Posts
Trayvon Martin's "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA" Tweets -- The Daily Caller
Information is starting to come out regarding Trayvon Martin’s background, and it appears he wasn’t quite the innocent teenager his family, the media, and the usual ambulance chasing race hustlers have claimed he was.
His Lovely Twitter Feed
Courtesy of the Daily Caller, we have Trayvon Martin’s Twitter feed, under the lovely handle “No_Limit_Nigga” See above
Friday, March 30, 2012
Evidence Suggests George Zimmerman Shot In Self Defense
http://www.theconservativereview.com/tag/no_limit_nigga/
Evidence as revealed to this point seems to indicate that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in self defense. Unfortunately for Mr. Zimmerman, the media, politicians and race hustlers refuse to tell the truth about what happened, cherry picking portions of the 911 tape and deliberately painting the “controversial” Stand Your Ground law as some sort of license to murder. The various myths about this case are easily dismissed by looking that the evidence that is available, and the conclusion based only on the available evidence is obvious.
Myth #1: Trayvon Martin Was Racially Profiled
The liberal media, liberal politicians and the Hoodie Brigades have seized upon a portion of the 911 tape where George Martin can be heard saying “he looks black” as evidence of racial profiling and the secondary claim that the shooting is a hate crime. What they’re not telling you is that he only said it after being asked by the dispatcher “okay, is this guy…is he white, black or Hispanic?” You can hear it at the 26 second mark of the tape:
Zimmerman says “he LOOKS black,” as if he’s not quite sure.
Myth #2: Zimmerman Pursued Trayvon Martin After Being Told Not To Do So By Police
Again, the 911 tape does not bear this out. At about the 1:54 mark, you can hear the dispatcher ask “are you following him?” Zimmerman replies yes, and the dispatcher says “okay, we don’t need you to do that.” That’s the point at which the media always stops the tape and claims Zimmerman continued following Martin “against police orders.” What you don’t hear is his reply…”okay.” A few seconds later, the noise in the background (possibly caused by wind or motion) stops and you can hear Zimmerman’s voice sound less breathless. He says “he ran.” When the dispatcher asks him for his personal information, in the uncensored version of the 911 tape he says, at the 3:37 mark:
Ah crap, I don’t know want to give it all out. I don’t know where this kid is.
Zimmerman, when told that he did not need to follow Martin, said “okay.” He says “he ran” and then says “I don’t know where this kid is.” How exactly was he still following him?
Myth #3: Zimmerman Tracked Down Martin And Shot Him
Again, see the above tapes. He wasn’t following him and in fact didn’t know where Martin was. He indicated that he was walking back to his SUV, and there is no evidence that contradicts him.
Myth #4: Zimmerman Was The Aggressor
There is zero evidence to support this statement. Zimmerman’s is the only account of how the fight started. Zimmerman had the injuries, both on the front and back of his head, that indicate that at a minimum, he wasn’t the aggressor at the moment the shot was fired. Which leads to the next myth.
Myth #5: Zimmerman Has To Be A Murderer Because Martin Was 17 And Unarmed
This one is a little more complicated, but the law is what it is. Even if Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin first, it is entirely possible that Trayvon Martin was justifiably shot. Sounds impossible, right? Not according to the law in almost any state when it comes to self defense, Stand Your Ground not withstanding.
If Trayvon Martin started the fight, as Zimmerman claims, and knocked Zimmerman down with the first punch, then continued to beat Zimmerman and bang his head on the pavement (which the injuries support), Zimmerman could easily have feared for his life. That being the case, when he drew his weapon and fired it would have been self-defense. That is the law in most states, and it was the law in Florida before there was a Stand Your Ground law.
If, on the other hand, Zimmerman started the fight but then Martin got the upper hand, once Zimmerman was on the ground, yelling for help and having his head beaten on pavement while he was being pummeled (supported by witnesses who identified Zimmerman as the one on the ground), Trayvon Martin at that point became the aggressor. George Zimmerman became the victim, and again, if he felt his life was in danger, could then have used deadly force. This is a part of self defense laws that people don’t seem to understand. You may use force, even deadly force in proper circumstances, to defend yourself, but only to the point that the threat is neutralized. Even if Zimmerman had followed Martin and attacked him first, once Zimmerman was no longer fighting back and not posing a threat to Martin, Martin was required to stop his beating and slamming of Zimmerman’s head on the pavement. He clearly did not, and thus would have become the aggressor at that point.
So even in the “George Zimmerman is the racial profiler who attacked Trayvon Martin for no reason” scenario, George Zimmerman still shot him in self defense.
Myth #6: The Stand Your Ground Law Is To Blame For Zimmerman Not Being Charged
Again, Zimmerman was entitled to use deadly force because he felt his life was in danger. The Stand Your Ground law only takes away the “duty to retreat,” which prosecutors are well known for abusing by charging people (especially shooters) who used deadly force to defend themselves or others with things like manslaughter by claiming that force was unnecessary because “you could have run.” Stand Your Ground has no application here. Zimmerman was on his back being beaten. How exactly would he have exercised a “duty to retreat” even if there had been one? Before Stand Your Ground, Zimmerman’s shooting was still permissible because retreat was not possible.
Authorities know it but are using it as a convenient excuse to avoid explaining that it appears this “17 year-old unarmed black teen, who had never been in trouble in his life” actually got himself killed.
Liberals in and out of media know it, but they want to perpetuate the racism argument and as a bonus attack self-defense, especially with guns, both of which they hate with a passion.
Evidence as revealed to this point seems to indicate that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in self defense. Unfortunately for Mr. Zimmerman, the media, politicians and race hustlers refuse to tell the truth about what happened, cherry picking portions of the 911 tape and deliberately painting the “controversial” Stand Your Ground law as some sort of license to murder. The various myths about this case are easily dismissed by looking that the evidence that is available, and the conclusion based only on the available evidence is obvious.
Myth #1: Trayvon Martin Was Racially Profiled
The liberal media, liberal politicians and the Hoodie Brigades have seized upon a portion of the 911 tape where George Martin can be heard saying “he looks black” as evidence of racial profiling and the secondary claim that the shooting is a hate crime. What they’re not telling you is that he only said it after being asked by the dispatcher “okay, is this guy…is he white, black or Hispanic?” You can hear it at the 26 second mark of the tape:
Zimmerman says “he LOOKS black,” as if he’s not quite sure.
Myth #2: Zimmerman Pursued Trayvon Martin After Being Told Not To Do So By Police
Again, the 911 tape does not bear this out. At about the 1:54 mark, you can hear the dispatcher ask “are you following him?” Zimmerman replies yes, and the dispatcher says “okay, we don’t need you to do that.” That’s the point at which the media always stops the tape and claims Zimmerman continued following Martin “against police orders.” What you don’t hear is his reply…”okay.” A few seconds later, the noise in the background (possibly caused by wind or motion) stops and you can hear Zimmerman’s voice sound less breathless. He says “he ran.” When the dispatcher asks him for his personal information, in the uncensored version of the 911 tape he says, at the 3:37 mark:
Ah crap, I don’t know want to give it all out. I don’t know where this kid is.
Zimmerman, when told that he did not need to follow Martin, said “okay.” He says “he ran” and then says “I don’t know where this kid is.” How exactly was he still following him?
Myth #3: Zimmerman Tracked Down Martin And Shot Him
Again, see the above tapes. He wasn’t following him and in fact didn’t know where Martin was. He indicated that he was walking back to his SUV, and there is no evidence that contradicts him.
Myth #4: Zimmerman Was The Aggressor
There is zero evidence to support this statement. Zimmerman’s is the only account of how the fight started. Zimmerman had the injuries, both on the front and back of his head, that indicate that at a minimum, he wasn’t the aggressor at the moment the shot was fired. Which leads to the next myth.
Myth #5: Zimmerman Has To Be A Murderer Because Martin Was 17 And Unarmed
This one is a little more complicated, but the law is what it is. Even if Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin first, it is entirely possible that Trayvon Martin was justifiably shot. Sounds impossible, right? Not according to the law in almost any state when it comes to self defense, Stand Your Ground not withstanding.
If Trayvon Martin started the fight, as Zimmerman claims, and knocked Zimmerman down with the first punch, then continued to beat Zimmerman and bang his head on the pavement (which the injuries support), Zimmerman could easily have feared for his life. That being the case, when he drew his weapon and fired it would have been self-defense. That is the law in most states, and it was the law in Florida before there was a Stand Your Ground law.
If, on the other hand, Zimmerman started the fight but then Martin got the upper hand, once Zimmerman was on the ground, yelling for help and having his head beaten on pavement while he was being pummeled (supported by witnesses who identified Zimmerman as the one on the ground), Trayvon Martin at that point became the aggressor. George Zimmerman became the victim, and again, if he felt his life was in danger, could then have used deadly force. This is a part of self defense laws that people don’t seem to understand. You may use force, even deadly force in proper circumstances, to defend yourself, but only to the point that the threat is neutralized. Even if Zimmerman had followed Martin and attacked him first, once Zimmerman was no longer fighting back and not posing a threat to Martin, Martin was required to stop his beating and slamming of Zimmerman’s head on the pavement. He clearly did not, and thus would have become the aggressor at that point.
So even in the “George Zimmerman is the racial profiler who attacked Trayvon Martin for no reason” scenario, George Zimmerman still shot him in self defense.
Myth #6: The Stand Your Ground Law Is To Blame For Zimmerman Not Being Charged
Again, Zimmerman was entitled to use deadly force because he felt his life was in danger. The Stand Your Ground law only takes away the “duty to retreat,” which prosecutors are well known for abusing by charging people (especially shooters) who used deadly force to defend themselves or others with things like manslaughter by claiming that force was unnecessary because “you could have run.” Stand Your Ground has no application here. Zimmerman was on his back being beaten. How exactly would he have exercised a “duty to retreat” even if there had been one? Before Stand Your Ground, Zimmerman’s shooting was still permissible because retreat was not possible.
Authorities know it but are using it as a convenient excuse to avoid explaining that it appears this “17 year-old unarmed black teen, who had never been in trouble in his life” actually got himself killed.
Liberals in and out of media know it, but they want to perpetuate the racism argument and as a bonus attack self-defense, especially with guns, both of which they hate with a passion.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Obama town hall Crash and burns as Obama supportors ask for more welfare not his Stimulus Bill
Obama's great town hall meetings in Feb backfired crashing and burning as Obama supporters asked when the welfare checks were coming. They don't want the spending bill he is proposing they want welfare.
Example 1
Supporter asks for the money not to be spent as Obama wants he wants a check in his mail box. He also doesn't want to wait in lines to sign up for welfare he just wants a check now.
Obama's response was to start thumping on his mike pretending that it did not work and run around the stage like the 3 stooges trying all the micks and yelling can you hear me. Well everyone could hear him it was a lame stalling tactic. When he finaly did speak he did not answer the question.
Then at the 2nd town hall
Obama supporter asked. Why he did not qualify for all the great welfare programs while he was on unemployment. He wants extra welfare sent to him when he signs up for unemployment.
Obama's answer was that he would give a extra $25 a week in unemployment but that no one really wanted to be on unemployment. Then he went into smart grids solar cells wind mills and medical records and did not answer the question.
3rd Obama supporter then asks why she has to live in her car she says she doesn't want Obama's parks in his bill she wants a home to live in with a kitchen.
Obama's answer was that his staff would talk to her. No other answer was given.
So whats he going to do put her in front of others on the HUD waiting list?
Obama supporters don't want any of the items in the stimulus bill. In fact the #1 thing they have requested on his website is to legalise crack cocaine.
Basically the town hall blew up in Obama's face as supports rebuffed his bill and requested huge welfare payments to all.
Update:
News link here
Problem here is that what about all the other Obama supporters that want free houses and welfare checks. Will Rich Obama big wigs give them all a home to keep them under control?
America does not want this bill including Obama supporters.
Example 1
Supporter asks for the money not to be spent as Obama wants he wants a check in his mail box. He also doesn't want to wait in lines to sign up for welfare he just wants a check now.
Obama's response was to start thumping on his mike pretending that it did not work and run around the stage like the 3 stooges trying all the micks and yelling can you hear me. Well everyone could hear him it was a lame stalling tactic. When he finaly did speak he did not answer the question.
Then at the 2nd town hall
Obama supporter asked. Why he did not qualify for all the great welfare programs while he was on unemployment. He wants extra welfare sent to him when he signs up for unemployment.
Obama's answer was that he would give a extra $25 a week in unemployment but that no one really wanted to be on unemployment. Then he went into smart grids solar cells wind mills and medical records and did not answer the question.
3rd Obama supporter then asks why she has to live in her car she says she doesn't want Obama's parks in his bill she wants a home to live in with a kitchen.
Obama's answer was that his staff would talk to her. No other answer was given.
So whats he going to do put her in front of others on the HUD waiting list?
Obama supporters don't want any of the items in the stimulus bill. In fact the #1 thing they have requested on his website is to legalise crack cocaine.
Basically the town hall blew up in Obama's face as supports rebuffed his bill and requested huge welfare payments to all.
Update:
Henrietta Hughes was offered a home by Chene Thompson, wife of State Representative Nick Thompson, who heard the homeless woman’s pleas for help to President Obama before a local and national crowd.
News link here
Problem here is that what about all the other Obama supporters that want free houses and welfare checks. Will Rich Obama big wigs give them all a home to keep them under control?
America does not want this bill including Obama supporters.
Obama electronic medical records is a Giant Big Brother snooping program that stamps you with the mark of the beast.
The new Obama electronic medical records provision will store all your private records in a government computer and allow the CDC to view your records.
No provision has been provided to allow you or your doctor to opt-out if this massive big brother snooping system.
Lets all get our health care cards stamped with the mark of the beast since we will get no health care unless we comply and provide all our private data to the CDC for inspection.
Why is this bad.
1) The Constitution does not allow regulation of health care records.
They can only regulate medicare and medicare records not private records.
2) No Opt Out provision is included.
3) Records are stored in government computers not the doctors office.
Making privacy and downtime a problem that could get you killed.
4) The government will monitor doctors to see if all patients are given the care the CDC thinks they should get.
5) If doctors don't want to transfer records they and you own to the federal government snooping system they will be punished.
6) If you don't want your records inspected by the CDC you will not be allowed to have any health care.
This bill needs to be modified to comply with current privacy rights.
1) Records should be stored in the local hospital or clinic and can only be copied to other servers with the patients signature on a permission card.
2) Penalties should be provided if records are transferred without this written permission.
3) No records should be transferred to the CDC without permission of the patient and doctor.
4) Patients should be allowed to opt-out of all electronic records at any time they wish and have all records transferred to paper and have the electronic version erased.
See Glenn Beck for more on this story.
This was added into the bill on the last day and Obama says the time to talk about this has passed. I say it has only started.
Big Brother Health Care Provisions Slipped Into Economic Stimulus Bill
No provision has been provided to allow you or your doctor to opt-out if this massive big brother snooping system.
Lets all get our health care cards stamped with the mark of the beast since we will get no health care unless we comply and provide all our private data to the CDC for inspection.
Why is this bad.
1) The Constitution does not allow regulation of health care records.
They can only regulate medicare and medicare records not private records.
2) No Opt Out provision is included.
3) Records are stored in government computers not the doctors office.
Making privacy and downtime a problem that could get you killed.
4) The government will monitor doctors to see if all patients are given the care the CDC thinks they should get.
5) If doctors don't want to transfer records they and you own to the federal government snooping system they will be punished.
6) If you don't want your records inspected by the CDC you will not be allowed to have any health care.
This bill needs to be modified to comply with current privacy rights.
1) Records should be stored in the local hospital or clinic and can only be copied to other servers with the patients signature on a permission card.
2) Penalties should be provided if records are transferred without this written permission.
3) No records should be transferred to the CDC without permission of the patient and doctor.
4) Patients should be allowed to opt-out of all electronic records at any time they wish and have all records transferred to paper and have the electronic version erased.
See Glenn Beck for more on this story.
The Obama stimulus bill is frightening because as it gets rushed to passage, more and more items buried deep within are being discovered. Items like the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. They're going to monitor the treatments and make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost-effective.
This was added into the bill on the last day and Obama says the time to talk about this has passed. I say it has only started.
Big Brother Health Care Provisions Slipped Into Economic Stimulus Bill
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Retailers To Lobby Obama to violate states rights and give a Sales Tax Holiday
Retailers To Lobby Obama to violate states rights and give a Sales Tax Holiday.
A U.S. retail trade group asked President-elect Barack Obama Tuesday to add a series of temporary sales tax holidays to an economic stimulus package as a way to revive consumer spending.
The National Retail Federation called for three 10-day periods of sales tax-free shopping in March, July and October 2009, which it said would save consumers almost $20 billion, or $175 for the average family.
Under the NRF's proposal, the federal government would reimburse states for the lost tax revenue.
State sales tax rates range from 2.9 percent to 7.25 percent, the group said.
Really sich a plan would be a violation of States rights. The federal government has no right to get involved in state matters in this way. How would this be tracked anyway? What would prevent states from submitting false data to the feds and collect more tax money that they actualy would have collected?
What would prevent a state that pays stores %.02 for collecting the tax from not deducting this from the amount they claim to the feds to pay them?
This would be a huge waste of money for tax payers to pay the sales tax for rich people.
Is this the CHANGE we voted for?
A U.S. retail trade group asked President-elect Barack Obama Tuesday to add a series of temporary sales tax holidays to an economic stimulus package as a way to revive consumer spending.
The National Retail Federation called for three 10-day periods of sales tax-free shopping in March, July and October 2009, which it said would save consumers almost $20 billion, or $175 for the average family.
Under the NRF's proposal, the federal government would reimburse states for the lost tax revenue.
State sales tax rates range from 2.9 percent to 7.25 percent, the group said.
Really sich a plan would be a violation of States rights. The federal government has no right to get involved in state matters in this way. How would this be tracked anyway? What would prevent states from submitting false data to the feds and collect more tax money that they actualy would have collected?
What would prevent a state that pays stores %.02 for collecting the tax from not deducting this from the amount they claim to the feds to pay them?
This would be a huge waste of money for tax payers to pay the sales tax for rich people.
Is this the CHANGE we voted for?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Universal healthcare unconstitutional
Obama wants to force you to buy helth care. But no press even asks him where in the constution it allows him to do this?
If the founding fathers knew of the Democrats' plan of universal healthcare they would be rolling in their graves, since they made it quite apparent in the Constitution that no such federal program was to be allowed.
Congress was given enumerated powers in order to insure that their supreme power only pertained to the powers awarded to them in the Constitution. Hereby I quote Amendment 10 of the Constitution: "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."
Nowhere in the constitution does it declare a socialistic approach to healthcare to be one of the powers appointed to the federal government. Therefore the power of healthcare is left in the hands of each individual state or private industry, where it is best handled anyway.
Loose interpretations of the Constitution are the only platforms that give Democrats even an ounce of legitimacy whenever they proclaim for national healthcare. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution tells us that Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," the significant word being commerce.
The fallacy of trading on equivocation is obvious in this interpretation because the term "commerce" in the 18th century did not necessarily have economic implications.
Interpretations of "welfare" are found in the preamble. Also, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, which states "Congress shall have power to … provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…" is commonly used to extend federal power. However, contorting "welfare" to somehow mean a socialized healthcare system is drastically at odds with the fundamental reasoning of the founding fathers.
General welfare" as described in the Constitution is synonymous with interstate commerce or a strong military defense. If national healthcare had been one of their intentions it would have been quite easy to create a new clause in Article 1, Section 8 stating "Congress shall have the power to provide healthcare to all through higher taxes."
It is quite startling that the only reason such a socialistic plan is even considered in this day and age is because of the gradual increase in the federal government's power since the inception of the constitution.
Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the philosophy shift towards the duty of the federal government since both have repeatedly increased government spending to the excessive amount that it is today.
Healthcare is not the only issue that the federal government wants to "take care of" either. It seems all forms of social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and education are all federal issues, when they are actually explicitly state issues. States were created for this purpose, so local governments would best reflect the majority of the population in their respective state.
The federal government's power needs to be looked over and reduced in almost every field. We should leave the federal government to do what the federal government does best, collect taxes and protect the citizens from enemies, foreign and domestic.
With all the tax dollars saved by reducing federal government spending from areas where it should have no control over to begin with, taxes could be lowered and personal liberty would expand. Next time you hear a candidate mentioning raising taxes just remember that the federal government is already doing more than it is supposed to, and it will continue to expand as long as we tolerate giving them more and more of our paychecks.
This nation must remember the greatness that it was founded on, and we must retain our original framework.
A socialistic healthcare system is appealing only to those who are ignorant to the cons of such a system or to those who like to forget we have a founding document that rejects a huge federal government.
LINK
If the founding fathers knew of the Democrats' plan of universal healthcare they would be rolling in their graves, since they made it quite apparent in the Constitution that no such federal program was to be allowed.
Congress was given enumerated powers in order to insure that their supreme power only pertained to the powers awarded to them in the Constitution. Hereby I quote Amendment 10 of the Constitution: "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."
Nowhere in the constitution does it declare a socialistic approach to healthcare to be one of the powers appointed to the federal government. Therefore the power of healthcare is left in the hands of each individual state or private industry, where it is best handled anyway.
Loose interpretations of the Constitution are the only platforms that give Democrats even an ounce of legitimacy whenever they proclaim for national healthcare. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution tells us that Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," the significant word being commerce.
The fallacy of trading on equivocation is obvious in this interpretation because the term "commerce" in the 18th century did not necessarily have economic implications.
Interpretations of "welfare" are found in the preamble. Also, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, which states "Congress shall have power to … provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…" is commonly used to extend federal power. However, contorting "welfare" to somehow mean a socialized healthcare system is drastically at odds with the fundamental reasoning of the founding fathers.
General welfare" as described in the Constitution is synonymous with interstate commerce or a strong military defense. If national healthcare had been one of their intentions it would have been quite easy to create a new clause in Article 1, Section 8 stating "Congress shall have the power to provide healthcare to all through higher taxes."
It is quite startling that the only reason such a socialistic plan is even considered in this day and age is because of the gradual increase in the federal government's power since the inception of the constitution.
Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the philosophy shift towards the duty of the federal government since both have repeatedly increased government spending to the excessive amount that it is today.
Healthcare is not the only issue that the federal government wants to "take care of" either. It seems all forms of social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and education are all federal issues, when they are actually explicitly state issues. States were created for this purpose, so local governments would best reflect the majority of the population in their respective state.
The federal government's power needs to be looked over and reduced in almost every field. We should leave the federal government to do what the federal government does best, collect taxes and protect the citizens from enemies, foreign and domestic.
With all the tax dollars saved by reducing federal government spending from areas where it should have no control over to begin with, taxes could be lowered and personal liberty would expand. Next time you hear a candidate mentioning raising taxes just remember that the federal government is already doing more than it is supposed to, and it will continue to expand as long as we tolerate giving them more and more of our paychecks.
This nation must remember the greatness that it was founded on, and we must retain our original framework.
A socialistic healthcare system is appealing only to those who are ignorant to the cons of such a system or to those who like to forget we have a founding document that rejects a huge federal government.
LINK
Thursday, November 23, 2006
REPARATIONS FOR SLAVE OWNERS
President Lincoln's 1 January 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves living in the United States, violates the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it did not compensate owners as required.
The Fifth Amendment says, in part, "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
The Constitution also states that no x-post facto law may be passed. X-post facto laws are laws that do not grandfather in existing cases when something is made illegal.
Slaves were property of slave owners and were taken away by the federal government without any compensation to their owners, for use of a public which included former slaves. Former slave owners never received compensation for the value of their slaves as property and for lost income which the freed slaves would have produced for their owners.
So it is not the ancestors of slaves that are due reparations since slave ownership was legal. It is the ancestors of the slave owners who are due just compensation as required by the Constitution.
So as an ancestor of slave owners when do I get my money?
And who should we sue the feds or the ansestors of the slaves?
The Fifth Amendment says, in part, "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
The Constitution also states that no x-post facto law may be passed. X-post facto laws are laws that do not grandfather in existing cases when something is made illegal.
Slaves were property of slave owners and were taken away by the federal government without any compensation to their owners, for use of a public which included former slaves. Former slave owners never received compensation for the value of their slaves as property and for lost income which the freed slaves would have produced for their owners.
So it is not the ancestors of slaves that are due reparations since slave ownership was legal. It is the ancestors of the slave owners who are due just compensation as required by the Constitution.
So as an ancestor of slave owners when do I get my money?
And who should we sue the feds or the ansestors of the slaves?
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
The census
Today, the controlling law for the U.S. Census is Title 13 of the U.S. Code. There is a lot of census data collected in the United States today, such as economic figures, sales and production figures, and agricultural statistics. Still, the head count is the only part of the census that is called for by the Constitution.
The code for the enumeration can be found in 13 USC 141
There are fines for non-response and for false response as well, though the amount has risen from the 1790's $20. Today failure to respond can result in a $100 fine; providing false answers is a more severe offense, and carries a $500 fine. Recent news reports, however, indicate that punishment for failure to respond is not usually enforced. The controlling section of the Code is 13 USC 221.
The Attorney General ruled, in 1940, that there were no longer any Indians in the United States who could be classified as "not taxed." In the Constitution, non-taxed Indians are not counted.
You are urged to fill out the form however if you are sent a long form by mistake you can just pick up a short one and send it in. Be sure to keep a copy to show the agent in case he comes to your house. And you can just give him a copy of to show that you complied with the law and filled out your form.
The code for the enumeration can be found in 13 USC 141
There are fines for non-response and for false response as well, though the amount has risen from the 1790's $20. Today failure to respond can result in a $100 fine; providing false answers is a more severe offense, and carries a $500 fine. Recent news reports, however, indicate that punishment for failure to respond is not usually enforced. The controlling section of the Code is 13 USC 221.
The Attorney General ruled, in 1940, that there were no longer any Indians in the United States who could be classified as "not taxed." In the Constitution, non-taxed Indians are not counted.
You are urged to fill out the form however if you are sent a long form by mistake you can just pick up a short one and send it in. Be sure to keep a copy to show the agent in case he comes to your house. And you can just give him a copy of to show that you complied with the law and filled out your form.
'Constitution is stupid,' argues Census worker
When Michigan resident Kim Carey refused to answer questions about her neighbor posed by a Census Bureau employee making follow-up visits, she cited her belief that the questions are "unconstitutional," to which the enumerator retorted, "The Constitution is stupid."
The government employee was attempting to fill out a census form with information gathered by proxy -- a practice employed when residents do not respond to follow-up visits. According to the national Census 2000 office, proxy information may be gleaned from neighbors, resident managers or any other knowledgeable party over the age of 15.
Carey informed the enumerator that one person occupied the residence in question, but would not answer queries related to her neighbor's age or race.
According to Carey's sister, Shelah Balogh -- who was present at the time of the visit -- the enumerator persisted after calling the Constitution "stupid," saying, "Come on, how old is he ... 30, 40, 50?"
Balogh shut the door, and the enumerator, described as a young man in his early 20s, went to an open window and began yelling, "Is he black, white? What is he?" before heading to another neighbor's home.
"I was appalled at his belligerence. I felt as if I were under attack," Carey told WND. "It's sad and scary that an apparently educated young American representing our government could show such contempt for our Constitution. Think of the countless men who died defending those ideals. It's sick."
First thing to do when talking to these people is to write down the name on the badge. Or do like I did take a photo for posting on the net.
The Constitution only allows them to count people and does not allow them to ask any of the questions they ask. All of the questions are unconditional and are a violation of or 5th amendment privacy rights.
Also take note that the only permitted counting is every 10 years and that no other counting is permitted. It is well known that they are doing countings in some cities every year.
"What scared me about the whole incident was how totally indoctrinated this kid was," reflected Balogh. "This is the same type of person who would think nothing of going door-to-door confiscating firearms if instructed. It was a chilling experience."
"At first, he tried to convince us that all of these intrusive questions were outlined in the Constitution," she added. "If we had been at my house, I could have pulled out my copy of the Constitution and asked him to show me where it states that the federal government has the right to know how many bathrooms I have, or what time my husband leaves for work in the morning."
Even tho you are promised that the info will not be released. It will be released after 90 years. Info on your grandfathers is now being released along with names and addresses. Along with who owned slaves and what the slaves names were opening you up to law suits. The info you give them today may harm your children years from now. What is legal today may not be legal tomorrow.
The feds need to be required to redact and purge from all records the names and addresses of data they collect no info should be releasing other than a counting.
Everyone is urged to ignore all illegal questions next time and send in the form with them blank. If workers come out tell them you already filled out the census and are not going to do it again. If they say the info will never be released so its ok ask them why the info on who owned slaves was released?
Voting for Democrats gets you a Draft
Charles Rangel (democrat now in charge) Wants a Draft. Did you think by voting for a democrat that this is what you would get. Well surprise you were stupid once you get democrats elected the Liberal nuts take charge.
Remember this next time you vote Democrat
Remember this next time you vote Democrat
Kramer Video
Michael Richards exploded in anger as he performed at a famous L.A. comedy club last Friday, hurling racial epithets that left the crowd gasping,
Richards, who played the wacky Cosmo Kramer on the hit TV show "Seinfeld," appeared onstage at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood. Kyle Doss, an African-American, told TMZ he and some friends were in the cheap seats and he was playfully heckling Richards when suddenly, the comedian lost it.
See video here
Michael Richards exploded in anger as he performed at a famous L.A. comedy club last Friday, hurling racial epithets that left the crowd gasping,
Richards, who played the wacky Cosmo Kramer on the hit TV show "Seinfeld," appeared onstage at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood. Kyle Doss, an African-American, told TMZ he and some friends were in the cheap seats and he was playfully heckling Richards when suddenly, the comedian lost it.
See video here
Friday, November 17, 2006
The NAFTA Superhighway
by Ron Paul
By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.
This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.
This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.
Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it.
The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.
The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.
The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.
The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union--complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.
A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election.
Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight-- and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman from Texas.
by Ron Paul
By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.
This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.
This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.
Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it.
The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.
The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.
The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.
The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union--complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.
A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election.
Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight-- and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman from Texas.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Massive Voter Fraud elects Democrats.
Computer hacking programs were tested before the election and found to be able to rig elections. Being that the vote count was so close in so many races it looks just like a hacking that throws votes to the other canidate when it gets close making it impossible for one canidate to get anything but a close race.
Computer hacking programs were tested before the election and found to be able to rig elections. Being that the vote count was so close in so many races it looks just like a hacking that throws votes to the other canidate when it gets close making it impossible for one canidate to get anything but a close race.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Prohibition and why most federal laws banning things are unconstutional.
In 1920 the 18th Amendment to the Constitution was passed to and prohibition began.
So answer this question!
If congress can regulate anything they want and ban things then why was it necessary to pass the 18th Amendment to ban liquor? And later repeal it to legalise it?
The answer is simple they do not have the power to ban anything unless the constution allows them to do it. True they can regulate the Interstate commerce in products but they can not regulate the "instate commerce".
If congress needed the the 18th Amendment to ban liquor then how do they ban and regulate the instate sales of drugs without a similar admendment allowing them to do so?
How can they regulate instate gun sales?
How can they regulate wages?
How can they regulate any business that is not invlved in Interstate commerce?
In 1920 the 18th Amendment to the Constitution was passed to and prohibition began.
So answer this question!
If congress can regulate anything they want and ban things then why was it necessary to pass the 18th Amendment to ban liquor? And later repeal it to legalise it?
The answer is simple they do not have the power to ban anything unless the constution allows them to do it. True they can regulate the Interstate commerce in products but they can not regulate the "instate commerce".
If congress needed the the 18th Amendment to ban liquor then how do they ban and regulate the instate sales of drugs without a similar admendment allowing them to do so?
How can they regulate instate gun sales?
How can they regulate wages?
How can they regulate any business that is not invlved in Interstate commerce?
The Interstate commerce clause Forbids federal regulation of instate activities!
The Constitution of the United States is not some esoteric document, written to be understood only by people with high IQs and postgraduate education. It is written in rather plain language.
There is even a sort of instructions guide on what the Constitution means in The Federalist Papers -- a collection of popular 18th century essays by those who helped write the Constitution, explaining why they did what they did.
Despite all this, appellate court decisions interpreting Constitutional law today are often a huge maze of tangled reasoning, obscure concepts and complex confusion. The motto over the entrance to the Supreme Court of the United States says, "Equal Justice Under Law" but sometimes you might wish that it said: "Brevity is the soul of wit."
