“Still, you’ll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.” (see below video)

Interestingly, if we journey back to June 28, 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt, in his 5th Fireside Chat, included these words:

“A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it “Fascism,” and sometimes “Communism,” and sometimes “Regimentation,” and sometimes “Socialism.” But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.” (see below video)

Both of these Presidents, I’m sure, have claimed to be upholding our Constitution, and were/are discharging their duties according to the principles espoused by, and agreed upon by, the very men who brought this Constitutional Republic into existence. But, if that were the case, wouldn’t the words of these Presidents also be similar in style and tone to the men who Founded the United States?

Please consider some of the very words, written by our Founders:

Thomas Jefferson:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

George Washington:
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Thomas Paine:
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

And, the above are but a few examples of the many words espoused by our Founders, who had a healthy skepticism, and perhaps a very realistic view of Government, and it’s inherent nature of abusing the Powers given to them. If the Founders, themselves, warned us of the threat of BIG GOVERNMENT, and the potential for tyranny, then, why do we see so many examples, today (as in the above examples), of politicians warning citizens about “their fellow citizens,” and trying to espouse the virtues of BIG GOVERNMENT?

I would even go a step further, and ask: If the policies espoused by Franklin Roosevelt were so inline with those of our Founders, and those enumerated in our Federal Constitution, then, why would he have even needed to evoke such words as Fascism, Communism, Regimentation, and Socialism? And, for both of these Presidents, it should have been sufficient to point to the “specific power” Constitutionally Enumerated to Congress and The President, to validate being involved in the areas to which they were/are involved.

In retrospect, my father was not saying that, the terrorists were going to somehow bring down the United States; or somehow conquer our country. What my father was inferring is that, the terrorists had succeeded at instilling enough fear into our citizenry that, cooler heads would not prevail; and, there would be a call for our Government to do whatever was necessary to see that such a thing did not happen again; all consequences be dammed! My father either had a very profound insight, in a time of great tragedy, or perhaps, having lived through Pearl Harbor and seeing the response, then, gave him some relative insights.

Indeed, as Americans, who watched completely innocent citizens ruthlessly attacked on 911, by cowardly thugs, it was completely justifiable to want revenge, and to have expected a military response by our Government. Not long after, however, we began seeing a plethora of policies being instituted, that, rightfully, gave pause to a large portion of our citizenry. For example:

The Patriot Act:
Which, as part of that legislation, allowed for Federal Agents to essentially write their own search warrants.

The TSA:
Which allows for Federal Agents to, intentionally or not, harass average citizens, who are merely exercising their rights as free citizens to travel, by air, throughout this country, and abroad. The implication being that, we are all “potential” terrorists now.

The National Defense Authorization Act:
Which is a federal law that allocates the spending etc. for our Defense Department; but, included in the 2012 NDAA was a provision that allowed for the indefinite detention of people who were merely “suspected” of a crime by our Federal Government.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (also referred to as CISPA):
Which is a proposed federal law, which would allow the Federal Government to access and monitor Internet-based traffic; and to share such information between themselves and Internet-based companies, manufacturers etc.

And, the list goes on!

All of the above, as well, are an egregious assault to The 4th Amendment of The United States Constitution, which says:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Sadly, we recently witnessed another attack on our citizenry, at The Boston Marathon. Our hearts, of course, go out to those who have been seriously injured by these attacks; and we mourn for the three citizens who died that day.

And, while the two men, who are are believed to have perpetrated this horrendous attack, thankfully, have been brought to justice, many of us are concerned by the Federal Government’s response to this attack. In order to find two men, our Government, essentially, declared Martial Law: demanding that thousands of Massachusetts citizens remain in their homes, while nearly “9000″ Government agents ascended on Massachusetts. Many reports, as well, are beginning to surface, of egregious Government abuses of power, against average, law-abiding citizens. And, after all that, it was still an average citizen who located the second perpetrator and notified the police.

In the aftermath of this tragedy, we are now seeing a parade of fools, marching onto the cable network news programs, and preaching to us as to why we need more Government surveillance cameras, and need to forfeit even more of our Liberties. Mayor Bloomberg, which is not really a surprise, even went as far as saying that, the “Interpretation of the Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After the Boston Bombing.”

Naturally, we as citizens of this country, want to feel safe. And, it is a core duty of our Federal Government to provide for our Defense, from hostile and external forces. But, the question that every American needs to ask themselves is, at what cost? That, in a nutshell, is the question that I believe my father was inferring, back in 2001.

The brilliant men that brought this Constitutional Republic into existence, way back in 1787, understood that government, at all levels, were prone to abuse their powers. Benjamin Franklin was quoted as famously saying:

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

Indeed! If we allow our federal and state governments to incessantly breach our federal and state constitutions, the question that will remain, in the end, is, who is going to protect us from our own Government(s)?

