Gold, liberty, and Greenspan...

I found a few interesting articles reflecting on the conversion of Alan Greenspan from an Ayn Rand style individualist into a central planning statist of the type he once reviled.

The Maestro Changes His Tune by Ron Paul

The Mess Greenspan Leaves by Stefan Karlson

Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan

Neocons get it all wrong again...

Bill Kristol has written a propoganda piece advocating for more centralization of power in the hands of the President, while dismissing all notions that the People should be aware of what the government is doing in our names to protect us from the threat they tell us exists.

The difficulty with FISA is the standard it imposes for obtaining a warrant aimed at a "U.S. person"--a U.S. citizen or a legal alien: The standard suggests that, for all practical purposes, the Justice Department must already have in hand evidence that someone is a problem before they seek a warrant.

The only alternative is to spy on a US citizen with no evidence against him. Given that the FISA courts have granted virtually every warrant request ever presented to it, this argument hardly holds water.

It is not easy because the Founders intended the executive to have--believed the executive needed to have--some powers in the national security area that were extralegal but constitutional.

The article probably refers to Hamilton here, as he was a noted supporter of a strong executive branch, but it is important to note that Hamilton had stiff opposition, and is thought to have "lost" the debate in the final draft of the Constitution.

The problem with Kristol's knee-jerk support for Bush is two-fold. First, more and more Americans are doubting Bush's sincerity because he simply won't close down the Mexican border. Trying to sell the country on these grave threats to our national security has been more difficult lately as people have become more aware of our unguarded borders.

Second, many of us believe that there is a threat facing America in the form of radical muslim fanatics. Without debating why or where these islamofanatics originated, they exist and they do pose a threat to America. While many of us still believe in the citizen soldier concept and want to have a hand in our own defense without necessarily joining the military, our federal government is telling us to go about our lives and leave the nation's security to them.

I say no, that I want to have a part in the security of this nation, and I would be more than happy to help if the government would give the People some ideas or suggestions as to what we could do. If they don't have evidence necessary to even satisfy a FISA court, enlist the People to obtain that evidence. We will give the authorities what they need, so long as we believe that they are truly working for us and not themselves.

Here is another example of hyperbole from those who can't think through Bush's methodical centralization of power:

A delay of even a few days may render the information useless, as the terrorists will have realized that their colleague has been neutralized.

I thought that 11 Judges sit at the ready to hear evidence and grant warrants on a 24/7/365 basis?

Bush's illegal wiretaps...

According to President Bush, on April 20 2004:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Not your typical Republican...

Since March 2003 we have seen:

Death and destruction; 2,100 Americans killed and nearly 20,000 sick or wounded, plus tens of thousands of Iraqis caught in the crossfire;

A Shiite theocracy has been planted;

A civil war has erupted;

Iran’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;

Osama bin Laden’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;

Al Qaeda now operates freely in Iraq, enjoying a fertile training field not previously available to them;

Suicide terrorism, spurred on by our occupation, has significantly increased;

Our military industrial complex thrives in Iraq without competitive bids;

True national defense and the voluntary army have been undermined;

Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the Patriot Act, National Security letters, and challenges to habeas corpus all have been promoted;

Values have changed, with more Americans supporting torture and secret prisons;

Domestic strife, as recently reflected in arguments over the war on the House floor, is on the upswing;

Pre-emptive war has been codified and accepted as legitimate and necessary, a bleak policy for our future;

The Middle East is far more unstable, and oil supplies are less secure, not more;

Historic relics of civilization protected for thousands of years have been lost in a flash while oil wells were secured;

U. S. credibility in the world has been severely damaged; and

The national debt has increased enormously, and our dependence on China has increased significantly as our federal government borrows more and more money.

How many more years will it take for civilized people to realize that war has no economic or political value for the people who fight and pay for it? Wars are always started by governments, and individual soldiers on each side are conditioned to take up arms and travel great distances to shoot and kill individuals that never meant them harm. Both sides drive their people into an hysterical frenzy to overcome their natural instinct to live and let live. False patriotism is used to embarrass the good-hearted into succumbing to the wishes of the financial and other special interests who agitate for war.

Ron Paul

Spying and border security...

Another thought just came to mind in thinking about the NSA spying story.

Whatever happened to the theme of Bush Co. that we were "fighting the enemy over there so we don't have to fight him here" ??

If there are enemies already in America worthy of spying on, wouldn't that mandate the immediate closing of our borders to prevent the arrival of more enemies to our homeland?

Mr. Bush, just close the borders and you'll be given a pass to do just about anything else you want. Until then, you can expect much trouble ahead from those who can plainly read the Constitution and demonstrate your ignorance of, and contempt for, our founding document.

Though you may not, many of us still believe in the Constitution and the Republic it established so many years ago. In the end, we will side with it and against you.

Borders

George Bush and the American police state...

If we are a nation of free men living under the rule of Law, then those laws must be applied uniformly whether related to the common street dweller or the President of the United States.

By authorizing domestic spying, it seems as though President Bush may have violated federal law. If so, he must be punished up to and including impeachment.

This President has continued the construction of a full-blown police state since 9/11 in the name of the "War on Terror", invariably using "the events of September 11th" as a defense to his acts.

This time, it appears as though he's gone too far. According to the NY Times, the FBI has been spying on various political activist groups in America.

The Imperial President and the NSA Spying Scandal

“Trust me,” the president seems to continuously implore but no president (with the possible exception of Dick Nixon) has proven himself less worthy of trust than George W. Bush.

Set aside the long and tired trail of failures and deceptions, the “trust me” president tells us he is only authorizing illegal spying on American citizens linked to Al Qaeda but, if that were true, why would he bypass the legal sanction of a court that has rightly been characterized as a rubber stamp, that in fact has turned down only a handful of surveillance requests in its 27-year history?

Police State

The lies must stop...

One last post for the week.

Lee Shelton writes about the moving goalposts that never seem to stop long enough for legitimate criticism of the Iraq war to gain traction.

Very well said...

Though I have a few minor disagreements, such as which branch of government is to be most closely scrutinized, this post has summarized a lengthy discussion that has been taking place on "Free" Republic all day.

I think many people can see the forest for the trees but don't want to speak up for fear of the more vocal members of this forum. The twists of logic I've seen here over the course of the past year have effectively, for the most part, kept me from posting for a while (I refuse, however, to give them the satisfaction of an opus, as tempting as it may be at times).

It was not too long ago that Republicans were vehement about actual conservative principles. That is what attracted me to the Republican Party in the first place. To be conservative was to oppose government encroachment into our daily lives. It was to support small, limited government that, for the most part, was willing to operate at the state level. To be Republican was to oppose the very principle of nation building and overseas expeditions (which, one might add, has played a very considerable role in generating much of the ill-will we now face). These, along with many other principles, were the crux of conservatism. Now, even among so-called conservatives, to be truly conservative is to have a "September 10th" mindset. I seem to recall the days when Republicans, as a rule, disdained such sloganism as the venue of Democrats.

But, then again, I suppose that is what really marks the "Post-Sepember 11th Realistic Mindset" - a willingness to embrace the very policies supported by Democrats that we had opposed for years. The dirty little secret is that many Republicans seem to believe that conservatism is a failure, that it does not REALLY work, and that it is only fit for an ideal world. I think that's a shame.

And now I'll come out and say it, since many others seem unable and unwilling to do so - I think that support for broad government surveillance (especially against hated groups!), support for expanded government programs, support for overseas expeditionism and nation building, support for "strenuous interrogation techniques" (torture, for those of you in Rio Linda) on supposed "terrorists" (who are never proved to be such in a court of law... so much for the burden of the State to prove guilt) for "information gathering purposes", the use of slogans and the grossest of logical fallacies in the place of reason, the labelling of those who hold views with which some disagree as "traitors", and the calls for the destruction of the one billion plus Muslims living throughout the world are all as decidedly unpatriotic as we can get!

I think this attitude that has prevailed throughout Republican circles that has been willing to denounce those that question government action as supporting terrorists and terrorism in general is absolutely abhorrent and causes the founders of our great country to roll in their graves! It is and has always been patriotic to question the actions of those that possess power, especially when those individuals hold office in the government. To claim, as so many faux-conservatives have done for the past four years, that 9-11 has left this sane principle in the dustbin of history is to effectively turn one's back on all that this country has stood for in its 200+ years of history!

I've been here at Free Republic since May 2001. I've taken part in a great many discussions, debates, and arguments around here. I have never been suspended and have never engaged in flame wars or been told by a moderator to "cool it". I'm not in any hurry to permanently leave unless I am forced to do so (which, after this message, may very well happen). I voted for President Bush twice, and both times I was quite unaware that I was electing a King and administration beyond reproach, but rather was under the impression that I was helping to elect a man as the head of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States of America, a position that, by the designs of those that created the position, was always to be held under the closest of scrutiny. I am absolutely awed by the sheer naivety of some that seem to believe a simple (R) beside a man's name grants him the closest thing possible to infallibility as can be found in a political system. It is that same position that seems to buy into the notion that all news that is in support of one's position must, by nature, be correct, while that that seems to go against one's wishes must be biased or false.

If some want to respond to this post by calling me a liberal, so be it. I'm not the one who has turned his back on conservative principles by claiming they are representative of a 9-10 mindset. I'm not the one who is so afraid of international bullies that he has to scream, "Not in the face! Not in the face!" by willingly trading my rights not to have the government violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (the Supreme law of the land) on mere suspicion while using secret warrants. I'm not the one who has to tell myself, "I have nothing to fear from the government if I'm not doing anything wrong," as though my fundamental God-given freedoms exist merely insofar as the government does not have a problem with me. I would rather be living in my 9-10 mindset than your Orwellian 1984 mindset that is willing to believe Big Brother will leave me alone just because I go out of my way to be a good citizen.

And, as a last note, I should point out that, should such measures be entrenched in our way of life, the second amendment shall be of no avail when we decide that the government really has become too oppressive. After all, raising arms against the government, by definition, will make you a terrorist, subject to all the villification the title entails in the public eye and subject to all the measures of which you all-too-happily supported when you thought they could never be turned against you.

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." How far we've seem to come since then. If we believe the Constitution, as it is worded, is tantamount to a suicide pact, then we'd be far more honest and far better off to just vote and repeal it.

Patriot Act

"The" NY Times article...

Here.

You can find plenty of related reading at Malkin's blog here.

My primary response to the larger issue of the "War on Terror" and government abuse of civil liberties is relatively simple.

The President does not show nearly the same sense of urgency for controlling our borders or deporting the illegal aliens who are already in the country as he does when the discussion focuses on expanding federal police power beyond those power already demanded of it (i.e. repelling invasion).

I believe that border security is inexcticably linked to "homeland" security, in fact the two terms are essentially synonyms. Suggesting that this Republic is in anyway safe so long as our border is left virtually undefended is not only wrong, but deserves impeachment.

If President Bush took the measures that Americans have been saying they want such as tight border security, the "hysterical activists" who are more worried about the threats to the Bill of Rights by our federal government than by the "terrorists" would be more willing to go along with Bush's agenda.

As it stands right now, we are being forced to swallow one phony government solution after another. The TSA, the Department of Homeland security, the 9/11 commission which still refuses to address Able Danger, the PATRIOT Act, etc... Until the civil libertarians are given some clear sign that our government is intent on fulfilling its Constitutional obligations, we have no choice but to protest the expansion of other powers not outlined therein.

Especially with this story coming on heels of the shooting in Miami airport last week, the public is understandably nervous about trusting a government which seems more inept and untrustworthy all the time.

Simply hearing Scott McLellan state that the President believes in fulfilling his Constitutional obligations and is concerned with civil liberties is no longer enough to fool a large portion of Americans. It's time for some evidence.

National Security
Civil Liberties
Big Brother
Patriot Act

The evaporating Bill of Rights...

I guess since "Free" Republic won't let me post this article there, I'd better post it here.

Andrew Napolitano, who admittedly I thought was a typical Bushbot working on Rupert's Faux News Channel, says:

The compromise version of the Patriot Act to which House and Senate conferees agreed last week and for which the House voted yesterday is an unforgivable assault on basic American values and core constitutional liberties. Unless amended in response to the courageous efforts of a few dozen senators from both parties, the new Patriot Act will continue to give federal agents the power to write their own search warrants – the statute’s newspeak terminology calls them "national security letters" – and serve them on a host of persons and entities that regularly gather and store sensitive, private information on virtually every American.

...

So, if your representative in the House has voted, or your Senators do vote, for the House/Senate conference approved version, they will be authorizing federal agents on their own, in violation of the Constitution, and without you knowing it, to obtain records about you from your accountant, bank, boat dealer, bodega, book store, car dealer, casino, computer server, credit union, dentist, HMO, hospital, hotel manager, insurance company, jewelry store, lawyer, library, pawn broker, pharmacist, physician, postman, real estate agent, supermarket, tax collectors, telephone company, travel agency, and trust company, and use the evidence thus obtained in any criminal prosecution against you.

Police State
Patriot Act
Big Brother

The death penalty case you haven't heard about...

Why is Cory Maye even in prison?

Cops mistakenly break down the door of a sleeping man, late at night, as part of drug raid. Turns out, the man wasn't named in the warrant, and wasn't a suspect. The man, frigthened [sic] for himself and his 18-month old daughter, fires at an intruder who jumps into his bedroom after the door's been kicked in. Turns out that the man, who is black, has killed the white son of the town's police chief. He's later convicted and sentenced to death by a white jury. The man has no criminal record, and police rather tellingly changed their story about drugs (rather, traces of drugs) in his possession at the time of the raid.

Interestingly enough, the CBS news article contains this excerpt from the Huffington Post blog:

This case is an interesting test of the power of the blogosphere. Though the apparent injustice is two years old, it seems to have attracted exactly zero attention in the mainstream media, at least according to a Google News search for "Cory Maye."

Is the MSM deliberately not covering this story to show "the bloggers" who still controls the vast majority of the popular news cycle?

MSM media bias

Purple fingers...

Using ink to stain the fingers of a voter in order to prevent a person from voting more than once seems to be a wonderful idea that the US government and the MSM are eager to report on when it happens in Iraq.

Why hasn't a single Congressman called for elections in America to be carried out in the same manner, with each voter having a finger stained with ink when he casts his ballot?

Purple fingers

An impossible goal...

The entire Bush foreign policy seems to rely on the so-called “domino” theory, which holds that Iranians will rise up and overthrow their tyrannical government once the people of Iran see first hand how wonderful “freedom” is in their newly liberated neighbor.

If the Iranians don't overthrow their leaders, those leaders will have become exponentially more powerful after they takeover Iraq and its natural resources.

One problem is that human nature is not to work together cooperatively with people you don't particularly like. See this column for a wonderful illustration of this concept.

Another problem is that most people do not prefer to live freely. Most people are willing, and in many cases probably prefer, to live under a tyrannical government.

One need only look at the current state of affairs in America. Most Americans are under the false impression that we are a free people, simply because we are permitted to speak our minds or attend the church of our choosing.

I believe that we are very much less of a free society under this government than our colonist forefathers were under the British King. Yet, while they were willing to buy their freedom with their own blood, very few Americans would be so-willing to do so today.

If Americans are unwilling to bear the sacrifices necessary to secure our own liberties, how can we reasonably expect people who have no similar foundation of individual liberty as we have to rise up and overthrow their government?

The endless cycle...

We are told by our government that American military forces will remain in Iraq so long as the violence continues. When we leave, the Shia faction in the South will slaughter the Sunni minority in central “Iraq”. Thus, the Sunnis must delay our departure, and the only way they can accomplish that is to continue the cycles of violence against American forces and against Iraqi civilians or government officials.

If the Sunnis stop fighting, their American protectors leave, abandoning them to face the Shia of southern Iraq and the Shia state of Iran alone. They would be annihilated or be forced to give up their land.

In either case, the big winner in the Iraq war is Iran because soon after we leave the region, Iran gains control over the Iraqi oil resources. At that point, our leaders would undoubtedly tell us that war against Iran was necessary.

Sadly, the war against Iran wouldn't be necessary if the war against Iraq hadn't been 'necessary', however that war was only necessary because of some other prior disastrous foreign policy of the United States.

Will this cycle of global American militarism ever end under the current American government when the only alternative to Bush's Wilsonian agenda is a Democrat party whose opposition makes them look as though they support American defeat?
Iraq war
Neo-con

Lies and deceptions about the Fair Tax...

I found this column on Lew Rockwell today that confronts the Fair Tax plan as being pushed in the Congress right now. The author raises several valid points, yet in typical fashion, he overplays his hand and makes many statements which are outright falsehoods.

I don't mean to come off as a Boortz apologist, as I disagree with him on a variety of issues, however, I do mean to come off as someone who would prefer to have a truthful discussion of ideas void of personal slander or misdirection.

Right off the bat, the author makes this false claim:

Former attorney Boortz is the well-known Atlanta-based "libertarian" talk show host who, like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, spends an inordinate amount of time on the evils of liberalism, the Left, and the Democratic Party while turning a blind eye to big government Republicans and supporting Bush's "War on Terror." Boortz has drawn fire from Christians for his support of abortion and gay rights.

Boortz does not 'turn a blind eye' to the big government republicans, nor does he 'support abortion'. He constantly rails against the out of control fiscal policies of the Bush administration, and he merely wishes that abortion would be an issue kept beyond the perview of governmental regulation. Just as I don't 'support' heroin use, I don't think it should be a criminal offense, either.

Nonetheless, the focus of the Fair Tax concept should not be its supporters, but the idea itself. Since the IRS is no friend of the taxpayer, except perhaps the super wealthy, most Americans who pay federal taxes would welcome the abolition of the IRS and the termination of its armies of auditors.

Although the FairTax Plan would eliminate Social Security and Medicare taxes, it would not eliminate the programs.

The plan would be dead on arrival were it to propose the elimination of the IRS, Social Security, and Medicare all in one shot. While I would gladly welcome such a measure, most Americans have gone much too far down the socialist road to accept such an abrupt about face. Trying to reverse the growth of government will only be done in stages. If asked point blank if he would prefer the SS & Medicare boondoggles be eliminated, I have no doubt that Boortz would concur. Concluding that a plan to eliminate the IRS and federal income tax implies support for other socialist wealth distribution schemes is faulty logic.

I believe that the Fair Tax plan would be an eye-opening experience for a great number of Americans, who after having seen the size and breadth of taxation being levied upon them would much more readily support the sorts of dramatic overhauls of the American welfare state that Mr. Vance clearly advocates.

The FairTax is designed to simplify the tax code, increase compliance, and make the government more efficient at collecting taxes. It is not about reducing the overall tax burden one cent. The book should therefore be discarded upon reading this line on page two: "This book isn't about saving us a penny in taxes." Boortz has the proverbial cart before the horse. He wants to fight for "a simpler, clearer way to fund our federal government" before he fights for "tax cuts and lower government."

Several issues are left out of this simple analysis. First, greater efficiency in tax collection implies lower costs. Therefore, almost the entire budget of the IRS could be reallocated to other areas or returned to the People. Second, the gross revenue raised by the Fair Tax would supposedly remain neutral, however, each taxpayer would see his percentage reduced because of the addition of new taxpayers such as prostitutes, drug dealers, those who work 'under the table' and the illegal aliens who work with fraudulent or non-existent identities. Currently these people do not pay federal taxes because there is no record of their incomes.

Not to mention, notice how Boortz now wants to fight for simpler taxation BEFORE cutting taxes and the size of government? Previously, the author implied that Boortz had no interest in addressing the size or scope of government.

So, instead of calling for the elimination of the various federal programs that feed off tax dollars, Boortz wants to merely change the way they are funded.

Why would anyone want to make the government more efficient at collecting taxes?

Because efficiency implies lower costs, and the money not spent on arcane bureaucratic tax collection methods could be returned to the people or used for other legitimate governmental purposes.

For even though the purpose of the "prebate" is to cover "the basic necessities of life," Boortz acknowledges that there will be "money left over" for the poor "to invest in their own futures." The trouble with this is that the "money left over" belongs to someone else—"the rich" who will pay most of the taxes just like they do now.

If there is 'money left over', then the solution is a simple one. That is to lower the poverty line from which the prebates are calculated. Nobody can deny that there is a progressive nature to a tax system in which some people pay nothing, but again, solving the welfare state mentality problem in America is a process which must be done incrementally. While I don't believe that people who pay no taxes should vote, they currently enjoy the privelege, and as such it is unreasonable to expect them to voluntarily vote themselves an increase in their own tax liability.

But not only does this ignore the basic laws of supply and demand, it is based on the fallacy that the costs of inputs in the production of a good determine the price of the output they produce.

I don't pretend to be an economist, so I'll tread lightly here, but it seems to me that the costs of inputs have at least a significant contribution to the final price of the product. After all, charging less than a product costs to make won't work, therefore one must charge at least an equal amount. Therefore, the lower the costs to produce a good, the lower the cost MUST BE. That means that if a good costs $10 to make, it must be sold for at least $10, however if it only costs $5 to make, it must only be sold for $5. The good produced for $5 could be sold for $10, but I trust market forces to keep the prices where they ought to be. However, there can be no logical dispute that the prices of a good COULD be lower than they are if the costs of making that good are reduced.

Lie #1: taxes would be voluntary under the FairTax.

One can buy a used car, a used house, and used clothes, but one cannot purchase used food.

No, one cannot buy used food, but one does not pay taxes on the amount of food necessary to survive. That is precisely the point of the prebate, to make a certain amount of utilities, clothes, food, etc. tax-exempt. Is this progressive in nature? Yes. However, the purchase of goods over and above those which qualify for the Fair Tax really are very close to voluntary.

Lie #2:the FairTax rate would be 23 percent.

The inclusive/exclusive argument is legitimate, but suggesting that Americans have any idea how much of their gross income goes into taxes today is totally irresponsible. The truth is that taxes are always going to be 'hidden' in some way, but with the Fair Tax the result is the same. A product is marked $10 on the shelf, and at the register you give the cashier $10 for it. The individual consumer may not know or care what percentage of that $10 goes to the store and what percentage goes to the government, but it doesn't matter. All the consumer must consider is whether or not he is willing to trade $10 for the product.

Lie #3: the FairTax would abolish the IRS.

Whatever replaces the IRS under the Fair Tax would not resemble one another much at all. Any tax collection scheme must necessarily have collectors who collect the tax, and it will almost necessarily have auditors to determine who didn't pay the amount levied against him. The only alternative is to have NO taxation whatsoever, which would either rely on voluntary funding of government, or no government. While I am no fan of the concept of government, there are a small number of functions that are best performed by a governing body, and in order to do so, some funds are needed. In the end, I'd rather take my chances on a system which oversees States or businesses as whole entities, as would be done under the Fair Tax plan, instead of the IRS model where each individual person is subject to audit and/or imprisonment on the whim of a government agent. Ideally, everyone would pay the amount he owes according to a perfectly equal system, but we're nowhere near that and pretending we are is not beneficial to actually getting to that point.

Problem #3: The FairTax is an income redistribution scheme.

Absolutely right. However, I believe that one of the real benefits to the Fair Tax plan would be to open the eyes of Americans currently oblivious to the enormous amounts of capital being taken out of the marketplace by governments. Again, the Fair Tax plan can be viewed as the first step in a long process of reversing the welfare mentality currently infecting the minds of most Americans.

Problem #4: The FairTax creates new tax collectors.

This argument is a non-starter. Doctors and garbage collectors already collect taxes. They collect the Social Security and Medicare taxes withheld from their employees, as well as every other tax levied against a business. Is the author contending that doctors or lawyers today don't spend time and resources complying with tax laws? Surely under the Fair Tax plan, the time and energy spent on compliance would be reduced dramatically from where it is now.

Will a teenage babysitter be required to collect the FairTax from her neighbors?

Yes, just as she is currently liable for paying tax on her income under today's system. Just as no system is perfect, no collection method will ever be perfect. People have been cheating the tax collector since the first tax was levied, and there always will be tax dodgers. Permitting perfection to become the enemy of good in this case serves no one.

Problem #5:The FairTax creates new taxes.

Yes, however market forces would drive down the prices of goods or services, so again the net effect seems to be relatively minor, especially when combined with the huge increase workers would see in their income. Ultimately, people's income will go up dramatically while the prices they pay would only rise slightly, if at all.

Problem #6: The FairTax creates new taxpayers.

Here the author tries to have it both ways. Earlier, he lamented that the Fair Tax is progressive in that many people and entities enjoy the benefits of government without bearing a share of the burden. Now, the author argues the opposite. Frankly, I'd prefer to spread the tax paying burden across as many individuals as possible, rather than concentrating it to only a select few. Perhaps if the non-profits and churches were forced to pay taxes, they would fuel the movement to limit government and to abolish its agencies which serve no legitimate purpose. Again, the end result seems to be a positive one.

Problem #7: The FairTax makes it easier for the federal government to raise taxes.

Of course it does, however if the rate is kept static across all class lines, then a politician who wishes to raise revenue by raising taxes must justify doing so to the poor and the wealthy alike. Today, the politicians play the class warfare games, usually resulting in the wealthier people losing because they are fewer in number. Having one single rate for everyone would eliminate the opportunity for politicians to spread lies and deceptions as well as making revenue receipts contingent on American consumerism, which would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The better the economy works, the more consumers spend, the more the government raises. Making the government the last to get a cut of the economic pie instead of the first can only be a postive move.

Problem #8: The FairTax makes it easier for state governments to raise taxes.

As if raising taxes today is somehow difficult?

Problem #11: The FairTax has great potential for fraud.

As does any other tax system, due to the natural inclination of people to avoid paying taxes whenever possible.

Since every head of household would have one of these cards, there would be a great chance of criminals preying on people for their cards. There is also the possibility of counterfeiting, resulting in massive theft from the taxpayers.

Here, the author makes a point with no evidence whatsoever to back up the claim. Criminals also prey on people for their credit and debit cards issued by private banks, yet we've managed to survive the onslaught of the predators. While no system is perfect, I suspect that government issued debit cards would be at least as difficult to counterfeit as other non-currency methods of payment, so it's a moot point.

Problem #12:The FairTax has the potential to turn thousands of law-abiding Americans into criminals.

The IRS already does that. Virtually everyone submits an incomplete or fraudulent W-2 statement annually, not to mention, we are currently required to sign the form attesting to its accuracy, subject to a felony. Therefore, under the current system, most Americans are felons for no reason other than the complexity of the law they are supposed to follow. I cannot believe that the Fair Tax plan wouldn't improve this dramatically, though no plan will ever eliminate all tax cheats.

Problem #13: The FairTax does not repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.

The author has finally hit on the single most important issue revolving around the Fair Tax plan. I would much prefer to see the 16th Amendment repealed, or declared rightly to never have been legally passed in the first place, before any attempt is made to alter or abolish the IRS, because otherwise we'll certainly end up with a federal sales tax AND a federal income tax.

Problem #16: The FairTax doesn't even begin to address the root of the problem.

I disagree. I think the Fair Tax begins to turn the tide around, and bring to the forefront of American debate the proper role of government, and the enormous amount of money it collects today from the marketplace. Trying to go from where we are today, with most Americans either embracing the welfare state or having no idea how large the welfare state really is, will never work. The most important step is to make government revenue contingent upon the financial well-being of Americans and our markets, and by giving the federal government the last bite of the apple via the Fair Tax, rather than the first through payroll withholding taxes, a tremendous stride forward will have been made.

Problem #17: The FairTax makes welfare universal. Millions of people who never took a dime from other taxpayers in the form of food stamps, SSI, AFDC, Medicaid, WIC, or housing assistance will now be on the federal dole via the prebate.

Receiving a portion of taxes paid back from the government constitutes 'being on the dole' no more than does an employee receiving a refund in April after filing a tax return which shows that more was collected than was due. The bottom line is that the cash register at the stores which collect the taxes under the Fair Tax has no idea how much that customer owes or has paid. Thus, all purchases are taxed in the interest of simplicity, and then each person is refunded an amount for the taxes he paid or will pay for things which are not intended to be taxed in the first place.

Boortz does refer to Frank Chodorov (1887–1966), reminding us that he "once observed that, by enacting the income tax, the American government was proclaiming that all wealth belonged to the government, and whatever wealth the government did not seize from the person who created it should be looked on as a concession—a gift from the government." But Boortz doesn't quote Chodorov, and he gives no source that he is referencing. He subtly seems to imply that Chodorov was opposed to the income tax because it was an income tax and that, therefore, he might be inclined to support the FairTax if he were alive. But this couldn't possibly be true because Chodorov considered taxation itself to be robbery .

Unless and until a model of government is proposed which needs no revenue to operate, eliminating all taxes means eliminating government. I believe that a government which protects the rights of individuals is both beneficial and necessary, and therefore I am willing to assume a fraction of the burden needed to sustain a very limited few governmental roles, primarily the maintenance of law and order through police, courts, and prisons.

In the end, the Fair Tax plan leaves much to be desired, and the fundamental principle of the author of this article is correct that the Fair Tax plan does not directly attack the welfare mentality of Americans or our government, but it does represent a dramatic improvement over the system we currently have in place.

Were the author to propose a clear alternative other than to merely proclaim that America's welfare mentality is the root propblem, I would be inclined to consider it. However, declaring a problem and illustrating a set of preferred circumstances means nothing without a way to get from where we are now to where some of us are trying to go (low taxes, limited government,...).

Simply saying 'the problem of the ever-increasing, ever-intruding, ever-destroying welfare/warfare state ' exists does nothing to reverse the trend towards bigger and more intrusive government. Do you have a better idea than the one outlined by the Fair Tax book?
Fair Tax

Private property...

The American left would have you believe that government regulation of business are necessary because otherwise the corporate executives would virtually enslave the worker while rewarding himself in a tremendously disproportionate manner.

However, they believe that various government officials don't carry out the same income redistribution schemes, always to their own benefit, despite the fact that these very officials are they who carry out the investigations into possible criminal behavior. Are we to expect that these people will prosecute themselves?

No, and in the end, I'd rather take my chances on a limited government which protected the rights of people to operate in the free markets to secure our own well-being. At least in the market, I have the choice of employers and as a consumer I can speak with my purchasing habits.

When the government is allowed to pull the strings of the national economy, I have no ability to alter the course of the policies with which I must cope, other than to vote in elections managed by the state, use courtrooms overseen by the state, and oppose armies of lawyers funded limitlessly by the state.

How can any self-respecting American patriot consider this sort of massive fraud 'freedom'?

The simplicity of this dilemna can be seen easily if one considers the following:

Most of us know that if you buy a television, it is your property. If someone takes it away from you, he has committed the crime of theft or burglary.

Therefore, if that television is your property, whatever you traded for it must also be your property, for otherwise you would have had no right to trade it away as it would have belonged to someone other than yourself, and in that case you would be guilty of theft or burglary.

Usually, a person takes cash to a store and buys a television, therefore that cash must be his property. But where did he get that cash? Most likely he traded his labor to an employer who gave him cash in return.

Going one step further, a man's labor must belong to him for were it to belong to another, we would properly recongize that to be slavery, incorrectly thought to have been abolished by Abraham Lincoln after the Civil War.

So, while a man's labor is his property, so to is whatever he may be able to acquire in exchange for his labor. Just as I am able to use my cash for a television or a bicycle, so too may a man use his labor for what he wishes, or not at all.

In the case that he chooses to trade his labor for money, that money must belong to him in its entirety, because the labor belonged to him similarly in its entirety. However, nothing could be further from the mindset of the modern American who routinely accepts the claims laid upon the fruits of his labor by a government which requires him to forfeit his property in exchange for whatever services it wishes to provide, yet all the while not offering the man an opportunity to decline the offer of the government.

As it carries out this tyranny of punishing those who attempt to withhold their own property from thieves and pillagers, the government tells us all the while that this system is known as 'freedom'. I must conclude that our founding fathers would adamantly disagree.

As Michael Rozeff asks:

What sort of Republic would this be if it had been founded by the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Bidens, and McCains?

Loss of freedom in America...

In a very logical way, Michael Rozeff attempts to define the concept of 'financial freedom'. His column is linked today on Lew Rockwell.

Majority votes for Congressmen or by Congressmen do not create valid claims on your income, because there is no logical or valid way for any number of other folks to show that they have a right to take away from you what you have earned.

If you agreed in advance to abide by whatever the majority ruled, then the majority would have a valid claim. Show me someone who has signed such an agreement, please. If you show me such a person, I will show you a fool. If you did sign such an agreement, you’d be placing your life in the hands of others. You’d be running the risk that they make you a slave.

Freedom means not being forced to pay income taxes, withholding taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, medicaid taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes, plus a bevy of other taxes like gasoline taxes and sales taxes.

Liberty

National socialism...

From a recent column, linked today at Lew Rockwell:

John T. Flynn saw Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as an American transposition of Fascism. Garet Garrett, another critic of Roosevelt, understood that the United States was undergoing a revolution — of the kind Aristotle had called “revolution within the form.” America was not so different from its enemies as most Americans liked to believe. By now it’s a little late for conservatism; most of the things worth conserving were destroyed a long time ago.

Still, “superficial” differences can be important. If all modern states are versions of national socialism, I’d rather live under one with habeas corpus and freedom of the press than under one without them. I’d rather be permitted to speak my mind than forbidden to.

But let’s be clear about this. Americans are still permitted to do a great many things, though not as many things as their ancestors could take for granted. Fine. But permission isn’t freedom. The privilege of a subject isn’t the right of a free man. If you can own only what the government permits you to own, then in essence the government owns you. We no longer tell the state what our rights are; it tells us.

Such is the servitude Americans are now accustomed to under an increasingly bureaucratic state. Permission, often in the form of legal licensing, is the residue of the old freedom; but we’re supposed to think that this is still “the land of the free,” and that we owe our freedom to the state, its laws, and especially its wars. The more the state grows — that is, the more it fulfills the character of national socialism — the freer we’re told we are.

