On Taxation...

The debate rages on over the most “fair” way to tax America.  Some suggest a flat tax, eliminating all loopholes.  Many others think that the Fair Tax plan is the way to go.  One Presidential hopeful (whom I like) proposes the “9-9-9 plan”…not realizing the way Washington works (…meaning that it would soon become the 12-12-12 plan, then 20-20-20 plan).  A few political-dinosaurs want only minor changes (up and/or down) to the tax rates on individuals and/or corporations.  Some good ideas… Some bad… But all wrong…

Which plan is the best?  Answer:  None of the above!  Nowhere have I heard what I believe to be the best plan…the FOuRTH Party plan!  Instead of having the federal government dictate the best plan for all of America, we believe that the best plan would be to:

1)  Repeal the 16^th Amendment and specifically remove the power of the federal government to directly tax any individual or corporation.  (Constitutionally deny Congress the ability to pick winners and losers in the business world; constitutionally deny Congress the ability to socially engineer the American tax system.)  Then…

2)  Have the federal government equally tax each of the states on a per capita basis, allowing each state the freedom to decide the best plan for their own state in meeting the state’s federal obligation.

The economies of our various states are not the same.  Some states might find it advantageous to use property taxes, others income taxes or sales taxes, and still others might tax their tourism industry more heavily.  Personally, I would like to see most states double their sales tax, then give sales tax exemptions for all American-made (or State-made) products.  But…  Such decisions should reside with the states.

Under such a “de-centralized” tax plan, each state could experiment and follow its own convictions.  More importantly, it would further exploit the value of competition which already has some impact through just state taxes.  Under a de-centralized tax plan, citizens and industries, alike, would be free to “vote with their feet” as to which states truly used the most fair tax system!  It wouldn’t be long before it became abundantly clear which states had the more sound fiscal policy and the best method of taxation…which makes THIS de-centralized tax plan the best tax plan.

On Illegal Immigration...

So, I watched a Republican debate awhile back (not a huge Dolphins fan or Patriots fan, I guess, although the parts that I saw were exciting).  The question of illegal immigration and whether or not to build a fence came up.  Oddly, one might think, the border state governor, Rick Perry – Texas, said “No” to building a fence the entire length of the border, while non-border state candidate, Santorum, and others insisted quickly that “Yes”, we must build a fence…a belief shared by many conservatives.  Now, I like both of these gentlemen, but…

The reason why Santorum and so many conservatives are just wrong on the fence issue is quite simple:  What are you going to do right now about the “coyote” (i.e. a smuggler of humans) who right now is climbing over, digging under, or cutting a hole in the fencing that is already there?  Are you willing to have a National Guardsman or Border Agent walk up and shoot this man (...and, if necessary, those who are being smuggled across the border by him)?

If you are willing to have these Agents or Guardsmen use bullets to stop someone from cutting a hole in the fence, then just use the bullets to stop them from crossing the border!  Why do we so desparately need the fence?  What…just to slow them down long enough to shoot them?  And...if you're NOT willing to use bullets to stop the destruction of the fence then, again, the fence is just as useless because it won't be there long.  In the end, the fence is a boondoggle designed to make it “look” like we’re doing something.

Let’s get to the real issues of illegal immigration:  illegal employment and housing.  Illegal immigration would end tomorrow if we took away the incentives that we offer folks to cross the border illegally, including social programs.  I hear some people say, “Just enforce the laws that we already have.”  Well, no, that’s not good enough either because the price is not high enough.  Let’s look at some serious steps toward solving the problem…

Step 1:  Militarize the border.  This is actually only intended as a stop-gap measure until we complete the “dis-incentivization” process.  We would use deadly force, if necessary, to immediately stop the invasion of our nation by unknown persons.  This would include use of geological equipment (similar to what is used in searching for oil) to detect and destroy tunneling operations.  The probability is that the military would have to use force very few times before the message was received.

Step 2:  Asset forfeiture.  Small fines are ineffective against large corporations who routinely hire illegal immigrants.  As with drug trafficking, any corporation or individual found guilty of knowingly hiring or housing illegal immigrants should face a forfeiture of any assets directly involved in that activity(i.e. the whole facility is seized.)  Any executive and/or board member of a corporation which is found guilty of such hiring or housing practices a second time should face forfeiture of all corporate assets, as well as their personal assets (i.e. a “corporate death sentence”).  Proving that such people have “knowingly” hired or housed illegal immigrants can be difficult because employers make claims of false documentation, but evidence of the under-payment of individuals and/or the failure to use an easy Social Security verification system (which employers and landlords must be able to access) should be considered sufficient proof of the employer's knowledge.

Step 3:  Worker program.  Only AFTER Steps 1 & 2 have been FULLY implemented, we could reform our immigrant worker program to allow non-citizens greater legal access to the American job market.  This program should provide only temporary access to the job market (perhaps 6-12 months at a time), should come with an identification system of its own which requires the payment of an income and Social Security tax but which does not provide a Social Security benefit unless the person actually becomes a citizen.  Conviction for a felony would terminate the individual’s current and future use of the program; conviction for a third misdemeanor would do the same.  Overstaying one’s time limit for the program would be considered such a misdemeanor, but an employer’s continued employment of an individual beyond the permitted period would result in the asset forfeiture sanctions discussed above.  Such a program should also take into account the current unemployment rates and shift immigrant access rates accordingly.

These three steps would effectually end illegal immigration for “friendly” reasons, allowing us to focus on protecting our borders from those with less than friendly intentions.

Incidentally, very few people seem to be aware of the 11th Amendment which might have interesting applications as regards States’ Rights with respect to illegal immigration measures.  (It's worth some exploration.)

We also need to correct the assumption of the courts (and many other Americans) as regards the right of citizenship of those born to parents who are in this country illegally.  It was not the intent of our Founding Fathers to provide an “anchor baby” excuse for illegal immigration and being born on American soil is not the only requirement for citizenship according to our Constitution (14th Amendment).  There is also a clause which reads “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”  There is a need to clarify the meaning of that phrase and, perhaps, even amend the Constitution further to state plainly that citizenship requires that a child be born to parents who are, themselves, citizens…not just residents, legal or otherwise, thus incentivizing the path to legal citizenship.

There is one other question to consider…  Why is it that nothing ever gets done about “illegal immigration”?  The answer is actually very simple:  Neither party REALLY wants to control illegal immigration.  The Democrats have a long history of recruiting immigrants to their ranks and desire amnesty for these millions of potential future voters.  The Republicans desire illegal immigrants for the cheap labor that it provides to their “big business” buddies.

If you want illegal immigration to stop tomorrow, militarize the border and start seizing corporate/personal assets gained through the illegal activity, stop granting citizenship just because moms make it across the border before having a child, and illegal immigration will end.  And, incidentally, we won’t have to worry about “deporting” anyone at tax-payer expense.  If a man can’t find work and can’t find housing, he will find his own way back across the border.

On Education...

Education is a classic example of where the Federal government has usurped the powers of the States.  Constitutionally, the Feds have no authority over the education of our children.  The Feds do not have the power to regulate it, nor even demand it.  They do not have the authority to tax us in order to fund it (at any level).  They do not have the power to dictate what must be included in the curriculum, nor what cannot be included in the curriculum.  ALL of these powers are reserved, Constitutionally, to the States.

Reagan, who was generally considered by others to be a Conservative, actually let us down in this area.  After campaigning on the promise to abolish the Department of Education, he failed to do so.  The power of that department has, instead, been extended drastically to the point that the Department of Education reportedly now has its own armed enforcement division.

Even the Federal court system has no jurisdiction in these areas, beyond infringements upon the Constitutional rights of citizens on other various issues.  One such example would be the right to “equal protection under the law” as was infringed by having a supposedly “separate but equal” education system for black Americans, something challenged successfully during the civil rights era.

“But why…” one might ask, “Why is federal involvement a bad thing?  We all want a good educational system for our kids, right?”  Okay, the first and most obvious rebuttal would be, “Is that what we have?”  A centralized bureaucracy is seldom the best way to handle ANYthing, much less something so personal as the influence over the minds of our children.

The true irony is that we think of those who support increased federal funding for education as being “pro-education”…when exactly the opposite is true.  Federal funds for education come from…where?  From you!  But… The State is already taking tax money from you to pay for education, as is the local school district in most cases.  And… With each new level of bureaucracy, there are more expenses.  One of the few legitimate reasons for having even that state layer of involvement in funding is to equalize opportunities for poor school districts.  But… The more money we get from the Feds for education, the less money that actually gets spent on education.  Let’s do the math…

Let’s say, for example, that you send (through your taxes) $100 to the school district and they use $10 for administrative costs; $90 would actually go toward the educating of your child.  If you send $100 to the state, they might have $10 in administrative costs, so they would send $90 back to your school district which would have another $10 in costs, leaving $80 to educate your child.  When you send $100 to the Feds, they will take $10 for costs (or $20) and send $90 to the state, which will send $80 to the school district, which will take its part and spend the remaining $70 on educating your child.  The more money we get from the Feds, the more money they siphon off from the local area through taxes that never make their way back.

Now, how ridiculous is this practice!  Why would anyone be in favor of such a silly scheme?  The reason is simple:  control!  The money we send to Washington comes back with strings and mandates.  It is the Feds way of dictating every aspect of our educational process, despite the fact that education is not within the Constitutional powers of the federal government.

“So what!  Why is a federally-controlled educational system a bad thing?”  Apart from the fact that it is clearly unconstitutional, you mean?  There were schools (mostly religious schools) when our Founding Fathers framed the Constitution and yet they chose to leave control over education with the states, closer to home, closer to the direct control of the parents whose children were being taught.

The more insidious problem is that the power to control education is the power to control the minds of all future voters.  That presents a horrific conflict of interest for any government, but especially the federal government!  Indeed, communist nations have a very centralized form of education; it is an important part of indoctrinating their societies into accepting their form of government.  But in a free society, our educational system must also be free!  To whatever degree that education is controlled by the Feds, to that degree it will be distorted to embrace the federalist view of its masters.  (For a little enlightenment, search YouTube for “school children praise Obama” like the following:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp-ot_vChlU)

And there is a still more-important factor to consider.  Much to the disdain of liberals, progressives, socialists or whatever you choose to call those who seek control over the minds of our children, the education of our children is a basic parental right.  Education simply cannot be disconnected from our worldview, and the right of a parent to raise their child in the traditions of their own faith is a Constitutional right, under the freedom of religion (if no other).

What does religion have to do with education?  Quite a lot, actually…  Even now, it is the squeals of atheists and religious bigots that you are hearing in the background as they chant their mantra, “Dark ages… Dark ages… Dark ages…”  The dark ages were not caused by religion, per se’, but by power…with those in power (many of whom were religious leaders of the time), wishing to stay in power, denying what science had proven to be fact.  It is not “religious” leaders who are in power today, but rather…it is tenured professors and politicians who are more than eager to deny fact in order to maintain a godless educational system.

The problem today is the declaration of things to be “fact” that simply are not proven as such (…global warming, evolution, big bang, etc.).  “Why, every respectable scientist believes…whatever…”  In the days of Columbus, every respectable captain feared they might sail off the edge of a flat earth, but that one very religious man felt led of God to prove them wrong.  Many of us who are both spiritual and intellectual consider the teaching of evolution, big bang, global warming, and other theories as “fact” to be false science.  It is just intellectually dishonest to call any “theory” a “fact”.  It is a theory, nothing more…and, often, one of any number of competing theories.

We also consider detestable the theft of innocence and the raping of our elementary school children’s minds through sex education (or worse), especially in light of public school’s apparent inability to teach the fundamentals like Math or Reading or accurate history.  We who are of faith recognize that religion played a major role in the settling and founding of this nation, a fact of history which is increasingly stripped from our schools’ versions of history, as demanded by the atheists who are apparently threatened by that reality.  Again, the dark ages resulted from the denial of reality, not from religion.

