Monday, July 19, 2010

Abolish the income tax, the IRS, and all unconstitutional government programs

The United States government, by way of the federal income tax and other seemingly endless federal taxes, has stifled American prosperity. It has destroyed the ability of most Americans to save for their futures and their children's futures. It has forced the American people into ongoing and almost insurmountable debt. It has otherwise crushed the American Dream and American Spirit for millions of honest, hard-working citizens.

What do we have to show for this heavy tax burden? Countless failed social engineering scams that reward dependency and slothfulness and punish industriousness and independence.

I challenge Congress to introduce and support legislation to repeal all federal income taxes, including individual, corporate, alternative minimum income tax, self-employment and employment taxes.

In the place of these taxes, there must be no new taxes! No alternative national income tax. No flat tax. No consumption tax. No sales tax. No VAT tax. No sin tax. No excise tax. No other general national tax whatsoever.

This can easily be done without creating, or adding to, federal budget deficits by simply ending the abuse of the Constitution's commerce clause and by phasing out and defunding all federal agencies, programs, and activities that are not authorized by the US Constitution.

Every member of Congress has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (including party leaders) -- not (theoretically) to the party nor to party leaders. It's way past time for politicians to vote based on the limits on government described in the Constitution and on the principles of liberty rather than by the party line. Only when they do so -- or we voters come to our senses and elect new politicians who will do so -- will the soaring tax burden on the rapidly dwindling base of taxpayers be eased.

Visit Defeat The Debt and US Debt Clock to learn more!

Saturday, July 17, 2010

"Nothing was sacrosanct"

Sacrosanct: Regarded as sacred and inviolable. Immune from criticism and violation.

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s aunt, Joyce Kagan Charmatz, said of the family’s dinner table that the family was intellectually engaged: “There was thinking, always thinking. Nothing was sacrosanct.”

There, you have the fundamental problem with liberals and secular humanists such as Elena Kagan.

While they tend to believe that mankind must subjugate itself to all things living and non-living and even to Earth itself, nothing is above mankind. Not God. Not the Constitution. Not truth and knowledge. Not law. Not ethics. Not justice. Not morality. Not reason or logic. Nothing is sacrosanct.

Because they reject the notion that anything is sacrosanct, the philosophical thought of liberals cannot and will not be guided by anything other than their own selfish designs. That is why they have a substantially lower rate of
unpaid charitable volunteerism
church attendance
charitable giving

To compensate for these personal moral deficiencies, liberals and secular humanists tend favor, through government force and taxation, the centralization of, and control over, the natural charitable tendencies of mankind. After all, while they tend to be less patriotic, they do value big government and its ability to centralize power unto liberal elitists.

This "nothing is sacrosanct" philosophy is where liberal activists such as Elena Kagan are most comfortable. This is why they must be kept out of unelected positions such as the judiciary and other appointed positions of government.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Coming to a state near you: California-style gun control

While I have concerns about the NRA's occasional support for anti-liberty politicians and for its past compromises on gun laws, I still ardently support the NRA's efforts to protect gun rights as well as it's gun safety programs. The NRA is far more critical to gun rights than GOA (Gun Owners of America) or any other gun-rights organization. I urge all gun owners to join the NRA immediately. Those who don't join are riding in the wagon while the rest of us pull -- and they have no standing to complain about NRA's warts.

There are an estimated 70 to 100 million gun owners in the US. How in the world does that overwhelmingly powerful block of voters allow any anti-gun politician to get into office? Only 20 to 25 million of those gun owners are even registered to vote! Another answer to that question can be found in my commentary on the judgement of the average voter. Gun owners must become fully informed on the issues of freedom -- including gun rights. One way to become and to stay informed is to follow this issue through NRA-ILA's Grassroots Alerts. Then, vote as if your gun rights depend on your vote.

Related books:
Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control
Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control

The Global War on Guns: Inside the UN Plan To Destroy the Bill of Rights
The Global War on Guns: Inside the UN Plan To Destroy the Bill of Rights

Tyranny of Gun Control

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Do criminals obey signs?

I was disappointed to see a sign in a local theater here in Cedar City indicating that firearms are prohibited in the theater. This Westates theater is the only business I know of in Southern Utah that posts signs indicating firearms are not welcome. Not all businesses are so myopic.

Persons bent on criminal behavior, by definition, disobey the law. Naturally, criminals will also ignore or disobey this theater's no-firearms signs just as Sulejman Talović did when he shot 9 people in Salt Lake's "gun-free" Trolley Square Mall in just one minute on February 12, 2007 -- before any law enforcement officer could intervene.

The only customers who will obey no-firearms signs in Westates theaters are law-abiding people. All innocent persons -- including employees -- who chose to enter this theater are left vulnerable to, and defenseless against, criminal attack due to its no-guns policy. The rest of those who obey the theater's sign are like me -- we respect their policy and get our entertainment elsewhere.

I am a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit holder and instructor. Utah Concealed Firearm Permit holders:
• Have been trained in safe gun handling.
• Have been trained in the laws of deadly force.
• Have been fingerprinted and have passed an FBI background check.
◦ No felony convictions.
◦ No drug or alcohol convictions.
◦ No domestic violence convictions.
◦ No mental impairments.
• Have a significantly lower crime rate than the general public.
• Have a significantly lower crime rate than law enforcement officers.

What does Westates know about the rest of their customers?

Westates theaters do not provide security screening comparable to that found in true gun-free areas (ie airports and court rooms). I must therefore conclude that their sign is intended only to keep law-abiding persons from bringing self-defense guns into their theaters. Because their policy does not allow their customers the means to protect themselves, and because their theaters fail to provide alternative protection, I must conclude that safety is not their true motive for posting no-guns signs. I will not expose myself, my family, my friends, and my neighbors to the inherent dangers of a business that provides a safe workplace for violent criminals.

In order to help my fellow law-abiding gun owners avoid violating Westates' no-guns policy, I will pass the word to my fellow permit holders that their guns are not welcome in their theaters.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

The NRA and Anti-Gun Politicians

Compared to some, I don't give much to the NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action) or the NRA-PVF (National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund), but I give what I can. In the past, I have considered it to be a much better way of supporting candidates who support my freedom than contributing to any political party or to most other PACs.

Senator Harry Reid consistently supports and votes for the confirmation of all of Obama's anti-gun nominees both for the federal judiciary and for the Obama adminsitration. He has voted for many anti-gun bills. He voted for the Clinton "Assault-Weapon" Ban of 1994. He voted to leave law-abiding citizens and even students defenseless while in school zones. He voted for the Brady bill. I therefore view any support for Senator Reid as an attack on my gun rights (not to mention most other rights as well). However, Reid’s re-election means we won’t get Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin as Senate Majority Leader.

The NRA-ILA endorses and supports Senator Harry Reid of Nevada in his current fight to save his job -- even though there is a far better alternative -- Sharron Angle. I therefore must assume that the NRA-ILA considers the fellowship of Harry Reid to be more important than my gun rights.

Also, the NRA-ILA endorses and supports my own representative, Jim Matheson of Utah, in his fight to keep his seat in the House -- even though there is a far better alternative -- Morgan Philpot. I warned Representative Matheson that I would consider a vote for anti-gun Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House as a vote against my gun rights (and, she's hostile to most other individual rights, too). Nevertheless, he chose to vote for her -- and against my gun rights. Therefore, in spite of his rhetoric and generally good record on specifically gun-related votes, I must consider him no reliable friend of gun rights. I therefore view any support for Representative Matheson as support for abolishing my gun rights.

I know that the NRA and NRA-ILA have a responsibility to their members and donors to focus on defending our Second Amendment rights. But that is no excuse to ignore other factors which adversely gun rights or even which affect other rights. Harry Reid doesn't care about my freedom nor the Constitution. He is only a superficial, conditional friend of gun rights.

Consequently, I now terminate my financial support for the NRA-ILA. Instead, my money will go directly to Sharron Angle, Morgan Philpot, and other gun-rights organizations that I consider to be more faithful to the cause. I will immediately resume and increase my contributions to the NRA-ILA when it switches its full support to true patriots.

Until the NRA, NRA-ILA, and NRA-PVF correct their criteria for political endorsements, I must consider those endorsements to be invalid unless confirmed by other research.

Among others, I support:
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Gun Owners of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership
National Association for Gun Rights
Second Amendment Foundation

You see, as the NRA-ILA recommends, I "Vote Freedom First."

While have concerns about the NRA's support for anti-liberty politicians, I still ardently support the NRA's efforts to protect gun rights as well as it's gun safety programs. In many respects, the NRA is far more critical to gun rights than GOA or any of the other gun-rights organizations listed above. I urge all gun owners to join the NRA. Those who don't join are riding in the wagon while the rest of us pull -- and they have no standing to complain about NRA's warts.

Reject Elena Kagan as US Supreme Court Justice!

As was the case in the confirmation process for Justice Sonya Sotomayor, I watch the confirmation process for Elena Kagan with disgust, horror, and deep concern about the future of liberty and human rights in the United States. Kagan came to the Senate Judiciary Committee with one of the thinnest records of any Supreme Court nominee in history. What little has been learned about her views so far has been highly disturbing. Nothing in her testimony has demonstrated she has either the respect for our nation’s founding documents or the independence from the current administration to correctly apply the law or dispense justice without regard to the parties before her.

In an ugly contrast to the necessary openness of a worthy confirmation process, the Obama Administration has carefully limited public access to Elena Kagan, her family, former teaching associates and anyone else who might be able to shine appropriate and essential light on just who she is. (Obama is a master at this, having carefully hidden all pertinent events of his own past.) It is Obama's goal to reduce Kagan's confirmation process to an inconsequential formality, after which she can govern from the bench according to their shared philosophy.

Nevertheless, sufficient evidence has surfaced to alarm any who might be concerned with the fate of the Constitution in her hands. Like Obama, she thoroughly disdains the Constitution and the great nation it once fostered. More dangerous still, she believes that upon donning the judicial robe, one may thereafter issue edicts from which no recourse exists. On this basis alone, she has proven herself to be wholly unfit and is extremely dangerous to take a place as a Supreme Court Justice.

Some, on the Republican side, are merely deriding her for a lack of sufficient judicial credentials. Others have questioned the depth of her thinking. What those politicians seem to fail to understand is that she was carefully selected because little is known about her -- outside Obama's circle of co-conspirators. But while concerns about her lack of "paper trail" may be valid, they by no means pose any threat to the nation comparable to that of an extremist activist judge, no matter how well credentialed she may be. It matters little how high of a pedigree can be claimed by a jurist who willingly invokes that background as an avenue to undermine the integrity of the Constitution.

Nothing valuable be expected to come from Republican grilling of Kagan, even eliciting "promises" of restraint (Sotomayor's promises have already been violated), if the end result is her confirmation.

It is disturbing that she has displayed considerable skill at dodging and evading direct answers to basic questions regarding her judicial philosophy. Such duplicity does not exemplify laudable jurisprudence and is in fact a reflection of dubious leanings and a willingness to publicly falsify them. Surely, she would never tolerate such behavior in her courtroom were she a judge. And, the entire Senate Judiciary Committee lets her get away with it!

One of the more interesting and disturbing aspects of this week's McDonald decision was that the Supreme Court's newest Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, voted against the concept of a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms after repeatedly stating during last year's confirmation hearings that the Supreme Court's historic Heller decision was "settled law." She also stated, "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller."

Despite Sotomayor's assurances to the Senate that she understood and supported the Court's majority decision in Heller, she showed her true colors when she joined this week's dissenting opinion in McDonald which stated "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes." So much for the concept of candid and forthright testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Now, Kagan is following the same tactic! Kagan is responding to the Senat Judiciary Committee's softball questions in a manner that might make one believe that she would honor Supreme Court precedents in Second Amendment cases. But Justice Sotomayor's actions in McDonald stand as stark evidence that we can't trust what they tell the Senate, we can only trust what their actions have shown in the past.

Much of Kagan's career has been as a left-wing political activist. A leftist, by definition, cannot be a constitutional originalist. Even a cursory examination of Kagan's past clearly identifies her as an extreme leftist. Therefore, the question of her fitness for a seat on the nation's highest court was answered in absolute finality before she ever uttered a single word in the Senate hearing.

Evidence has surfaced indicating that, while on President Clinton's staff, she manipulated expert testimony in order to overturn laws banning partial-birth abortion.

The President has the responsibility and opportunity to nominate persons to fill vacancies in the federal courts as well as in his own administration. In doing so, he must abide by his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Senate also has the sworn responsibility to ensure that each nominee has a solid history of decisions that are consistently congruent with the original intent of the US Constitution -- the Supreme Law of the land.

While Kagan was employed as Dean of the Harvard Law School, she did not require students to study the US Constitution! While failure for requiring future lawyers to study the Consitution is hardly unusual in modern law schools, Kagan instead required that they study foreign and international law! The implications of such a mindset for a Supreme Court nominee are frightening.

It is obvious to me that Mr. Obama has carefully selected Elena Kagan because her judgement is largely undocumented -- although there are several hints from her past indicate that she may be very dangerous to the Constitution and hostile to traditional American ideals. You will remember that there was a huge uproar (most notably from the then-president's own party) over Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers because, like Kagan, there was no "paper trail" to indicate whether she would use the Constitution as her guide in making decisions. Ironically, what made Miers deficient apparently makes Kagan eminently qualified! Surely, someone in DC beleives the people and the nation deserve better!

Judicial confirmations are not about party loyalty. They are about each senator's sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution! No senator from either party can vote for Kagan's confirmation while credibly claiming to uphold the U.S. Constitution. In order to live up to your oath of office, you must soundly reject Kagan's confirmation. Instead, demand that the president nominate only persons who know, understand, honor, support and defend the Constitution.

The President and each Senator have a sworn duty to ensure that every judicial nominee understands and strictly follows the original intent of every aspect of the US Constitution as amended. That includes fully protecting all rights of the States and of the people by strictly limiting the power and size of the federal government to the limits established by the Constitution. There is absolutely no indication that Elena Kagan meets that standard. She therefor must be rejected.

While conservatives see the Constitution as a check on the government in order to defend the rights of the people, liberals -- like Kagan and Obama -- see the Constitution as something that gets in their way, if not a tool to be manipulated to control the people.

I am a single-issue voter: When I cast my votes, my primary concern is that candidates understand and have a solid history of living up to their sworn obligation to support and defend the US Constitution. I expect the President and each Senator to do likewise in all their decisions -- especially in the case of judicial nominees.