It is not that the cases are so complicated in themselves but that high-IQ judges have turned simple realities into complex metaphysics. A few years ago, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce. To most people, the decision was obvious. So why 5 to 4?
You might think the decision should have been nine to nothing and it should not have taken more than one page to explain. Yet the good justices tied themselves into knots with lengthy explanations of their votes for and against.
The reason this decision was so complex and caused such consternation among some legal scholars was that previous generations of Supreme Court justices had turned the Constitution's simple concept of interstate commerce into a complicated rationalization of Congress' ever expanding exercises of power that it was never given when the Constitution was written.
Although the 10th Amendment says pretty plainly that the federal government can do only what it is specifically authorized to do, while the people can do whatever they are not specifically forbidden to do, this was not good enough for those who had visions of a more active government in Washington.
The terribly clever people who were put on the courts kept "interpreting" Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly that anything they wanted to regulate was called "interstate commerce." Thus the interstate commerce clause was used to virtually repeal the 10th Amendment.
Judges got so clever back in the 1940s that even a man who grew food for himself in his own backyard was said to be engaged in interstate commerce -- and therefore subject to the power of Congress.
After generations of this kind of runaway "interpretation" of the Constitution, it was a shock to some legal scholars when the Supreme Court decided -- 5 to 4 -- that Congress could not pass a federal law forbidding people from carrying guns near local schools.
Most states had such laws anyway, and all states had the authority to pass such laws if they wanted to, so this decision did not leave school children unprotected. It just put a stop to one of the thousands of extensions of federal power beyond what the Constitution authorized.
These over-extensions of federal power were not due simply to the ideological biases of judges, though that was undoubtedly a big factor. It also grew out of judges with more brainpower than was necessary to deal with 90 percent of the cases that came before them. High IQs and low self-discipline led to more wrecks in the law, just as among municipal transit drivers.
The Constitution of the United States is not some esoteric document, written to be understood only by people with high IQs and postgraduate education. It is written in rather plain language.
There is even a sort of instructions guide on what the Constitution means in The Federalist Papers -- a collection of popular 18th century essays by those who helped write the Constitution, explaining why they did what they did.
Despite all this, appellate court decisions interpreting Constitutional law today are often a huge maze of tangled reasoning, obscure concepts and complex confusion. The motto over the entrance to the Supreme Court of the United States says, "Equal Justice Under Law" but sometimes you might wish that it said: "Brevity is the soul of wit."
It is not that the cases are so complicated in themselves but that high-IQ judges have turned simple realities into complex metaphysics. A few years ago, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce. To most people, the decision was obvious. So why 5 to 4?
You might think the decision should have been nine to nothing and it should not have taken more than one page to explain. Yet the good justices tied themselves into knots with lengthy explanations of their votes for and against.
The reason this decision was so complex and caused such consternation among some legal scholars was that previous generations of Supreme Court justices had turned the Constitution's simple concept of interstate commerce into a complicated rationalization of Congress' ever expanding exercises of power that it was never given when the Constitution was written.
Although the 10th Amendment says pretty plainly that the federal government can do only what it is specifically authorized to do, while the people can do whatever they are not specifically forbidden to do, this was not good enough for those who had visions of a more active government in Washington.
The terribly clever people who were put on the courts kept "interpreting" Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly that anything they wanted to regulate was called "interstate commerce." Thus the interstate commerce clause was used to virtually repeal the 10th Amendment.
Judges got so clever back in the 1940s that even a man who grew food for himself in his own backyard was said to be engaged in interstate commerce -- and therefore subject to the power of Congress.
After generations of this kind of runaway "interpretation" of the Constitution, it was a shock to some legal scholars when the Supreme Court decided -- 5 to 4 -- that Congress could not pass a federal law forbidding people from carrying guns near local schools.
Most states had such laws anyway, and all states had the authority to pass such laws if they wanted to, so this decision did not leave school children unprotected. It just put a stop to one of the thousands of extensions of federal power beyond what the Constitution authorized.
These over-extensions of federal power were not due simply to the ideological biases of judges, though that was undoubtedly a big factor. It also grew out of judges with more brainpower than was necessary to deal with 90 percent of the cases that came before them. High IQs and low self-discipline led to more wrecks in the law, just as among municipal transit drivers.
Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.
This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.
Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals".
read here
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.
This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.
Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals".
read here
Was the 16th Amendment really passed?
The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.
In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!
The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.
The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.
full story and news about the cort fights to remove the 16th Amd read here.
The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.
In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!
The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.
The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.
full story and news about the cort fights to remove the 16th Amd read here.
"The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds."
"The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men."
"The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die."
[As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training, they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by the bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well.]
"The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men."
"I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves...
read the full story here
"The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men."
"The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die."
[As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training, they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by the bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well.]
"The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men."
"I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves...
read the full story here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)