Socialism

New World Order is here...

Goldwater sees elitist sentiments threatening liberties

CFR Membership list?

When I watch modern politics and the phony news coverage of them, I concluded that the globalists use people's unwillingness to consider "conspiracy" theories to their advantage. People don't want to take the time to investigate "conspiracy" theories, and they don't want their beliefs that things are as they appear to be challenged.

Is it really that hard to believe that there are "secret" forces pulling the strings behind the scenes that are presented to the American people every day in our courtrooms, our media outlets, our college campuses, and our political rhetoric?

How else does one explain the virtual media blackout of whole segments of the American people, namely the far-right nationalists who are growing in number?

The 'panel' on FNC's Brit Hume show pretends that Fred Barnes is representative of the conservatives in America when he is actually a 'neocon', essentially an international socialist?

Michael Savage has been effectively blacked out of the mainstream media, especially since his brief stint on MSNBC, despite having 3 NYT best sellers?

Sean Hannity works for ABC radio, the same ABC he supposedly bashes every day for being part of the liberally biased MSM?

Nobody in the American government has been fired for the 'tragedy' that occurred on 9/11/01, in fact several members of the failed government have been given medals and awards for their 'service'?

Timothy McVeigh was rushed to the death chamber before attempts were made to fully investigate his connections with Saddam Hussein, yet within years America is at war with Saddam because of his supposed terror ties?

Historical timeline to the NWO...

This page isn't the prettiest on the web, but it has oodles of fascinating links about the history and rise of the international socialist movement which I believe currently has a grasp upon the highest ranks of the United States government, including members of the Senate and key figures in the White House.

New World Order

Katrina bigotry...

Given that 67% of pre-Katrina New Orleans residents were black, I think the fact that 41% of the deaths there were suffered by caucasians illustrates racism and bigotry on the part of rescue workers and various government officials. Clearly these anti-white policies carried out by Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco must be addressed, and clear explnanations given as to why so many whites, specifically the elderly, were left to die while the relief efforts were directed towards the black community.



Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the stats on this.

Katrina

American left has no memory...

From "Why the U.S. bombed," The Washington Times, Oct. 16, 1998, by National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger:

"Following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the United States launched a missile strike against a factory in Khartoum, Sudan, as well as against terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Since then, some critics have suggested that we acted precipitously when we struck the Sudanese Al Shifa plant. But, given what we knew, to not have acted against that facility would have been the height of irresponsibility.

"First, we knew that the Osama bin Laden terrorist organization was bent on large-scale violence against Americans... And we had information that bin Laden has been seeking chemical weapons to use in his terrorist acts.

"Second, we had physical evidence indicating that Al Shifa was the state of chemical weapons activity... We found the presence of EMPTA, a chemical essential for making deadly VX nerve gas...

"Other products were made at Al Shifa. But we have seen such dual-use plants before -- in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted in chemical weapons activity in Sudan.

"Third, we had information linking bin Laden to the Sudanese regime and the Al Shifa plant. Bin Laden lived in Sudan ... until he was expelled under international pressure. He left behind associates and facilities and has maintained a close relationship with the government...

"To those who assert we did not act appropriately, I would ask: With information that bin Laden had attacked Americans before and planned to do so again, that he was seeking chemical weapons to use in future attacks, that he was cooperating with the government of Sudan in those efforts, and that Sudan's Al Shifa plant was linked both to bin Laden and chemical weapons, didn't the United States government have a responsibility to the American people to counter this threat? I believe the unequivocal answer is yes."

Thanks to Michael Reagan for the link to this story.

More on the big lie...

Over 60,000,000 people supposedly voted for George Bush last November in the Presidential election. I was one of them. It was my first-ever vote in a Presidential election, and likely my last vote for a Republican or Democrat for a long time to come.

Clearly the Democrat party has fallen from what it once was, namely a defender of minority rights and worker's protection, to a flagrantly in-your-face socialist movement.

However, most Americans fail to grasp the huge shift in the Republican party that has transpired from the days of Barry Goldwater's failed Presidential bid, through the Reagan years, and materializing into what the party is(not) today.

On the surface, Republicans claim to still support limited government, responsible fiscal policies, strong nationalism, and individual sovereignty, yet nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider this report about a recent outburst from America's supposedly "conservative" President:

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Jail or taser, you choose...

From IndyStar.com:

When a sheriff's deputy warned Jennifer Marshall to take a sobriety test or face a trip to jail, her first thought was to call her lawyer.
When the deputy thought she showed illegal resistance by refusing to drop her cell phone, he proclaimed "Taser time" -- and dropped her with an electrical jolt from his stun gun.

Here's a video feed which starts when Ms. Marshall turns to reach for her cell phone.

More tyranny from the jack-booted thugs who claim to "serve and protect" the People. No, in this case, the thugs in blue went way over the line. Not only did they deny a suspect a right to counsel under a coercive threat of Ms. Marshall's loss of liberty, Constitutionally questionable in its own right, but they tased somebody who did not present a threat to the officers as is clearly shown in the video.

No, these overzealous cops wanted to show force on a weak person who is unable to defend herself. Either we stand up to these government agents, or they will continue to trample all over us and our rights.

More hypocrisy from the Bushbots...

I just couldn't pass this one up, an entry by Thomas DiLorenzo on Lew Rockwell blog:

For the past week, every time I've tuned in to one of the foaming-at-the-mouth neocon radio blabbermouths to see what the White House Lie of the Day is, they've been going on and on and on about how so many retailers have eliminated the word "Christmas" from their advertising and are using "Holiday" instead. Whether it's the local neocon Bush worshippers here in Baltimore, or the national neocon Bush worshippers like Hannity, Liddy and Limbaugh, it's been the exact same complaint: Those cowardly business people have caved in to "The Left" and have besmirched Christmas and Christianty. They are waging letter-writing and telephone complaint campaigns against Target, Wal-Mart, Lands End, Sears, and many others. They're outraged. Outraged!