If “separation of church and state” is such an issue for some, then perhaps they should insist instead that the state get out of the education business which, frankly, has historically been a function of the church.  And…go figure…the church is STILL doing a far better job of educating our children than the state, and with a fraction of the resources.  Private/religious schools have given us a model of excellence to follow.  Why impose federal mediocrity upon successful  educational models?  Can it be for any reason other than control…and control to what end?

On the 2nd Amendment...

I am not a member of the NRA, nor do I even own a gun at the time of this article, but one of the most dear rights to me is immortalized in the 2^nd Amendment:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If I might begin by slaying the “expert arguments” about whether the 2^nd Amendment enumerates a right of individuals, of the militia, or of the state…  Again, from the Amendment:  “…the right of the people… shall not be infringed.”  Those who twist and contort and wrangle over words miss the trees, much less the forest.  It was this individual right that made the “necessary”, “well regulated Militia” feasible.

It’s always hard for me to know if…A) “gun control” types are just so naïve as to think that men in power would NEVER scheme or abuse that power, or…B) that the scoffer is actually more sinister and is actually a part of such a scheme to increase the tyranny.  I’m sure there are some of both persuasions in the gun control crowd… (i.e. those who think an armed citizenry is just silly paranoia and those who actively seek a disarmed citizenry so that a federal/socialized tyranny can be freely imposed upon us).

Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) said:  “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”  It might surprise you to know that our Founding Fathers believed a very similar thing, except…  Mao believed that those guns were to be held by the military and, thusly, commanded by his communist government… “Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.” (Mao)

Our Founding Fathers, on the other hand, believed that, for a people to remain free from tyranny, the guns must be held by all able-bodied men in the nation (i.e. we the people).  Thus, the guns our forefathers were protecting through this 2^nd Amendment were not guns meant for hunting, or for sport, or for even for self-defense, per se’.  The very intent behind the 2^nd Amendment was to allow citizens to protect themselves from the tyranny of their own government run amok or from foreign incursions to which the federal military might not be able (or the federal government might not be willing) to respond to in a timely fashion (e.g. illegal immigration).  Having a well-armed citizenry was intended to deter the ill ambitions of politicians or would-be tyrants at home and abroad.

Paranoia?  Someone once said, “It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you!”  And… If it IS paranoia, then it was a paranoia shared by our Founding Fathers for that was their intent in the 2^nd Amendment as expressed in other contemporaneous documents.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers (#46), “Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

Madison, our 4^th President and the Founding Father largely responsible for pushing the idea of a division of powers between the states and the federal government, and a further division of powers within the federal government, was saying that…at any given time, our own people should be capable of defeating any standing army that our federal government might send against us.

Despite how some modern interpreters twist our founding documents, the Militia was NOT the National Guard, but rather…the Militia consisted of virtually all men – every able-bodied white male…18-45 years of age (1 U.S. Statute 271).  Indeed, there WASN’T a National Guard back then and, even when the National Guard did come into existence, the law made a clear distinction between the Guard and the militia.  US Code bears out that distinction…

US Code: TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > §311. Militia: composition and classes. (emphasis added)

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

And lest there be any doubt created by those who would edit and contort ¶a to say that the militia was only “all males…and females who are members of the National Guard…” No.  All male citizens are in the militia and…females who are in the Guard are also in the militia.  ¶b2 clearly points to an entirely separate class of the militia who are not in the National Guard, so Guardsmen clearly do not include the whole of the militia…which, in truth, is actually irrelevant to an individual’s 2^nd Amendment right. (…which you probably knew, but idiots have to be shown…and even then…)

I will caution 2^nd Amendment supporters, however, to be careful about the quotes they read on-line.  There are a number of sites with quotes that are apparently false.  Their use is unnecessary, even detrimental, to the cause.  That is why I have used only the most irrefutable quotes I could find on verifiable university or government sites.  These, I believe, are more than ample to shut the mouths of the ignorant and the subversive.