Monday, January 05, 2009

Building a Stalinist State

48% of you little people simply do not matter.

I say: Stop Paying Your Taxes!
No Taxation Without Representation

The Democrats keep this up I am thinking this thing may have to come to blows.
It is our right and duty:

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

There are always possibilities to hope for.


nanc said...

i'm with you!

there is a way, however, that you can be tax free without the clamor AND do good in the meantime.

for years i've been saying that people need to find a tax-deductible and worthy charity and faithfully give that portion of your taxes to them. this is apparent in tithing and other charitable causes.

this is where i get into it with our son who so believes in the liberal arts - he "thinks" it's okay that the government endows some of them and i told him that if people put their money where their mouths are and supported their own causes the u.s. would be a happier place. we wouldn't HAVE to support the fat in deecee and he wouldn't have to support human causes if he didn't want to, although he does tithe.

seems kind of simple, but i do see most things that way.


IOpian said...

Now there is an idea. Would still have to pay the payroll tax but you could certainly direct where you income taxes go. A few dollars less for Congress to waste.

My irritant today is how the federal government keeps coming up with trillions to subsidize greed and ineptness as social security becomes insolvent and more of a tax burden.

The more I think about it Al Gore had a good idea with his 'lockbox' concept. Specifically mark payroll tax funds for no use other than social security expenditures.

I mean if you work out a family budget you have your car payment money, your mortgage money, your food money.. isn't that how a budget works... this money comes in it goes to this expense. Maybe that's why most ordinary households are in far better shape financially than the government.

nanc said...

we're certainly on a budget and if we don't stick to it - YIKES! of course, we have steered clear of credit cards with the exception of my husband's low limit m/c for urgent matters.

we have walked through fire in the credit department and it was no fun. besides that - it feels very good to give to a worthy cause rather than have the government use it for some stupidarse cause they deem worthy.

Phelonius said...

Hey, I just want to know where the line is so I can get MY government money!!


Vote Libertarian and let's get rid of the likes of Pelosi and Reed!

IOpian said...

Not sure but we need to get into it asap. Getting longer every day. Maybe we could start a business, get us some nice cars, large homes, live way beyond our means while driving the company into the ground and earn a spot a little farther up in the line.

Libertarians are in a good political spectrum these days and could make a mark if they could focus on candidate brand by attracting the disgruntled from the middle of the major parties.

Phelonius said...

In my own race here in Texas, I came close to upsetting the comfortable Texas Republican big-spenders. I garnered over 1050 votes by talking about limiting the government and keeping our spending in check.

The difference between the republican incumbent and the democrat challenger was 19 votes.

The lesson is, if these Republicans want to keep the old Reagan voters, they had better act like they will live up to those ideals.

IOpian said...

I was wondering how that turned out. Don't stop trying. I am not affiliated with any party or religion. I think I would be a Jeffersonian Republican. More authority to the states, a lean federal construct, individual rights and responsibilities. A lot of people like to view Jefferson as a modern Democrat but he was anti-federalist and would blow a gasket if he saw this bailout madness.

I think what Republicans should examine is what they look like to the outside world. They need to drive home to the black community that Democrats are little more than the new 'massa'. Republicans no sooner freed them from chains than they happily put the chains of democrat 'freebies' plantation right back on. But that is changing. Republicans struck a humiliating blow to the Dem progressive psyche with Palin. Now they need people like Michael Steele or Allen West brought to prominence. Republicans needs this rebranding.

I think they also need to layoff the importance of single issues. Rejecting this candidate who may have some great possibilities but just doesn't pass the litmus test on abortion or this candidate might have great fiscal ideas but doesn't go to an acceptable church. They need to build a bigger tent. With the financial difficulties of California they could bring to light that not controlling immigration is nothing but fiscal insanity and unsustainable. Hard adult choices have to be made. In one light the act of amputating someone's leg looks brutal but in another light it is a necessary evil to save the whole body.

Change has to be built a little at a time. If people get to 'in your face' over a single issue it just drives people away instead of drawing them in. I personally think the Republicans blew their chance by writing off Fred Thompson. Would have loved to see him destroy the Obama aura. Would have been like watching a bull dog maul a chihuahua.

nanc said...

iopian - i'm seriously looking into this party. we only have less than four years to get the baby steps out of the way. i have no use for the republican party anymore. they have failed miserably in the conservative department.

Phelonius said...

That is because the Constitution Party is too limited in its ability to survive the market place. They appeal, as much as I like what they say, to a very limited political strain. They have attempted to be a more neo-conservative representation of the Libertarian Party.

The LP has had a good period of growth here, and these are the reasons:

1. A true conservative of the Jeffersonian era wanted a federal government that kept the government away from us BOTH in our houses and in our pocketbook. In other words, the people down the street may want to live differently than us, but we do not care so long as they are not harming other human beings. Also, the true Jeffersonian Republican wanted the common people to be in total control, through the elected legislature, of federal spending of our tax dollars.

The Constitutionalist Party wants something that is a dichotomy, and it does not resonate widely, and they are not, in fact, constitutionalists. Allow me to explain.

The CP wants us to have laws that are restrictive along social lines because they believe that a religious ideal fits the entire Republic. At the same time they argue that limited government is a good thing. They are totally correct in the second ideal, but they cannot have that AND have socially restricting federal controls. You cannot have a pie and eat it at the same time. You are either eating it or you are not.

The LP maintains that the right of local people to make laws determining morality are not the same as a federal mandate that tells all of the states to make the same laws regarding morality.

If the State of Texas were to make laws against school prayer, for example, and the State of New Mexico were to disagree and allow those prayers, the LP maintains that it is the right of the various states to decide those laws. This is perfectly in accord with the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence. If, on the other hand, you desire Federal controls on who can, for example, burn a flag, get married, pay taxes, or kill their unborn, you must in principle surrender to the Federal Government the rights otherwise claimed by the CP.

As proof, I bring up the wide state laws on capital punishment. Some states, wisely or not, decide that no crime deserves capital punishment. Others disagree, and execute criminals guilty of said crime. If we follow the currently prevailing attitude and say that all states should not have a death penalty, then we are denying the right of locals to decide what crime is deserving of what penalty. If you follow that to its inevitable and logical end, then the laws of the various states should always follow the polls and the whims of Washington in regards to that penalty.

The LP in principle does not care about the moral implications of the death penalty, because it believes that those decisions are necessarily in the hands of the local peoples and what they believe, so long as it does not invalidate the Constitution as it stands. In other words, if CA decides it does not want the death penalty, it should not have to have one. On the other hand, if MA decides that it wants marriage between gay couples, that also is up to that individual state. If that turns out to be a detriment to MA, then so be it and perhaps they then find a better solution. Likewise, if the death penalty law is a detriment to CA, the local peoples also have a right to decide for a change.

Ultimately, what you have to decide is this: Do the local peoples of the various states have the right to self-determination or do they not have the right to self-determination. In other words, if you do not believe that your neighbors have the right to dictate law to you, at what level do you not have the right to dictate law to them? That is the essence of the LP philosophy, and one reason that that party grew during the last election more than any other single party in the nation.

nanc said...

phelonius - cp is claiming THEY are the singlemost growing party in an article i read this week...hmmmm...

IOpian said...

The thing I'd like to see is the direct election of Senators repealed so the balance of power is restored and the whims of the people reduced to just the House.

The Senate should be able to deliberate without concern of pandering to the masses to get re-elected.