Latest Entries »

To clarify, we don’t need uniform taxes in the essence of taxing uniforms, but by the way of making them equally applicable to everyone. Here is a brilliant synopsis by my friend Rex about how the current high tax rates on corporations really plays out. Hint: it’s not hurting “the rich.”

“Big Corporations have a huge advantage in raising capital because they can take people’s money and give them limited liability. Big corporation executives have huge advantages in tax rates because they can use incentive stock options to defer taxation on capital and tax most of their salaries at capital gains rates instead of ordinary income rates.

If a small corporation borrows from the bank, the shareholder will have to sign a personal guarantee, so the small corporation guy usually doesn’t walk away free when something fails like the big corporation guy. The preferred way for small corporations to raise capital is through prior earnings, but if the government takes half their earnings in taxes, or more, it gets very difficult for the small corporation to control its own destiny without having to resort to banks, brokers, underwriters, public shareholders, and everything else that will limit the way they can use their ideas, which they are usually pretty attached to.

Big income taxes, for those reasons, and others, are not a tax on being rich, but on getting rich. The middle class doesn’t want to stay in the middle class, and that’s the source of a lot of incentive, being able to do things your way and control your own destiny.

That’s what the income tax system is destroying in America, the economic liberty that brings a ton of innovation. That’s why big corporations do all the things to us we don’t like, because big government gives them unfair advantages. Living in a homogenized society may not be the most terrible thing, everyone working in cubicles with a 401k and doing it the way someone else wants it, but that isn’t what made America what it is. It was never meant to be a place where people were stamped out uniformly like postage stamps, standing in long lines at McDonald’s.”

So, high taxes don’t do anything to the already rich, but they sure do keep people down. This is one minor example of how the rhetoric doesn’t match the actual results of a policy. “Tax the rich” equals “keep people down and help the rich.”

Do you want policy that sounds good but hurts the average American? Or do you want policy that delivers?

Know where you stand.

If a principle is sound, and it does not matter if “things have changed.” Lying under oath is still bad, no matter if the lying happens in an email or directly to the jury. The technology involved matters not one whit. The same principles apply in our Constitution. It lays out the principles that are to protect the average person from the government.

For example, the government may not spy on us, or root through our stuff, without probable cause AND a warrant. But, they seem to have missed that part of the Constitution. Listen to The Constitution Revolution with Chad Kent, from March 29, 2014 as heard on The Blaze Radio to see what our government is up to. It’s one minute of clarity. Be sure to listen HERE!




Okay, people, quick civics lesson, and then the commentary:

The President is, in a nutshell, the executive branch of our federal government. Execute means, “to carry out or accomplish,” for these purposes. So, he does not write the law. He makes them happen.

The Congress (made of the Senate and House of Representatives) write the laws. (The fact that they have created agencies that have bureaucrats who write the regulations that go with the laws, thus create more laws, illegally, is another post). They do not make laws happen. For example, they write the laws for how to become a naturalized citizen, and they set aside funds for that to happen, and then the executive branch is in charge of making it happen.

The president cannot, by supreme law – known as The US Constitution, fiddle with the laws. He is not allowed to, say, delay Obamacare, just because he feels like it, or he thinks it’s a good idea.

Well, our current president HAS been fiddling with the law. Not just any law, but a law that he supported the passing of, that he campaigned on – as written, etc, etc. Because of that (and other laws he’s just decided not to enforce), there was a law presented wherein the president would be required to enforce all laws that Congress passed. This sounds good, in theory, but there is already a supreme law that states that. That’s already being ignored, so what makes anyone think this new law would be enforced (which, by the way would be the president’s job to enforce…what could go wrong?). Talk about posturing. These people in office now put peacocks to shame.

Here’s the deal, the president could easily be impeached for messing around with Obamacare, but the Senate does not have the votes for it, no matter what he does. The House can vote to have him impeached on a number of things, but the Senate runs the trial and is run by his party. Guess what would be the verdict? So, what’s a country to do? We The People are to vote in people who will impeach a president that is corrupt. We messed that up in 2012, but 2014 voting is right around the corner!

Another point here is this: if you give power to the government, the next round of people who are voted in will have that power, too. Think back to the days of slavery. There were laws, passed by Democrats, that stated that runaway slaves had to be returned to their owners. What if the president, who refused to enforce that law was jailed because there was a lower law that spelled out that EVERY law, no matter what, had to be enforced as written, regardless of moral conviction? The slave owners and supporters would have had the upper hand due to that kind of law. I’m just saying we need to think wisely about laws that get passed in the heat of the moment as a knee jerk reaction.

To be sure, there is a difference between enforcing slave laws that the president vocally disagrees with, tried to veto, were in place before taking office, is clearly awful, etc, and Obamacare where he campaigned on it, happily signed it into law, and now wants to do whatever he wants with it…because, like many of us said beforehand…it’s awful.

The answer to this problem is not to pass a hastily drawn up law without thinking of the unintended consequences. The answer is for each of us to know the issues and to vote in men and women of integrity to lead this nation. For those who shout that the law needs to be altered (I would say repealed fully!), there is a system in place to do just that…the Congress.

If we can’t vote in people who will repeal awful laws, propose laws they’ve thought through, protect our liberty (what’s left of it), and adhere to the Constitution, we’re doomed anyway, hasty law or not. Know where you stand.

Okay, people, this is a fantastic way to take bites of the Constitution without getting overwhelmed. Chad Kent is brilliant about the Constitution. We need everyone in America to be this educated…and it takes time. Thankfully, he helps you get your feet wet before jumping right in.

Have you been wondering if the President can legislate? Can he do whatever he wants with the laws Congress passes? Well, no…not really. I”ll dig deeper into this next week, but for a nutshell…literally in a one minute segment…click HERE and listen to his Constitution Minute.

Chad Kent

Scenario 1:

Let’s say I have a great idea for a business. I want to give it a whirl, I’ve secured appropriate funding (investors and loans), and I am gonna make this thing happen!! I open my business and things are going GREAT! Things start going downhill, and then I get into trouble, financially. I try to sell the business, but no takers. I am done for. The bank and investors get all their money, but I’ve lost the business, my house, my savings, and my family and I are destitute and homeless.

Scenario 2:

The same scenario, except this time, I incorporate, in other words, I become a corporation. This means that I have some protections when going into business. If things go bad, the bank and investors get everything, except my personal stuff. Imagine things go downhill in this scenario. Several things can happen. I can still try to sell the business to someone who thinks they can make it work. If that doesn’t work, I go under, the bank and investors take ALL the business assets and I have to walk away, jobless, without an income, but my family and I are not homeless on the street. If I had 6 months savings, for just in case I lost my job, the bank and/or government can’t take that money. So, I don’t have to go on welfare or whatever, I can look for a job before my savings run out.

Scenario 2 is better for me, better for my family, and better for the country. If everyone whose business went under had everything taken away from them, there would be a ton more people on the public welfare rolls. This is BAD for everyone. Also, without these legal protections, why would anyone take the risk of starting a business? And, small businesses (having under 50 employees) provide 68% of the jobs in America. If no one started businesses, all those other people would be out of luck. It just makes sense to have legal protections that separate business from personal funds.

So, what are corporations? They are people who have legal protections against being destitute. That’s pretty much it, in a nutshell.

Saying that corporations are not people is like saying that workers are not people because they are a group. “Workers” are make up of people, and so are corporations. This business about corporations being people is only an issue because people don’t know what it means to incorporate. Businesses are run by people And, they aren’t wizards behind curtains, either. All the info you need about a corporation is public information. Take advantage of that, and dispel this idea that corporations are run by faceless, nameless entities. Nope. They’re run by real people, just like you and me.

Israel, Part II, Again

If you haven’t read Part I, please do so now. Part II will make so much more sense! This is a repost of a blog I posted in November of 2011. We begin here where Part I left off:

There was tension (to put it lightly) until 1967 when Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon cut off the international waters to Israel, and mobilized with the intent of completely obliterating the country of Israel. Previously, in an effort to keep the peace, Israel had not answered many (try in the hundreds!) of the terrorist attacks that these countries had propagated against them. The countries continued their campaign…and, they got their butts collectively kicked (again) in 6 days. Got that? SIX DAYS.

Israel fairly kept the land they gained in defending their teeny, tiny country and, thus, it became just a scootch bigger. Seriously, it went from the size of a Ho-Ho to maybe a Twinkie. The important thing was that, after this, they had borders that were actually defensible, and did not require a miracle to defend.

Here is a link with info out the wazoo:

Thus, when people like this talk about how they want peace as long as Israel goes back to pre-1967 (read: indefensible) borders, it makes my blood boil. Too bad President Obama is on board with this nonsense.

Then, you end up with a situation where I have to AGREE with Senator Chuck Schumer* (Ugh!) when he says that, “The reason there is no peace in the Middle East is very simple. It’s because the majority of Palestinians and the majority of Arabs don’t believe there should be an Israel. It’s that simple. Anyone who tries to figure out a way to solve this conflict without realizing that truth will never get anywhere.”

Here are more links, in case my history is not enough and the links I put up only have you thirsting for more knowledge. Now when someone says, “Well, Israel was the aggressor in 1967, you can say, like the intelligent, well-informed grown-up you are, “Nu-uh!!”

There are many more sites out there that have great info, but these are just a couple to whet your appetite.

If people want to try to talk about a conquering country “giving back” land it won, we are going to have to redraw the world map. How far back do we go? You want to start 4,000 years ago? 2,000 years? 100 years? If we start when humans started keeping records, just about everyone on this glob of dirt we call home will be in for quite a shock. And, what do you do with people like me who have Swiss heritage? That country wasn’t even formed 1,000 years ago. Before anyone starts this nonsense of giving back land that was fairly won AFTER BEING ATTACKED, they’d better do a heck of a lot of ancestry research on every single person on earth to see where everyone should go. I hear gives good deals when you buy access in bulk time periods. Until then, how about we drop this idiocy of trying to force a country – that properly defended its borders – to shrink to whatever size other people (who don’t like them and wish them dead) want it to be?

*Seriously? I have to agree with Chuck? This guy is one of the biggest jerks of all time. He’s a misogynist, mean, ignores the constitution, and, and, and…well, a really bad senator. But, he’s right on this and when someone is right, they’re right, even if they are butt-heads.

**This post was updated**

Israel, Part I, Again

I originally aired this piece in November of 2011. Since then, I reblogged it once (in Nov 2012). However, there are STILL people who don’t seem to know how Israel came to be in the first place…anciently, or in modern times.  Here it is, with Part II coming next week. Enjoy!


It makes me irritated when people say they are for peace with Israel, if ONLY they would go back to pre-1967 borders because they are OCCUPYING land now. It’s crap, and I’ll tell you why. This is a really short, truncated history, with links to get you up to speed in case you hunger for more details.

You need know about the 1917 Balfour Declaration in which, Britain, being in control of Palestine, said it should be a “national home” for Jewish people. This is after the horrors they (the Jews) endured during WWI (yes, WWI, too). Over the course of the 20th Century alone, they had tried just living where they ended up (as Helen Thomas indicated they should do again) after being ousted from the homeland lo these many centuries ago. It ended in governments starving millions of them, on purpose during peace time; torturing; gassing; and numerous other horrors, over the course of decades, repeatedly. Can you blame them for wanting to go back to congregating in Israel? Just sayin’.

So, a bunch of Jewish people, after being scattered during WWII, bought all that land that they lived on, pre-1948. The Israelis were, at this time, Jews with no country to call their own (yes, even though Britain said they could have it). They had just endured the horrors of the Holocaust, the Holodomor, and were essentially homeless.

In 1948, after the UN voted for the land to become Israel, and most nations on earth recognizing their government, the Arabs of Palestine, with the aid of Britain, and 5 other countries attacked the fledgling nation. (Note: See the link below about why Britain went from cheerleaders of Israel to terrorist sponsors.)

In the meantime, the Israelis, knowing that there were Arab people in the land that the UN allotted to Israel, in keeping with the Balfour Declaration, had already announced that anyone within their borders would be a citizen, regardless of race, creed, color, etc.

Just so there is no confusion, they were Arabs…not Palestinians.

“Indeed, there is no such a thing like a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day “Palestinians” are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration. That is the historical truth.”


Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie he was fighting for and the truth he was fighting against:

“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians – they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.”

These are from:

The Arabs, who were there because they had been exiled from other Arab nations, decided war and Jewish extermination was better idea. To put it lightly, this was not the best idea they had ever had, because…

The Israelis kicked their butts soundly and their country grew just a tiny bit. It was still, basically, just about the size of a Little Debbie’s snack cake.

Go here for more details:

Sadly, the world said to Israel, ‘Ummm, could you not win that war so much? Thanks. Oh, and will you give back some (read: most) of that land you just gained? Super,” and the Israelis, thinking they might not get thrown under the bus…again, agreed.

Stay tuned for Part II

**This post has been slightly edited since its original publishing.**

The wonderful Declaration of Independence is still in effect today. It has not passed away, no matter that it is over two centuries old. The fundamentals are still strong and solid, even though they are ignored on a regular basis by our leaders. But, that’s another post altogether.

The Declaration of Independence (DoI) is the “why” of America. It defines us, as a nation. Nothing that comes after can contradict it. If the country were a corporation, this would be the mission statement. The Constitution is the “how.” For a corporation, that would be the by-laws. As with a corporation, the by-laws cannot contradict the mission statement. Thus, the Constitution could not contradict the Declaration…and neither may any lower laws.

Has this always been followed to a “T”? Nope. But, it has been followed much more closely than it is today. In fact, starting with Woodrow Wilson (can’t STAND that guy!!), the elites and leaders of the country encouraged people to not even read the entire first part of the DoI, you know, the part that defines where rights come from? Yeah, that part.

Anyway, in the DoI asserts that “all men are created equal…”

So, what did the author and signers of this document mean by “equal”? Did they mean everyone should have the same amount of stuff? Did they mean that everyone has the same attributes, must be seen as equally talented or beautiful, or that they should all have the same likes or dislikes? Let’s read just a bit more.

“…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” AHA! A clue! These are rights they are talking about, not stuff. Well, what kind of rights do they discuss? Oh, the suspense!!

“that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Egad, they don’t even mention jobs and houses, do they? Huh. Well, how can everyone be EQUAL if they don’t have the same things, look the same, believe all the same things, live the same way, etc.?

They are equal in the application of laws and freedom to exercise rights. No matter if you are famous, poor, rich, a politician, a lawyer…anyone and everyone…has the right to live. Unless a person has committed a crime, and been found guilty through due process in a court of justice, and that is bad enough to warrant the death penalty, no one can legally kill you. Period. THAT is equality.

No matter how in debt you are, how poor you are, or who rich you are; no matter the color of your skin; and no matter what your religion is, no one can keep you captive, unless you have committed a crime worthy of imprisonment, and only then can it be done by the governing body, never an individual. THAT is equality.

If you have enough money to buy a thing, that is your thing. You have the right to own it, and no one can take it from you, legally. Used to be that the lowest classes had no right to private property ownership. In this country, they made sure to lay into the very foundations of the nation the natural rights that we have been given by our Creator, and in this way, safeguard them from other humans thinking they can just take what is yours.

If you are born poor in this country, and you work hard (and work smart), you can become as rich and influential as you please. Before this country was founded, only those born to money had any hope of ever having a life of leisure. Only those born into certain families had a chance of being able to study what they pleased, unless they had the outstanding fortune of being taken in by a noblewoman who wished to help a poor soul. If every noblewoman did this, that would have been admirable, but there were so many more of the “common folk” that there was no hope for just about everyone else.

THIS is what our DoI is making clear: we are all equal in our Creator’s sight, we have all been given equal rights. There is no hyphen. The Creator did not give women’s rights, minority rights, or any other broken label. He gave EQUAL rights, and the color of your skin, your gender, your bank account balance, and your ethnicity is of no consequences. That’s why the statue of Justice is blindfolded: justice is to be blind, and therefore applied equally.

To do otherwise is to reject the concept of equal rights, and instead institute preferred or lesser classes in a country that was created to do away with classes altogether.

Know where you stand.

And, buy a copy of my book (link to the right, top of the page) and understand the entire DoI…with cartoons…how cool is that?

The other day, my beloved husband and I were looking for a florist to purchase some flowers to put on a grave in the Ft. Sam Houston National Cemetery.

Finding a lack of actual florists nearby, my husband astutely pulled into the parking lot of an HEB grocery store he spotted. This was great as it was right on the way to our destination, and we knew that every HEB has at least a minimal amount of floral items from which to choose.

Well, this HEB was near the national cemetery. They chose to stock a vast assortment of silk and real flower arrangements, designed specifically for people to put on or near gravestones of their lost loved ones that were buried a scant distance from that store.

Once we had purchased our assortment, placed it at the grave site, taken pictures, and were driving away, I remarked, “That was so cool that that HEB carried those flowers. It made this so much easier for us.”

Some, usually statists or liberals, would think, “Oh, that evil HEB! They are just playing on the emotions of people who lost loved ones! They just want to make a buck!”

First, tell me anyone who is in business, has a job, or is a human being, who doesn’t need to make a living to feed themselves and/or their family. Second, why is it a bad thing that HEB would make that money by providing a product that I desperately wanted that day? My husband and I were delighted to part with a small amount of money to not have to drive to a florist that was at least 5 miles away, or do without.

Second, please tell me WHO should be paying for the flowers, if not me? If anyone else paid for them, and I received the benefit, or HEB did…that would be theft of that other person’s property (their money). Why, exactly, could this ever be looked at as a good thing?

There is a quote by Walter E. Williams from one of his articles that sums up the best way to look at this situation:

Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow-man. With the rise of capitalism, it became possible to amass great wealth by serving and pleasing your fellow-man. Capitalists seek to discover what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible as a means to profit.

And, finally, if you wish to see more about how capitalism is awesome, read this.

In the end, I look at it from a reality perspective, with a firm grasp on the necessity of the law protecting private property ownership. HEB rocks for making a lovely and helpful choice in deciding what to stock.

Hang on, y’all. We’re about to get “churchy” up in here. I am going to write about sins and whether the original sin is THE original sin, which we are all stuck with as our own sin, or if it’s just the original (meaning first) sin.

It all starts out in the Garden of Eden. We see that Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit. Then, God comes back to the garden. He knows they’ve sinned, they can’t deny it. He’s, shall we say, less than enthused. There are consequences. Here’s the question:

“Does Adam and Eve’s sin flow down to us, becoming our sin, too? Or are we just at the mercy of the consequences of their sin?”

This is where we have to look at the nature of sins. If a man sins, does his son have to plead for forgiveness to God for his father’s sin, as if he (the son) committed it? Not according to the Bible. Jesus regularly said to people who their sins were forgiven them. Never once did he say, “Thy sins and the sins of thy parents, which are on thy head, are forgiven thee.” Why should the sin of our first parents or any other ancestors be any different?

Do we have to repent for David scheming and murdering to wed Bathsheba? No. Do we have to repent for Solomon taking many wives and concubines and forgetting his God? No. Do we have to repent for Peter denying the Christ three times before the cock crowed? No. Why? They were not our sins. We didn’t choose to commit them…they did. And, He clarifies this in Deuteronomy 24:16:

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Thus, we can equally say that Adam’s sin not our sin, but we are at the mercy of the consequences of his choice. We read in Romans, chapter 5, that because of Adam’s choice, sin and death entered the world. Well, that means that we are mortal, and we can each sin. Being mortal and being able to sin does not mean that we are born with one sin already committed. It means we are born into a body that WILL die, and that we are capable of sin.

See, God is big on agency…free will…making choices. If we TRULY don’t know something is a sin, it’s not a sin. We read in John 9:41:

“Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.”

We also see that God gave humans, from the first, free will – meaning, He would give commandments, but they had the capacity to do whatever they wanted – and experience consequences for actions. In Genesis 2: 16-17, we read:

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

If we, as humans, could not choose our actions (have free will, otherwise known as agency), then their hands would have been stayed from being able to take the fruit even off the tree, and each of our hands would be stayed from committing our sins. However, because they could act as they wished, they chose to disobey the Lord, after buying the lies of the Lucifer. The consequence is that they became mortal (in that day, they would begin their death), and that sin was introduced into the realm of possibility for everyone. There was never any discussion of their children already being born with this sin on their heads, only the real consequences of the first parents’ actions.

For those of you who think I’m full of baloney, here’s what ya do. Ponder this, search the scriptures, have a real desire to know the truth, and read James 1. Then, pray earnestly for the Holy Ghost to testify of the truth of the matter to your heart. Voila! And, have a lovely day. :D


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 964 other followers

%d bloggers like this: