Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
How far off is the real number of unemployed to the “official” number? You have to look deep into the Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly report to find this out. Buried in footnote U-6 of Table A-12 of the monthly report is a rate of unemployment that comes pretty close to the actual number of people out of work and who want to work.
As you might have already guessed that real rate is a lot higher. For example, here are the unemployment numbers for January 2009. The official unemployment rate states that 7.6% of the workforce is unemployed. The real rate (people who want a job but can’t find one) is 13.9%. Scroll down to page 23. It is listed in the bottom right-hand corner.
You can read more here.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Many times each month, people ask us exactly how they can begin to eat locally. The questioner invariably understands the 'whys' of the proposition, but is daunted by the 'how.' So this month we offer a short primer on eating local food, with emphasis on the notion of transition. Let's start there. The first thing to remember is that eating locally is a continuum. If you allow yourself to get drawn into an all-or-nothing mindset, the proposition will seem impossible. You will get derailed by the list of the imported foods you think you can't live without. Bananas. Coffee. Chocolate-covered yum-yums. Don't start with those things. Don't even put them on the table the first year. Eating locally is about doing what you can. It is about making the most of your region's agricultural strengths. It is about beginning to pay attention. Where should you start? Focus on whole foods first. Highly processed foods are made with many ingredients that are shipped from afar, processed, and shipped again. It is simpler, not to mention healthier, to put your efforts into simpler foods. Start with one or more of these food groups: produce, meat, dairy products and eggs. In many cases, you can buy these foods directly from farmers, which is often a highly satisfying experience in and of itself.
A few years ago, a friend whose family loves chow-mein hotdish and Cheez-its asked me what three things she could do to better her family's diet without triggering a lot of grumbling. She was clear: she was not ready to take on the whole pantry, and neither was her family. Sound familiar? She knew that if she felt overwhelmed, the changes wouldn't stick. But three things seemed reasonable to her. After talking more about her food buying habits and priorities, we came up with this: Buy high quality chicken. Get organic milk. Shop at the farmers market when you can. Now, we live in Minnesota, where small-scale farmers make good meat and quality milk readily available, but the growing season is short. Other places in the country will have a different list of logical first steps. My LH colleagues, for example, live on the Central Coast of California, where gorgeous fresh veggies are available almost year round, but meat and dairy from small farms is a little harder to come by. For people there, just committing to shop at the farmers market or to join a CSA would bring local foods into their diets much of the year. Another regional difference concerns food preservation: neither my colleagues in California nor my friends in the South spend much time canning and freezing. Here in Minnesota, we do, because that is the way to enjoy local produce in the long winter. Getting to know what grows well in your state - and when - is a valuable part of your education as a locavore.
As you begin to dig more deeply into your region's specialties, you will find that some of these cost more money than their anonymous counterparts at the supermarket. If you are one of the many Americans experiencing real financial distress, this may dissuade you from choosing them. But it is important to remember that there are ways to work around price if you have some flexibility in your food budget. For example, you might choose to buy high quality meat and cheese, but eat it less often, and instead eat more lower-cost whole foods like grains, beans, and in-season produce. Check out the LH blog for a close-up look at the home economics of my family's local foods-based diet. Finally, it pays to remember that for most human beings, change is difficult. Food is so fundamental to our sense of well-being that changes in that arena may be met with a lot of resistance. If that is the case in your house, go slowly and look for small windows of opportunity. For example, enjoy lots of local strawberries when they are in their glory. If you can, go out to the farm and have fun picking some of your own. Really pay attention to how good - and how different - they are. Acclimate your taste buds and over time your family may decide that the local ones are worth waiting for. You may even decide to throw a few bags of berries into the freezer for later. And you're on your way...
In sum: Start with whole foods. Don't make it too hard. Study your region's agricultural strengths, and play up to them. Look for ways to be creative with your budget. Be gentle with your self and your family as you try out new habits. Do these things, and you will set yourself up for a highly satisfying adventure in local eating, and a deeper connection to your food.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Edward Douglass White, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1912-1921. He was the grandson of James White who served as representative for the Territory South of the River Ohio before Tennessee statehood
"In dealing with the scope of the taxing power, the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation of the question and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. It is important that these provisions be clearly understood; what is required is an understanding of fundamental principles. The familiar statement that at this time we need education in the obvious more than investigation into the obscure (Holmes, Collective Legal Papers, pp. 292-293), although made in a different context, is peculiarly applicable here."
Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 32 T.C. 653 at 5659 (1959)
What does Article 1, Section 8 say? With regard to the taxing power, it says in Clause 1:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The court explains what duties and imposts and excises are: "Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are 'taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.' Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680." Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
The other taxing clauses are as follows:
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, (and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons-changed by Sec 2 of 14th amendment).
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4: No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Did the Supreme Court actually rule on whether the "income" tax was a direct or indirect tax BEFORE it was authorized by the 16th amendment? Yes! But some background information on the 16th Amendment would be fitting.
In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), the court ruled that:
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
Since these sections of the act levied a direct tax without regard to apportionment, the court threw out the whole act and all the revenue collected under the act had to be refunded. This is what brought about the 16th amendment, which stated that Congress could collect taxes on incomes without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment did not define the taxes on income as direct or indirect. So it appeared that the constitution was in conflict with itself. It allowed for a tax on income, but the clause requiring direct taxes to be apportioned was not repealed. The United States Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) settled the issue when it said "Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such..."
The Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows: 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.
It is the without apportionment language and without regard to census or enumeration that restricts taxation on incomes to the class of excises. Did the 16th amendment authorize a new kind of tax called the 'income' tax? No it did not. "This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion." The court went on to say "It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, an authority already possessed and never questioned,..." [240 U.S. 1, 18] Chief Justice Edward Douglass White delivered the opinion in both cases.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals clarifies: "It did not take a constitutional amendment to entitle the United States to impose an income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.(citations omitted) only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment removed that barrier. Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation taxes." Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 277 F.2d 16 (1960)
The court also said "It is not necessary to uphold the validity of the tax imposed by the United States that the tax itself bear an accurate label." Congress is free to name the tax whatever it desires. The question still remains: Is it a direct tax? Capitation? Or is it a duty, impost, or excise?
The barrier refers to the consideration of the source of income. The United States Supreme Court in the Brushaber case said "Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation." What was the problem? Was an amendment really necessary to make clear the taxing power that Congress always had?
There are three things to look for: The Rule, the Ruling and the Principle. The Rule applied relates to the rule of apportionment to all direct taxes before and after the Sixteenth Amendment.
The Ruling relates to the court's decision in Pollock that taxes on real estate and personal property and the rents and incomes derived from real and personal property are direct taxes.
The principle relates to the duty of the courts to disregard the form (name of tax) and consider the substance (subject of the tax). The 16th Amendment was to prevent the courts from treating the so-called 'income' tax as anything other than an excise tax. The courts can no longer void a statute in regard to income taxation because it was not imposed by the rule of apportionment like it had done in the Pollock case. The courts can't legally enforce the income tax as if it were a direct tax. The income tax can only be enforced as a tax on certain activities, privileges, events, etc... In my copy of "Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax" updated May 7, 2001, John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney for the American Law Division writes on page four that "[T]he Court found that the Sixteenth Amendment sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax, because of its close effect on the underlying property as a direct tax."
It is true that various personnel in the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue claim that the Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress some new power of taxation. But the courts have settled the issue as to what the Sixteenth Amendment did and didn't do. The problem is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is the disinformation regarding it.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
A political cartoon from Puck Magazine titled "The Helping Hand" that parodies Emile Renouf's 1881 painting of the same name. Shows Uncle Sam and J.P. Morgan rowing a boat. Morgan's enormous size reflects his stature and the importance of his banking operations to the country.
The 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve can be traced to the so-called Progressive movement that was taking place around the turn of the 20th century. While this movement has been portrayed as workers and intellectuals rising up against ruthless corporations, the simple fact of the matter is that it was John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan who supported it. Indeed, much of the political history of the United States from the late nineteenth century until World War II may be interpreted by the closeness of each administration to one of these sometimes cooperating, more often conflicting, financial groupings: Cleveland (Morgan), McKinley (Rockefeller), Theodore Roosevelt (Morgan), Taft (Rockefeller), Wilson (Morgan), Harding (Rockefeller), Coolidge (Morgan), Hoover (Morgan), or Franklin Roosevelt (Harriman–Kuhn–Loeb–Rockefeller). So what was going on?
As Murray Rothbard put it in “The Origins Of The Federal Reserve”,
“For this intellectual shell game, the cartelists needed the support of the nation’s intellectuals, the class of professional opinion-molders in society. The Morgans needed a smokescreen of ideology, setting forth the rationale and the apologetics for the New Order. Again, fortunately for them, the intellectuals were ready and eager for the new alliance. The enormous growth of intellectuals, academics, social scientists, technocrats, engineers, social workers, physicians, and occupational “guilds” of all types in the late nineteenth century led most of these groups to organize for a far greater share of the pie than they could possibly achieve on the free market. These intellectuals needed the State to license, restrict, and cartelize their occupations, so as to raise the incomes for the fortunate people already in these fields. In return for their serving as apologists for the new statism, the State was prepared to offer not only cartelized occupations, but also ever-increasing and cushier jobs in the bureaucracy to plan and propagandize for the newly statized society. And the intellectuals were ready for it, having learned in graduate schools in Germany the glories of statism and organicist socialism, of a harmonious “middle way” between dog-eat-dog laissez-faire on the one hand and proletarian Marxism on the other. Instead, big government, staffed by intellectuals and technocrats, steered by big business and aided by unions organizing a subservient labor force, would impose a cooperative commonwealth for the alleged benefit of all."
Nelson Aldrich was known in his day as the "General Manager of the Nation". He was essentially Wall Street’s senator and the go-to guy in Congress for both John Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan. One of the symbols of his immense wealth was his own private railcar.
Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska entered the following resolution-
Senate Joint Resolution 39, June 17, 1909, Congressional Record Volume 44, Part 3, page 3377:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population"
Those who were supporting the implementation of the 16th Amendment knew that a direct tax without apportionment would be in conflict with the requirement that direct taxes be levied with regard to apportionment.
So Nelson Aldrich who chaired the Senate Finance Committee at the time entered the following-
Senate Joint Resolution 40, June 28, 1909, Congressional Record Volume 44, Part 4, page 3900: "Article 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."
This is the Sixteenth Amendment; but notice that it makes no provision for the repeal of the clauses requiring apportionment. Why? Because it was not the "intent" of Congress to levy a direct tax (or a "capitation" tax for that matter). Aldrich and his cronies knew that if the 16th Amendment had levied a direct tax without regard to apportionment, the United States Supreme Court would have struck it down.
But what did the Supreme Court rule? It ruled that "[B]y the previous ruling, [Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad] it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred [NO NEW POWER] of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning [of our national government under the Constitution] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged..."
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916)
So what is the real issue at hand here?
"In dealing with the scope of the taxing power, the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation of the question and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. It is important that these provisions be clearly understood; what is required is an understanding of fundamental principles. The familiar statement that at this time we need education in the obvious more than investigation into the obscure (Holmes, Collective Legal Papers, pp. 292-293), although made in a different context, is peculiarly applicable here." Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 32 T.C. 653 at 5659 (1959)
For more, see "Does The IRS Exist?"
Saturday, February 21, 2009
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Albert Einstein
M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries, and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical bell-shaped curve based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. Various modified versions of his original logistic model are used, using more complex functions to allow for real world factors. While each version is applied to a specific domain, the central features of the Hubbert curve (that production stops rising, flattens and then declines) remain unchanged, albeit with different profiles.
At first his prediction received much criticism, for the most part because many other predictions of oil capacity had been made over the preceding half century, but these had been based purely on reserve and production, data rather than past discovery trends, and had proven false. Needless to say, it became a classic case of "I told you so".
Between October 17, 1973, and March 1974, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) ceased shipments of petroleum to the United States, causing what has been called the 1973 energy crisis. In 1975, with the United States still suffering from high petroleum prices, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed their acceptance of Hubbert's calculations on oil and natural gas depletion, and acknowledged that their earlier, more optimistic estimates had been incorrect.
According to the Energy Information Administration, U.S. Petroleum Consumption is 20,680,000 barrels/day while U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption is 9,286,000 barrels/day (390 million gallons/day). We import 10,031,000 barrels/day. So in essence, we import about 50% of the oil we use. 50 years ago, the United States was the world's largest oil exporter.
This diagram gives the overall picture as of 2007. The Total World Production as of 2006 was 82,433,000 barrels/day while Total World Petroleum Consumption was 84,979,000 barrels/day. The law of supply and demand dictates in a situation where the demand is greater than the supply, price go up.
This is not a political issue. It is simply a fact of life. Trying to cheat the laws of economics is just as troubling as passing a law that bans hurricanes or gravity. Sadly, the people who make decisions for the world these days play on our emotions with power and instant gratification being the primarily motives. Whenever you are making decisions about economics, money, science, etc..., logic is the way to go. One of the main reasons housing is so unaffordable is in addition to having a phony monetary system, housing prices have in large part been based on just whatever the seller felt like pricing it at instead of relying on logic.
There are ways to address this issue. The biggest challenge is adjusting our mindsets and our daily way of lives to compensate. Innovative thinking about transportation, our daily habits and what not will go a long way towards addressing this issue. Sadly, we are creatures of habit and we are stubborn to change our ways. In the downtown areas, people will live and work there. What's the point of driving if your place of work is just a mile or two away? Not to mention parking downtown is usually a hassle anyways. Buses and trains ought to be considered.
It will vary from city to city.
I think the suburbs over time will cease to exist to a large extent. As the price of gasoline goes up and stays there, many of the trucking companies will either go under or simply change their routes in order to survive. Food production which should be done locally anyways will be going back to that. Food co-ops and farmer's markets will be way to go. In rural areas, they will find a way to mix the use of conventional technologies with old ways like the horse.
This problem we have is largely a problem of convenience for convenience sake and combined with the lack of foresight, we have what we have. We are suffering because of it and we will for the foreseeable future. But we either change our ways or die. Sadly, I think in combination with the instability in the job market, geo-politics, and many other areas, tensions will boil over to the point of it being of no return at least in the short-term. I think it will be a combination of the Road Warrior and Star Wars as the situation goes from massive unemployment, tax protests, sit-ins to literal violence as the power-brokers are removed. It will take another revolution to remove them. It may take another generation, the ones who are children today to figure things out after they are removed. We are mostly 20th century animals doing things in a 20th century way, but clearly those ways are becoming obseolete. What we haven't figure out or mastered yet is what does work in the 21st century? Only time will tell. In any event, I'm ready for anything.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
After doing more research on "National Emergency Centers", I've come up with a possible list of locations of these camps. This is a brief list of possible sites to say the least.
Fairbanks: built to house over 2,000,000 people. It is a mental health facilty.
Aliceville - WWII German POW camp - capacity 15,000
Omaha - Northeast of Berryville near Missouri state line, on Hwy 65 south of old wood processing plant. Possible crematory facility.
Trinidad - WWII German/Italian camp being renovated.
Ft. Benning - Located east of Columbus near Alabama state line. Rex 84 site - Prisoners brought in via Lawson Army airfield. Ft. Mc Pherson - US Force Command - Multiple reports that this will be the national headquarters and coordinating center for foreign/UN troop movement and detainee collection.
Halawa Heights area - Crematory facility located in hills above city. Area is marked as a state department of health laboratory. Barbers Point NAS - There are several military areas that could be equipped for detention / deportation.
Leavenworth - US Marshal's Fed Holding Facility, US Penitentiary, Federal Prison Camp, McConnell Air Force Base. Federal death penalty facility. Concordia - WWII German POW camp used to exist at this location but there is no facility there at this time. Ft. Riley - Just north of Interstate 70, airport, near city of Manhattan. El Dorado - Federal prison converted into forced-labor camp, UNICOR industries. Topeka - 80 acres has been converted into a temporary holding camp.
Ft. Campbell - Next to Land Between the Lakes; adjacent to airfield and US Alt. 41.
Millington - Federal prison camp next door to Memphis Naval Air Station.
Crossville - Site of WWII German / Italian prison camp is renovated; completed barracks and behind the camp in the woods is a training facility with high tight ropes and a rappelling deck.
Nashville - There are two buildings built on State property that are definitely built to hold prisoners. They are identical buildings - side by side on Old Briley Parkway. High barbed wire fence that curves inward.
CNBC and NBC executives must be having seizures. The trading floor buzz on whether the government's plan to save the economy will actually help the markets, with Jason Roney, Sharmac Capital; Wilbur Ross Jr., WL Ross & Co. and CNBC's Rick Santelli.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
I learned years ago that knowledge, education, technology or what have you will not shield us from the fundamental troubles we have in life nor human nature itself. Especially for those who have lived through the latter part of the 20th century and were told that a college degree would solve all our problems and what not are learning the hard way this isn't always the case.
I've read stories of how the cowboys, gunslingers, and dance hall girls of the Old West had trouble adjusting to the rapid changes occurring at the turn of the 20th century. It took a good twenty years and another generation to really sort things out. We are going down that same road again.
For in much wisdom [is] much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Ecc 1:18
Daryn Kagan, the former CNN anchor and reporter asked a very good question that is especially relevant in this day and age:
What Would You Do If You Could Quit Your "Real Job?"
So what would you do?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Today is President's Day. I've come to realize over the years that this day has a lot of mis-information associated with it. For one, George Washington was born on February 22.
Click here for some interesting information on the holiday.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Today is Jane Seymour's birthday. I've been a fan of Jane's since first seeing her in the East of Eden miniseries in 1981. She was a bad girl! Her career speaks for itself.
Perhaps her best known role is as Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. While the show went off the air unceremoniously in 1998, she has kept busy with painting, raising her children, and doing guest spots on TV. Not to mention she is a timeless beauty who is truly like fine wine.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Today is Kim (Marilyn) Novak's birthday and she is 76 years young, but would pass for twenty years younger.
I vaguely recall her being on Falcon Crest during the 1986-1987 season, but that was a show my parents watched. I truly become a fan of hers during the Vertigo re-issue after it was restored in 1995. Truly a beautiful movie! It is my all-time favorite movie. I'm not sure what I find so fascinating about her, but my interest has grown over the 13 years since I saw Vertigo.
These days, she lives in Oregon with her husband of almost 33 years, raises llamas, and tend to her daily affairs. I hope to meet her someday or perhaps even work with her on a movie. That is if I can write a screenplay that she would feel worth coming out for. Stay tuned!
You can't go wrong with any of her movies, but several ones I would recommend in addition to Vertigo are The Man With The Golden Arm, Picnic, Kiss Me, Stupid, and The Legend of Lylah Clare which is campy, but not as bad as most people have made it out to be.
I think I most admire Kim not for her movies or her physical beauty, but for the fact she is a survivor. Especially having lived in the pressure cooker known as Hollywood, she is living proof that there is life after the glory and fame are over. Most people have never been able to come to terms with this, especially child actors. You should always follow your heart and not allow peer pressure to dictate how you live your life.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
A Tax Revolt Hits The United States In 2009?
John Paul Mitchell
February 9, 2009
In 2008, I wrote a book entitled “No More Taxes,” which gave concerned Americans and foreigners the historical and spiritual perspective on taxation. I revealed how Jesus actually felt about tax collectors and the cunning Jewish Temple which sold out his small nation to the heavy-hand of the Roman oppressors. No More Taxes clearly depicts Jesus the Christ being murdered, by crucifixion, for his wildly public commentary against Caesar’s orders to collect a Poll Tax from all Jews living in Judea and abroad.
Unfortunately, our country and our world doesn’t have a revolutionist like Jesus any longer. He stood firmly against everything big government sought to take away from the individual. He insisted on love than hate, giving up one’s accumulated riches than hoarding, turning the other cheek than striking back, and so on.
If Jesus walked the earth in our present age, the Illuminati, our world leaders, and co-conspirators would have much to fear! Certainly, they would conspire to kill a rebel with such an outspoken stance against taxes and government.
Since we no longer have Jesus to stand up for us, what if we lived like he did and revolted against the fraudulent system that has become the United States federal government? What if all citizens throughout the world, no matter their nationality or ethnicity, stood against their governments and refused to pay taxes?
Queen Boadicea from East Anglia started a revolution attributed to the corrupt tax collectors in the British Isles. In 60 ADE, the revolt she led killed all Roman soldiers within a 100 mile radius. Her No More Taxes revolutionary resistance movement was able to seize London. It is reported 80,000 Roman soldiers were massacred during her revolt. Those 80,000 soldiers faced an unexpected army of 230,000 armed tax resisters.
Maybe it is time for people everywhere to stand up against their governments and revolt.
In fact, the United States might be the last of the nations to stand up. Other people in different countries are already rioting, insisting their governments bow down to their will and desire. A lot of Americans, all throughout the country, seem to enjoy the financial rape that has been forced upon us and our future generations. When will we finally stick up for ourselves and our children’s children?
Gerald Celente predicts a rebellion will hit the United States with widespread food riots and a tax revolt by the year 2012.
Celente, the man who predicted the 1987 stock market crash, said in a recent interview:
“There will be a revolution in this country,” he said. “It’s not going to come yet, but it’s going to come down the line and we’re going to see a third party and this was the catalyst for it: the takeover of Washington, D. C., in broad daylight by Wall Street in this bloodless coup. And it will happen as conditions continue to worsen.”
“The first thing to do is organize with tax revolts. That’s going to be the big one because people can’t afford to pay more school tax, property tax, any kind of tax. You’re going to start seeing those kinds of protests start to develop.”
Will a tax revolt hit the United States in 2009?
According to Gerald Celente, it’s the first stage in overthrowing the corrupt government leaders and forcing them to listen to the People.
Here’s a 1-page flyer (pictured below) you can print out and distribute around your city and state. Feel free to download and re-post this image anywhere on the Internet. Let us join together with one voice and proclaim our freedom. Because, if we don’t fight for it now, our children will be slaves!
Monday, February 9, 2009
Courtesy of Jewish Virtual Library
I recently posted a link to an article regarding H.R. 645. You can look up H.R. 645 ("National Emergency Centers Establishment Act") by entering it at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c111query.html.
It in part reads:
SEC. 2. Establishment of national emergency centers.
(a) In general.—In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
(b) Purpose of national emergency centers.—The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure—
(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
With all the highly educated jobless and career-less professionals out there, it makes me wonder why there isn't more discussion about starting your own business.
It presents its own challenges, but in the end, can be extremely rewarding.
Let's face it folks! The glory days of the corporation are over. They will still exist, but the times of viewing them as demi-gods or "persons" will seize to exist certainly by the middle of the 21st century.
In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in their charters. Many private firms in the 19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons (Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership, and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust). Eventually, state governments began to realize the greater corporate registration revenues available by providing more permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state. Delaware followed, and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the country after New Jersey raised taxes on the corporations, driving them out. New Jersey reduced these taxes after this mistake was realized, but by then it was too late; even today, most major public corporations are set up under Delaware law.
By the beginning of the nineteenth century, government policy on both sides of the Atlantic began to change, reflecting the growing popularity of the proposition that corporations were riding the economic wave of the future. In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations a plethora of rights they had not previously recognized or enjoyed via Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819). Corporate charters were deemed "inviolable," and not subject to arbitrary amendment or abolition by state governments. The Corporation as a whole was labeled an "artificial person," possessing both individuality and immortality.
But in spite of all the attention corporations get these days, good and bad, it is still small businesses that employ the greater percentage of people and provide the greater opportunity for personal and professional growth. For my money, the Entrepreuner's Source is the best business consulting organization out there. Give it a try!
Friday, February 6, 2009
Hutson was a physical education instructor at the University of Tennessee in the early '70s. With the job, she was also handed the position of head women's basketball coach.
Today, she's little known, but in her four years, was nearly as successful on the court as her high-profile successor when it comes to winning percentage.
Most of these firms have limited cash for a rainy day, and a lot of debt, with large interest payments due over the next year. In ordinary times, it might not be so hard to refinance loans, or get new ones, to help keep the cash flowing. But in an acute credit crunch it's a different story, and at companies where sales are down and going lower, skittish lenders may refuse to grant any more credit. It's a terrible time to be cash-poor.
I explained a number of years ago how I went from being a republican to a libertarian although I'm not a card-carrying member of the party itself.
I've voted for republicans, independents and libertarians when I could, plus a Green candidate. I have only voted for one Democrat candidate and that was Jim Andrews who ran for Knox County Sheriff in 2002.
So what is it that I have against the Democrat Party? In short, they are essentially big government all the way around. Republicans are big government types, but at least some of them understand what it means to be a fiscal conservative, reducing the size of government, etc...
While I know there are some small-government Democrats around, the party itself has been socialist for so long, they never met a spending or tax bill they didn't like.
They are the ones largely responsible for the massive job losses via their support for NAFTA, hostility towards workers including union members while lining the pockets of the union bosses themselves, regulations and rules that artificially expand the cost of everything from A to Z.
They are terrible at anything related to economics, math, science, etc... because they do not use logic.
I know I will rub some loyal democrats the wrong way with this post, but so what. They have been getting a free ride for too long and it is about time someone challenged them. You say you are for the working people of this nation? Prove it!
I worked at Wal-Mart until recently. I was making $8.55 an hour which is manageable, but AFTER everything is deducted, it amounts to around $7.00 an hour which is BELOW minimum wage. In the 19 months I was there, I had around $4,000 withheld from me in insurance which I never use and taxes, split evenly between the two. I am better able to manage my own money instead of handing it off to someone else to play around with. It is also why I withdrew from the stock market last May knowing that it would drop eventually. So, why not eliminate withholding taxes instead of your empty calls about increasing the minimum wage? It only causes job losses for those just starting out like teenagers, the very people you claim to be helping.
In truth, the Democrat Party is just as power hungry as the GOP. Until they undergo a fundamental change in how they do things, I will never ever be a democrat.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man (an exchange student), who kept rubbing his back & stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his countrys' government and install a communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke.
'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs that are used to the free corn start to come through the gate to eat, and then you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.'
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us towards socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc., etc., etc. While we continue to lose our freedoms....just a little at a time.
One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
So, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!
In this very important election year, listen closely to what the candidates are promising you....just maybe, you will be able to tell who is about to slam the gate on America.
Remember: 'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
In more than 17 years at the News Sentinel, Mr. Owen's work was honored in numerous professional competitions. Last fall, his photograph of an Army National Guard helicopter pilot greeting a young pen pal won a regional award from the National Press Photographers Association.
Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla., has introduced to the House of Representatives a new bill, H.R. 645, calling for the secretary of homeland security to establish no fewer than six national emergency centers for corralling civilians on military installations.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The bottom line is that it is a brutal world out there. Always has been. But there are those who have become obscured from the world at large.
I think Americans in particular have had it way too easy for way too long. I've come across these very people in my own life. They get uncomfortable because I told the truth about certain things. Would they prefer to be told lies? Most people would.
We just assume we are entitled to things. We just drive one mile to the grocery store (what's wrong with a horse and a wagon?) and get our food. Most people have no idea the process it takes for it to get from raw materials to the shelves.
So how are those people going to be able to survive should we have food shortages, violence breaks out in the streets as often happens in times like these, high gas prices again, etc...?
We are so not prepared. We keep thinking that doing things the same way will work. It is insanity. I and people who are willing to think outside the box will survive and ultimately thrive. Those who refuse to change will not. It is that simple.