Vote for America — Vote for Trump


Trump- Americans Come 1st NOT ...

Justin Smith makes the case for the reason Conservatives/Republicans that are Never Trumpers are handing the November 2016 election to Crooked Hillary – America’s worst lying, corrupt, deceptive and more than likely treasonous [perhaps on a larger scale than Obama] politician EVER.

 

JRH 8/15/16

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Vote for America — Vote for Trump

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/13/2016 1:38 PM

 

If ever there was a time to stand on one’s principles and the principles that built America and made Her strong, it is now. The future of America is at stake, and for anyone to still be screaming “never Trump” is not very principled, especially in light of Donald Trump’s “America First” policies and the great speech he presented to the Detroit Economic Club recently. Screaming “never Trump” is actually fairly anti-American and immoral, if one understands that the alternative is Hillary Clinton and policies that are certain to undo the U.S. Constitution and destroy America. [Bold text emphasis by the Editor]

 

Once one looks at the stark differences between the two candidates, despite any valid points myself and others made in opposition to Trump during the primary, one must ask the “never Trump” people, just what principles are you holding on to so tightly that you would pave the way for Hillary Clinton — the most corrupt, dishonest and despicable politician in American history, a Chavez imitator and an Alinsky acolyte — to win the presidency and implement plans that will kill the U.S. economy and individual liberty?

 

Donald Trump said it best on August 8th: (Hillary Clinton) supports the high taxes and radical regulation that forced jobs out of your community … and crime policies that made you less safe … and immigration policies that have strained local budgets … and the trade deals like NAFTA, signed by her husband, that have shipped our jobs to Mexico and other countries …”.

 

Ninety-four million Americans are currently outside the labor force, 14 million of those added under Obama, while American households are earning $4000 less than they were over a decade ago. And Progressive Democrat policies have driven seven million more Americans into poverty. Hillary Clinton offers more of the same.

 

The large number of Democratic promises to implement a massive socialist expansion of government, including everything from subsidized abortions and “sky-is-the-limit” confiscatory taxation to new job-killing regulations and the radical climate change agenda, makes the current $20 trillion national debt look like chump-change. Literally millions of new federal employees will be required to operate such an intrusive government.

 

As Trump noted in Detroit, “If you were a foreign power looking to weaken America, you couldn’t do better than Hillary Clinton’s economic agenda.”

 

During his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Bernie Sanders told the crowd: “Together, my friends, we have begun a political revolution to transform America, and that revolution, our revolution, continues.”

 

Hillary Clinton elaborated clearly in her acceptance speech, as she promised amnesty for approximately 30 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. This is part of her greater plan to make these illegal aliens U.S. citizens with full voting rights, in order to build a permanent Democratic majority that controls America.

 

Hillary is also proposing a 550% increase in Syrian refugees, importing 65,000 Syrians in a single fiscal year in addition to the 149,000 Muslims granted green cards annually, and this would amount to roughly 214,000 in her first year as president. She could potentially resettle 1.5 million Muslims to America, if she served two terms. But Donald Trump promises to halt this Progressive insanity and all immigration from regions that support and export terrorism, like Syria.

 

The next President of the United States could potentially appoint four Supreme Court Justices. While Clinton will certainly appoint Leftist Supreme Court Justices, modeled after Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who regularly usurp the U.S. Constitution in favor of “social justice”, Trump will appoint Conservative Justices, similar to Antonin Scalia, with the possible exception of his sister, who respect the rule of law expressed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, including the inalienable right to life and the Laws of Nature and God. Clinton will protect Obama’s anti-American policies, and Trump will rip Obama’s dastardly legacy up by its roots.

 

Donald Trump has proven that he will go bare-knuckles with Obama and Hillary on every major scandal and issue during their terms in office, from Fast and Furious and the Iranian Nuclear Deal to Benghazi, Hillary’s illegal email schemes and Pay-to Play corruption. This is his badge of honor. He is fighting to keep America from becoming far removed from the America of the 20th Century and far removed from anything resembling a nation founded on freedom and liberty, as envisioned by our Founders.

 

Trump’s finely articulated policy plans spoke of “jump (starting) America” out of “the weakest so-called recovery since the Great Depression” (only 1.2% growth), ending over-regulation that costs America $2 trillion annually and tax reforms for all Americans (Make America Grow Again). He also offered logical, well-thought and common-sense ideas for energy and trade.

 

Without going into the details, part of Trump’s message stated: “A Trump administration will end this war on the American worker and unleash an energy revolution that will bring vast new wealth to our country … When we reform our tax, trade, energy and regulatory policies, we will open a new chapter in American Prosperity.”

 

How about crime? Trump claims the title of “the law and order president”. Clinton invited the mothers of thugs to speak at the DNC.

 

If this is really a matter of conscience and principle for the “never Trump” conservatives, are they actually prepared to hand Hillary the Oval Office by refusing to vote or vote third party? Or worse — will many of them vote for Hillary, as some have suggested, setting in motion the completion of Obama’s destructive and catastrophic fundamental transformation of America?

 

How will they feel about their principles once America lies at their feet in shambles?

 

The principled vote is one cast for Donald Trump, who loves and fights for America, if “never Trump” conservatives are honest. If anyone believes Trump to be bad, Hillary, who loathes America and desires unrestrained power, is worse, as she coddles America’s enemies and neglects national security concerns. Hillary’s disastrous socialist ideas are pulled straight from the despots’ historical ash heap and the burial grounds of millions of their victims, nations destroyed by crushing poverty, civil strife and violence. Donald’s ideas are straight from traditional conservative principles that offer peace through strength and economic prosperity for our country. And economic prosperity, history proves, always provides greater individual liberty.

 

“We will put new American metal into the spine of this nation … Only by changing to new leadership, and new solutions, will we get new results. We need to stop believing in politicians, and start believing in America … We are ready to dream great things for our country once again. We are ready to show the world that America is Back –Bigger, and Better and Stronger Than Ever Before.” — Donald Trump speaking at the Detroit Economic Club on August 8th, 2016.

 

By Justin O, Smith

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text embraced brackets are by the Editor. Text embraced by parentheses are by Justin.

 

© Justin O. Smith

A Devil’s Pact


Justin Smith joins the long list of Conservatives – like the ones of the National Review – who believe Trump is swindling Conservatives through manipulation of voter anger with Obama’s policies and agenda.

On a personal level I am a Ted Cruz supporter. Nonetheless, I think I understand Trump’s popularity among Conservative-Republican voters. People are fed-up with Obama’s immigration policies whether they are illegal aliens from south of the border or refugee imparted status to Muslims fleeing conflicts originating with the Islamic Terrorists of ISIS-ISIL-IS-Daesh. Also Trump offers a Make-America-great theme. However, Trump is rather obscure on how that path will be achieved concretely. Yet angry Americans don’t care about the obscurity is long as there is the appearance someone intends to move heaven and earth to make America great again as in BEFORE Obama.

Ted Cruz is truly a Conservative. Offers a more concrete path to American greatness without making a bargain with a deal that validates his leadership more than upgrading America.

I could probably ramble on but this is Justin Smith’s time to share.

JRH 1/25/16

Please Support NCCR

*************************

A Devil’s Pact

Destroying the Heart of America

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 1/24/2016 2:06 PM

Donning a conservative persona, Donald Trump is cleverly pandering to American conservative’s and presenting his utopian hell as a Trump paradise, in which America is made “great again.” And, while America’s many virtues and time honored principles are still largely intact — while suffering constant Progressive and fascist assaults — Trump voters and fools are not concerned that Trump’s policy plans shift with each successive speech, because they only want a strongman who shares their values. Their disregard for circumspect scrutiny and their failure to demand policy details from Trump will serve to further demolish constitutional governance in America.

Yes. In some instances, Trump has correctly identified certain areas of crisis in America, such as immigration and refugee policies, in a manner similar to that of any average ten-year old in the country, with a sincerity that is highly questionable. He rarely makes clear statements regarding America’s problems, while stating that he will do “great things, without providing specifics, facts, details, substance or principles.

Trump is a dangerous anti-free market, crony capitalist, big government, statist demagogue, who never makes any arguments for libertarianism, conservatism or the Constitution. But he does brag of his own corrupt nature and just how easily he “buys” corrupt politicians.

Why on earth would any liberty loving, honest, selfless American, with an unshakable inner faith in God and America, want to replace Obama’s corrupt administration with an equally corrupt Trump administration?

The few times Trump has managed a coherent thought, Americans have heard Trump brag about how he’ll “get things done” with the Democrats, in compromise. Compromising the founding principles that built America with the foreign ideas of Marxism is the reason we’re in this mess now. Conservative Americans do not want any more of such “compromise” — “compromise” — a Progressive code for “let’s destroy the U.S. Constitution.”

Representing big trouble for America, we recently witnessed statist Progressive Republicans, under Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, give Obama a larger spending bill than even the Democrats had asked to receive. And Senator Ted Cruz notes: “Why is a Republican majority leader fighting to accomplish the priorities of the Democratic minority?”

With such an enormous Progressive presence in both parties inside the D.C. establishment and Trump’s own acknowledged affinity to the Democratic Party and New York values [i.e. abortion and gun control], what can America really expect from Trump? It certainly won’t be less government and more individual liberty.

In 2009, Trump told Neil Cavuto (Fox News) that Obama’s stimulus “had to be done”, which isn’t accurate in light of U.S. bankruptcy laws and propagates the Marxist myth of financial institutes “too big to fail.” Trump would later elaborate to the Conservative Review: [The stimulus was] “pork, as we call it, or … gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he’s [Pres. Obama] doing very well.”

When the Tea Party Patriots asked Trump to commit to the Penny Plan and cut $0.01 per year from every dollar of Federal spending, Trump refused and stated: “I will propose budgets that freeze overall spending levels until such time as the budget comes into balance.” [Scroll down to point 4]

This guarantees the continuation of trillion dollar budgets; and necessarily, the only way that the budget can be balanced is by increasing tax revenues by more than half a trillion dollars annually. This will happen only by raising taxes.

Most of the best known economic experts, the Tax Foundation [a nonpartisan tax research group], the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center [TPC Details] contend that Trump’s tax plans will increase the national debt by $10.14 trillion over a decade and $24.5 trillion in two decades, unless it includes huge spending cuts. This debt will eventually have to be paid, so Trump’s tax cuts are only temporary at best; and payment will fall on the shoulders of the next generation of Americans.

Americans will also find Trump unsympathetic to their desire to protect their private property. He loves the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, which allows the transfer of less prosperous landowners’ private property to wealthy private developers in a reprehensible abuse of eminent domain, if it provides a financial boost to the local community. Trump has utilized this maneuver several times in the past, starting with Vera Coking in the 1990s.

And can America trust Trump to lead a Congressional repeal of Obamacare, since he has often expressed his admiration for Sweden’s single-payer healthcare system and the socialized systems of Canada and the U.K.?

Do we really want a President Trump, who has said he would like to appoint his partial-birth abortion supporting sister, Federal Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, to the U.S. Supreme Court? — who once supported partial-birth abortion himself? [Charisma News weighs in by showing waffling back and forth on Obama. So question should be, “Can Conservatives trust a guy who pleases the audience listening to him?”]

Then one must consider Trump’s protectionist trade philosophy. It is similar to the 19th century guild socialism that mutated into fascism and then Nazism, and, while I subscribe to a certain degree of “protectionism” to counter current continuing currency manipulations and regularly fume over the damage that the World Trade Agreement and NAFTA did to the U.S. economy, Trump’s proposal of a 25% tax on foreign goods will surely result in a global trade war and punitive economic measures aimed at products made in America. America will see an untold number of U.S. firms leaving the country, as trade grinds to a halt along with our economy.

And, concerning the horrible Iran nuclear deal — a simple agreement between two heads of state and unratified by Congress — Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has said he would “rip it up” on entering office; and yet, Trump calls it a “contract” America must honor, but he would “renegotiate harder terms”. It is not a contract or a treaty, and Trump’s statement is one more example of his gross lack of knowledge and understanding of our U.S. Constitution.

Trump’s brand of statism may not meet the classic text book definition of “fascism”, but his statements echo an authoritarianism similar to fascism. He rarely speaks of working through Congress and he seems to assume he can accomplish his goals through his own will and the demands he will make upon his own authority, with or without Congress, just as he thinks he can force foreign powers to do his bidding. His administration will be heavy with crony capitalism, privilege for the few and bureaucracies controlling everything.

Donald Trump is manipulating the current political environment and conservative America’s justifiable anger over the damage to U.S. domestic and foreign affairs, that resulted from Obama’s Progressive Democrat policies; and in the process, through his populist message, insolent lies and glib propaganda, Trump is perpetrating a political swindle on America, second only to the one Obama managed. If conservative Americans give Trump the Republican nomination, they will be further destroying the principles that founded this nation — the heart of America — and entering a devil’s pact with a fascist.

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links are by the Editor. Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

The Only Evolution I Trust is Conservative Evolution


John R. Houk

© October 10, 2015

Yesterday I received a donation exhortation from the TheTeaParty.net under the guise of Ron Dove. I get these fundraising emails quite often from various Tea Party organizations and Conservative organizations as you probably do as well (If you happen to be a Leftie you probably receive the fundraiser emails also but from the other side of political spectrum). Many of these organizations are quite worthy of support while others probably pad their non-profit salary base more than they should. Nearly all the legitimate Tea Party/Conservative fundraising base have the correct message that you have an affinity toward. In my case, as a rule, I tend not to make political donations until it closer to an election and funding is more defined to whence it is designated.

I am about to cross post TheTeaParty.net fund raiser not because I am promoting them in particular but rather because Ron Dove gives some background from growing up in a Liberal family then in adulthood migrating to Conservatism. That story is similar to mine and I suspect many others as well. It is good to know that I was not the only one to become disgusted the Left/Democrat Party paradigm.

Give if you want to, but perhaps you should a little digging into the Tea Party/Conservative organization best fits your thoughts on a national level. For that matter a local Tea Party organization (one Tea Party directory) might be closer to your heart because they are more aware of combatting Leftist concepts in your community.

JRH 10/10/15

Please Support NCCR

**************************

I want to tell you why I’m with the Tea Party

By Ron Dove

Sent: 10/9/2015 1:02 PM

Sent from: TheTeaParty.net

It’s supporters like you that make the TEA Party great. I want to thank you for your past support of the TEA Party and encourage you to take a moment to initiate a monthly donation, and here’s why.

I became involved in the TEA Party Movement because I wanted to encourage people to think for themselves. I grew up in a Liberal household. As I was growing up it seemed like most decisions liberals made were because they were always made that way in the past. They did not even think about an issue or who to vote for. They always toed the party line. How many minority voters have voted as Democrats simply because they do not know any different? I, and we, should be educating all voters on what the Tea Party and Conservative Politics has to offer. And that’s why I got involved – to make some kind of difference.

But, if you are like me, you are also sick and tired of the same big Political game going on in Washington. It appears that regardless who our “Representatives” are, they are in their positions for themselves and not for us. How can someone represent me and us if they are there for themselves?

What issues are important to you? This is what is important to me:

o Immigration/Secure Our Borders – I live 40 miles from the Mexican border in Southern Arizona. I know about the illegal immigration problem because I see it and live it every day. My Grandparents came to this Country as immigrants. I appreciate that people want and need to come here to make a better life for themselves and their families. However, it has to be done the proper way! Our Government needs to enforce existing laws and come up with new ways to keep undocumented people out of Our Country.

o Our 2nd Amendment Rights – It seems like we are constantly trying to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. I am sick of this constant occurrence. Are you?

o Health Care – The Affordable Health Act is not affordable and is one of the worst legislations ever adopted. We need a leader/leaders that can do better than this!

o Taxes – Is the current system fair? Does everyone pay in? This system is not only flawed, but many of the deductions, loopholes and exemptions make no sense. Do we even need the IRS?

o The Economy and Small Business – My father started his own Dental Practice in 1950. Small business is what grows the Economy and is the life blood of small towns and cities. When was the last time we had an Administration that was small business friendly? We need leaders who understand this and cultivate employment and economic opportunities.

Finally, what ever happened to personal responsibility? We live in the time where everyone thinks they deserve a hand out. We need our Representatives to respect those who are truly in need, but instill the sense of personal responsibility in every program and fund created and maintained by Our Government.

I can think of many more issues that are important to me, us and Our Country. The TEA Party needs your continued help so we unite Conservatives, expose non-Conservatives to another way of thinking and to help to ensure we have nominees that reflect our values. We have expanded our member base vastly in the five years I have been involved; but we desperately need your continued support right away to continue to do what we do. Please, take a moment to “CLICK HERE” and renew your monthly donation so we can continue to be relevant over the critical next 14 months!

Sincerely,

Ron Dove
Tea Party since 2009

P.S. it’s not going to be easy but we can do this – we can take our American democracy back from the special interest-dominated Washington political elites who are driving our freedom and prosperity into the ground. Be a part of our historic effort to turn things around by becoming a Monthly Sustaining Member of the Tea Party today.

________________________________

Our mailing address is:

The Tea Party
211 North Union Street
Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
United States

 

Thank you for your support. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
www.TheTeaParty.net

 

ABOUT THE TEAPARTY.NET

 

Our mission is to recruit like-minded Americans to the Tea Party Movement in order to advance the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty at all levels of government through promotion and education. The Tea Party Movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended.

The future of Internet Usage questionable


 
Published by SenTedCruz
Published on Feb 13, 2015
 
 
Obama is getting ready to nationalize … err, I mean have the government takeover the Internet for massive taxes and other kinds on intrusions likely to lead to censorship. Senator Mike Lee wants you to sign the Protect Internet Freedom petition against Obama’s Internet theft.
 
JRH 2/18/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************
The future of Internet Usage questionable
 
By Senator Mike Lee, Republican-Utah
Sent: 2/19/2015 7:22 AM
Sent as sponsored from: Congress.org
 
Federal Communications Commission is going to vote on it February 26th. That’s why I am writing you today–I need your help to stop this.

President Obama came out a few weeks ago urging the FCC to vote to regulate the Internet the same way that it regulates public utilities under Title II. What this means is that, for the first time, billions of dollars in fees will be attached to Internet service just like they are to telephone service.

You see, under Title II if someone wants to own a telephone company, there are fees baked into the law–fees companies pass on to customers.

Now, under this new regulatory regime, Internet service providers will be subject to these fees as well, and then pass them on to you, the consumer.

This is essentially a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.

The Internet is built on speed and dynamism, it’s always changing, there are always new and better ideas that are exploding onto the scene, and part of the reason for that is that innovators are not having to go ask Washington, DC for permission every time they want to do something new.

What this really comes down to is a fundamental question:

 
Who do you want in charge of the direction of the Internet: people at dot-com startups that brought us game changing companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and Uber; or nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats in our nation’s capital?
 
There is another aspect of this that gets overlooked: the Internet is an incredibly important force for freedom, for liberty, and the rights of free speech that we hold dear. It is an existential threat to tyrants in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia who seek to keep information from their people.

We must preserve the high ground for the United States to stand up to these countries and tell them to keep the Internet free and preserve free speech on the Internet throughout the world. We cannot do that if we are regulating the Internet in a similar manner ourselves.

I am not accusing anyone of sinister motives here, but I am deeply concerned about the idea of any government bureaucrat having the power to tell companies what they can and cannot do. In the long term, this could have a chilling effect on political speech, in ways that today we could not even begin to imagine.

We do not have much time left to stop this gigantic government takeover of the Internet. The FCC is voting on February 26th and the Left is mobilizing to support their effort to do so. We cannot let the conversation be totally one-sided. The FCC needs to hear from us today–not tomorrow or next week or next month. Today.


Please join me and go sign the petition to keep the Internet free. We must stand for liberty and preserve the Internet free of government interference.

Thank you for standing for Internet freedom.

Sincerely,

Senator Mike Lee

_____________________________

© 2015 Protect Internet Freedom

IRS has become Political Abusive Attack Dog


BHO Fake Outrage toon

John R. Houk

© October 28, 2014

 

The 16th Amendment legitimizes the existence of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

 

Amendment XVI

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

Your donation matters.

 

Taxing Power

 

Tax

 

Income Tax

 

Taxable Income (16th Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)

 

HOWEVER, the 16th Amendment does not overrule the Bill of Rights (1st ten Amendments to Constitution) pertaining to the Civil Rights and Liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. And yet the IRS has mysteriously acquired the authority to seize property and bank accounts with the presumption of guilt BEFORE a criminal trial.

 

My son sent me a Daily Caller news story that focuses on small business owner Carole Hinders. Ms. Hinders has made the news ironically largely due to a NY Times articles about her and other small business owners being assaulted by the IRS without actual proof the law is being broken. Between yesterday and today Carole Hinders’ story his hit web in a huge way. The irony is all the sides of the political spectrum are displaying outrage over the abuse of power being exercised by the IRS. Could it be that Leftists and Conservatives can join forces over a constitutional issue affecting American citizens?

 

VIDEO: IRS Seizes Innocent Grandma’s Bank Account

 

Published by InstituteForJustice

Published: Oct 27, 2014

 

Carole Hinders has worked hard at her family-owned restaurant, Mrs. Lady’s Mexican Food, for 38 years. The federal government took her entire bank account using civil forfeiture, even though she did nothing wrong. Now, they are refusing to return her money, so Carole and the Institute for Justice have teamed up to fight back.

http://www.endforfeiture.com

 

Perhaps Congress can wise up and use this unified voter outrage to take some immediate legislative action to curb the power of the IRS. If Congress can enact a statesman form a legislative action pertaining to the IRS, you must realize it would only be a temporary fix. Most prominently these days the IRS is a political tool used by Obama against Conservative opponents, however there are more than one Federal agency that uses a law that has to be unconstitutional. State and Federal law enforcement ALSO utilize the Civil Asset Forfeiture law to seize property and money from American citizens. The thing is the public has looked the other way with government seizures because it is the primary weapon of law enforcement to pin down real criminals especially the kind that has built a criminal empire. Who can be unhappy about taking down criminals, right?

 

The thing is citizens like Carole Hinders or even those that have property that stifles the agenda of local, State or Federal authorities can have their property seized. WITHOUT A TRIAL!

 

As Americans on a grassroots level we have to figure out the legalese that protects law-abiding citizens while at the same go after moneyed criminals that break the law pretending to be law-abiding citizens.

 

The website End Civil Forfeiture explains the history of this practice in the USA and how State and Federal government have exploited this beyond the scope of the U. S. Constitution:

 

Civil forfeiture—where the government can take and sell your property without ever convicting or even charging you with a crime—is one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today. Civil forfeiture cases proceed against one’s cash, cars, or home, which means that property owners receive few if any of the protections that criminal defendants enjoy.   To make matters worse, when law-enforcement agencies take and sell your property, they frequently get to keep all the proceeds for their own use. This gives agencies a direct financial incentive to “police for profit” by seizing and forfeiting as much property as possible.

 

 

Although the Founders didn’t believe in this superstition, they used civil forfeiture as a way to enforce the collection of customs duties, which provided 80 to 90 percent of the federal revenue during that time. The government often could not try owners of smuggling ships themselves (often because they were overseas), and so civil forfeiture let officials seize their ships and cargo as a second-best option.

 

With minor exceptions during the Civil War and Prohibition, civil forfeiture remained a legal backwater. But as the War on drugs heated up during the early 1980s, so too did civil forfeiture. A key legal change occurred in 1984 when Congress established the Assets Forfeiture Fund. Previously, all federal civil forfeiture revenues were deposited into the government’s general fund. But after the 1984 amendments, federal agencies could retain and spend forfeiture proceeds—subject only to very loose restrictions—giving them a direct financial stake in generating forfeiture funds.  Similar amendments now allow law enforcement agencies in 42 states to keep and use some or all of the civil forfeiture proceeds they seize.

 

“Policing for Profit” Creates Incentives for Abuse

 

The changes at the federal and state levels led to an explosion of forfeiture activity. Because in most jurisdictions law enforcement can keep some or all of the proceeds from civil forfeiture, they have an incentive to seize and keep as much property as possible. …

 

… Here are four ways that civil forfeiture stacks the deck against property owners:

 

·         Burden of Proof: For the government to keep your property using civil forfeiture, it must prove that the property is connected to criminal activity.  But where criminal forfeiture requires the government to prove guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” under civil-forfeiture cases the government can prevail under much less rigorous standards.

 

·         Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Although many jurisdictions provide an “innocent-owner” defense that allows owners to get their property back if they had no idea that it was involved in a crime, most jurisdictions presume, however, that owners are guilty and force them to prove their innocence.

 

·         Legal Representation: Anyone who has watched a crime drama knows that the government must provide criminal defendants with an attorney if they cannot afford one. But civil forfeiture victims must either pay for a lawyer—which in many cases can cost more than the seized property is worth—or go it alone.

 

·         “Equitable” Sharing: Federal law provides a loophole called “equitable sharing” to law enforcement in states with good civil forfeiture laws.  This program allows state law enforcement to turn seized assets over to the federal government, which forfeits the property under federal law.  In turn, the feds give up to 80 percent of the forfeited property back to the state agency for its own use, even if state law would have required those proceeds to go into a general fund.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Civil Forfeiture: A Threat to Private Property and the Impartial Pursuit of Justice; By End Civil Forfeiture)

 

The only way I see to change all the law – civil and criminal – to protect the individual rights of law-abiding citizens is to amend the Constitution. I don’t care how much Leftists and Conservatives can agree on reforming the powers of the IRS, you know one day a President will come along to push the envelope of the Constitution citing case law to warp the legalese to go after political opponents. You do realize it won’t matter if that President is a Democrat or a Republican or the emergence of a Third Party to attain the White House, the legalese will be abused.

 

Unfortunately on a Federal level this nation’s governance is way too polarized to effect a Constitutional Amendment to change the definition and application of Civil Asset Forfeiture laws that protects the Rights and Liberty of law-abiding citizens as opposed to moneyed criminals. The only way to amend the Constitution via by-passing Congress is in the Constitution but in the 225 years our Founding document has been the foundation of America’s rule of law the by-pass Congress method to amend the Constitution has never taken place. Why?

 

The reason is political fear. No one active in government seriously thought of the ‘by-pass Congress’ method of amending the Constitution until the 20th century when political polarization seemed to become a hindrance to good governance. The method of offering an Amendment apart from Congress can be accomplish directly by the several States calling for a Constitution Convention. Neither the President, Congress nor the Judicial Branch can nullify or prevent such a convention from occurring. It would be the call of a majority of States. The fear is that a convention to amend the Constitution would evolve beyond the intentions of the reason the States called for it. The very real fear – both Leftist and Conservative – is a Constitutional Convention could take it upon itself to scrap the entire current Constitution. The fear is the potential for a Leftist vision or a Conservative vision to become the rule of law to the detriment of the losing side of the political spectrum.

 

I personally have wavered back and forth on the pluses and minuses of a Constitutional Convention. BUT NOW with the abuses of the IRS simply becoming way too egregious, something must be done. The best thing would be to scrap the whole current tax system developing a new paradigm whether it is income or National sales tax or a combination of both to be fair to the taxpayers while also still have the ability to go after the moneyed criminals of whatever kind of organized crime network might exist (violent criminals or white collar criminals). And whatever that standard is should be applied equally criminally and civilly according to the Fourth Amendment.

 

Amendment IV

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Fourth Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)

 

On a personal level I don’t feel comfortable to suggest a different tax system to shoot for. My primary concern here is the abuse of government power on the Civil Rights and Liberty of American citizens. The very reason and cause of the American Revolutionary War in which the British citizens of America’s Thirteen Colonies felt abused by unjust taxation, improper representation and the abuse of government authority.

 

WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.

 

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. READ THE REST (In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America; by the signing delegates and penned by Thomas Jefferson; Library of Congress)

 

TODAY I feel like the risk is necessary for the USA to have a Constitutional Convention. The Federal government cannot be trusted for a long term reform eliminating the IRS as a political attack dog of whatever political party. Just like the Founding Fathers felt a risk was necessary to throw off the bonds of an abusive government, it has become necessary to throw off the bonds of a politically oriented tax agency as well as other Federal agencies that have gone beyond bounds of the guaranteed Liberty of the Bill of Rights.

 

Citizens concerned for the future of their country, under a federal government that’s increasingly bloated, corrupt, reckless and invasive, have a constitutional option. We can call a Convention of States to return the country to its original vision of a limited federal government that is of, by and for the people. (Convention of States: This One Amendment Could Solve Forty-Five Problems; By Steve Robinson; The Maine Wire; 7/15/14)

 

Article Five of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the two ways to amend the Constitution:

 

Article V

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (The Constitution of the United States – Article V; National ArchivesFederal Register)

 

Our current tax system is a progressive income tax:

 

A progressive tax structure is one in which an individual or family’s tax liability as a fraction of income rises with income. If, for example, taxes for a family with an income of $20,000 are 20 percent of income and taxes for a family with an income of $200,000 are 30 percent of income, then the tax structure over that range of incomes is progressive. One tax structure is more progressive than another if its average tax rate rises more rapidly with income. (Progressive Taxes; By Joel B. Slemrod; Library of Economics and Liberty)

 

DEFINITION OF ‘PROGRESSIVE TAX’

 

A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The United States income tax is considered progressive: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket. Basically, taxpayers are broken down into categories based on taxable income; the more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay once they cross the benchmark cut-off points between the different tax bracket levels.

 

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS ‘PROGRESSIVE TAX’

 

The U.S. progressive income tax is effectively a means of income redistribution. Individuals who earn more pay higher taxes; those taxes are then used to fund social welfare programs that are used primarily by individuals who earn less. Critics of the progressive tax consider it to be discriminatory and believe that a flat tax system, which imposes the same tax on everyone regardless of income, is a fairer method of taxation. (Progressive Tax; Investopedia)

 

Yup, IRS/Progressive Tax is evil. If small potatoes like me has to hire a tax service to figure out the complications of owing or receiving refund then it is evil. How do we replace the evil IRS? The suggestions I have read are the flat tax, fair tax, National Sales Tax or some kind of combination.

 

According to my search engine perusals it appears the Fair Tax seems to be the current favorite tax to terminate the IRS and end political head hunting. I personally see how the Fair Tax (which is actually a national sales tax) looks good on paper; however if things go south versions of the Fair Tax shows sales tax climbing anywhere from 50% to 70% of purchase or service to keep sufficient revenue flowing. Fair Tax proponents tell you the rate is 23% if everything goes as foreseen with a monthly prebate of cash from the government for families that make less than the poverty line in income. The prebate for a family of four below the poverty line utilizing the 23% sales tax rate would receive a monthly government check of $1,983.33 for an annual total of $23,800. Like I said that sounds favorable to me; however if the revenue collection does not complete the Federal budget, does anyone think the sales tax rate will remain at 23%?

 

The Flat Tax still sounds attractive to me. The first problem of a Flat Tax is an agency still has to be around to administer collection of the tax. My God, that agency CANNOT be the same bureaucracy of the Internal Revenue Service. Its management has become politically corrupt that bad things undoubtedly continue to occur. The management level portions of the current IRS must be jettisoned and a whole new agency created under strict guidelines that insures the enforcement of the Bill of Rights in the new tax agency’s collection methods.

 

However in full disclosure Fair Tax proponents do have problems with the Flat Tax. For one thing the politicians are looking for a Flat Tax rate that actually mind cause discomfort for poor to moderate income families while the more wealthy tax payers will jump for glee. I currently fit into the poor to moderate category that would feel a squeeze from higher taxes. On the other hand I also realize across the board less of a tax strain on higher wage earners to wealthy people will release entrepreneurial development that will result in better jobs, more available spendable money and hence a better economy which will also translate into more tax revenue without putting the bite on all Americans.

 

So here are website article with Flat Tax and Fair Tax plusses and minuses leaning to favoring one or the other (in no particular order):

 

o  Could The Fair Tax Movement Ever Replace The IRS? By Mark P. Cussen; Investopedia; 4/4/14

 

o   Flat Tax vs. Fair Tax; By Admin; Freedom Works; 7/6/11

 

o   FAIR Tax Abolishes IRS – Then What? By Peter J. Reilly; Forbes; 8/6/14 9:30AM

 

o   Summary: H.R.25 — 113th Congress (2013-2014) Introduced in House; (01/03/2013): Fair Tax Act of 2013 – Repeals the income tax, employment tax, and estate and gift tax. Redesignates the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as the Internal Revenue Code of 2013.

 

A Constitutional Convention needs to restore Liberty as well as narrowly define the duty of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches to uphold restored and defined Liberty. Here’s part the Leftists will become apoplectic about: A Constitutional Convention needs to simultaneously protect Religious Freedom and NOT prevent religion from being a moral advocate politically to influence government. At the same time government specifically be defined as not involving or inserting itself on how a religion involves itself in politics UNLESS that religion’s specific purpose is to terminate the Constitution, overthrow the government and end the Liberty of the Bill of Rights. Separation of Church and State is a one-way street and not a two-way street. No government in religion but lots of religion as a moral pulpit to influence the morality of society. The Constitution needs to address the issue of preventing the laws and customs of foreign lands from being used as precedents in any judicial case law. There can be no foreign treaties entered into that contradicts the U.S. Constitution without an Amendment change to correspond to that foreign treaty. And as America has traditionally been the melting pot of many national peoples seeking a new life those people must be amenable to swear to abide and uphold the U.S. Constitution adopting the traditions of America first while honoring their former culture second.

 

Well that is the part of a Constitutional Convention I am certain Leftists will cry a convention run-amok. For our Republic to survive future generations the traditions that have made us a desirable melting pot must be preserved. Losing those traditions to some kind of transforming diverse multicultural Socialist Democracy that descends into cultural chaos polarized racially to the extent political polarization tears the nation apart under political ideology rather than preserve national patriotism. Oh yeah … Let’s really drive the Left looney. We should throw in personhood establishing the rights of an unborn baby rather than perpetuate the myth that an unborn baby is an appendage of a woman’s body.

 

JRH 10/28/14 (Hat Tip: Adam)

Please Support NCCR

 

Palin: In November The People Will Issue Their Ruling On Obamacare


 

Sarah Palin 2

 

Here is Sarah Palin’s outlook on the SCOTUS Obamacare ruling via Front Porch Politics.

 

JRH 6/30/12

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Palin: In November The People Will Issue Their Ruling On Obamacare

 

Posted by Tim Brown

June 28, 2012 at 7:33 pm

Front Porch Politics

 

Sarah Palin reacted forcefully to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare today. She said that Obama “lied to the American people” when he said it wasn’t a tax.

 

She Tweeted:

 

Palin Tweet about Obamacare

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page,

 

Thank you, SCOTUS. This Obamacare ruling fires up the troops as America’s eyes are opened! Thank God.

 

This proves to be such an unsettling time in America as we undergo the fundamental transformation that Barack Obama promised he would do to us if elected. Obamacare was dealt in deception and confusion by flooding the public with an overwhelming amount of conflicting “rationale” via thousands of pages of unread legislative detail, which is the radical left’s M.O. Obama promised the American people this wasn’t a tax and that he’d never raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. We now see that this is the largest tax increase in history. It will slam every business owner and every one of the 50% of Americans who currently pay their taxes. The other 50% are being deceived if they think they’re going to get a free ride – because Medicaid is broke. Recipients of Obama’s “free health care” will have fewer choices and less accessibility. Trust me – this much more expensive health care WILL be rationed; to claim otherwise defies all economic and common sense.

 

We will not retreat on this. A newly elected legislative branch is key to defending our Republic and fundamentally restoring all that is good in America.

 

SCOTUS now rules this is a tax? Well, Congress has the ability to create taxes – and also has the ability to rescind them. Upon their return from the July recess, Congress should act immediately to repeal this terrible new tax on the American people, and indeed they must repeal all of Obamacare. This is the most brazen and sweeping new tax and government overreach imposed on us. We the People did not ask for this tax, we do not want this tax, and we can’t afford this tax. This is not an answer to America’s health care challenges.

 

It’s time, again, for patriotic Americans to rise up to protest this obvious infringement on our economic and personal freedom. November is just around the corner. Today, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Obamacare. In November, We the People will issue ours.

 

– Sarah Palin

 

______________________________

About FPP

 

We believe in America.  We believe in America’s people. We believe in America’s system of government. We believe in America’s future.

 

Like the “front porch” of yesteryear, FrontPorchPolitics.com is a place where you can join people of like mind to find out what is really going on in America.

 

Unlike many web sites, however, we’re not just critics. We’re visionaries. That’s why FrontPorchPolitics.com is a familiar place to share frustrations as well as the solutions and strategies needed to restore our nation’s former glory.

 

Welcome to FrontPorchPolitics.com!

Herman Cain Tax Plan


Herman Cain

 

John R. Houk

© October 25, 2011

 

It is beginning to appear the Obama/Dem Party plan to upright the listing ship the USS America is by taxing the rich to provide entitlement money to the poorer Americans to begin spending money that will lead businesses to hire more people for jobs and thus produce jobs and revenue for the US government.

 

If you are a Conservative this plan is stealing property from the backs of owners on a gamble that has failed repeatedly in the past that creates NO jobs and thus decreases revenue to the American government keeping the American Economy on an ever shrinking wheel of sustainability for the livelihood of all Americans.

 

Some GOP candidates have figured out that one way to bring voters to their side is to create jobs by less taxation or by revamping the tax code altogether to a Conservative version of spreading the wealth. The Conservative version of spreading the wealth is to make a fairer and simpler tax code that the largest bloc of voters can understand and get on board to infuse money into the economy and thus raising more revenue for the American government that is fair to the entire economic scale between poor through Middle Class and on toward the wealthy.

 

I decided to take a closer look at the vision of the GOP candidates that have a plan for jobs in which the underlying premise is some form of fairer tax which may run from modifying the current tax code, to flat taxes or to national sales taxes or combinations of all the tax ideas.

 

When I first thought of doing this I thought I could find some inclusive breakdown of the GOP Candidates in the old Google Search Engine. Remarkably I discovered the top search engine results were criticisms of GOP tax ideas rather than evaluation. I guess I should not have been surprised be such Search Engine bias favoring the Left spectrum more than the Right spectrum. So I have decided to search out GOP candidates on an individual basis. I will attempt to post each individual GOP candidate tax and/or job plan based on their intentions rather than the criticisms of the Left or the Right; however keep in mind this is a Slanted Right Blog there will be a smattering of a positive Slanted Right filter.

 

I am going to begin with Herman Cain because it is the simplicity of his 9-9-9 tax plan that has given him a boost in polls without the huge war chest campaign funds.

 

JRH 10/25/11

Stick With the Founding Fathers Original Design


Founding Fathers sm

John R. Houk

© November 27, 2010

 

Here is an interesting American Thinker article with ideas to balance the economic ship USS Economy. In politics I am on board with the principles of balanced budgets, Free Market economics, Less Government, Less Taxes and so on. I am on board with these principles on faith more than knowledge. Frankly I am a Conservative more because of Social Conservatism, Pro-Family Values, Pro-Biblical Christian faith, a Conservative slant on First Amendment Rights, I am very Second Amendment (i.e. that of individuals to bear arms), the reinstitution of State Sovereignty according to the Tenth Amendment and so on.

 

When it comes to Conservative Economics or Tea Party Economics I am in a position of choosing who to trust in what is good for America. As a student of history I can read what the effect Liberal or Leftist Economics has accomplished to benefit people. That benefit is nonexistent.

 

Leftist Economics have the modern world’s greatest genocides into existence. The worst thing Right Wing Economics have done is exploitation of working class people by Big Business. By Big Business I mean organized markets that benefit companies and corporations more than or perhaps rather than the well-to-do that might employ them. This means in the early days of Big Business when the ruling elite of nations were most often European Noblemen or close offspring thereof, the common man was way more exploited economically and in Human Rights than what should have been morally unacceptable as members of Christian nations.

 

I suspect a few national revolutions changed this unequal existence between the upper class and the common man. Here are a few of those revolutions which are not exhaustive, but are from skimming the top of my humble mind:

 

The Magna Carter of 1215 and later revisions

 

Magna Carta (Latin for “Great Charter”, literally “Great Paper”) was drawn up in 1215 to limit the power of English Monarchs, especially King John, from absolute rule.

 

Magna Carta was the result of disagreements between the Pope and King John and his barons over the rights of the king: Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain rights and respect certain legal procedures, and to accept that the will of the king could be bound by law.

 

Magna Carta is widely considered to be the first step in a long historical process leading to the rule of constitutional law, much of English Common Law can be traced back to Magna Carta.

 

The gist of the gripe the Barons had with King John was that he had too much power and they too little.

 

The Barons had the populace behind them, in as much as anyone took any notice of the populace.

 

The Glorious Revolution (1688-89)

 

The deal struck between Parliament and the royal couple in 1688-89 was that Parliament would support the war against France, while William and Mary would accept new constraints on their authority. The new constitution reflected the relative weakness of William’s bargaining position more than any strength in Parliament’s position. Parliament feared the return of James, but William very much needed England’s willing support in the war against France because the costs would be extraordinary and William would be focused on military command instead of political wrangling.

 

The initial constitutional settlement was worked out in 1689 in the English Bill of Rights, the Toleration Act, and the Mutiny Act that collectively committed the monarchs to respect Parliament and Parliament’s laws. Fiscal power was settled over the 1690s as Parliament stopped granting the monarchs the authority to collect taxes for life. Instead, Parliament began regular re-authorization of all taxes, Parliament began to specify how new revenue authorizations could be spent, Parliament began to audit how revenue was spent, and Parliament diverted some funds entirely from the king’s control (Dickson 1967: 48-73). By the end of the war in 1697, the new fiscal powers of Parliament were largely in place.

 

American Revolutionary War (1775 – 83) and Formation of the USA

 

·       Many, many things caused the revolution. From the economic problems, to the discontent with autocratic rule.

 

·       Also, the colonies were not allowed their own economy to flourish, not letting the colonials print legal tender money which also in turn, since any monies printed was not considered by the King, it made it much harder to pay royal taxes. After the Boston Tea Party, came the Coercive Acts, or the Intolerable Acts on Boston, which really upset them and made them want to take even more action, rather than just using effigies (dolls made to look like the redcoats and used to scare the redcoat’s and boycotting.

 

·       Reasons for American Revolution: Taxation without representation in parliament. Colonials thought the English could not control colonies from so far away. (across the pond) Money, people like John Hancock did not want to pay taxes on his goods being brought into the docks or sent to England, import and export. (Some Wiki answers listed on Answers.com)

 

The objective of the constitution was to create a strong elected government that would be responsive to people’s will. Although many founding fathers believed that the new government had to be insulated from the will of the people. The constitutional features were included like the Electoral College and the election of the senate by state legislatures. (From: U.S. Constitution: A Short History)

 

… As adopted, the Constitution included only a few specific rights guarantees: protection against states impairing the obligation of contracts (Art. I, Section 10), provisions that prohibit both the federal and state governments from enforcing ex post facto laws (laws that allow punishment for an action that was not criminal at the time it was undertaken) and provisions barring bills of attainder (legislative determinations of guilt and punishment) (Art. I, Sections 9 and 10).  The framers, and notably James Madison, its principal architect, believed that the Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities.

 

… In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution’s hard-fought ratification.

 

James Madison was skeptical of the value of a listing of rights, calling it a “parchment barrier.”  … Despite his skepticism, by the fall of 1788, Madison believed that a declaration of rights should be added to the Constitution. Its value, in Madison’s view, was in part educational, in part as a vehicle that might be used to rally people against a future oppressive government, and finally–in an argument borrowed from Thomas Jefferson–Madison argued that a declaration of rights would help install the judiciary as “guardians” of  individual rights against the other branches. …

 

Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away.  It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce  liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon.  In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment was included providing that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.” …

 

 

In the end, we owe opponents of the Constitution a debt of gratitude, for without their complaints, there would be no Bill of Rights.  Thomas Jefferson wrote, “There has just been opposition enough” to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the federal government of its essential “energy.”  George Washington agreed: “They have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression.” (Excerpted from: The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance)

 

The French Revolution took a different path of bringing balance between the common man and the upper class. That path was bloody and little to do with offering Liberty and more to do eliminating the French Nobility Class including the French Monarchy with death sentences to transform French society from a nation of an entitled ruling class to an egalitarian Republic. The difference between the Republic of the United States of America and the French Republic are that the rights of man applied to all classes (at least in theoretical law) in America while the rights of man in France were based on fear of the French Republic government rooting out French Nobles (i.e. outright despotism).

 

The American Thinker article mentioned at the beginning of this post has to do with utilizing the tools the Founding Fathers left as a heritage and legacy of regrouping in potential perilous times. There are three authors to this essay: Raymond Richman, Howard Richman, and Jesse Richman. They postulate utilizing tariffs as a means of America equalizing trade with nations that undercut American production with cheap labor producing less expensive products. Then they postulate eliminating corporate income taxes in favor of sales taxes or Valued Added Taxes to encourage Corporations to keep their financial homes in America as well as foreign Corporations establishing American divisions in America. I’ll leave the details of these three author’s thoughts for you to read. The goal is to bring up employment in America which means an infusion of money into the economy which means economic growth.  

 

JRH 11/27/10