01/30/14

Balancing the Budget? Or Adding A National Sales Tax To The Income Tax?

By Publius Huldah

The stated purpose of Compact for America, Inc. is to get a balanced budget amendment (BBA) ratified. Here is their proposed BBA. State Legislators recently introduced it in Arizona. [1]

The gap between what this BBA pretends to do – and what it actually does – is enormous. It has nothing to do with “balancing the budget” – it is about slipping in a new national sales tax or value-added tax in addition to the existing federal income tax.

We have become so shallow that we look no further than a name – if it sounds good, we are all for it. We hear, “balanced budget amendment”, and think, “I have to balance my budget; they should have to balance theirs.” So we don’t read the amendment, we just assume they will have to balance theirs the same way we balance ours – by cutting spending.

But that is not what the BBA does. In effect, it redefines “balancing the budget” to mean spending no more than your income plus the additional debt you incur to finance your spending. To illustrate: If your income is $100,000 a year; but you spend $175,000 a year, you “balance” your budget by borrowing the additional $75,000. See?

Under the BBA, Congress may continue to spend whatever it likes and incur as much new debt as it pleases – as long as 26 States agree. And since the States have become major consumers of federal funding, who doubts that they can’t continue to be bought? Federal grants make up almost 35% of the States’ annual budgets! The States are addicted to federal funds – who thinks they won’t agree to get more money?

The BBA enshrines Debt as a permanent feature of our Country; gives it constitutional approval; does nothing to reduce spending or “balance the budget”; authorizes a new national tax; and wipes out the “enumerated powers” limitation on the federal government.

Let’s look at the BBA, section by section, using plain and honest English. And then let’s look at how our Framers wrote our Constitution to strictly control federal spending.

Compact for America’s BBA

Section 1 says the federal government may not spend more than they take from you in taxes or add to the national debt. [Yes, you read that right.]

Section 2 accepts debt as a permanent feature of our Country – the “Authorized Debt”. This is the maximum amount of debt the federal government may incur at any given point in time.

Initially, when the Amendment is ratified, the “authorized debt” may not be more than 105% of the then existing national debt. So! If the national debt is $20 trillion when the Amendment is ratified, the federal government may not initially add more than 105% of $20 trillion [or $1 trillion] to the national debt.

• After that initial addition to the national debt, the “authorized debt” may not be increased unless it is approved by State Legislatures as provided in Section 3.

Section 3 says whenever Congress wants, it may increase the national debt if 26 of the State Legislatures agree. [Yes, you read that right.]

Section 4 says whenever the national debt exceeds 98% of “the debt limit set by Section 2”, the President shall “impound” sufficient expenditures so that the national debt won’t exceed the “authorized debt”. And if the President doesn’t do this, Congress may impeach him!

This is a hoot, Folks! I’ll show you:

No debt limit is set by Section 2! The national debt can be increased at any time if Congress gets 26 State Legislatures to agree. Can 26 States be bought?

• Section 6 defines “impoundment” as “a proposal not to spend all or part of a sum of money appropriated by Congress”. Who believes Congress will impeach the President [2] for failing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress?

Section 5 says any new or increased federal “general revenue tax” must be approved by 2/3 of the members of both houses of Congress.

Now pay attention, because this is a monstrous trick to be played on you: Section 6 defines “general revenue tax” as “any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax” levied by the federal government.

And when you read the first sentence of Section 5 with the definition of “general revenue tax” in place of “general revenue tax”, you see that it says:

“No bill that provides for a new or increased income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote…”

Do you see? This permits Congress to impose a national sales tax or value added tax in addition to the income tax, [3] if 2/3 of both houses agree. [Yes, you read that right.]

But the trickery of the drafters of this evil piece of work is even worse. Section 5 also says that any bill for a new sales tax which would replace the federal income tax need only be approved by a simple majority of the members of both houses.

This makes most readers believe that the income tax would be replaced by a sales tax.

But the Amendment does not require Congress to introduce a sales tax to replace the income tax. [Remember, that sales tax requires only a simple majority to get passed.]

Whereas it authorizes Congress to impose a sales tax or value-added tax in addition to the income tax! [This sales tax requires a 2/3 majority to get passed.]

Do you see? Are they tricky or what!

And which option will Congress choose?

Section 6 sets forth the definitions for the amendment. As you see, you must always read the definitions and apply them to the text.

Section 7 says the Amendment is “self-enforcing”. Rubbish! No Constitution or amendment is “self-enforcing”. There is only one way to enforce our Constitution: WE THE PEOPLE, who are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” (Federalist No. 16, next to last para), enforce it by learning it and by throwing out politicians who ignore it. And we must always be on guard against the wolves who seek to destroy it.

Nick Dranias, on the Board of Directors for the Compact for America, is a constitutional lawyer. History professor, Kevin R. C. Gutzman, on the Advisory Council, is a lawyer. Other prominent lawyers and a 5th Circuit Court Judge, are on the Council. They all know what their BBA does.

How Does Our Constitution Control Federal Spending?

Our Constitution lists – itemizes – every power WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government when we ratified the Constitution. These are the “enumerated powers”. Article I, §8 lists most of the powers delegated to Congress for the Country at large: [4]

• immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
• mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
• a few criminal laws (e.g., Art. I, §8, cl. 6)
• post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
• patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
• federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9)
• military and citizen militia (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)

Various other Articles, sections, and clauses list additional objects of Congress’ spending, such as payment of the salaries of persons on the civil list (Art. I, §6, cl.1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; and Art. III, §1).

Do you get the idea? The Constitution lists what Congress is permitted to spend money on. Its spending is limited to the enumerated powers, and the salaries of those on the civil list. If you will go thru our Constitution and highlight every power delegated to Congress and the President, you will see ALL the objects on which Congress has constitutional authority to appropriate funds. THAT is ALL – ALL – they may lawfully spend money on.

We have a debt of $17+ trillion (plus unfunded liabilities) because WE ignored our Constitution for 100 years; and Congress spent money on objects outside the scope of the enumerated powers.

This one page chart depicts the Constitution We established, and most of what Congress may lawfully spend money on. Is it not a thing of beauty? Do you want it back? Then Restore it!

Understand this: All versions of a BBA eliminate the enumerated powers limitations on the federal government. Under all versions, the Constitution is “fundamentally changed” to permit the federal government to do anything they want and to spend money on anything they please.

Amendments are a tricky business. And tricksters abound in our Land.

Endnotes:

1 Compact for America is also trying to use the “compact of the states” provision & is calling for an Art. V convention. Red Flag, Folks! But for now, let’s look just at their dishonest BBA.

2 Congress always had authority to impeach and remove a President for usurpations of power – see this short Primer.

3 Section 5 also says Congress may reduce or eliminate existing income tax exemptions, deductions, or credits by a simple majority vote.

4 This paper lists all the powers delegated to Congress by our Constitution. You can learn them!

01/30/14

Dinesh D’Souza vs. Bill Ayers Live Streaming Tonight 7:30pm ET

Gulag Bound

TONIGHT at 7:30 p.m EASTERN you can LIVE STREAM the debate between Dinesh D’Souza and domestic TERRORIST and author of Barack Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father” at this link.

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/archives/news/dsouza-debate-bill-ayers-whats-great-america

Related from dineshdsouza.com via Gulag:

D’Souza to Debate Bill Ayers: What’s So Great About America?

AyersBill Ayers is known for his 1960s radical activism. In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings (including police stations, the U.S. Capitol Building, and the Pentagon) during the 1960s and 1970s in response to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

Dinesh will debate Ayers at the end of January, the first time the two men will meet on stage together.

ultimate-fight-left-vs-right1-586x586They will debate on the topic “What’s so great about America?” The event is open to the public and will be livestreamed on DineshDSouza.com for free.

Media is invited to attend.

Topic: What’s So Great About America?

Location: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Online Stream: live.dineshdsouza.com

Date: January 30th, 2014

Time: 7:30 PM

Sponsor: College Republicans

National Sponsor: Young America’s Foundation

01/30/14

Here It Comes – Amnesty

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

John Boehner prepping for the ultimate betrayal…

Hear that? That’s the bleating of a bunch of Republican sheep who just can’t wait to run off the Amnesty cliff. Welcome to Republican suicide. It’s not enough that the Marxists are destroying the Republic, oh no… our faux conservative leaders are doing everything they can to help them. It’s for our own good, don’t ya know. Screw the Constitution… screw what the majority of Americans want. The elites on both sides of the political chasm want slave labor and a perpetual voting Marxist majority. I have warned on Amnesty for years and now it is upon us. Get ready to meet the Nightmare on America’s Streets – the final chapter. What Obamacare kicked into gear, Amnesty will finish.

Ann Coulter echoes what I have said in the past:

It’s terrific for ethnic lobbyists whose political clout will skyrocket the more foreign-born Americans we have.

And it’s fantastic for the Democrats, who are well on their way to a permanent majority, so they can completely destroy the last remnants of what was once known as “the land of the free.”

The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.

Jeff Sessions, who has been a stalwart, lone voice in the wilderness in opposition to this travesty, has continuously and vociferously warned the Republicans about crawling into bed with the Marxist Democrats and forcing Amnesty upon Americans:

And bad policy, the senator from Alabama details. “Coordinating with a small group of the nation’s most powerful special interests, last year President Obama and Senate Democrats forced through an immigration bill which can only be described as a hammer blow to the American middle class. Not only would it grant work permits to millions of illegal immigrants at a time of record joblessness, it would also double the annual flow of new immigrant workers and provide green cards to more than 30 million permanent residents over the next decade. These new workers, mostly lesser-skilled, will compete for jobs in every sector, industry, and occupation in the U.S. economy.”

He adds, “House Republicans, in crafting immigration principles, should reply to the President’s immigration campaign with a simple message: our focus is to help unemployed Americans get back to work—not to grant amnesty or to answer the whims of immigration activists and CEOs. In turn, that message could be joined with a detailed and unifying policy agenda for accomplishing that moral and social objective.”

Welcome to the worst of all possible worlds, where you have crony capitalists, corrupt big business, Marxists and elitists all spooning in public and doing whatever they please – America be damned.

There will also be other ugly consequences such as overloading the immigration system. Why, how very Cloward and Piven. The overload will not only break us financially, but will ensure that known hardcore criminals will not be deported and will be allowed to run free, preying on Americans and causing the much desired chaos that communists love. A third world hell will envelop the US and our Ghost of Caesar will reign while fire, poverty, evil and death engulfs the land of the free.

While Republican leaders simply insist that ‘something big’ has to happen concerning immigration, America sees this for what it is. It is a maneuver to destroy the Constitution, our rights and freedoms. A move that does away with our borders and America as an entity and as a bastion of freedom for all. It is a move into dictatorship and chains that our Founding Fathers warned us against. This is how a Republic dies – with thunderous applause by the Marxist elite and their idiot sycophants.

NRO: Great Caesar’s Ghost

The TEA Party is being hunted down and persecuted, while those, such as Paul Ryan, who once appeared to be a true conservative, are betraying America and pushing for Marxist rule. A modern day Judas of sorts, who has been plied with 30 pieces of silver. Hope it was worth it sir. Perhaps he has succumbed to the belief that being an elitist Progressive makes him a star or royalty of some sort, and that by embracing Marxist ideals, he will dine in Obama’s halls on fine cuisine and the finest of wine, while consorting with celebrities such as the Duck Dynasty crew that he posed with before Obama’s SOTU Marxist declaration. Enjoy your dalliance in the realm of the communists. They will be defeated by patriots and their time will come. Ask the Romans, it’s the price of notoriety.

From Kevin D. Williamson/NRO:

It’s expensive maintaining an imperial class, but money isn’t really the object here, and neither is the current occupant of the White House, unlikeable as he is. Whether it’s Barack Obama or some subsequent pathological megalomaniac, Republican or Democrat, the increasingly ceremonial and quasi-religious aspect of the presidency is unseemly. It is profane. It is unbecoming of us as a people, and it has transformed the presidency into an office that can be truly attractive only to men who are unfit to hold it.

George Washington showed the world that men do not need a king. We, his heirs, have allowed the coronation of something much worse.

Boehner has even gone so far as to actively state that he wants to do a year of activity together with Obama. You remember Obama’s SOTU this last week where he declared himself Caesar once and for all, right? That no Congress or pesky Constitution would stand in his way of progress. Well in a treasonous move, House Republicans responded to President Obama’s State of the Union vow to move forward on a “year of action” with or without Congress, by saying they agree and want to partner with him. You can bet the partnership includes Amnesty and the betrayal of conservatives en masse.

Pat Buchanan says that Boehner will lose the Speakership if he pushes Amnesty. I wouldn’t count on it. There are so many Progressives now on the Right, that you really only have one party left. Buchanan is right though, this is a trap and the Republicans are walking right into it and they have full knowledge of it and embrace it. Buchanan is also right on the passage of Amnesty being the end of the Republican Party. If this happens, there will be a war inside the Republican Party and there will either be a coup and the TEA Party will ascend or the Party of Lincoln will be no more and a third party will awaken. In my opinion, it will be too late at that point to avoid a violent collision between political viewpoints. There will be two sides – Constitutional Conservatives and Progressive Marxists. It will not end well.

Here it comes… Amnesty and 30 million or so people who will invade our country and enable a permanent Marxist coup. Our enemies from within and without are descending and our leaders are holding the door for them.

01/30/14

Obama and Stalin’s Legacy in Ukraine

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The Washington Post has a front page article glorifying communist folksinger Pete Seeger, and quoting him as saying that he regretted his support for the mass-murdering Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. One of Stalin’s greatest crimes was starving millions of people to death in Ukraine.

“Folk singer wanted everyone to be heard” was the headline over the Seeger article. But everyone in Seeger’s world did not include the victims of communism.

Inside the Post, on page four, there’s a photo of a protester playing the guitar and singing in front of riot police in Ukraine, where an anti-communist revolution is underway. Here’s a folk singer standing up for the truly oppressed.

The contrast between the articles not only illustrates the curious news judgment at the paper, but the fact that Seeger wasn’t on the right side in the battle between freedom and communism. But is President Obama?

Seeger has passed away, but his supporters, such as President Obama, still seem to be on the wrong side of history. President Reagan believed in the liberation of the communist world; Obama seems oblivious to how Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to reconstitute the Soviet empire.

Obama’s only mention of the revolt in Ukraine in his State of the Union address was this line: “In Ukraine, we stand for the principle that all people have the right to express themselves freely and peacefully and to have a say in their country’s future.”

On the eve of the Olympics in Sochi, Russia, it was apparent that Obama didn’t want to offend Vladimir Putin, whose puppet, President Viktor Yanukovych, has presided over a bloody crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators. They had even toppled a statue of Soviet state founder Vladimir Lenin in Ukraine’s capital city, Kiev.

Obama is willing to stand up to Putin over an anti-gay propaganda law in Russia, but not when it concerns the fate of 46 million people in Ukraine wanting to be part of the Western alliance of free nations.

In contrast to Obama’s mere 28 words about Ukraine, an official “Statement by the President on the Passing of Pete Seeger” was 120 words in length: “Once called ‘America’s tuning fork,’ Pete Seeger believed deeply in the power of song. But more importantly, he believed in the power of community—to stand up for what’s right, speak out against what’s wrong, and move this country closer to the America he knew we could be. Over the years, Pete used his voice—and his hammer—to strike blows for workers’ rights and civil rights; world peace and environmental conservation. And he always invited us to sing along. For reminding us where we come from and showing us where we need to go, we will always be grateful to Pete Seeger. Michelle and I send our thoughts and prayers to Pete’s family and all those who loved him.”

The flowery tribute completely ignores Seeger’s service to the communist cause.

Fortunately, the liberal Washington Post editorial board sees the situation in Ukraine in terms that have somehow escaped Obama. “The West must break Ukraine free from Mr. Putin’s grasp,” was the headline over a January 21 editorial. It said, “Washington also ought to recognize Mr. Putin’s role in attempting to impose his autocratic model on a country that has been struggling to become a genuine democracy.”

But Obama, for some strange reason, cannot bring himself to say anything close to that. And he is supposed to be the leader of the “Free World.”

The Post article about Seeger danced around his involvement in the Communist Party, suggesting he may have just been a “sympathizer” and unfairly targeted in the “Red Scare.”

It’s not necessary to consult the records of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which document his party membership. A “Pete Seeger Appreciation Page” admits that Seeger “joined the [Communist] Party in 1942 and would depart about 1950…” Another entry discusses his tour of the Soviet Union in 1965. It’s not really clear when—or if—he ever gave up communism.

Al Jazeera America has run an article titled, “In defense of Pete Seeger, American Communist.” It is by a “neo-Marxist” named Bhaskar Sunkara, who faulted Dylan Matthews of The Washington Post for saying, “I love and will miss Pete Seeger but let’s not gloss over that fact that he was an actual Stalinist.”

“Such attempts at balance miss the mark,” Sunkara said. “It’s not that Seeger did a lot of good despite his longtime ties to the Communist Party; he did a lot of good because he was a Communist.”

This attitude may help explain the indifference of many, including Obama, to Stalin’s bloody legacy in Ukraine and the need to aggressively support freedom there. Obama was tutored by Communist Party operative Frank Marshall Davis during his growing-up years in Hawaii.

Not surprisingly, Sunkara was the subject of a laudatory article in The New York Times in 2013 headlined, “A Young Publisher Takes Marx Into the Mainstream.” The paper said his friends included MSNBC host Chris Hayes.

Sunkara’s article on the Al Jazeera website did have an interesting piece of information that helps to shed some light on what’s going on in the Obama administration. It said, “Along with Angela Davis and other prominent former Communist Party members, he [Seeger] helped form the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a democratic socialist group, in 1991.” This was a spin-off from the Communist Party after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Bay Area branch of the CCDS held a fundraiser in February 2006 featuring a local activist named Van Jones, who would later become an official of the Obama White House. He resigned when his communist background came to light, but now works for CNN.

Obama, who hired Van Jones, remains in office, refusing to vigorously support the freedom struggle in Ukraine, and instead paying homage to a Stalinist. Why isn’t this a big story for our media?

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.