Tag Archive: freedom

I just made this comment on a Facebook thread, but I’ll be darned if it’s not a good post, so I modified it a bit (maybe a lot to make it succinct) such that it worked as a blog, and voilà! Enjoy.

My main beef with property taxes is that you never actually OWN the land. If you think having the title and no leans makes you the owner, try not paying taxes for a year. They will take “your” land. Imagine if they did that with ANY other property in your home. 

Imagine a TV tax that, if you didn’t pay, they’d come take your TV. Now imagine it for your other items like your iPhone…or stove…or furniture. You already bought it, it’s in your home, but you keep having to say taxes on it, FOREVER.

The only other time, of which I am aware, that your so-called property is taxed forever is in business. If you have inventory in your store, it gets taxed year after year…forever. It is NEVER yours. It’s a double whammy because, guess what? The land for businesses also get taxed forever. So, you never own your business or your inventory. Never. It doesn’t even end when you die. They just tax the next owner…forever and ever and ever.

With sales taxes, it’s over once you acquire the item. Done and done. It’s your private property and no government entity has sway over it.

With homes, what is supposed to be your place of solace, your palace, is under constant threat of being swiped out from under you.

I’m not saying sales tax is a magical and lovely thing. I’m just saying that, once you pay it, it’s over. It’s not something that your kids will have to pay, even after you die and leave your house to them. This is what people mean when they say that freedoms are eroding. I have a RIGHT to private property. Since when does that right end when I walk into my home? Oh, yeah, since the statists got elected into office by people wooed by their lofty rhetoric.

We need to quit doing that. Seriously. Stop it. Ignore the R and the D. Vet candidates based on how well they speak “freedom.” Know where you stand.




***This post has been updated to add the part about business taxes***

The Constitution lays out specific jobs the federal government is supposed to do. Then, it clarifies that it is allowed to ONLY do those things. Both parties have gone way over the line for decades and people have let them do it, probably because the titles of the bills sound good despite their disastrous consequences, and being illegal.

So, what do you call it when the government steps over its limits? It’s called Unconstitutional, no matter the title of the bill.

Click here to listen to Chad Kent lay it out…in just under a minute. Who has one single minute to put toward learning about liberty? YOU DO, that’s who. Click and learn, my friends…click and learn.

In Obamacare, we find that if someone is of some particular religion, that must be disregarded when they are running their business. They must, even if they object on moral grounds, to offer birth control in the health plans to their employees. Many seem to think this is okay, and, in light of some Supreme Court cases, that seems to be the trend.

But, all we have to do is look at the first amendment to see that this is wrong. It’s simple English: The Congress cannot make any law that prohibits (restricts) the free exercise of religion.

first amendment

Let’s not worry right now about free speech, press, or assembly. This is about religion. Now, it’s clear that CONGRESS ONLY is not allowed to “make [any] law prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The state governments are not denied this. They ARE denied some things, and those items are listed in Article I, Section 10. There are only a few things denied to the states, such as not being able to, as individual states, enter into treaties with foreign governments. It’s a logical list.

Now, you might be all up in arms about this saying that there can be NO restriction on speech or religion!! But, states make laws about slander and libel, and they can outlaw Satanic rituals. That makes sense, and keeps society civil. However, Congress cannot make laws about slander and libel. They also cannot regulate religion.

So, the Congress cannot make ANY law in regards to the free exercise of religion, even telling businesses what type of health care insurance they have to provide to their employees.

If this is not enough to make you understand and be persuaded to see the truth of my argument, let’s turn the tables and see how this works on the reverse. If you are an atheist, and you do want to provide your employees with health insurance that covers birth control, but Congress makes a law that this is illegal. Regardless of your personal beliefs, you cannot offer that type of health insurance. Is that right? No. And, neither is it right to force those who don’t want to offer this to do so.

Another argument is that the employees do not have the right to choose. But, that choice was made when they agreed to work at a business that is run by a certain religion. If I applied for a job where I knew the proprietors were Scientologists, I might not be surprised when they don’t offer health insurance for antidepressants. Since when am I forced to work for them? I’m not, and neither are the people who work for Catholics.

The right of conscience, the ability to live your life, in all spheres, according to your beliefs, is a foundational right in this country. Only when your beliefs infringe on the rights of others can the STATES intervene. For instance, if your religion believes that if a child misbehaves, that the parents can kill the child, this is an illegal act and will be considered a crime, even though it’s in your belief system. This is because the child’s right to life is not to be taken from them. That can only happen legally if they have been convicted of crimes suitable for the death penalty, or if some individual kills them in self-defense. States have the duty to protect the inalienable rights of their citizens. If you are confused about what a right is, or whether health care insurance is a right (hint: it’s NOT), please see my blog about rights.

This bill was passed by the SCOTUS because they said the government has a right to tax its people. Even if we ignore the fact that the tax is on NOT doing something (one of the “taxes” is for those who don’t get what the government deems proper insurance), the ruling totally ignored the first amendment rights  of all individuals to exercise their religion, even in the public square. The amendment does not read, you see, “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion], unless you open a business or are out in public.”

Get a copy of my book about The Declaration of Independence by clicking the link on the right. That document is the premise for our country, and everyone needs to read it. Now, it’s Made Easy! Get your copy today!


The 10th Amendment seems to be a point of contention. Many of our statist friends say that this amendment give the federal government free rein to do whatever it wants, citing the part “not prohibited to it” to mean that it is referring to the Federal Government. But, take a moment to apply basic English rules to it, and you’ll see this is in error.

Here is the text, in whole:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, we see that we can take out the part offset by commas as it would read: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Easy Peasy! If the powers are not delegated to the US, they are to remain with the states or people. BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

This is where it gets dicey. Statists want the offset portion to be highlighted!! “See?” they say, “If they are not outlined OR if they are not denied specifically to the feds, they can do it!!”

Keep your pantyhose on! Let’s delve into that.

Here is the offset part: “nor prohibited by it to the States”. Oh, whoops. Looks like our statist friends didn’t take enough English classes to understand complex sentence structures.

This reads: “nor prohibited by it [“it” means the US Constitution] TO THE STATES. As Scooby-Doo says, “Ruh-roh!”

The following four statements identify that which is for the feds to do, and that which is for the states:

If a thing is not delegated to the United States Congress, it goes to the states and people. (These are few and defined, and found in Article I for a full list of items they are in charge of handling.)

Regarding the states, if it’s not denied to the states, it belongs with the states and people. (This list is almost endless, save the few things denied to them in Article I – such as making treaties with foreign countries.)

The only thing left for the feds to do is that which is specifically delegated to them by the Constitution, and nothing more.

Thus, the next time a statist says to you, “I don’t see the word healthcare in the Constitution!” You can say, “Exactly!” Maybe you will have time for a quick English lesson or two for them.

Any questions?

Here’s the situation. There is THE FISCAL CLIFF!!! and it’s coming up. Republicans don’t want to raise taxes, especially since they are staking their reputations on this pledge that they made not to do that.


We have Obama, who says NO MATTER WHAT, there will be no deal without tax increases. (Of course, the lap-dog media only reports the Republican’s ultimatum, but whatever…).


Now, you and I know that it’s all about spending. The tax rates Obama and his guys (and gals!) are calling for will not even make a dent in the deficit, let alone the debt. The “draconian cuts” are a joke and are not the issue, or the problem, really.


So, what are we left with? An impasse, it seems. OR…


The Republicans could just walk away. Now, what does that entail? It means they say loudly and often, and to whomever will listen and then some, “Obama and Democrats. We quit this discussion. We will not agree to raise taxes, so you put together your proposal and we’ll be forced to vote on that.”


Then, they could be*cough, cough* sick on the day of the vote, vote “present,” like dear leader did so many times, or just boycott the proceedings publicly and with great aplomb.


This accomplishes three things:

1. The cliff will be dealt with in whatever manner the Democrats want. They will, once again, have no restrictions for their plan.

2. The Republicans won’t have to go back on their word, sort of. It’s honest enough for a politician, right?

3. The Democrats won’t have anyone to blame but themselves when it doesn’t work, and if the Republicans were smart (I know, I know…) they would shout this from the rooftops.


But, this is but a pipe dream. This requires that Republicans have a spine, which they don’t; that they have a firm belief that their way is better, which they don’t, apparently; and the political savvy to pull this off, which they have demonstrated they don’t. I mean, they didn’t even consistently and loudly report of the cover up about Benghazi when there was an American Ambassador DEAD along with three other Americans and probably the most important election in decades to win. You think they’ll get some intestinal fortitude over taxes? Think again…


However, if there WERE some kind of Divine Intervention and they all decided to follow this plan, this is what would happen: the Democrats would all of a sudden care MORE about partisanship than fulfilling their deepest desires. They would cancel the vote.


I ask you this: if you have a deep, core value, like not raising taxes in a time of economic trouble because you KNOW it will hurt people, do you really CARE if anyone else agrees with the idea? Would you really stop all votes to make sure some Democrats will agree with you before going ahead? No. You would cast your vote for no increase in taxes like a flash of lightning because you KNOW it’s the right thing to do. But, that’s the exact argument the Democrats use when they do things like cancelling the vote and complain about a lack of partisanship.


Because of this, you can rest assured that the Democrats do NOT want partisanship…they want someone to blame besides themselves.


You can know this is true because when they had control of both houses AND the white house, the Democrats did NOT get a measure passed that increased taxes solely on “the rich.” It failed 194 to 233. That’s a lot of Democrats who voted no, even though they needed ZERO votes from ANY Republican to pass that measure. Why would they balk then and yet have no compunction of accusing the Republicans of holding them hostage now that they have lost the House? Exactly. They needed someone to blame.


They should have kept in mind that, as the saying goes, when they point one finger at the Republicans, there are three pointing back at them.


Too bad the Republicans seem to only know how to navel gaze when faced with this situation. Good job guys*.

*I hope you’re catching the sarcasm in that statement. I was laying it on pretty thick.

Israel: Part I

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 right 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 gotta 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. 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: http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm.


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: http://arabterrorism.tripod.com/FAQ/war1948.html.


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.

Part II coming soon!

**This post has been updated**

%d bloggers like this: