George Will has a column today challenging the wisdom, if such it could be called, of implementing a VAT, aka National Sales Tax, on top of our already burdensome income tax system. He advocates the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which, for the unlearned, made Constitutional the direct tax on incomes, from whatever source.

I share his sentiment. Income tax is nothing more than a seemingly bottomless cookie jar, continually raided by government at all levels until the total of labor’s fruits is commandeered by the state, for the “common good”. Since Wilson’s questionable tactics to force a last-minute ratification, we have become nothing more than serfs, being allowed to keep only such of our efforts as the ruling class has allowed. To show for it, we have an ever-more stratified society, with the bottom rungs paying nothing, and taking most, and the top rungs paying most, and denied everything. Adding insult to injury, what little we manage to accumulate despite ever more “progressive” (read, repressive) taxes on labor is then taxed repeatedly with state sales taxes, property taxes, present-value taxes, and then, if you still have anything left when you die, inheritance taxes on what you leave your heirs.

Legalized theft, nothing more. And, as long as they know they can tax us up to 99%, and still be within the bounds of the definition of involuntary servitude, they will continue to do so, and they will have no incentive to control their own profligacy or to ensure that our economy actually grows.

A couple of days ago, I was toying with some Constitutional Amendments I would like to see enacted. Here is the one on taxation:

1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed.

2. Mechanisms of taxation within the United States shall be limited to taxes on transactions and other activities of commerce only, and shall not exceed an aggregate of twenty-five percent for all applicable levels of government and jurisdictions.

3. No tax, penalty, or fine may be imposed for not engaging in any form of commerce.

4. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution.

Note that there is no expiration on ratification, which is sometimes useful, as evidenced by the 27th Amendment, (Congressional pay raises) which was first proposed in the Eighteenth Century, and finally, after egregious Congressional abuses, ratified in the 20th (1992). Although, as evidenced by the 26th Amendment (18-year-old vote), which was ratified by 38 states in just 100 days, it is possible to get amendments enacted quickly, if the public is pissed off – er, motivated – enough. I would think that might just describe the mood of the nation today.

And this is just the first. In my next columns, I’ll present others I would like to see addressed.

Today, as I did on Nov 4, 2008, I literally sobbed in fear and anguish for the future of my country.

With Eric Holder’s treasonous decision to bring KSM to NYC for a civilian trial, no doubt at the behest of his boss, the Traitor-in-Chief, and with the arbitrary decision to dismiss Orly Taitz’ case in California at the end of last month, the agenda becomes crystal clear – we are helpless to stop the onslaught of the overturning of our government and our way of life by Islam and its sympathizers who have infiltrated our government and our judicial system. There is no longer any justice, and the terrorists will not only go free, they will be turned loose on our soil.

Consider:
– Cases against Barack Obama, while still a “Senator”, arbitrarily dismissed for lack of “standing”, and the attornies of record sanctioned.
– Cases against Barack Obama that reached the Supreme Court mysteriously removed from the docket and court documents destroyed by a clerk within the Court.
- Cases against Barack Obama tentatively scheduled for trial and suddenly dismissed after the judge’s office hires a former associate of one of the law firms representing Obama.
- Cases against Barack Obama to which AG Holder will not even file responses required by the court.
- A radical Islamist officer in the US Army is put in a position where he could sabotage the troops’ mission, the Army is told to ignore the danger signals, and Congress is ordered to sit back and let Holder’s bunch handle it.

We were complacent as a country, despite what happened in Germany in the Nineteen-Thirties, despite witnessing how South and Central American countries have been hijacked by vicious dictators. We were smug, and said it could never happen here. The millions who swallowed Obama’s lies voted him into office without vetting him in the ways that patriotic lawyers have been struggling to compel the courts to order; his appointments of radical and traitorous associates to high-level positions of authority have been either rubber stamped by the Senate or have been unConstitutional and unaccountable usurpations of executive power. Everywhere we turn our Constitution is being trampled, our freedoms are being suppressed; our security is threatened. Laws are being arbitrarily overturned or ignored in order to reward political allies. Our economy has been gutted and handed by virtue of trillion-dollar bread-and-circus legislation to nations with histories of checkered friendship to our country and political ideologies diametrically opposed to our own. 17% of our work force is unemployed, and those who still have jobs know that the arbitrary policies of the White House “czars” can throw them out of work at a moment’s notice. Our sovereignty is being threatened, with the spectre of world government, and transnational law which trumps our Constitution, looming large. The only religion being given protection by the government is Islam.

All of it leads directly back to Barack Obama. He is deliberately setting the stage for revolution, daily throwing more fuel on the fire in order to escalate a situation in which he can declare marshal law and suspend all civil liberties except those which he determines serve his interests, and which will be accorded only to those who bow to him. It is vital to his goals that the American people be fed up and ready for armed revolt by the end of Summer 2010.

The few elected officials who are not in Obama’s hip pocket, or who have not been intimidated into silence and complicity, are focused on the elections in scheduled for November, 2010. I submit that there will be no elections in 2010, or thereafter, unless some of the people surrounding Obama remember that their oaths of office require them to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not that traitorous SOB in the White House, and act accordingly.

One more prediction: once Obama feels that the Islamist agenda has progressed sufficiently that there is no turning back, he will suddenly announce that he has decided to return to the religion of his childhood. I submit he never left it, nor ever ceased working to accomplish its radical purposes, which by their very nature are treason against the United States.

Much has been said in the recent weeks leading up to Tuesday’s elections, and in the three days since, about the diminished clout of Obamamania. Let’s face it – our President is an important person in our government, but the way the Constitution was written really only empowers him to direct the manner in which legislation from Congress is implemented. (Pre-BO, of course – he seems to think he is a law unto himself, and the Constitution a mere inconvenience to be ignored at will).

However, it is well-worn wisdom that a large chunk of the electorate only shows up to exercise its franchise in Presidential elections, as if who it is sending to DC and the state houses is of no consequence. This is a leftover attitude of primitive societal structures that would require the blood of the king if the crops failed, and the members of the electorate who only show up every four years are only too willing to lead the ruler to the slaughter.

Of those quadrennial voters, most are content to just hit the straight-ticket button in the voting booth, regardless of what they are voting for, regardless of an incumbent’s record or a newbie’s positions. Many don’t even bother to show up for the midterms, not knowing or caring that 100% of the House and 33% of the Senate are re-elected every two years.

At the risk of being labeled a raaaaacist, a subset of the quadrennials is that segment of the Afro-centric community whose total consideration when viewing Obama’s qualifications in 2008 was his 50% African heritage. An objective observer could note that 96% of black voters supported Obama last year, including millions of black voters who didn’t even bother to vote in 2004. Last year, they felt they had a real stake in seeing that a black candidate was elected; many would have voted for Rev. Wright had he been on the ticket, for no other reason than race; there is no reason to think that 2012 will see a diminution of that short-sighted tunnel-vision. Given that the majority of the black vote typically goes to the candidate fielded by the Democrats, even Hillary was only expected to garner 80% had she won the nomination. There was nothing in Obama’s resume to justify that additional 16% of the black vote, which no doubt included many who traditionally voted for conservative candidates.

It is that additional 16% that conservative candidates need to recapture, and the way to do that is to hammer home the lost promise of Obamamania; highlight the gross incompetence of this administration in everything from the economy to national defense; point out over and over again the egregious usurpation of power by the executive branch from the other branches and from the private sector; emphasize the proliferation of radical and anti-American czars, appointed without Congressional approval or vetting by DHS; pound the corrupt connections between the White House and ACORN and SEIU, with emphasis on fired Inspectors General who got too close to the truth. Don’t forget to mention the American Apology Tour.

A candidate’s qualifications and record must be more than skin-deep, regardless of your own racial background. If the entire electorate can be brought to recognize in 2012 just how toxic Obama has been for America, so that even the black voters run screaming in the other direction, then and only then can we truly say that we have colorblind elections.

Wikipedia, while a less than perfect source for everything, is usually my go-to for initial quick and dirty background on a topic.

Take the concept of a “Prime Minister“. Wiki’s definition is:

“A prime minister is the most senior minister of cabinet in the executive branch of government in a parliamentary system. The position is usually held by, but need not always be held by, a politician. In many systems, the prime minister selects and can dismiss other members of the cabinet, and allocates posts to members within the Government. In most systems, the prime minister is the presiding member and chairman of the cabinet. In a minority of systems, notably in semi-presidential systems of government, a prime minister is the official who is appointed to manage the civil service and execute the directives of the president.”

Hmmm. Well, that certainly sounds like a Chief of Staff.

The article goes on to say:

“In parliamentary systems fashioned after the Westminster system, the prime minister is the presiding and actual head of the government and head of the executive branch. In such systems, the head of state or the head of state’s official representative (i.e the monarch, president [emphasis mine], or governor-general), although officially the head of the executive branch, in fact holds a ceremonial position. The prime minister…..is expected …. to ensure the passage of bills through the legislature. In some monarchies the monarch may also exercise executive powers (known as the royal prerogative) which are constitutionally vested in the crown and can be exercised without the approval of parliament.”

Hmmm, I said again. Sure sounds like the way Rahm Emanuel functions.

Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, grants to the President the power to appoint such advisors as he deems necessary, under the following conditions:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

The current office of White House Chief of Staff was officially named by Eisenhower, having been morphed from the “Assistant to the President”, originally created under the authority granted to the President by the Reorganization Act of 1939 (5 USC Sec 133 (1939) ). I am still digging around and trying to find the original text of this bill, so that I can see in explicit terms why the White House Chief of Staff, a de facto prime minister who wields as much or more power than the President, and who can actually hold the President hostage to his own agenda, refusing to permit access to or from the Oval Office, is exempt from the Senate confirmation process.

In the decision rendered by the US District Court of Appeals in DC on CREW v. Office of Administration (08-5188) in May, 2009, the court reiterates its stubborn policy of disregarding the explicit will and intent of Congress that no office or agency of the government should be above the scrutiny of the public. This intent, as is clear in the language of FOIA as amended in 1974, defines an “agency” as:

“any executive department,military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).1

So all a crook in the White House has to do is to bring someone in as an “advisor”, and he is immune to scrutiny of any kind? So Rahm Emanuel is holding the reins of government, controlling the President’s schedule, granting or denying access, wielding power, sitting in on all policy meetings, making policy, dictating to Congress, specifying what laws will be passed, authorizing billions of dollars in expenditures, engaging in personal vendettas against private persons, including the press, and he is immune? Every other unaccountable czar in the White House answers to him, and it begs the question of just how many of the czars and new agencies in the White House – all immune from scrutiny – have been the results of his machinations. Fifty-three percent of the electorate may have chosen Barack Obama as the President, but zero percent of the electorate okayed Rahm Emanuel to be actually running our country (into the ground, I might add), not even indirectly through the Senate confirmation process. And maybe he’s not the first Chief of Staff to think he’s the one in charge, but I will say, he’s the worst, and he’s carried it the farthest.

Did I miss something? When did we become a monarchy, when did our head of state become a mere figurehead, and when did we authorize a prime minister to run our country?

We don’t even get to have a vote of no-confidence to kick him out, unless we kick out his frontman puppet first.

As Ways and Means chairman, Mr. Rangel holds one of the premier positions on Capitol Hill for raising money for the party from individuals and groups looking to influence legislation moving through the committee, which writes the tax code and is involved in shaping major policy.

New York Times , Oct 16, 2009.

This single statement proves instructive as to exactly why the corruption in Washington is so deeply entrenched, and why, regardless of which candidate is elected, it persists.

Five hundred thirty-six – counting the President – citizens are elected to represent the interests of the other 325 million of us in the seat of national government. They are not elected to serve their own interests, they are not elected to sell access and preferential treatment to lobbyists, corporations, unions, moguls, or the media. If the New York Times, of all places, admits that this is what the Democratic Party’s elected officials, including the most corrupt member of the US Congress at this time, represent, I think it would behoove us to demand legislation prohibiting this type of pay-to-play. Certainly it is a matter of free speech, as defined by the Supreme Court, to speak with dollars in the form of campaign contributions; equally, it is within our purvue as citizens to require that those persons elected to the public trust are forbidden to listen, by means of soliciting and accepting what amount to de-facto bribes, to this “speech”.

And if the lobbyists, corporations, unions, moguls, or the media want to exercise their free speech, I would suggest they utilize the methods outlined in the First Amendment: free assembly, free press, petitioning the government for redress of grievances, their open mouths. Putting dollars into the equation only invites corruption of those who can be corrupted, and acts as a disincentive to their equally corrupt parent organizations to ever rein them in.

There is a justifiable sense of outrage at the White House for sitting on intelligence about the second (of how many) hidden uranium enrichment facility in Iran, as evidenced by Victor Davis Hanson’s column yesterday.

Given that this intelligence was obtained in 2008 before the election, we need to be angry with, and to hold accountable, everyone who was at that time in a position to use it in ways that enhanced world security, instead of letting that false face in Iran gleefully lead everyone a merry dance for a year, including the bozo in the White House.

Naming Names: