Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Common Sense on Freedom of Religion

Posted by americana83 on June 24, 2016

There are many who are alarmed about the threats posed by radicalized Muslims. Let us consider a hypothetical law, albeit much shorter than it would actually be because congress likes to hide nasty things in huge bills, that shows how politicians would deal with this threat if they took advice from this article:

Championing Harmony and Unity in Religious Communities and Houses
Other names: The CHURCH act.
1. A Bill to Combat Religious Extremism in the Homeland
PURPOSE: To provide a modern contour to the application of the freedom of religion in America and to ensure domestic harmony among the religious faithful by providing guidance and common sense recommendations for the promotion of positive faith interactions and the discouragement of negative faith events.
A. Safe Houses of Worship
  1. For the safety of visitors and worshipers, no house of worship shall be used for the storing of firearms or other weapons for any reason.
  2. All houses of Worship shall belong to a licensed regional or national affiliation. This affiliation shall be registered with the state. The house of worship must remain in good standing and adhere to the tenants of their affiliation.
  3. All unaffiliated houses of worship shall have one year from signing of this law to affiliate. Otherwise, they shall disband and their property and 50% of remaining liquid or semi-liquid assets shall be turned over to a local branch of a licensed affiliation to be used to further positive faith.
B. Religious Instruction.
  1.  No house of worship shall teach curriculum that speaks against the People’s Republic or which raises undue criticism of its tenants.
  2. No program for children shall teach intolerance.
  3. All programs shall include values prescribed by the government to be necessary for a healthy functioning multicultural society. This shall be called the Gospel of the Greater Good.
C. Enforcement.
  1. The president shall create an office of Religious Pluralism and Tolerance. This officer and those under him shall determine the contents of the Gospel of the Greater Good and shall be provided with annual funding for the production and disbursement of teaching materials suitable for people of diverse faiths. The head of this office shall be a cabinet level position.
  2. The president shall create an Office of Religious Safety. This officer shall, along with the Speaker of the house, Vice President and the NSA religious security team shall device actionable programs for the routine and efficient carrying out of the semi-annual unannounced security checks. The head of this office shall be a cabinet level position.
  3. Regular safety inspection. Clergy and faith leaders shall make their houses of worship, sermons and reference libraries available to any officer of the law during routine safety inspections and shall also do so for special safety inspections.
D. Funding.
  1. These programs shall be funded with a religious excise tax, this shall be levied at 10% of the gross proceeds of religious activities. All registered 501 (c) 3 must ensure they stay current or they will lose their otherwise tax exempt status and will be charged a security penalty assessment with interest.
  2. Houses of worship which fail their security examination will be subject to immediate closure and the forfeiture of their assets to the Office of Religious Safety, less expenses incurred by the Office of Religious Safety.
Would you support this law? Because this tyrannical law I came up with contains all the things demanded in this commentary targeting conservative  audiences and those alarmed by the threats posed by radical Islam. Exerted below:

This is why mosques must be monitored, and not just for explosives, arms and munitions. But we must require US mosques to institute transparent, inspectable programs teaching against the al-Qaeda & ISIS view of Islam. We must require that they teach against Islamic Jew-hatred and misogyny and teach Constitutional values, especially free speech and equality of rights for all.

As you can see, boiling this down into a law would effectively gut the first and second amendments as well as due process, seeing that the proof would be to prove yourself or your body innocent and to endlessly pay bureaucrats for the right to exist and being forced to teach PC doctrine and belong to a mainline denomination or be disbanded and fined. “Conservatives” generally support the freedom of religion. The danger of these Muslim bombings and the mass hysteria is that people are being pushed and cajoled into knee-jerk responses on both guns and religion. You cannot maintain any real semblance of safety if you surrender your freedom. the safety you obtain will be fleeting and inadequate, and you may just be among the next groups targeted for government compliance.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

On “Common Sense” Gun Reform

Posted by americana83 on June 16, 2016

That is what other countries have sought. Their leaders have promised to protect both liberty and provide “security.” Australia, England, Canada, and others. Now, you can’t even own most knives (or even night sticks) in England. Australia destroyed the weapons of its citizens. Millionaire Bloomberg would heartily accept a piecemeal approach to a total gun ban. Semi-autos, hand guns, shot guns… Break it down however you want, Bloomberg and his many shell organizations (Mayors against illegal guns, Moms demand action, etc) will gladly embrace it, and will always be willing to promise this is all we want, until the ink is signed on the law.
Guns are tools, designed to shoot projectiles. AR 15s or any other weapon civilians can buy is a semi-automatic. You can’t squeeze the trigger once and get an endless spray of bullets. Home invasions, wild animals, rapists. The gun is “the great equalizer.” An armed woman can readily take down a would be assailant many times her size and strength.
The most abusive governments in the 20th century saw to it that their citizens were first registered and then progressively banned. Hitler had a vital purpose in registering guns in Germany. Once it was done, systematically the permits for his political and religious enemies were revoked. Jews with a residual of weapons and smuggled in weapons held them off for a month.
Of course it is a radical situation, but guns and self defense are not every common day of every person’s life. It is for the exceptional day and time, the days and times you hope and pray never come. Then of course there’s the hunting and sporting, for which modern rifles also come in handy.
The man who slaughtered those people in the night club would have had access to the rifle he had because he was on no list, he was a security person working for a security firm contracted by the US government. And he was able to slaughter innocents like fish in a barrel.
Bloomberg and the other elitists want to exploit this tragedy to both create more “gun free” zones (which is were almost EVERY mass shooting occurs) and to harass and prevent the average citizen from freely exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

“New York Values”

Posted by americana83 on January 15, 2016

Let’s face it. Ted Cruz absolutely missed a chance to explain once and for all what is meant by “New York Values.” Political junkies on the conservative side of things know what he meant, but he completely failed to make it clear and accessible to the average viewer, and his half-hearted answer allowed Trump to nail him to the wall by painting a picture that made it seem as if Cruz was talking about “first responders” and others who came to aid in the aftermath of 9/11. I don’t think anyone left or right is stupid enough to think that a “top tier” candidate would trash volunteers and emergency personnel.

“New York Values” as it related to politicians is likely what he meant. Bloomberg and his efforts to repeal the second amendment via regulations and bans and fees. Cuomo and the sugary drink ban. New York Politician’s values are all about controlling the lives of the people and undermining Second amendment liberties. These New York Political Values are everything America was founded to protest against: onerous taxation and the destruction of personal liberty and property rights.

Cruz failed to articulate this and got taken “out behind the woodshed” by Donald Trump’s emotional appeal that overrode common sense, but only because Cruz allowed it to happen. If Cruz is serious about winning, he cannot underestimate the prowess of Trump. I have been heavily critical of Trump on social media, but I will never suggest as some have that Trump is stupid. Trump is a brilliant man who has been playing the political game for years before running for office.

Trump has successfully taken social and economic liberal New York Values and shielded them from criticism by the “conservative faithful”through a loud shield of radical rhetoric about walls and Muslims, and through repeated attacks on the media and other figureheads that conservatives in general despise. He proposes the largest public works spending since the New Deal according to his newest book Crippled America. He indicated he was open to banning people on the unconstitutional no-fly list from owning weapons. His health care proposals are just a few steps away from single payer taxpayer funded healthcare. He has funded the campaigns of the most notorious establishment republicans and progressive democrats like Reid, Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel. He even used a variant of Alinsky’s “the ends justify the means” to defend it: “I’m a business, they treated me well.” Their “good treatment” was worth selling the country down the river for. He is beholden to no one, and yet, he has convinced Americans that he will put our own interests above his own, that he has nothing to gain from the presidency, that he will end the very cronyism that aided his fiscal empire.

Donald Trump nailed Cruz, and it should not have been so. Of course Cruz has his issues, and I’d love to see him explain his wife’s involvement with endorsing a CFR report on building a “North American Community.”Can two walk together unless they be agreed. And then there’s the Orwellian idea of a “Value Added” tax. Do I need to remind anyone that there is no such thing as a tax that adds value to a product? It only makes a product more expensive. It doesn’t add any features or longevity to the product. And its impact is completely hidden from the end consumer, who generally will attribute it to the “natural occurrence” of inflation when it goes up again and again. This has been the experience of Europe, which loves its Value Destroyed Taxes.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

An Apology to President Obama

Posted by americana83 on August 18, 2015

Dear Mr President:

For years I have critiqued your policy, examined your background, and complained about the emotional drive of your campaign. I have championed a platform and record driven approach to supporting or opposing a candidate. Based on that I decided to oppose your election, both in 2008 and 2012. My work was based on the premise that Republicans wanted to thoroughly vet candidates, a concept I adamantly believe in. I have strove to apply even rules, to critique thoroughly not only the Democrats, such as yourself, but also the Republicans, such as Donald Trump. As it turns out, a considerable number of those whom I would consider my ideological peers, have shunned such an even handed approach, forming a “cult of personality” around their own anointed savior Donald Trump. I apologize to you for the gross hypocrisy of my peers, who thought it pertinent to critique your church (as I did) from 20 years ago, but now bristle with rage at the mere mention of major donations Donald Trump made during the last presidential election cycle, less than 4 years ago. The same people who made rude jokes about Michele Obama’s figure now rage at the slightest mention of the current Ms Trump’s nude photos (and some of them are probably the same people who claimed they wanted to restore “decorum” to the White House (they cried and hollered because Michele did not adhere to clothing styles and designed they liked, all while brandishing shameful pictures of your mother which were beyond your control and had no bearing whatsoever on your politics or policy). I apologize for the indefensible double standard, the people who jeered you when you proclaimed “the seas will recede and the earth will begin to heal” now cheer the same empty rhetoric coming from Trump. It really does seem that the average Republican is just as prone to rhetorical emotionalism and hope for change as the average Democrat. I will continue to fight for a level playing field and will continue to critique Democrats and Republicans based on the same set of standards, without making endless excuses for those who I might choose to support.

God save America.

And there arose a certain rich man who boasted of his great works and intelligence. And the people marveled and followed after him. There numbers were Legion. And his bold arrogance was hailed as great virtue, though the bold arrogance of his predecessor was hailed as his greatest vice. And there was entered into the House of Hypocrisy a great Legion that year, for they proclaimed in Unison: The ends justify the means. – 2nd Opinions 6:19

Posted in america, current events, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Confederate Constitution: Axed States’ Rights and Codified Racial Inferiority into Law.

Posted by americana83 on August 5, 2015

There has been much talk of the Confederate battle flag and of the States’ rights supposedly represented thereby. Despite copying entire sections from the US Constitution, the Confederate Constitution omits key passages and makes some terrible additions. The following portions of Article IV of the Confederate Constitution undercut the argument that the Confederacy (and by proxy it’s flags) represent state’s rights. The CSA was absolutely totalitarian in its protection of slavery, with the constitution granting strong federal/national protections to the “institution” of slavery. Further, new states must recognize and defend the “institution” when they are created/admitted to the confederacy. I did not see any article containing a parallel to the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. It also contains languages specifically protecting Negro slavery. So not only is slavery protected and mandated, but racial inferiority is protected and upheld at the highest law of the Confederacy. While I would never support a law banning private citizens from having, flying or otherwise displaying Confederate battle flags, I would in no way endorse having one flying over a government building, or as part of my state’s insignia or emblem or flag.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

No state my forbid the importation of slaves.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Slaves must be returned.to their “owners.”

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

All territory must protect and defend the buying and selling of black people.Notice it doesn’t just say slavery, but specifically Negro slavery. The CSA constitution is more or less a bastardized parody of the US Constitution, and the framers thereof had the gal to attempt to invoke the “the favor and guidance of Almighty God… ” in promoting it. Obviously, with how long the experiment lasted, the favor of God was not bestown upon its long continuance.


Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

#‎SandraBland‬: The death that shouldn’t have happened

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

The following are points to consider, no matter whether you feel she had an attitude or not (There was no attitude until after the offer was offended that she wasn’t happy about being pulled over and delayed and [as far as she knew at the time] fined heavily):
1. She didn’t start out with attitude. The officer asked her what was wrong (before saying only a warning) and she told him. Her mistake was being too honest about being frustrated about getting pulled over and cited when she had performed an apparent courtesy. It was after this that the officer started escalating things making demands about the cigarette and then about getting out of the car.

2. A request by its inherent nature can be refused and as such, should not subject the refusor to any negative side effects, otherwise it was no request, but a demand disguised in the form of a lie. There was no probable cause to ask Bland to leave the car.

3. A person’s attitude (frustration about getting pulled over, and possibly fined a hundred plus dollars) is NOT probable cause, unless you can prove that people usually respond with joy and enthusiasm 1: at getting pulled over, 2: at getting cited, and 3: at the prospect of getting out of their car and having the police officer search their private belongings.

No one is going to respond like this to a stop: Oh yes massa, so happy to waive my 4th amendment rights officer, I sho’ is happy about allowing unreasonable search and potential seizure, massa. please take all de time you need…I gots no where else to go.

Rights are rights, regardless of attitude, and the attitude didn’t start showing until the rights were being violated. The woman should never have been in jail to begin with, and her death (whether suicide or otherwise) is due to being wrongfully imprisoned.

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Crony Capitalism 101

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

Introduction: There has been a lot of talk recently about Planned Parenthood, and about how even, despite the horrific trafficking of the body parts of the very slaughtered babies they assured us aren’t human, Mitch McConnell and other republicans are circling the wagons to defend the tax payer funding for this horrific organization that was founded to promote eugenics and whose founder Margaret Sanger was an avowed racist.

What’s this have to do with crony capitalism? This: neither Planned Parenthood nor any other business (no matter the professed goals) ought to be receiving tax money. This includes Governor Kasich’s JobsOhio program, the bank bailouts, GM, “green” energy companies, and any other firm that is receiving tax money from the government. It is a process by which certain companies lobby the government for unfair competitive advantages and receive them. To add insult to injury, the tax money of their competitors is effectively being given to their competition. There are several different ways in which cronyism is perpetuated, and I detail some of them below.

Indirect Crony Capitalism (the carrot): Tax “refunds” that benefit certain industries when consumers purchase their product. This would include Electric cars and hybrids.

Regulatory Crony Capitalism: (concealed cronyism) Many of the biggest or most connected players are subsidized and forms of control are exerted back and forth. These companies will often lobby for or support increased regulation because the regulations will either be written to their favor or their compliance will be subsidized by the tax payer. These regulations are too expensive for non-connected business and smaller players, so the smaller ones go out of business or end getting sold to the connected players. it is concealed because regulations on their surface seem to benefit nobody in particular and are sold as being in the “common interest” or to promote transparency or some greater good.

Naked Crony Capitalism: (the stick) When congress or state legislatures ban specific lawful products for any reason. The textbook case would be congress’s ban of classic lightbulbs. This provided more revenue for already subsidized companies. One additional negative about this is that it can turn consumers off to certain products, and can impede further progress when the government will ban cheaper and more economical products, reducing the incentive to innovate and bring down costs. No matter what reasons are given for the bans, congress, nor any other federal body has lawful Constitutional power to ban products.

Police State Crony Capitalism (the stick): This is when the state forces you into an industry by punitive action if you fail to purchase products from “approved” vendors or approved products. A double example is Obamacare and its list of requirements for insurance to be acceptable. And the second is the infamous penalty that was illegally rewritten by the Supreme Court into a tax, a tax levied only against those who have not purchased a product the government thinks they should have, or have purchased a product that doesn’t meet the requirements the government set for the product. The police state variant is also in play with wood burning stoves/furnaces. Which seems unusual, because wood is definitely a renewable resource, thus these stoves are “green” energy sources!

Conclusion: Crony Capitalism in all its variants is a bizarre hybrid of socialism and capitalism where competition exists, but many of the biggest or most connected players are subsidized and where forms of control are exerted back and forth (favored corporations and politicians). None of the above forms of Crony Capitalism are constitutional and all are detrimental to the freedom and prosperity of the American people, and wherever else Crony Capitalism comes into practice.

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Taxes Day 2015 Thoughts (With discussion)

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

Taxes Day 2015 Thoughts

Instead of having dual income taxes between the feds and the states, or dual sales taxes (as the fair tax would create between themselves and either states or locales), how about lop off the federal government’s direct taxation and make it indirect, where the federal government “taxes” the states at a percentage. The states collect taxes and then remit to the feds. Your personal information then only resides at your state. No need for federal income taxes, the IRS, or any of the apparatus of the feds involving collecting money, saving only someone to deposit checks from the state governments into the treasury.tax

  • Critique 1: For one thing it wouldn’t get rid of the IRS it would just break up the IRS into state agencies, plus the states remitting a tax to the federal government would be problematic given how different states have different tax policies/rates April 15 at 4:17pm
    1. My response: The states already have and administer taxes, so there would be no new tax administrations needed. If states have other tax forms, they could still remit to the feds and it would pose no problem, or additional paper work, especially since now many states apply for grants of varying kinds from the feds anyway. It provides much more flexibility and cuts out the middle man:

      individual –> feds –> state
      individual –>state

      to this:

      Individual –>state–>feds

      This way, local needs are met locally, federal needs are met at state level, and there’s no need for bouncing money back and forth (and wasting money on that bureaucracy. Plus the burden of compliance is shifted from the individual to the state. This is good for privacy and the state, since it has an aggregate revenue stream much larger than any one person, is better able to deal with the federal government. It also makes it harder to pork barrel, since the states will not likely take kindly to their money being used to build a billion dollar bridge to nowhere. They are also better positioned to fight the feds. That is one thing that the 16th and 17th amendments broke, was the fed’s reliance on the states. Because the fed has a revenue stream independent of the states, and because the states are no longer represented in the Senate, the feds can run roughshod over them with minimal impact. The founders were wise in the way they structured the federal government, and the early 1900s politicians were power hungry when they crafted those two amendments (the income tax and direct election of senators) to instantly undo the check on federal power that they created.April 15 at 4:26pm

  • My response, part 2: It would also allow the states to experiment. With a much reduced federal government, the states would have more flexibility to adjust their tax rates and experiment. States that adopted failing policies (like California) would have to face the results of their poor (greedy) economic decisions and cut their spending. Many citizens could then migrate to those states that offered them the most opportunities to prosper, protected the most rights, or perhaps provided the most benefits. Likewise, those who wished to support a large social welfare could lead by example and move to those states with the highest tax rates and largest public benefits programs. It would provide ample room for state experimentation.April 15 at 4:30pm
  • Critique 2: the biggest thing would be ensuring federal accountability on the states, (insert American history on the Articles of Confederation era here), cuz if there’s too much of a power imbalance favored towards states’ rights it wouldn’t end too pleasantly April 15 at 4:36pm ·
    • My Response: Further, with federal benefits eliminated, it would remove the economic arguments in favor of strict immigration laws. Then states which wished to reward immigrants could do so by the willingness of their local constituencies to do so. States that adopted tightly controlled social programs would likewise see no drain on their resources. And states with strong support for the second amendment would see crime rates controlled. So you could have a situation where border security laws became laxer, but better enforced. It would give the “sanctuary cities” the chance to show that they can make plan work, and fully fund it themselves. Localized control and funding mitigates responsibility to the nation, ie, if California residents wanted to pay for and construct a billion dollar luxury apartment complex for migrant workers, they could do that without Illinois or Texas or New Jersey having any right to hoot and holler.

      There are many interesting ideas that could be explored with the equation tilted away from the feds and towards the states. It would also increase the importance of local governments. I would like to see how it would all work out. April 15 at 4:41pm ·

  • Critique 3 Yeah, but that’s also quite a lot of change you’re asking for, keep in mind all our federal programs don’t exist because of power hungry feds but rather out of necessity (whether that necessity is still relevant today for certain programs is another debate), if we wanted to become a confederacy like the EU, that would mean most federal agencies get dissolved into state agencies, keeping in mind that while most of said agencies and programs operate on state levels with state offices anyway, not every state has branches for all of said agencies and programs (let alone be able to afford to host or start them in their own states even with added state revenue), and not to mention with so many states sharing a border with Mexico, having the different states have different border and immigration policies would be so problematic that they would have to merge back into a federal agency again, or have to adopt a model similar to the EU where the entire nation is treated as one country as far as immigration policies go, meaning whatever point you had in states having their own policies is out the window
    also, unless a said confederacy decided to maintain a federal oversight on defense, the military would also get dissolved and likely absorbed by the states’ national guards, and if the different state militaries had too much difference in opinion on defense policies, well then there goes our national defense, and while the 2nd Amendment may have allowed for a strong national militia in the 18th and early 19th century, the fact is military technology has grown quite advanced in the years since then for each and every state to be able to maintain civilian militias capable of maintaining a national defense, while also putting an enormous amount of pressure on coastal states to maintain coast guards and navies with their own funding and population (possible draft reinstatement?), all things to consider April 15 at 4:56pm
    • My Response: First, I realize it is something that will likely never happen, but we all have our hopes.

      Second, Not a true confederacy, the states would be responsible to remit taxes, like it was between 1797 until 1913. Only if there was an issue, it would be one of 50 states raising a complaint, not one in a few hundred million raising a (hopeless) complaint.

      Some states would not have some departments or agencies, depending on the voters in that state.

      I do not support dissolving the US armed forces, coast guard, navy, nor do I support a return to the pre-constitutional government 1776-1797. It proved too weak. From 1913 on, the federal government has grown way too strong. April 15 at 5:01pm

  • Agreement 1: Indeed it has.
  • Critique 4: Just remember every federal law passed, program started, or agency founded, is a story in American history, many cases the states may have had their chances to do something but didn’t leading the federal government to step up, or, they took it up to congress and pushed for federal laws, and if it passed that means minimum 2/3 the senate and a large enough majority of House of Reps found it in their own states interests anyway, and in the rest of the 20th century that followed, the state vs fed strain we are seeing emerging now was virtually nonexistent, and mostly exists in the wake of the polarization of neo-conservative and radical progressive policies, each side weary of leaning even the slightest bit towards the middle at risk of losing support or “giving in” to the other side… You could call it a civil cold war of sorts April 15 at 5:24pm
  • My Reponse: I generally find myself opposing both “neo-conservatives/neocons – especially in areas of domestic security/Police state and foreign policy ” and radical progressives. I personally believe that a devolution of power from the top to the bottom would help. April 15 at 5:27pm
  • Alternative Suggestion 1: Being that there are now many services provided for the citizens that we are willing to pay for to keep.

    Lets propose the following, abolishing all current Tax systems.

    New means of Personal earnings Tax.
    The citizen is to pay 5% of their annual earnings to the Local Government and to nowhere else never to be increased. The citizen is to pay a 1% VAT to the Local Government of the purchase and to nowhere else never to be increased. The Local Government is to then Budget 10% of all Personal tax revenue generated to be sent one to the County Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. The County Government is to then Budget 20% of all Personal tax revenue generated to be sent one to the State Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. The State Government is to then Budget 30% of all Personal tax revenue generated to be sent one to the Federal Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. This will eliminate any and all tax credits, deductions, and returns.

    New means of Business earnings Tax.
    All Business are to pay 10% of their annual earnings to the Local Government and to nowhere else never to be increased. All Business are to pay a 2% VAT to the City Government of the purchase and to nowhere else never to be increased. The City Government is to then Budget 20% of all Business tax revenue generated to be sent one to the County Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. The County Government is to then Budget 30% of all Business tax revenue generated to be sent one to the State Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. The State Government is to then Budget 40% of all Business tax revenue generated to be sent one to the Federal Government, then using the reset for operating expenses and to nowhere else never to be increased. This will eliminate any and all tax credits, deductions, and returns.

    This is again to remind all levels of Government that the People own these lands, their Property, and money that they have earned. April 15 at 7:07pm

  • Critique 5: That would be a pretty broken system, as the states would game it. April 15 at 11:05pm
  • My Response: The current system is gamed like the game room at Ohayocon 24-7. Loopholes and double taxation and all sorts of stuff. It would be a lot easier for the feds to hold 50 states accountable than hundreds of millions. And each state already has its own tax system. It would only reduce the gaming abilities to have each resident only submitting one instead of two tax returns (state and federal) April 15 at 11:08pm

My final thoughts and last comment in the discussion: The simpler and flatter the system with as few middle men and exceptions as possible will not only make the system more efficient (RE: more tax money to spend on end results as opposed to bureaucrats and offices), but will also make it harder to evade. Right now its a mine field, and any average citizen will be crushed under the weight of it all if one jot or tittle is out of place or a day late or a dollar short.

Originally posted on facebook April 15th, 2015. All discussion items have only been edited for obvious typos, and formatted to fit a blog. Names have been removed.

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

What you might have missed about “Net Neutrality”

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

The FCC has discovered a new power when faced with an obstacle to it’s agenda.

Courts have struck down earlier net neutrality efforts, saying the FCC lacked authority to impose such rules. So this time around, the FCC chose to categorize high-speed Internet service as a telecommunications service.

Courts said it didn’t have the authority to control the internet, so the FCC unilaterally decided that the internet is a “telecommunications” service, and that it is now under the control of the FCC. There was no bill changing what the internet is. There was just the FCC saying it was so, making it so, and challenging anyone to dare question its authority. Oh, but don’t worry, at least the FCC “promises” there will be no new taxes or fees:

The FCC would not regulate the price of Internet services under the new rules and would not impose any new taxes or government-mandated fees. Nonetheless, opponents said they feared price regulations and new taxes would come eventually, further discouraging investment.

For the history of the internet, Government controls, not private companies have been the enemy of a free and open internet. The most infamous examples is the Great Firewall of China, which blocks anything the government deems dangerous and exerts heavy control over domestic Chinese internet content.

A heavy handed move by our own government can only mean that we will some time in the near future have an “if you like your internet you can keep your internet moment” where the full force of government comes to bear against the digital versions of our unalienable rights to freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, press, search and seizure, ect.

This move by the FCC if not contested and struck down, will only strengthen the illegal ability of the executive branch to make law by decree. “Stroke of the pen, law of the land.”

Quote Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-adopts-net-neutrality-rules-to-ban-internet-discrimination-163703235.html

(Originally published 2-26-2015 on my facebook)

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Protesting Protesters AND Police Brutality (AKA Black lives DO matter?

Posted by americana83 on July 30, 2015

Some of my friends may think I am bipolar on this issue: On one hand I recognize that Eric Garner and some others wrongly met death at the hands of police officers, but on the other it seems like I condemn most of the protests going on. How does that work?

The Issue: Militarized police, excessive force and no-knock warrants are, or at least should be a “grave” concern for anyone who values life and liberty. These issues deny people their unalienable rights up to and including life. People do not forfeit ALL their rights when they have a criminal background. Choking someone to death for evading a cigarette tax? A flashbang grenade permanently devastating the body of a small child? These and many others are very real issues where justice has been denied. Victims of these various examples of brutality are not confined to a single race.

The Protests. Many of these protests have either been organized by radical groups with the goal of fundamentally changing the US from a country with relative economic freedom to a country with no freedom or have been influenced/hijacked by people sympathetic to these groups. Members of the families of some of the victims have came out against self/media-appointed “black leaders” like Sharpton. Instead of targeting the criminals and their political cohorts, they unleash their attacks and “protests” on the broad masses, without regard to who is actually guilty. If these protests were REALLY being carried out with the purpose of protesting injustice, they would be targeting the guilty, not the innocent. But since their goals are NOT liberty and justice for all, this doesn’t matter. Some of the groups that have been instigators in these counter-productive protests have been the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Nation of Islam. Atheistic or Theocratic tyranny are their goals.

The Targets: Police Stations and Political organizations. The Federal government is moving to consolidate police power that was properly denied it and reserved for the states and localities / people. The Feds have been usurping the autonomy of local police departments through grants / funding. However, the states and localities have been militarizing their police and allowing or ordering officers to commit “no-knock” warrant based home invasions, resulting in the murder/injury of police and innocent civilians. These criminal acts put the lives of officers and those they are supposed to serve in harm’s way.

The most publicized protests seem to be missing the targets. Instead opting to block public roadways and prevent Christmas shopping and travel. These protesters are more than likely headed by people symathetic to one of the radical communists parties or the Nation of Islam. Of course the inherent irony of Communists and Radical Muslims protesting police brutality is that the police are most brutal, the police state most invasive and human rights most curtailed in Islamic and Communistic states. Thus protests led by either group cannot be with the end goal of truly ensuring a fair and limited police force. Such a goal goes against their purpose of fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

It is in the interest of furthering properly targeted protests that I offer the following:

The model is Joshua and the battle of Jericho. Marches around police stations in large areas with singing and shouting, and it could be done daily at the same time like the Bible account with a special conclusion on the last day. “tearing/(shouting?) down the walls of police brutality” and other themed slogans. High energy, high visibility, and directly targeting those responsible. Could also target state local legislatures / assemblies / courts or any related government building with ones that are surrounded completely by public sidewalks / throughways the best options. Just thought I’d offer something other than (what I think is) constructive criticism. If you think it is helpful, feel free to pass it along to anyone who genuinely cares about addressing police brutality issues.
Liberty and justice for all.

(Originally published December 25, 2014 on my facebook page)
I have a dream that one day police will return to “protect and serve” instead of “police for profit.”

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »