IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability

If you don't believe the media is all in the liberal camp, then ask yourself why you didn't see this story plastered all over the news!

For the past 45+ years, the US government has been illegally taxing its citizens. That's right, the income tax is illegal according to the constitution. The IRS has never once been able to show the legal statute for forcibly collecting income taxes and finally, the people had their day in court and won!

But wait....this case really isn't going to change things now...or is it?

The IRS is reeling, fending off all potential legal challenges and not pursuing an appeal here. Why? Because they know that if this case ever reaches the supreme court, everyone in the IRS (and tens of thousands of supporting bureaucrats) will be out of work. They know they can't prevail, so its best to sweep this loss under the rug and hope not too many people hear about it.

What I predict however, is that the next congress will finally get their act together and pass the Fairtax proposal. This option should have been done years ago, but now the politicians have little choice. The victors of the aforementioned court case are hotly pursuing the IRS and will eventually get enough people interested that the IRS (your friendly neighborhood ---hood) will be forced out of business. Not that the USA needs the income from the income tax, but the politicians do. Its the best source of non-tractable, increasable, income they have and they don't want to loose the cash cow.

If the income tax is shown to be the fraud that it is, people will eventually demand its elimination and there will be a major up-hill battle to get it replaced with anything new. Therefore, by implementing the fair tax now, the politicians can protect at least part of their income dynasty, albeit, a much smaller portion.

The revenue dollars "lost" by the elimination of the IRS would be almost equal to the expenditures required to maintain the income tax. A 'wash', and therefore a totally unnecessary tax other than to control more and more Americans and give the government a big hammer to keep dissidents in line with. So its not a far leap to believe that once this fraud is uncovered, voters would demand its elimination and not accept any new taxation to take its place. Therefore, if congress wants to retain any power through taxation (its number one tool), then then some form of income tax replacement is necessary, and quick --- before the jig is up.

If you look at the various proposals, and what has the best chance of passage, its pretty clear that the fair tax is the big winner. The idea of the flat tax is good, but it leaves too many possible loop holes and will anger one large group or another. The flat tax would not be an easy sell since you'll be stepping on far to many toes. Additionally, since the Feds lost the battle of the amnesty bill because voters didn't believe congress would enforce it, so will they not believe that congress will keep to the spirit of the flat tax. Its easy to imagine this reverting back to the current tax system in a few short years.

The fair tax on the other hand doesn't give anyone any leverage. Its a level taxation field across the board. There are no deductions of any kind, for anyone, for any purpose. Rather than tax income, you tax spending. This eliminates the burden imposed on producing which kills the human spirit and prevents a lot of people from taking business risks (the cornerstone of the free market system).

While the fair tax will make it harder for congress to fool around with your money, they will at least maintain some form of tax revenue stream. They should be able to see that something is better than nothing.

Personally, I'd like to see the abolishment of all income tax and replaced with nothing, but if that won't happen, the next best option would be a consumption tax without loopholes to be exploited. Therefore, I think its important that our elected officials, and those seeking new offices in the next 24 months, be forced NOW to take a stand on taxation one way or the other. If they have courage, and really believe in the American Constitution, then they should be supporting the total abolishment of the income tax with no other replacement taxation. If on the other hand, they want to preserve the status-quo as much as possible, then they will support the fair tax.

Of course the liberals will take their usual stance and fight tooth and nail to maintain an unconstitutional income tax and tell you to just shut the hell up.

Take your pick.

Where will tomorrows leaders come from?

If you were born before 1960(ish), you should be able to understand the wacky thinking of our current politicians. They are, for the most part, from the hippie generation. A generation born to self indulgence, and "not giving a damn, but make it look so". Okay, they had their protests and they rallied around some godless banner, but for the most part they, as a generation, didn't care about anything but themselves. "Free love" (ie, sex anytime, anyplace with anyone) was the mantra of the day and engaged in at every turn....in between joints anyway.

They refused then, and still do, to take responsibility for anything they say, think, or do. The world revolves around them. God is to be ridiculed, not honored, and anyone "foolish" enough to believe in God must be silenced. The abortion laws came from these same people. Again, rather than accepting responsibility for their actions, they want to blame others and have a fast and easy way to side-step any consequence of their actions.

These are the ones in power now. The "don't trust anyone over 30" crowd.....all of whom are over 30 themselves, and now asking for our trust. How ironic.

The immediate future doesn't bode much better. Most of these hippies will have to fight for their power positions with the generations that followed them. These generations however, were mostly educated BY the hippies....in the institution they took over first....the government school system. So where does that leave us? Mainly with an uneducated, ignorant, and wildly skewed idealized group with no basis in true history and generally poor abilities to think or communicate. Therefore, it is nearly guaranteed that they will repeat history because they didn't learn the real history to begin with.

For example. Most of the hippies would like you to believe that no war is justified, and all who fight in one are wrong. This most certainly applies to the Allied forces that won the victory of freedom they so dearly enjoy. They never got the idea that war is evil, but necessary in a world filled with evil. Had the world allowed the Nazi and Japanese to conquer all civilized nations, they would have no freedom now. Yet the hippies somehow believe that you can "talk out" your differences with everyone. A dangerous and stupid mistake. Yet, they have taught children for the last 30 years to use this tactic exclusively because America is bad for it's military use to preserve freedom.

So what will these up-and-coming leaders do? Exactly what they've been taught. They will folly on trying to "dialog" with deeply evil people that have no intention of 'dealing' with their enemies. They will give in, give up, and hand over everything in the hopes of coming to some peaceful resolution to world conflict. America, as we know it will cease to exists. The dream our forefathers fought and died for will be gone.

But wait, there may be some hope. A select few may have the ability to change things. Leaders --real leaders-- who have not only learned real truth, but have been taught to think for themselves. Where are these leaders? They are the home-schooled, the Catholic schooled, the private Christian schooled of the past decade. They are the ones given the torch of truth and goodness. They, for the most part, have not been polluted by the hippies and their non-responsibility mentality. These are the kids who have been taught how to think, and how to reason with wisdom. They are few, but they are well trained to overcome the masses.

Here is a small example. The following text was taken, verbatim, from a web site where the poster was asking for technical assistance. Please try and guess his age, country of origin, and education level.

"so u need ur private ip address translated into a human-readable name this is not new to me man and u have to do that using sites like dyn.dns.org i know that but i just got a new firewall and so i have to port forward now. ok so i am a hacker (i take pride in being a script kiddy) and the reason i need this server is for xss or css. but the 1 thing now matter how much i hear but it and i know about everything i donot know if u need a router to port forward. because with a router u need to open ports or else nobody other than urself can connect to other internet applications because ur unforwarded self is pluggin the port. but i know there is a function to open tcp and udp ports with windows firewall and i used to use it but microsoft hid the CENSORED from me and i'm sure thats what happened. so i cannot open the ports i need to so i bought a firewall that interacts with windows firewall and i'm gonna use it to open the ports because i have x2 and none of my domains work as websites. even the 1's i have registered with a dns."

Interesting. I contacted this person off-site and asked him a bit about his background. He is 20 years old. Born and raised in an affluent suburb of Chicago, and has a BA degree in business administration from the the Illinois State University system. He is unemployed and not seriously looking for work at the moment because he really just wants to "hack" most of the day.
Compare this to the high trend of home and private schooled children winning award after award in national spelling bees, math bees, science fairs, and the like. Universities are beginning to set aside special places for homeschool kids and actively seeking them out for recruitment. The whole concept of home-school has reached into the mass media and yet, as much as they'd like to discredit these children, home-schoolers and privately educated students consistently outscore and out achieve those educated in government schools.

So how will the left defend against a bright, well educated and honorable generation of leaders? They will try to make the position of leadership so horrible that none will want to accept that role for themselves. If you look at the clintons, the masters of personal deprivation, they have constructed an entire army of people to do nothing but destroy the lives and reputations of anyone who opposes them. Nothing is beneath them. Handing over America's freedom is an acceptable loss if it means not losing their own power.

As well, both of the mainstream parties will try to fight off an educated population by allowing tens of thousands of under-educated aliens into the country and hook them on the welfare roles. Their plan is to make as many people as possible dependent on them so they retain the power base and keep getting elected through a system they already loath. They fully understand that a poorly educated populace is easier to control. They hope they will be able to convince the majority to abandon the principles of our constitutional government so that they can retain power without regard to the will of the people. If nobody without their blessing can get into power, they will never loose it.

So it is up to us now to accomplish three goals. The first, to see to it that our basic belief in a Constitutional Government model is secured. This means that ALL of those opposed to supporting our Constitution must be removed from office. This includes most members of both parties. Those that remain must be held accountable to stay within the limits of power given to them under the constitution. These two things are done (currently) through the election process. It is time for people to abandon the notion that they need to choose the lesser of two evils and start electing good, moral, and decent people.

Second, those in office now must be forced to do what is right for the country. First and foremost this means protecting the boarders and deporting everyone who is here illegally. The people are not fooled by the current proposals to "secure" the boarders. Its just another appeasement intended to give the elected something to brag about at home when they haven't really done anything for the betterment of the nation at all.

Third, the educational system in this country needs to be abolished. ALL national programs dealing with education must be eliminated. The NEA -a lock, stock, and barrel hippie run organization- must be abandoned. Local governments, and the people who comprise those governments, are far more capable of educating their own populace. There is NOTHING that a federal government can do properly with respect to education so they must be forced to abandon all rights to it. There should be no "business" in the business of education. It does not take a "college educated" person to teach the basic tools of learning to young people.... home-schoolers prove this day in and day out. A teacher is one who has the gift and desire to teach and not politicize. Schools are about learning the basic tools for life....reading, writing, mathematics, history and science. Not how to have sex "safely", nor how to learn corrupted history and lies about our world's past. Religion is best keep at home unless the school is founded by, and supported by, like-minded groups of believers. However, this is not to suggest that religion should be absent from the public education system. On the contrary, religious freedoms and rights should be rigorously protected in these institutions. If a group of children what to hold a Bible study, they should be encouraged to do so. If others believe its their duty to pray 4 times a day, so be it, allow them that freedom, but school teachers are not the ones to look for to teach religious morality, but the school is a place to practice such learnings from the home.

I really don't know what our future holds. I fear that we are close to losing everything my mother and father fought for in WWII, and their parents in WWI, and past generations long gone. As the nation has prospered, we've allowed our children to become spoiled and shirk responsibility and its come home to roost. I do have a high hope though, that the few who've held close to moral truth will prevail, and the USA will remain the beacon of light in President Reagan's vision.

In September 2006, the USA became a Military Dictatorship

Ah come on, don't get so mellow-dramatic. The United States is based on a Constitution that prohibits any part of the Government from turning the nation into a dictatorship....right?

Wrong. Sorry folks, but its true and very few people ever even knew it happened.

First a bit of history. When the Continental Congress first proposed a national government, many of the states were in opposition based on the feeling that their powers would be overturned by a national government. The founding fathers, also concerned about this possibility, took great pains to draft the "Bill of Rights" and build into the Constitution express power to States and individuals. This ideal was championed for most of our nations history. When events happened that could cause conflicts between States rights and the national government, laws were changed or enacted in an attempt to maintain the equilibrium built into the foundation of the Constitution as a whole.

One of the the most important limits on federal power was the passage by Congress of the Insurrection Act in 1807 which severely restricted a president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. Later on, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions further by adding a two-year prison term on anyone who attempted to use the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress.

It was obvious to our previous leaders that too much power in the hands of one person, or even an elected body of officials, was a dangerous thing. They understood history and knew that gaining unrestricted control of a military was essential in establishing a dictatorship.

Lets zoom ahead now to the Republican lead Congress of September 2006, just months before the mid-term elections. This group, with nearly unanimous support of both parties, passed the The Defense Authorization Act of 2006. This law empowers the sitting president to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident,” with just a perceived shortfall of “public order,” or in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations.

Ok, not the worst possible scenario, but if you dig deeper into the wording of the law, you quickly understand how this congress changed our rights to freedom to living under a military dictatorship in one fell swoop:

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” Remember that the Insurrection Act of 1807 limited the president's ability to deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition”

The inclusion of words "other condition" is not defined nor limited in any way!

Additionally, this new law gives the president the new authority to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for up to 365 days. Thus, its very conceivable that a sitting President could send the Illinois National Guard to suppress antiwar protests in New York, the New York National Guard to disarm the residents of Texas who, exercising their constitutional rights, resisted a federal law prohibiting private ownership of semiautomatic weapons. In essence, the control by an individual State's Governor to control of the National Guard is trumped by a simple presidential declaration.

If you understand the enormity of this legislation, it should also be clear that we are now living under a military dictatorship. Thanks to the Republican Lead Congress, with nearly full support of both "major" parties, our freedoms now exist only at the president's pleasure.

Even if you want to believe (foolishly) that President Bush would not use this power against the citizens of this country, would you also be so sure about Hilary's use? Obama's? Pelosi?

If the congress didn't believe a president would direct the military against his own people, why give him/her that power in the first place?

If this legislation was so crucial for our safety, why was it just a few paragraphs tacked on to a $500 billion, 591-page bill?

Why has nobody heard of this yet?

I contend that the swiftness of its passage, being hidden in pages of other non-related spending items, and the sequestering of its content from the media and public at large, is directly because the citizens of this country would be up in arms over its mere concept more-less be enacted into law. The fact of the matter is, today the USA is no longer a free populace. Our freedoms and rights now hing on any perceived emergency by the president.

I guarantee you, this is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind, nor what the original States agreed to adopt as national law.

Is there any hope? Some, but don't hold your breath. Senators Leahy and Kit Bond have sponsored a bill to repeal these changes, but nobody in congress is looking at it seriously. Senator Leahy has urged congress to consider the Section 1076 fix, declaring, “It is difficult to see how any Senator could disagree with the advisability of having a more transparent and thoughtful approach to this sensitive issue.”

To summarize this national over-throw by legislation, I'd like to quote James Bovard, writing for The American Conservative:

"... The Section 1076 debacle exemplifies how the Washington establishment pretends that new power will not be abused, regardless of how much existing power has been mishandled. Why worry about martial law when there is pork to be harvested and photo ops to attend? It is still unfashionable in Washington to worry about the danger of the open barn door until after the horse is two miles down the road."

Believe in all party positions?

I sure would like to support a political party that held 100% of my beliefs. The reality however, is that such a party doesn't exist. For the longest time I felt that the Republican party's platform was the closest to my list of beliefs, but over time I have come to realize that what they say is not what they do.

Anyone who knows me would be shocked that I'd switch to the Constitutional party if they only gave a cursory look at the party platform. In this day and age, I think most people's attention would be drawn first to their stand on the Iraq war, and the war on terrorism in general. I'll tell you right now that the Constitution Party is wrong on these points. Their stated position is that we should surrender Iraq and leave. I can't disagree with this stand any more fervently. The war is NOT lost, and it is important that we finish the job we started.

I'm not as convinced as I once was that we needed to invade Iraq, but we did and we can't leave it for the terrorists to take over. Iraq is a strategic piece of real-estate and when we finally come head to head with Iran (which will happen), we'll need our presence in Iraq. I'm more convinced that this was the, if not at least a big part, of the justification to go there in the first place. I don't believe that such a strategy was wrong either. We need to look at the future, and plan for all probably contingencies when it comes to defending our Nation, and ultimately the world.

The current thinking in the Constitution Party is that the US shouldn't be the police of the world. I'd like to think we don't have to be, but the only way that would work is if the rest of the world suddenly became peace loving democracies. The U.S. is the superpower these days and it is our collective responsibility to use the gifts God gave us to assist those under oppression whenever, and wherever, possible. I don't think we should do it alone, but as recent history has proven, there are other nations in the world who believe that freedom is worth fighting for.

So in the end, even though this is a BIG issue, I have to say that while I disagree with the party on the issue of foreign war, I believe that the stand on boarders and national security outweigh the differences regarding Iraq. I have no doubt that the leadership of the party wholeheartedly support all means necessary to secure our freedom and our future. There are many paths to a common goal. Some are better than others, but the reality is, we never really know what the best course of action was, until its long over.

We must have a Christian in the Whitehouse

Chuck Baldwin, the 2004 CP Constitution Party Vice-Presidential Candidate, gave a speech the other day which brought up an interesting point that I hadn't really concidered.

So far on my blogs, I haven't really specified that I am a stauch, born-again Christian (I sure hope nobody is surprise though!). Part of my 'party searching' was based on the ideal of having a real Christian in the Whitehouse some day. I felt this was extremely important so that the USA would have a leader willing to take us back to the founding ideals of our constitution.

Mr. Baldwin however, changed my mind. Not that having a Christan man at the helm would be a bad thing, but it isn't necessary for the President to actually be a Christian. In a nutshell, the reason for this is that anyone who holds true to the constitution will be exercising the ideals of Christianity in terms of our governing. Since the founding fathers based the constitution on Christian beliefs and values, anyone who actually upholds those tenants will be following the fundamental Christian beliefs.

This should not alarm non-believers in the least, provided that they share the goals of returning this great nation to its roots, to the idea that all men are created equal and have 'natural-rights' given to them by their very being. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While I believe that these are gifts from the Lord God, one does not necessarily have to believe in God to desire these standards for all American citizens.

Therefore, I have eliminated the "requirement" that the next candidate I will support be a professing Christian, so long as he believes in the principles our founders strived for, and died for, when they established our nation.

Throwing your vote away....or is it?

I have finally decided to cut ties with the Republican Party. Rest assured, I am not heading left to the socialist democrats though. No, after much research, soul searching and prayer (probably not nearly enough prayer though) I have chosen to join the Constitution Party instead.

The hard part of choosing a 3rd party instead of the mainstream was the idea that my vote would no longer count, or worse, be an indirect vote for the opposition. I'm sure everyone of us has heard that voting for a 3rd party candidate is paramount to treason, but after reading much well thought out papers on the subject I no longer believe that.

One such paper pointed out the clear fact that a vote for a 3rd party candidate was not a vote for ms. kerry, no more than was it a vote for Mr. Bush. It was in fact, a vote against both in favor of a person I feel has a better vision for this country and this world. It's a vote for my conscious, for the ideals I believe in and espouse to my children. Its a vote for a better future and a vote for something rather than a vote for the lesser of two evils.

If you look at the party platforms, its easy to see that the Republicans have been preaching one philosophy while living another. Under the Republican controlled congress and Whitehouse, spending increased more than any other time in history, as did the size of government. With that spending and growth, the American people also gave up more bits and pieces of their liberties and freedoms. The Republican party did very little in step with the party platform but continued the policy of spend and grow.

I looked long and hard at what I believed in, and the realization is that I believe our founding fathers had a pretty good handle on human nature. They learned the lesson of big government and what happens when the people are indebted to the bureaucracy instead of the government working for the people. They struggled long and hard to devise a system of government that had very clearly defined boundries with very limited powers. This was intentional and based on a fundamental belief that God was the center of the universe, not man. They began on the premise that God granted equality to all and that a government's single role was to protect against infringements of the gifts given by God.

Their idea was that all people had a God given right to health, happiness, and the pursuit of liberty. This does not mean that all people will always be health, happy, and rich, but that in terms of governing, all people have the right to these things and a government's singular role is to protect those rights. Therefore, first and foremost, the government is charged with protecting the freedoms of the people. This is mostly accomplished through a strong military. When we as a nation are faced with people who would mean us harm, dilute our freedoms to pursue health, happiness, and liberty, it is the government's first duty to do what it can to protect us. The forefathers took this to heart, most of them loosing everything in the revolutionary war, with the vision of protecting the larger body of citizens. We've seen our nation rise to great challenges to protect our freedoms; from the desires to separate into different nations,to fighting dictators bent on destroying anyone who didn't fit an ideal of "perfect". Millions of men and women have given up great deals of wealth, health, and even lives to protect the rights given to men from God.

Yet, our current administration and sitting congress is unwilling to enforce the laws that govern who can enter our country and feed off the rest. Even with the vast majority of Americans demanding stronger boarders and enforcements of existing immigration laws, not the president, nor most members of congress, are willing to take steps to protect the people of this nation. The attack of 9/11 was not accomplished from outside, but within. The next attack will happen again from people already living among us, and very likely having not been screened to any great extent. I am not calling for the abolishment of immigration, but the end to illegal immigration that does not bring benefits to the nation but rather adds to the depletion of our society. The illegal immigrant does not contribute more than they take, and often takes far more than they contribute. Along with the lax boarder security, our real enemies, those who have flat-out declared their intention to harm us as much and as often as possible, use the carelessness of our policies against us. They know they are free to move among us, to plot and execute at will. Allowing these things to happen is the first and most important breach of trust our government is guilty of.

The current "conservative" republicans proclaim victory over the upholding of the partial-birth abortion ban as if somehow that makes up for all the other murders they easily ignore. They wave the flag of righteousness yet do nothing to eliminate the larger sin. Where is the leader who is demanding a public debate on the court's interpretation of the Constitution? Does any one truly believe that even one of the founding father could have even fathomed that the Supreme Court would declare their precious constitution as giving the right to a women to kill her unborn baby? How does that protect the God given, God ordained rights of anyone?

One of the biggest worries of the founding fathers was that a central government would have the power over the individual states. Their fears, despite their best efforts, have become a reality. Rather than allowing smaller groups of people (states and local communities) to decide how best to educate their children, the federal government establishes a National Education Association that dictates and rules over states to define what should and what should not be taught to the young of our country. If the local schools don't tow the line, the federal government withholds tax payer money from them. It is blackmail to the tenth degree! In many states, parents have to fight for the right to teach their own children! There are penalties imposed on those that do not want their kids taught that we all came from rocks and that sex is permissible as long as you "do it safely". Heaven forbid that you try to teach your own children that the lessons of the government are wrong, unhealthy, and immoral. Doing so could result in the government taking those children away from their homes. No, the federal government dictates that children must be taught that homosexuality is just another choice. They must be taught that a Godless "scientific" method was responsible for our existence and any lifestyle that one chooses is just as good as another, so long as it doesn't require the concept of a higher authority.

These are not the ideals of the republican platform as I've read it, yet these are the end results we have received with every republican vote cast over the past 25+ years. Both sides are power hungry. Both sides want to increase the dependency of the populace to feed their power bases. Both sides want a Utopian world, but their view of utopia is not one of free people, but of the masses enslaved to the elite. The only real difference is how fast each party wants to achieve these goals. The socialist democrats boldenly pursue these goals as quickly and openly as possible, while the republicans are craftier and more patient. They'll settle for bits and pieces of freedoms over a longer period of time, but the end results are the same. Large government with clearly defined authority roles and sheep useful for labor and herding.

I strongly suggest that anyone who has not looked at the ideals and beliefs of the Constitution Party do so. It will be very difficult for you to cast another Republican vote if you do. If everyone voted their conscious and belief, this would not be a nation with a four year choice of who is less evil, but a nation again under God, with their collective priorities in the right order.

Where is the Republican Party these days?

The only clear fact that I see in the political spectrum today is that the Democrats are simply getting further left and socialist. If you look at what they do (which always contradicts what they say) its easy to see where they fall on the issues.

But what about our party, the Grand Old Party. What has become of them? The words Republican and Conservative always went hand in hand (at least as far back as I remember) but it seems that the current Republican party has followed the Democratic lead and moved left as well.

Granted, the GOP is still far right of the liberals, but they are just as far left of the ideals of Ronald Reagan. "We" had 2 completely unfettered years of controlling both sides of congress and the Whitehouse but what happened?

Spending is up. Abortion laws haven't changed all that much, taxes are still WAY to high, people are still being taxed on their productivity (a moral crime if nothing else). Billions are still being wasted on fraudulent welfare roles, Social Security is still a bad pipe dream (anyone over 40 really think they'll see a dime of it?) and now our Nation's leader is no more interested in stopping illegal immigration that king clinton was about doing anything involved with moral integrity.

I'm not placing these problems at the feet of the President, as clearly most of the liberal spending problems come from congress, but why did Mr. Bush not veto a single bill for nearly 5 years in office? There were some seriously troublesome bills that passed his desk with far too much pork. (any pork is too much) so why did he not send some of those bills back to get fixed?

Everyone knows the tax breaks were the single biggest reason our economy didn't tank after the clinton years. Every national and financial event that happened from his last year in office up the day after the WTC attacks should have caused massive economic upheaval in the USA. Save mostly for President Bush's tax cuts, the economy and consumer confidence weathered storm after storm. So why didn't the Republican lead congress make those cuts permanent when they had the chance to do so?

It appears (and I have nothing to factually back this up with) that our GOP elected officials are more interested in "fitting in" than they are doing the people's business. Rather than accepting the fact that Conservative ideals are different than liberal ones, they've chosen time and again to take the road of appeasement. This approach has failed over and over again yet it seems to be the only play in their book now. They want "everyone to like us". Bull Shit! There are very serious problems facing our nation and our world. I really don't care how the rest of the world views us. I believe that true conservative ideas are the best methods to fixing what can be fixed in the world today.

Less government, secure boarders, dictators that quiver at what might happen to them if they step out of line, NO TAXES ON PRODUCTIVITY, tax only for the amount needed to run an efficient government. Let the States, local governments, and people care for those in need (not federal hand-out programs). Put the power for education back in the hands of the local communities (ban the NEA and take the IRS with you!). These are the things real republicans stand for. These are the ideas we need championed in Washington. These are the methods that will return some sense of civility and safety to the world.

Has the GOP left the station? I think so. There are a few potential candidates running under the Republican banner, but so long as we keep putting these moderates back in office, a single conservative or two will never be able to change things. We need to start at the top though. Even with the troubles President Reagan had with a democratic congress, he was able to get his vision implemented. His number one priority for decades had been the defeat of the Soviet Union and he accomplished that.

Perhaps if another visionary would emerge, the GOP could swing their bloated boat around and start heading right again, but I'm afraid this new leader hasn't shown himself yet. If nobody steps forward soon, I think we're in for a long up-hill battle under the flag of a new party. The political spectrum could very well become a 3-party world with the wacko's on the left (we already know who they are), the current Republicans in the left-center, and a moral, honest party holding up the right.

It will probably take many decades, but I pray that if the Lord doesn't come before then, that my children will have better leadership when they're my age.

Is more gun control the answer?

The recent mass-murder at Virgina Tech has once again sparked the gun control debate.

The main question is whether or not stronger gun control laws will actually prevent things like Virgina Tech from happening in the future. Here are a couple of things to ponder:

• The campus already had stick gun laws. Supposedly this was a "gun free" zone. Did the shooter really care?
• It seems that these guns were purchased legally. Does anyone think though, that had this idiot not been able to purchase his weapons, that he simply would have walked up to those 30 some people and just called them nasty names?
• Weapons can be constructed by a wide variety of items, guns are far from the only weapon capable of killing multiple people. Anyone heard of 'fertilizer' before?

The big question one should ask though, is this: If your child was in that classroom when someone burst in shooting anything that moved, would you rather that he/she had a stronger desk to hide behind, or an automatic firearm capable of taking this jerk out?

Clearly the left has distorted the facts on gun use. They keep claiming that you are 63% more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. This is just plain false. The statistic is more around 12%. But the flip-side to this is that simply brandishing the gun often accomplishes the goal. An intruder who sees a firearm pointed their direction normally flees. So there is no need to kill the intruder. Hence this statistic is simply weighted to make it look like a reasonable fact.

When we look at history, all dictators have banned personal firearms as their first act upon taking control of a country. The reason is simple, a defenseless populace is easier to control than one with an ability to counter attack. Study after study proves that more guns equates to less crime. Perps are not usually stupid, at least not where their own lives are at stake. If they think you'll shoot back, they are far more likely to pick on someone else. If they're not sure if you can shoot back, they're far more likely to re-think their actions.

The second amendment is there for a reason and we need to make sure it does not get polluted by those who think the world would only be a nicer place if "everyone just got along". That is a silly pipe dream with no basis in reality. YOU need to protect yourself and not rely on the Government to do it for you.

The government surely didn't do a very good job at protecting the students at Virgina Tech now, did they?

Legal Theft by your government

Income tax, what else?

What is the point of taxing a person's productivity? Will it make him/her work more or be more productive? Not hardly. So many people think the Income tax isn't what it really is. For example:

1. Nobody gets money from the Government. Its a refund of the money you all ready paid. If you borrowed that same amount, you'd be required to pay interest, but not your "so caring" government. They want your money interest free and you have no choice but to give it to them.
2. The "rich" don't pay the bulk of the taxes. If you hear a politician claiming that some tax is going to make the "rich" pay more, not the "common person", don't believe them. The middle class pay 70% of the income taxes in this country.
3. There are so many loop holes and exceptions in the tax code that's its impossible to comply 100% with total accuracy.
4. If you call the IRS for clarification on the same tax law more than once, there is a very high probability that you will get multiple answers....none of which are guaranteed to be correct.

Then there is the very real question of whether the Income Tax is constitutional in the first place. According to the constitution, the federal government can not impose an 'un-equal' tax on a federal level. In other words, if they wanted to charge everyone the exact same for a given service or product, that would be acceptable, but the Income tax is not spread out evenly to all.

Is the income tax necessary to run the government? Of Course Not! The type of tax is not what's important. Granted, the nation needs funds in order to provide necessary services, but how it acquires those funds is discretionary. There are lots of methods that can be used to collect monies from the citizens.

Why then, tax people on what they produce? By its very nature, taxing productivity generates a lack of interest to produce. We've seen this this taken to its very worst extreme with Communism. When the state tries to supply everyone's needs, then there is no incentive for the individual to actually do anything. If, at the end of the day, a worker goes home with the same amount regardless of how many widget's he/she produced, what is the incentive to produce 10 widgets a day, or 5, or even one? Its not uncommon for under a progressive income tax to find they actually make less after a pay raise because it puts them into a higher tax bracket! So why work harder when it will cost you money if your boss decides to reward you with more money?

Is there a better way? I believe so. From my research, I am fully backing the Fair Tax. Different from a flat-tax (based again on income) or the European VAT (Value Added Tax), the Fair Tax allows people to make decisions on what amount of tax they will pay and is equally imposed on all people. The "rich" will pay the exact same amount of tax on the purchase of a shirt as a "middle class" consumer would. If you look up the definition of fair, this process fits perfectly.

The Fair Tax is based on spending, not earnings. When you work hard and earn $1.00 for your efforts, you get to keep $1.00 for your efforts. However, when you spend your money, a fixed percentage of the retail sales price is your taxed amount. For example, if the Fair Tax is set at 10%, and you purchase a shirt for $10.00, then $1.00 of that is tax, sent to the federal government. The price already includes the tax, so the shirt is not $10.00 plus $1.00 tax, its a simple $10.00. A $100.00 purchase would garner $10.00 in taxes for the government and it doesn't matter who makes the purchase....even tourists will pay it adding to the coffers of the US citizens!

But what about exemptions? Simply. There are none. Everything you buy is taxed equally, this includes products and services.

Isn't this unfairly hard on the "poor" and those who have to buy basic necessities on a fixed income? No. One of the beauties of the Fair Tax is the concept of a pre-bate. Each month, every citizen will receive a check (or electronic deposit) from the government to off-set the taxes they will pay for the necessities of life, food, shelter and clothing. This amount will be paid as actual cash that can be used for any purpose, but it assures that no unnecessary burden is placed on anyone for things required to live on.

Some have said it would be better to simply have a few exceptions to the taxable items, such as food and clothing, instead of the pre-bate concept. However, history has proven over and over (just look at the current tax code!) that once you make exceptions, all sorts of corruptions begin. Special interest groups will lobby for certain exceptions and before you know it, the whole tax system is corrupted! So the pre-bate solves the problem perfectly. No exceptions, but the burden of taxing necessities is removed.

Just think of it, no more IRS. April 15th is just another day! And best of all, the government gets the funds it needs to operate and all pay an equally fair share.

The Fair Tax actually has a large following and excellent support in congress. But it won't become law unless the people pressure their elected officials to enact it. You can help. Just visit the Fair Tax web site and learn more about it. There are plenty of ways to help, and many don't require you to pay anything :)