Well, gee that's depressing. My pastor preached a great sermon on Sunday about the need for repentance and turning to God in this nation. It was sad and inspiring at the same time.
I think we Christians have to continue to pray and teach our children what a truly free nation should be like. Maybe they will be able to turn the Titanic in time. I myself am too cynical to hold out much hope. Truthfully I find myself mournful today.
Celebrate the fireworks! They are pretty and make a loud bang.
. Jefferson himself adviced that judicial review should never be in the hands of the Supreme Court... for that very reason.
Nate, do you know where this is written? Or even a general idea so I know where to look for it?
Celebrate the meaning of the day. A small bunch of men pledged their life, fortunes & sacred honor on this day. Some say for greed. Betting against the worlds toughest army, on a bunch of ill-epuipped, rag-tagged farm folks? Not greed. Faith. No-one never told me so. But i bet that meeting ended with a prayer. On this day a small group of men said it was better to brave the cold of freedom. Than to warm themselves under satan's wing. For theres always a price for that warmth. I can testify to that. I'll watch the fireworks tonight. I'll remember the screams of the wounded & dying. No, i wasn't there.But i know they were. I owe them that much. For the second time a sacrifice has been made so that i might have life; and life more abundantly. The first one was so precious it could never be deserved. The second; with god's help, maybe. I have little life left. no fortune,honor, me? who would i be kidding. Let me remember their faith O-lord. As darkness covers the land of the free, and the home of the brave. It will be my only refuge.
Erik,
Its in the Federalist Papers. I forget which number.
MtHead... you would die for nothing. These people are not worth fighting for. They don't want freedom. Its not our job to force it on them.
Well said, mthead. God bless you.
There will always be problems, but some days, some times, we need to remember why we are here. Faith. Justice. Courage.
Nate; Truly, this has no relation to you and yours. Me, i've worked all my life, and i am dying for the government now.
There were anti-federalists during those times. Read their objections to the U.S. Constipation, er, Constitution. I like fireworks, and I like beer. Drinking and setting off tonite. Have a good evening folks. The majority of your brethern and brethernettes have no clue as to what is happening to their rights or freedoms.
mthead... any chance I can convince you to take some of them with ya?
Convince me? Not nesessary bro. I'm just waiting for the," Whore of Babylon"; (Hillary). To mount up on the beast.(U.S. government). And go for a ride with that cup-o-wrath thing.
God Bless ya.
What bemuses me is just how little people realise they've already lost most of their freedom - just as much here in Australia as in any western country. A good part of it is globalism and it's well advanced.
I was talking to a Republican buddy about how Ron Paul wanted to end the IRS and my buddy immediately started up about how he'd rather a flat tax. It was morning and I'm not a morning person so I verbally jumped him about it. He'd rather exchange one burden for another. Just like a slave changing owners or getting a new cottage. You're still a slave.
Truth is most people are just like him.
Heretic,
If you think you're up to debating why a flat tax is no better than the IRS, bring it on....
Bill, would the IRS (in any form) still exist with a flat tax?
Bill, of more interest to me is how an income tax fits in with the idea you espouse of the U.S. adhering to or abiding by Biblical Law.
Flat tax is just as unconstitutional as the Income tax.
Anybody get the same idea that I do, that Independence Day and Bad Joke Wednesday should be on the same day?
Agreed, Nate.
If Bill is willing, though, I am interested in his answer.
would the IRS (in any form) still exist with a flat tax?
Dumb, leading question. I suppose you could gin up a new income collection agency, or rebadge the IRS. Some government entity needs to oversee the collection of funds.
of more interest to me is how an income tax fits in with the idea you espouse of the U.S. adhering to or abiding by Biblical Law.
Taxes of various sorts are quite legal under Biblical law. The tithe is a tax, after all, and an income tax at that. Romans 13:7;
Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
Flat tax is just as unconstitutional as the Income tax.
It's rare to see Nate speak without thinking, I think I've only seen it a few hundred times.
A few hundred times in over 1000 posts and god knows how many comments?
Not to bad really.
do tell me exactly where the constitution gives the power to lay direct taxes upon the people in a disporportionate manner.
Leading, yes. Dumb, no. I was trying to establish exactly what you find odious or evil about the government knowing anything about your income. Apparently, you are not disturbed by this.
The tithe a tax? WTF!?!?
You equate good works as a result of faith (tithe) with extortion(tax)?
So Bill, was God in favor of Israel having a king or did he warn against it?
...where the constitution gives the power to lay direct taxes upon the people in a disporportionate manner.
http://www.usconstitution.net/
co...t.html#Article5
See also;
http://www.usconstitution.net/co...et/
constam.html
The tithe a tax? WTF!?!?
What do you suppose happened to the tithe? Check the end of Deuteronomy chapter 14 and various other verses about the tithe. Most of it goes to the treasury to support the levites, the government, and widows and orphans.
You equate good works as a result of faith (tithe) with extortion(tax)?
"good works as a result of faith"
Do you know what a tithe is? It's 10 percent of whatever you make, grow, or raise. It has nothing to do with good works or faith. Check out Leviticus chapter 27 for various valuations.
was God in favor of Israel having a king or did he warn against it?
He was in favor of Israel following the law that He gave them.
Simpler question: is the sixteenth amendment 'good' or 'evil?'
For our purposes here let's define 'evil' as anything which violates our inalienable rights.
For our purposes here let's define 'evil' as anything which violates our inalienable rights.
Sure, sounds like an excellent starting point, thanks for letting me define "inalienable rights". Those would be;
1) Everyone has a right to die.
2) Everyone has a right to choose whether or not to follow Jesus.
You have to learn to spell "disgusting" if you are going to use that word so often. I know you can do it.
Bill,
If you're arguing that a constitutional amendment would be required to create a flat tax I agree.
if you're implying that such an amendment has already been passed, you are mistaken severely.
Giraffe... its ok if the joke goes over your head. Its subtle.
Its not a matter of the 16th amendment being good or evil. Its the simple fact that the 16th amendment doesn't legally exist.
Ok, it is pretty tough to get one over my head, please explain it.
An income tax is not unconstitutional. Neither is a flat tax. Neither is lighting farts or whistling Dixie for that matter. Electing a 15 year-old congress-critter is unconstitutional, as is having states negotiate their own trade treaties.
Giraffe,
Pronounce it like a Southron, not a New England snob.
If you're arguing that a constitutional amendment would be required to create a flat tax I agree.
I think I'll answer that more directly and stop being cute. No Constitutional amendment is needed. The Constitution clearly grants the Federal Government taxing authority. I would take a tentative stand that a flat tax is clearly permitted by the wording of the Constitution, a graduated income tax - maybe.
Article 1 section 8.
http://www.usconstitution.net/
xc...nst_A1Sec8.html
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
The flat tax ignores apportionment restrictions, as well as census restrictions.
bzzt.
Our forefathers seem to understand something we don't. That being that 90% of all taxes are paid by consumers. Thats why all the taxes originally levied were pretty much sales based.
Apportionment restrictions are your main argument against a flat tax? Sheese, this will be easier than I thought. And how do you propose to have a more apportioned tax scheme than everyone paying their own taxes based on one federal rate schedule? Lemme guess, next you'll say that it's OK for states to enforce a federal tax, but not OK for the feds to enforce a federal tax, right? And we can get into a nice pedantic argument.
Where's Heretic? I'm looking for someone that has a dog in this fight. I'm getting the sense that Nate's not motivated.
Bill; Why did they feel the need for the 16th if not to get around apportionment & censeus restrictions?
Bill.. I don't think apportionment means what you think it means.
But you're right. I'm not motivated. I'm pretty much thinking of the dog I have to go pick up at the airport tomarrow.
I don't think apportionment means what you think it means.
I believe it's detailed in the original Article 1 section 9, but it means that every state shares the same tax burden, or worded the American Heritage way; "Allotment of direct taxes on the basis of state population."
The purpose of the 16th amendment was to give the feds direct taxing authority, rather than going through the hassle of dividing it up among the states.
Just to be clear on this one, I'm a big fan of abolishing a graduated income tax, I think either a flat tax (lesser evil) or a federal sales tax (best option) would be the way to go. Either of them would be more clearly in line with the original constitution.
Sorry i missed this post yesterday brother.
All I can say is, Well Said...Well Said.
would the IRS (in any form) still exist with a flat tax?
Dumb, leading question. I suppose you could gin up a new income collection agency, or rebadge the IRS. Some government entity needs to oversee the collection of funds
Sorry I'm late to the party, but this one grates on the one nerve I have left.
I believe the income tax is immoral, it is none the government business how much money I made last year, anymore than it is the governments business how many times the Mrs. and I engaged in marital relations. It's none of their damn business.
If we allow the government to collect any tax, I believe a tax on consumable goods would be constitutional, it should be collected by the States, then each month the States send a check to DC, with the following notation. You are not allowed to spend a dime more than you take in, if you do not follow this "suggestion" we will fail to send next months check.
Now wouldn't that turn the feral government on its ear?
The purpose of the IRS is not to collect money. The purpose of the IRS is data collection and law enforcement. The only solution is a flat tax (not optimal, could leave the data collection portion in place) or a national sales tax (best solution). Other options all have worse problems, with the possible exception of a national VAT which would be better than a flat tax and worse than a sales tax. Running the government off tariffs is a bad idea, it hides the cost of government and reduces our competitiveness in many markets. Operating the government as a commercial enterprise (leasing national land, leasing forestry rights, etc) is a HUGE problem for reasons too obvious to enumerate.
OT but Nate, did you read about OSHA trying to make rules to control ammo sales and manufacture? Concealed carry person won't be able to buy any ammos, for example.
Here's a good analysis of the new rules:
http://actionsbyt.blogspot.com/
2...components.html
And http://www.lewrockwell.com/
calde...lderwood15.html is where I got started.
Here's a digg entry: http://digg.com/
political_opinio...n_as_explosives
And back to the topic on hand....
Bill, it doesn't sound like you believe in natural rights, is that a correct assessment?
If not, where do all our other rights, besides the two you listed, come from?
Danny; I think it's great. It'll get gun-owners heart rate back above the comatose stage.
Natural rights and inalienable rights are two different things. And no, I don't believe in "natural" rights as the term is commonly used. Rights can be deduced from laws which are enforced by those who can apply the most force - therefore the rights you are afforded are based on the guiding principals of whoever enforces your laws. Rights vary from society to society, and even within societies. There is a standard of justice, the Bible, to which man-made laws can be compared.
Thanks for the clarification.
Are not the 'inalienable rights' mentioned in the Declaration of Independence a direct reference to natural rights?
Are not the 'inalienable rights' mentioned in the Declaration of Independence a direct reference to natural rights?
"Inalienable" means that it can't be taken from you. "Natural rights" usually means things you are entitled to simply because you're human. Obviously, the very things the Constitution calls "inalienable rights" and what others call "natural rights" are violated every day. So I think this "natural law" nonsense is a fairly pointless, downright stupid, mental exercise attempting to determine what our rights are and where our rights come from - that way lies madness.
The only benefit is to compare modern laws to a benchmark, such as the Bible, to determine where various societies stand. The phrase 'inalienable rights' in the context of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is used in such a manner. It's used to indicate what the author's view of Scripture was, not to say that people actually have said rights - the Declaration of Independence was quite pointed in making the case that these rights were in fact being violated, that being the point of the document and all.
Bill, it seems that your definition of a right is similar to an atheists definition of what is moral.
Nothing set in stone, and they vary from place to place.
In other words, when you boil it all down, they don't exist.
Giraffe,
These sorts of discussions are generally more profitable if you respond to what I actually wrote rather than what you wish I did.
I was responding to your 2:38 post.
Rights can be deduced from laws which are enforced by those who can apply the most force - therefore the rights you are afforded are based on the guiding principals of whoever enforces your laws.
I intpret that: Might makes right. If might takes away your rights, they cease to exist. They are not unalienable. I don't think they ever existed in the first place. They are more like privileges.
The only benefit is to compare modern laws to a benchmark, such as the Bible
Rights and morals have to come from an objective source. That would be God. Otherwise there is no reason to follow morals or recognize rights.
Our disagreement (if there is one) is obviously on the definition of what a 'right' is. You seem to hold that rights are "human constructs created by societies" (to quote wikipedia) I would consider them moral entitlements.
I am probably wrong, I went to public school.
To put it another way. If Hillary's first action as president is to repeal the second amendment, is she infringing on our rights or changing them?
If she is changing them, then I say they don't exist in the first place. Just because a few people a couple hundred years ago wrote a piece of paper that says you have the right to defend yourself doesn't make it so.
If the right to defend yourself is God given, then it can't be taken away, it can only be infringed on.
So, when you say you don't believe in natural rights, I take that to mean you don't believe rights exist at all in the sense that I believe they exist. You see them as societal constructs instead. I think you said as much.
That link Danny put up is the coolest thing i've read in years. Reclassifing small arms ammo, & components, i.e., powder & primers. From an flammable solid to an explovsive by O.H.S.A. is going to be the biggest ass-biting the government ever got. By one of there own agencies. O.S.H.A. is making a rule that sez you can't have an ignition source within 50'ft. of an explosive. Well, When a cop pulls the trigger on his gun, thats an ignition source. In order for any government personal to comply with the law, they'll have to carry single shots. Shoot their firearms at least 50'ft. away from where the ammos stored ,"car", then run back out and shoot again. And this is just the begining of whoas.
Oh no Mthead. It NEVER applies to cops. Although it would be pretty cool. Reissue all service weapons as T/C Contenders.
Next we find that gunpowder is one explosive, and primers are another. Since primers are the igntion source for powder, folks producing ammo commercially can no longer do so. As the act of bringing primers within 50'ft. of powder is a crime. One would think that giving an exempt statis to the police, B.A.T.F.E., F.B.I.,etc. would be the way to handle all that. But, O.H.S.A. cannot give someone an exemption to walking around 100'ft. in the air without safety devices. If putting an ignition source within 50'ft.of an explosive is dangerous, its dangerous. No amount of training or liensing is going to change that. And, since i do nothing with firearms Ocuppationally. It may be expensive to buy components, but it won't be illegal to reload.
Giraffe, you forget the Brady Bill? Alot of cops lost their jobs over that one.
Oh no Mthead. It NEVER applies to cops. Although it would be pretty cool. Reissue all service weapons as T/C Contenders.
Giraffe | Homepage | 07.06.07 - 6:37 pm | #
Imagine doing the 50'ft. dash, back and forth to the firefight. Got to leave the ammo in the powder magazine in the trunk,you know.
They would probably have to switch to bow and arrow. Equus could be a weapons instructor.
It's amazing how these gov. nannys never seem to think things through. Like Will Rogers said: " It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for." Although i might be pursauded to buy single shots.
I am afraid they know exactly what they are doing.
They know what their trying to do. Executive branch tries this crap all the time. Just depends who's in the big house at the time. We all thought we were save with Bush in there. Not so. They do that federal register thing alot though. They push until they get batted back down. Year later their back. Just seeing how asleep we are, how big the sheepeople herds gotten. You-know.
Rights and morals have to come from an objective source. That would be God. Otherwise there is no reason to follow morals or recognize rights.
That's correct. If someone does not believe in God, then they can make up their own rights and morals. Even the briefest perusal of a history book would reveal to even the most casual observer that the number of societies that respect these "rights" could be counted on the fingers of one foot. So, obviously, this "natural rights" business is neither obvious or even popular. Try listing societies that afford every individual (excepting criminals, I'll grant you that sticky wicket) "life, liberty, and property" or some other widely accepted list of natural rights. Once you cross off all the societies that practiced slavery, genocide, aggressive war, and other rather obvious infringements of natural rights, well... you won't be suffering from writers cramp making that list.
This OSHA type crap comes up every couple of years. It's all bullshit, I wonder why they even try. Next up for heavy regulation; propane, gasoline, Coleman camping fuel, chlorine, ammonia, and piss.
Other serious problems; acetylene, hydrogen, methane, propylene, and a few dozen other explosive industrial gases. Oh. There is one highly flammable gas that's gonna be a bitch to regulate: Oxygen. Hmmm, and two of these highly dangerous gases are often stored in many homes in America; Hydrogen and Oxygen!! Have you ever seen photos of the Hindenburg burning!? Do you have any idea the risk we're putting people in by letting them store these two highly dangerous gases in their home, in concentrated liquid form! Yikes!
That it Bill; and the funny part is it doesn't have anything to do with your house. It's all about the work place. Which means the cops will have to deal with it first.
The purpose of the 16th amendment was to give the feds direct taxing authority
One sticky little problem here Bill.
The Us Supreme Court ruled that the 16th "conferred no new taxing power" on the FedGov. Which means that apportionment still applies.
Apportionment is saying we (FedGov) want 2 trillion dollars, there are 300 million people in the USofA, state X with 5 million we need you to give us (2T/300*5) State Y with 20 Million you give us (2t/300*20). And we don't care how you get it, but it is YOUR responsibility to send it in. Now, this could be done via an income tax, or a sales tax, or perhaps from profit made from something produced locally like oil Or possibly even lotto. It doesn't matter as long as it comes in.
That is the beauty of the system that was given to us, as opposed to the system we now have.
Apportionment still applies with the current IRS system. The sticking point is that the states don't collect it, the feds do. But it's all moot - you can get thrown in jail for not complying with the current law regardless of if it was passed correctly or not. We need either a flat tax or a national sales tax.
Which gets me thinking....
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwph...ml/
cwphome.html
Apportionment still applies with the current IRS system
Yes, it does. That is precisely the reason it is unConstitutional. The income tax is NOT apportioned according to the census.
The income tax is NOT apportioned according to the census.
The nature of an INDIVIDUAL income tax ensures that it's apportioned correctly. If anything, the census data should be driven from tax records.
Commenting by HaloScan