Guess what? The man who the neocon radio talking heads love more than life itself, the man who will save all of humanity by eradicating evil from the planet, the man who will inevitably be judged as a prophet, the man who cannot speak in complete sentences or read off of note cards, the man whose closest friends call him "Dub-Yuh," has sent out White House "Holiday Greetings" cards with no mention at all of Christmas! Oh, what a dilemma this creates for the bla, bla, bla, bla, bla class.

Liberal Christianity...

Apparently, many on the not-so-silent-anymore majority in America known as the 'religous right' aren't very thrilled about the secular nature of White House Christmas cards.
According to the Washington Post:

"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Bush "claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn't act like one," said Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com. "I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it."

But, here is the big part of the story:

That is the same rationale offered by major retailers for generic holiday catalogues, and it is accepted by groups such as the National Council of Churches. "I think it's more important to put Christ back into our war planning than into our Christmas cards," said the council's general secretary, the Rev. Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman.

The American left is trying to spread the false idea that Jesus' message was about pacifism, and therefore the proper thinking for Christians is to oppose war at all costs. (Unless the war in question is the one against Individualism, being waged in schools and courtrooms across America every day.)

Ultimately, just as the Democrat/socialist party loses support when truth and open discussion are popular, so too will the religous left when their agenda is exposed for America to see and judge.

I don't think these phony religous interpretations resonate much beyond the socialist pulpits of Ivy League classrooms and the insulated clubs whose doors open only to the elites who run our media and entertainment industries.

No, Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public living in the types of cities and towns which resemble 80% of the rest of the country are not buying into the religous left and its socialist agenda. Watching the elitists on the left scratch and claw as their reign on power crumbles around them has been proving rather humorous to this American. As they say, truth is often stranger than fiction, and in this case much more entertaining.

Murtha is a fool or a traitor...

"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, a month after 4 U.S. Military Police had been killed in Somalia by a remote-detonated land mine.

The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."

Two weeks later, after 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in the battle of Mogadishu, Murtha visited U.S. forces in Somalia.

Upon his return he proclaimed to the world that the Mogadishu defeat had a devastating impact on the Rangers' morale.

"They're subdued compared to normal morale of elite forces," Murtha said. "Obviously, it was a very difficult battle. A lot of Somalis were killed, but it was a brutal battle."

Murtha said the U.S. had to no choice but to pull out now, explaining, "There's no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."

'Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows,' the terror chief recalled. 'America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.'

Osama bin Laden 1998

Timetables for withdrawl...

According to a story on World Net Daily:

Recently released crime statistics show the homicide rate in California is 265 percent higher than the death rate suffered by U.S. and British military personnel in Iraq.

According to the report "Crime in California 2004," compiled by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, there were 2,394 reported homicides in the Golden State last year. That compares with 905 deaths of coalition forces in Iraq, chiefly Americans and Brits, during the same time period.

Is it time to pull out of California yet?
Timetable

Illogical war mongering...

The war mongers on the right insist that setting a “timetable” for our exit from Iraq would cause the terrorists to cease their jihad for the interim in an effort to convince the American people that our military is no longer needed to help prop up the puppet government in Iraq.

The day after our last man left Iraq, months or years too early the war mongers claim, massive violence would break out, and the ill-prepared Iraqi army would not be able to stand their ground.

This argument makes no sense. The reality of the situation is that American forces will only leave when the insurgency seems to be over, and will stay so long as it continues (think Korea). Only when the insurgents stop attacking will we leave their country. Therefore, the best way to get us to leave their country is by NOT attacking us and giving the illusion that Iraq has been pacified rather than attacking us and trying to rack up unacceptably high casualty rates.

The failure of big government...

The same socialist left that demands a cradle to grave welfare state supports the “right to privacy” of a pregnant mother whose conduct causes her fetus harm or even death. Since the Supreme Court of Hawaii has recently said that an unborn baby is not a “human being”, a woman whose repeated use of crystal meth immediately preceeding her baby's birth and near immediate death has been freed from prison.

The problem with this line of thinking is simple. The socialist left tells the rest of us that social safety nets are necessary, and always underfunded, yet those of us who provide these very safety nets have no legal or moral authority to regulate conduct of those whose behavior are responsible for the supposed necessity of those safety nets.

With abortion, the left tells us that the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy is hers and hers alone. They tell us that public schools are appropriate fora for sex education, and that union member teachers are the appropriate vehicle for delivery of the lessons. Yet, when their social models unravel, as with pregnant teens seeking abortions for example, they rush to cover it up and stymy any legislative attempts at publicizing the policy failure.

In making their case, the abortion crowd states that babies aren't people, and therefore don't enjoy 5th or 14th amendment protection of their right to life. These promoters of irresponsibility have succeeded in Hawaii at creating a virtual barrier between the life of a person in utero and the life of a person outside of the mother. To them, it is as if a baby spontaneously forms into being at the moment of birth, totally independent of any prior biological or chemical process of itself or its mother.

Now, we have reached a new low where a mother who abuses illegal drugs cannot be held criminally liable for the health of her baby upon delivery, even when that baby will be receiving taxpayer funded medical care, housing, and food. Until such time as the United States government abolishes each and every one of its social agencies and departments, as one American who "contributes" under threat of government coercive force to those social safety nets, I think that I should also retain some level of authority over the conduct of these people who claim to retain some level of authority over the property I earn through my labor.

If these welfare families demand the use of government force to compel my subsidization of them, I demand the use of government force to minimize the amount of damage they are able inflict on my property. Were they to cease demands to the ownership rights of the property that I have earned, I will gladly respond by ceasing my demands that the government regulate their behavior.