be passed with the help of “Republicans“, is part of Obama’s fundamental transformation of our system of government and intended to exclude the people’s elected members of Congress from the "making of law", and only allows them in on the action with an up or down vote after a Washington Establishment’s hand picked inside crowd of 12 makes the law.

Keep in mind this hand pick gang does not represent each and every State in the making of law, nor does it represent the various congressional districts within the States, when making law, and thus violates the very essences of our “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed under Article 4 Section 4 of our Constitution.

But getting back to Article 1, Section 5 and its requirement that a “Majority” of members of both houses are present “to do Business“, this provision was specifically debated during the framing of our Constitution and it was intended to forbid “a small number of members of the two Houses to make laws” ___ SEE for example: MADISON‘S NOTES
Col. MASON

“This is a valuable & necessary part of the plan. In this extended Country, embracing so great a diversity of interests, it would be dangerous to the distant parts to allow a small number of members of the two Houses to make laws. The Central States could always take care to be on the Spot and by meeting earlier than the distant ones, or wearying their patience, and outstaying them, could carry such measures as they pleased. He admitted that inconveniences might spring from the secession of a small number: But he had also known good produced by an apprehension, of it. He had known a paper emission prevented by that cause in Virginia. He thought the Constitution as now moulded was founded on sound principles, and was disposed to put into it extensive powers. At the same time he wished to guard agst. abuses as much as possible. If the Legislature should be able to reduce the number at all, it might reduce it as low as it pleased & the U. States might be governed by a Juncto- A majority of the number which had been agreed on, was so few that he feared it would be made an objection agst. the plan.”


Now, under this 12 member committee crap, who are to be selected by the Washington Establishment, the various States , and, the people of the various congressional districts within the States, are not all represented in the making of law, which is not only a violation of the very intention for which Article 1, Section 5 was adopted, but it is a direct assault upon our “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed under Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the united States in that the people’s representatives are intentionally excluded from the law making process, and may only vote on the adoption of a law after it is made.

And then what happens? It has to be passed so the people can find out what’s in it. Have we not learned this dirty little trick?

On this day, August 2nd, 2011, a giant step in Obama’s fundamental transformation of our system of government has taken place and every member in the Senate who voted YEA, is complicit in this subversive act of tyranny!



JWK
A longtime Tea Party admirer


America we have a problem! We have a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the circumvention of our Republican Form of Government which is now replace with a 12 member committee vested with power to make law; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the transferring of America’s technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Glenn Beck, balancing the federal budget and the Republican Party Leadership

I see Glenn Beck is now promoting the balanced budget amendment, but what section of the proposed balanced budget amendment actually requires Congress to balance the annual budget when Congress borrows during the course of a fiscal year to meet its expenses? Answer: nothing in the proposal (H.J.RES.1 or S.J.RES.5) requires Congress to “balance the budget” when Congress borrows during the course of a fiscal year to meet its expenses.

But our Republican Party Leadership is very clever! Label a piece of legislation a “balanced budget amendment” and concerned Americans, even Tea Party Activists, will assume the Republican Party Leadership has come to America’s rescue and is determined to compel Congress to balance the annual budget.

Unfortunately, the actual text of the legislation is cleverly designed to allow Congress to not only continue its reckless spending and borrowing, but the proposal would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget! But do remember its title is a “balanced budget amendment”, and as such, who would be against a “balanced budget amendment” other than our big spending and borrowing “liberals“! And so, if one dares to utter a disapproval of the “balanced budget amendment”, our “concerned Americans” especially the Republican Party Leadership, is quick to smear such an utterance as being “left wing nonsense”.

And that is how the beast in Washington survives and flourishes! It divides the people by using the old good-cop bad-cop routine. And in this particular discussion concerning a “balanced budget amendment“, our Republican Party Leadership must be the good cops because they promote a “balanced budget amendment”. Of course, our beast in Washington is quite confident the people, even Tea Party Activists, will neglect to read the amendment word for word, much less use critical thinking in judging its specific sections, and in all likelihood will simply align themselves with the good cop’s talking points, even though the words spin a tale very different than what the “balanced budget amendment‘s” text declares and is really designed to accomplish.

And this is exactly what Glenn Beck seems to have done. He has avoided all critical thinking and discussion concerning the various sections of the “balanced budget amendment” and simply jumped on board because of an objective title, a “balanced budget amendment”, and he then has gone on to invite the ringleaders behind the proposal on his show who then influence his listening audience without being pressed into a critical analysis of the amendment’s specific sections.

Let me also note that Glenn Beck has been derelict in reviewing our founding fathers clear intentions regarding deficits. And yet he constantly asserts his respect for our nation’s founding fathers. So, let us take a look at our founder’s expressed intentions regarding deficits.

See, Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 and keep in mind the same basic idea is expressed in several of the State Ratification documents giving life to our Constitution:

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-


When Congress borrows to fund expenditures because incoming revenues are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies, an apportioned tax is to then be laid among the States using the following constitutionally authorized fair share formula:

States’ population

---------------------------- X DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population



And what did our founders say about the rule of apportionment during the ratification debates?

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“__ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

Also see: “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot`s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

And, Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot‘s, 255

And then there is Mr. PENDLETON‘S comment which goes directly to the evil being corrected!:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41


Finally, for an example of the rule of apportionment being applied see: Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which each State’s apportioned share was figured out and each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s apportioned share to extinguish a deficit.

Also see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.




Bottom line is, our founding fathers’ were not stupid nor negligent in providing a procedure to deal with deficits. And if applied, the founder’s no-nonsense apportioned tax would create a very real moment of accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand for the deficit they helped to create, and suffer the consequences, which is far different from the fraudulent balanced budget amendment cooked up by the Beast Washington which is nothing more then a clever scheme to allow the Washington Establishment to continue its reckless borrowing and plundering what America’s businesses and labor have produced. Unlike the fake balanced budget amendment, our founders method did in fact “balance the budget”, created a very real moment of accountability, and, precluded the class warfare game with a fixed rule requiring any general tax to be apportioned among the States.

Now, for those who are concerned about annual federal deficits and would like to support a real “balanced budget amendment”, I have prepared the one below which is based on our founding fathers expressed intentions which I have documented for you.



The “Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment”

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, these words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates what Mary and Joe Sixpack earn when selling the property each has in their labor. In addition, the words would also end the class warfare game which the Beast in Washington uses to divide the people.

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.

"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 2 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised as agreeable to the Census fixed in the Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

NOTE: the fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X DEFICT = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation!


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."

NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.

"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have approved it.
___________

JWK

Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.

Sunday, July 03, 2011

The big myth: the Sixteenth Amendment repealed apportionment of direct taxes

Do a little research on the internet with regard to our Constitution’s rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned among the States and you will find countless sources spreading a myth that the Sixteenth Amendment repealed that requirement! Many of those who offer tax reform proposals, especially those who would circumvent the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted, constantly misinform the public about the rule of apportionment in addition to perpetrating the myth that the Sixteenth Amendment repealed the rule requiring any general tax laid among the States would have to be laid by the rule of apportionment.

I once believed this myth but after a very extensive research project at the University of Maryland, I learned I had been lied to! Now, let us look at some facts concerning this myth.

The 16th Amendment does not mention “direct” taxes, and, there is no language in the 16th Amendment repealing Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 which states: ” No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”


Prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment our Supreme Court repeatedly held that Congress had power to lay and collect a tax calculated from “income’ without having to apportion such a tax. See, for example, Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 502, (1880) involving a challenge that the tax calculated from income laid during the war between the States was a direct tax, and therefore required an apportionment, in which the Court upheld the tax as not being direct! Also see FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), which upheld a tax calculated from profits and gains without apportionment.

And so, from the historical evidence (the above S.C. opinions) it seems quite clear that the 16th amendment merely confirmed Congress always had power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes without having to apportion the tax, and that power was found in Congress’ power to lay and collect excise taxes, and the 16th Amendment granted no new power of taxation. This line of reasoning seems to be supported by what the SC stated in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916):

"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."

As to direct taxes, see BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) in which the Supreme Court states in crystal clear language “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

In addition see: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920) , in which the Court had already pointed out:

“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

And so, we learn that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned.

And now, let us explore the stated intentions of our founding fathers regarding the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation?

Our founding fathers intended that Congress raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and if need be, internal “excise” taxes on judiciously selected articles of consumption. But if these sources were found insufficient for the "Public Exigencies", and a deficit arose, then, and only then was a general tax to be laid among the states for a specific sum of revenue and then the rule of apportionment was intended to guarantee to the people of those States who paid the lion’s share of the tax, a proportionate representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution! But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak!

See: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 Similar language is contained in several of the other State Ratification documents.

"Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, until Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-


And Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:


With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

Also see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot’s, 243 ,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any question as to our founding fathers specifically intending the rule of apportionment being adopted to insure those States who pay the lion’s share under a general tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON explains in very clear language:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, [under the Articles of Confederaltion] she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot’s 41


And just what is the founder's formula for a general tax among the States?


States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population



One of the reasons our Washington Establishment hates the rule of apportionment for any general tax laid among the States is that it removes the class warfare game from Congress' hands which is used as a distraction to divide and conquer while Congress plunders what America’s businesses and labor have produced.

Regards,
JWK


Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay income taxes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get___ Our Washington Establishment’s Republican/Democrat Marxist game plan

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Sarah Palin, America is cheering for you! Please defend our Founders on tax reform, deficits and honest money!

What is so disturbing to observe among those who are running to hold our nation’s offices of public trust is, rather than identifying and working to withdraw legislative authority which allows our folks in Washington to cause economic misery and hardship, they engage in endless table talk regarding which of their opponents has supported specific legislation that has inflicted the miseries we experience. Occasionally those running for office may even be bold enough to offer a plan to re-arrange the deck chairs on a sinking ship. But is it not common sense and in the best interests of a nation aboard a malfunctioning vehicle headed for certain suicide, to abandon the vehicle rather than merely changing its driver(s)? Are those who step forward to hold our offices of public trust incapable or just [1] The most recent act of judicial tyranny being the Kelo decision in which our Supreme Court gave new meaning to the phrase “public use”, a meaning far different than that understood by our founders when framing our Constitution. The new meaning now allowing private property to be taken by folks in government and transferred to a privileged class for their private use . . . the privileged class being well connected with folks in government.unwilling to identify how specific legislative authority has been abused and used for over five generations in a manner which defies the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and causes our Nation’s economic misery, while doing so advances the personal fortunes and political ambitions of those behind such acts?


Unlike those who today run for political office and spend millions of dollars in the process for the opportunity to attract the spotlight and then use it to inform us of things we already knew, such as the financial miseries we experience which are traceable to despotic legislation and judicial tyranny [1], our founding fathers focused upon the causes and cures of despotic government! And this becomes only too obvious when studying, e.g., the
Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, as reported by James Madison and the rules our founders laid down in our Constitution to circumvent despotic government and insure honest money and honest taxation, two of the primary vehicles now used to inflict economic misery and plunder what America’s businesses and labor have produced.

On the one hand with regard to honest money, our founders forbid Congress to emit bills on the credit of the united States, nor make notes of any kind a “legal tender“. If Congress were not forbidden to make notes a legal tender, our founders knew the temptation would exist for Congress to declare a particular note to be our nation’s legal tender, thereby creating a paper money monopoly which would ultimately force businesses and individuals to accept worthless script in payment of debt, while those in charge of issuing the script would be free to sap the real material wealth created by America’s businesses and labor using worthless paper that had been declared a “legal tender for all debts public and private”.

To prevent the mischief of paper money and its historical use as a vehicle to swindle what labor and business has produced, our wise founding fathers left the market place free to determine what “notes”, if any be in circulation, were “safe and proper” by forbidding Congress to declare any particular note [such as our existing Federal Reserve Notes] to be a “legal tender” for all debts public and private. SEE The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16


Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.


Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.

______ cut ______

On the motion for striking out ["and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-]

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.


[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.

And with regard to taxation and allowing Congress to raise its own revenue in a manner which preempted the very sufferings we now experience, our founders relied upon principles in granting such power which are as valid today as when our Constitution went into effect. For example, our founders intended Congress to use taxes at our water’s edge [imposts and duties] as a first means to fill our national treasury which not only had foreigners filling our national treasury for the privilege of doing business on American soil, just as one pays for a ticket to set up a booth at a flea market to sell one’s goods and wares, but requiring Congress to raising its revenue from taxes imposed on judiciously selected articles of consumption, not only allows the market place to determine the allowable limit of tax on each article selected, but when Congress is compelled to raising its revenue from taxes laid upon articles of consumption as our founders intended, it is within Congress’ own interest to encourage a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn leads to a productive consumption and thus an abundant flow of revenue into the federal treasury.

This too applies to internal “excise” taxes imposed upon articles of consumption which our founders intended to be used as an additional, but second means to fill the national treasury. In the end our founders rightfully chose taxing consumption as Congress’ primary means to fill the federal treasury and intended the market place to limit the amount of tax on each article selected. Hamilton explains taxing consumption in the following manner, they:

may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
___ Federalist No 21


And what was to happen if an emergency arose, such as war, and “Duties, Imposts and Excise” on consumption were found insufficient to meet the federal exigencies? Our wise founding fathers solved this problem by allowing Congress an additional power of taxation, the power to lay a general tax among the States to raise a specific sum of money. But in this case the amount to be raised was to be “apportioned among the several States” so each State’s share of the tax was proportionately equal to its representation in Congress.

In addition to the rule of apportionment, this special tax created a very real movement of accountability if taxing consumption were found insufficient to fund Congress‘ expenditures, because under this tax each State’s Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with to extinguish the deficit created by Congress. And, upon receiving its bill from a State’s Congressional Delegation the Governor and State’s Legislature were then required to transfer the State’s apportioned share from the State’s treasury into the national treasury or raise additional taxes within the State and then transfer that money into the federal treasury to extinguish the deficit created by Congress.

Surely the undesirable threat of having to bring home a bill and deplete their own State’s Treasury encouraged each States Congressional Delegation to spend less rather than more to avoid the required apportioned tax among the States. And it is also important to note that the rule of apportionment precludes the iniquitous use of class warfare when imposing the general tax among the states because each State’s share of the burden is determine by a fixed formula, and each state was intended to be allowed to raise it’s share in it is own chosen way in a time period set by Congress. The formula for this special tax to raise a specific sum to extinguish a deficit ties representation and taxation by the same standard, each state‘s population size, and its burden turns out to be an equal per capita tax if it were laid directly upon the people:



FOUNDER’S FAIR SHARE FORMULA

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


Unfortunately, instead of working to re-establish our constitution’s original tax plan and its honest money system, both of which are essential in a free market system and paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world when it was followed, those who now run for political office prefer to incite partisan politics to get elected while the leadership of both political parties work in concert to further corrupt our founder’s plan in order to lay claim to what America’s businesses and labor has produced, and they craftily do so using a dishonest money system and dishonest taxation, both of which were specifically rejected by our founding fathers and done so based upon principles to avoid the very calamities we now experience as a nation.

So why is it that not one of our political pundits will compare our founder’s constitutionally mandated honest money and honest system of taxation to what is currently legislated by the Washington Establishment? Who among the following list has taken the time to discuss our Constitution’s original plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, …. WHO? But isn’t it interesting to note how the above are very adept at fanning the flames of political partisanship which causes a distraction from any meaningful focus and discussion to withdraw the legislative powers now used to cause our miseries?

And who among those who are running for office advocate real reform by demanding a return to honest money and our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as each was intended to operate by our founders, and were specifically designed to preclude our existing miseries and the plundering of America’s wealth now engaged in by our folks in Washington?

Bottom line is, until Congress’ hands are rebound by our Constitution’s honest money system and honest taxation, the American People will continue to be the slaves of a government they created to be their servant.

Hopefully Sarah Palin will be the one who rises above our beloved talking heads and will articulate the necessity to withdraw from Congress’ power the tools now used to cause our misery and re-establish our Founder’s original plan.

JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

_____


[1] The most recent act of judicial tyranny being the Kelo decision in which our Supreme Court gave new meaning to the phrase “public use”, a meaning far different than that understood by our founders when framing our Constitution. The new meaning now allowing private property to be taken by folks in government and transferred to a privileged class for their private use . . . the privileged class being well connected with folks in government.

Labels:

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Our Supreme Court, our founding fathers, and immigration vs. naturalization!

SEE:
SCOTUS Upholds AZ Law Imposing Penalties On Employers

Published: May 26, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that imposes harsh penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
___cut___

The challenge to the Arizona law that was the subject of Thursday’s decision was brought by a coalition of business and civil liberties groups, with support from the Obama administration.

They said the law in question, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, conflicted with federal immigration policy.


Now, just for the record, let us review our founding fathers own words regarding immigration and naturalization.

The big lie, which Eric Holder and his puppet big media have been promoting is, that the federal government has supreme authority to deal with “immigration” and thus, exclusive authority over aliens who have invaded a State’s borders. They claim the exclusive power is found in Article VI, clause 2 of our federal Constitution which declares:


“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”


But the above “supremacy” only applies to those powers specifically enumerated and delegated by the States to the federal government in our written federal Constitution. And the irrefutable fact is, there is no power granted to Congress to regulate “immigration” mentioned in our Constitution! More importantly, a reading of the debates of our founding fathers involving our nation’s Rule of Naturalization in 1790 established beyond any doubt, the various States specifically avoided granting a sweeping power over immigration to Congress. And, the limited power granted is over “Naturalization” which is stated as follows:
Congress shall have power:


To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization … Article 1, Section 8

The Constitution also states The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States Article IV, Section 2)

NOTE: It is important to keep in mind that prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution citizenship was bestowed under state law. And upon the adoption of our existing Constitution, as stated above, the Citizens of each State became entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. However, once the Constitution was ratified, the federal government was granted exclusive authority To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization …

Now, let us determine our founding fathers use of the word “Naturalization” and if there is a clear distinction between the word “Naturalization” as distinguished from “immigration” which is not even mentioned in our Constitution!


REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [a power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790,
PAGE 1152


And REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790,
PAGE 1156 and PAGE 1157


In addition, REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution expresses the very intentions for which the power [Naturalization] was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790,
PAGE 1148


In fact, the power delegated to Congress over Naturalization was to preclude a State from granting citizenship on easy terms and allowing undesirables to gain citizenship, and those citizens then moving to another state and upsetting local customs or become disruptive to the general welfare of the State. The founders wanted to make certain that those who obtained citizenship would be productive citizens and loyal to America! And thus, the power was granted to Congress To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization… But, no power was ever granted to our federal government over the various States original policing powers dealing with immigration and aliens who enter their borders, and especially not over aliens who have entered our country or a state illegally!.

The only expressed authority regarding “migration“ found in our Constitution is Article 1, Section 9 which declares:


The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

And this provision was of course the precursor to ending slavery in America by taxing the importation of slaves, and not a grant of power to the federal government to enter a state and meddle in a state‘s policing powers designed to promote its internal general welfare ___ a power specifically retained by the States!


From the above we learn that, “migration” is the act by which people move from one place to another, while “Naturalization” is the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. We also learn that the rules by which a foreign national may become a citizen of the united States have been entrusted to Congress and done so for a specific reason ___ to ensure the general welfare of the states against undesirable aliens becoming citizens.

So, while President Obama and his Administration may pretend that the federal government has authority to determine immigration policy within a State‘s borders, our Constitution is very clear in granting Congress a power to establish how an alien may become a citizen of the united states, which has nothing to do with the State of Arizona, or any State in the union, from dealing with aliens who have entered their state illegally. The power over this subject matter has never been relinquished by the various united States and remains in tact as it was prior to the adoption of our Constitution which declares in crystal clear language: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment


JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" Justice Story

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 09, 2011

Donald Trump and his possible run for the presidency, taxes and trade.

I personally am warming up to Donald Trump’s run for the presidency and for good reason … it’s time for our elected public trustees to promote America’s best interest as our founding fathers did, and which I believe Trump would do while telling our traitorous one world crowd to but-out!

SEE: Norquist critical of Trump’s tariff proposal


” Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, told The Daily Caller. “Tariffs are not paid by Chinese people, they are paid by American people who buy Chinese products. It would raise the costs of everything you buy in the store. Most of those things you by from China and because you raised the price of one competitor, everybody else gets to raise their prices too.”


Stop making crap up Mr. Norquist! The fact is, taxes at our water’s edge, which our founding fathers used to promote America’s best interests, are to be paid at our federal government’s custom houses prior to the imports reaching our market place, and once paid, the imports are then allowed to advance to our market place.


In fact our founding fathers use of taxes at our water’s edge was very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who were, and are at this very moment, willing to sell out America’s best interests to the highest international bidders and personally profit in the process! When these members of Congress talk about “free trade”, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes America’s manufactures, its industries and the property which working people have in their labor to fill its national treasury. I say “its treasury” because our scum on Capitol Hill believe our national treasury is their personal ATM, and the above is what they mean when they talk about “free trade”.

By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our water’s edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil! What a novel idea … an America first policy!

Madison sums up our founding father’s trade policy as follows during the creation of our Nation‘s first revenue raising Act

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”

The Act went on to tax specifically chosen imported articles and not one dime was raised by taxing American domestic manufacturers, the working man’s wage, or the returns on invested capital ___ all of which contributed enormously to America becoming the economic marvel of the world! It should also be noted the Act was signed by George Washington on July 4th, 1789, as if to give England a second notice of America’s independence while exercising her power to tax foreign imports in order to fill our national treasury.

In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specifically chosen articles imported, our founding fathers imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports arriving in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

"...a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof." SEE: An Act imposing duties on Tonnage July 20, 1789


This patriotic use of taxing at our water’s edge not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's ship building industry to flourish and America’s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, last time I visited the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area, I was very saddened that I could no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seemed to be foreign owned foreign built vessels...an irrefutable sign of America's decline traceable to the ravages of our international “free trade crowd” and a traitorous sellout of America’s sovereignty to the highest international bidders by members of Congress and our presidents, past and present!


Bottom line is, Donald Trump is correct on taxing at our water’s edge, just as our Founding Fathers were correct on taxing at our water’s edge, and the proof is, by the year1835 America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

Norquist needs to stop making crap up!


As for Donald Trump, my advice to him would be to offer to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan which would end all taxes calculated from profits and gains now levied on our domestic manufactures and investors, and also end the current and slavish tax on the bread which working people earn. In addition, Donald needs to advance a no-nonsense method to extinguish annual deficits which creates a very real moment of accountably for members of Congress should they spend more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on judiciously selected articles of consumption. And how do we return to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate? By adding the following to our Constitution:

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! These words would also remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates the bread which working people have earned!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.

"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit is:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This fair share formula is to insure that the people of those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation an idea which our progressives hate with a passion!

"SECTION 4.Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."

NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


If Donald decides to promote the above, he will be the only candidate promoting a return to our constitutionally limited ‘Republican Form of Government’ as our founding fathers intended it to operate, and all other candidates will be advancing ways to subjugate the miracle which our founding fathers handed to us a a silver platter.

Donald, please do not let us down!


Regards,

Your pal from the South Bronx

johnwk


America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our domestic manufacturing capabilities and a sellout to a one-world international free-trade crowd; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Progressive media says, Founders favored government run health care in 1798!

See: Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

Just for the record, I addressed this very issue back in 2009 when another progressive tried to pretend our Founders MANDATED health insurance in 1798. But like a vampire which can't be killed, the same big lie returns over and over again and is panhandled by our big progressive loving media.

To begin with, An Act for the relief of sick and disable seamen which Rick Ungar refers to was directed at licensed American flag ships engaged in commerce among the States and/or with foreign nations, and also directed at our Navy and its personnel. It had nothing to do with the kind of despotic intrusion our federal government is now attempting with regard to the American People’s decisions and choices regarding their health care needs.

In spite of the actual limitations of the act, the crackpot at forbes, Rick Ungar, writes: ” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.”

What Rick Ungar fails to tell his readers is, the sailors he refers to are not merely privately employed sailors, but are employed on ships licensed by the United States and engaged in commerce among the States and/or with foreign nations. Last time I read our Constitution it declares that Congress has power to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations.

The legislation reads:


1 § 1. Be it enacted ……. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall …..

§ 2. That from and after the first day of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose enrollment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a new enrollment or license, before the master of such ship or vessel shall first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen, and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such seamen have been severally employed as aforesaid ; which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen. And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.



It is also to be noted that our beloved Washington Post jumps on Rick Ungar’s bandwagon with an article titled Newsflash: Founders favored government run health care by Greg Sargent, 01/20/2011

And this propagandist, similar to Rick Ungar, likewise fails to note the act was not directed at “government run health care“, but rather, how to deal with the health care needs of sailors employed on ships licensed by the United States engaged in commerce among the States and with foreign nations . . . a specific subject matter which Congress was granted authority over.

And instead of consulting “a professor of history who specializes in the early republic” Greg Sargent ought to have consulted our founding fathers to determine their intentions as documented in the debates creating the act. But heck, why quote the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Act was adopted when one can get a “professor” to weave a tale by association to give credibility to a fraud now being perpetrated upon the American? The fraud being, that Congress has been granted power to regulate the American People’s decisions and choices regarding their health care needs.

JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE majority vote in Congress!