I am utterly convinced that, if, one day, our Constitutional Republic is destroyed, it will be finished off from within, and not by some external force; which, I believe, has always been the plan of these terrorists. That is, to have our Government do what they, themselves, are unable to do!

In 1961, President Eisenhower, in his Farewell Speech, made a very astute and honest observation in regards to the growth of the military, and the military industry in this country:

”In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

President Eisenhower also made this astute point:

“We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.”

Both of these quotes are spot on! And, both apply as much to our emerging Police State as they do with our military. Our Founders, largely, believed that standing armies were dangerous to public liberty; and, with each passing year, it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between our local police, and the military. The creeping militarization of our police forces are of true concern to much of our citizenry – as it ought to be.

Indeed, we all, as citizens, want to be safe. The ultimate question we need to ask is, at what cost? As citizens, I truly believe that it is morally imperative that we make sure that “security and liberty may prosper together.” If we do not, then, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, we “will deserve neither and lose both.”

Posted, originally at, The Original Republican

“Following The Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention of 1787, where The United States Constitution was debated, written, and sent to the thirteen respective states for ratification, many notable, and well-respected Patriots, and statesmen, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason, also referred to as The Anti-Federalists, publicly spoke out against the ratification of The Constitution. Among the several reasons: they believed it was a threat to Individual Liberties; they were opposed to the new Federal Court system; and feared that The President would eventually morph into a King.”

“At the time that The Constitution was being written, Thomas Jefferson while serving as an U.S. Ambassador in France, wrote to James Madison, advocating for a Bill of Rights. Also, not pleased with the results of The Constitutional Convention, three of the remaining delegates refused to sign the document: Edmund Randolph of Virginia, George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. A Bill of Rights was demanded if they were to support the Constitution. It was to these men, the Anti-Federalists of the day, and their wisdom and opposition to The Constitution at the time, that we can thank for our treasured Bill Of Rights.”

“Inspired largely by The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), which was largely inspired by The English Bill of Rights (1689), James Madison introduced a series of legislative articles to the 1st United States Congress, which were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789; proposed, jointly, by Congress, on September 25, 1789; and through the process of state ratification, were adopted as the first ten amendments to The United States Constitution. The Bill Of Rights went into effect on December 15, 1791.”

Although there was much written, in opposition to The Constitution at the time, I continually come back to these words, written under the pseudonym of Brutus – as they are very revealing:

“Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are willfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.”

Clearly, from the above words, we can conclude that The Bill of Rights were not only created to add additional restraints onto the newly created, Federal Government, but, that, these Constitutional “Protections” were drawn from “pre-existing state constitutions.” Why then does there continue to be this belief, or misconception, that The Supreme Court has some authority over these rights? Clearly, if these restraints were put onto The Federal Government, that would certainly include all agents of The Federal Government – including The Supreme Court.

Prior to The Twentieth Century, it was largely understood, and largely upheld that, The Bill of Rights were there to restrain The Federal Government in certain areas of the people’s lives, and nothing more. It wasn’t until The Supreme Court created a fictitious doctrine, under the guise of The 14th Amendment, Due Process Clause, that they flipped The Bill of Rights on their head and used them to assert more Federal control over the states, and the people’s lives..

Please consider this brief history of The Incorporation Doctrine, from Wikipedia:

“The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”

“Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to “incorporate” most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.”

“The genesis of incorporation has been traced back to either Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) in which the Supreme Court appeared to require some form of just compensation for property appropriated by state or local authorities (although there was a state statute on the books that provided the same guarantee) or, more commonly, to Gitlow v. New York (1925), in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech. Since that time, the Court has steadily incorporated most of the significant provisions of the Bill of Rights.”

Often times, we hear The Second Amendment cited, as our Constitutional Protection to bear arms; but, how many people have taken the time to actually review their state constitutions? At least 40 states have an explicit clause, in their state constitutions, guaranteeing their citizens the right to bear arms.This is not to minimize our 2nd Amendment, but only to put it into it’s proper perspective. It is there to restrain The Federal Government from making laws in regards to this right, but our state constitutions are where this “Constitutional Protection” truly lies. Therefore, if this right is already protected in our state constitutions, why would we want to give The Federal Government, which includes The Supreme Court, any power in this area?

In this recent post, by The Tenth Amendment Center, on The Bill of Rights, the author made a very astute point in regards to The Second Amendment:

“Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment.”

The above paragraph is a great insight into natural rights. For example, these rights are not granted by government, state or federal, but rather, are part of our humanity, and considered God-given rights. And, to that extent, these rights are more like “Constitutional Protections,” of rights, that pre-exist Government.

Some people, who are not well-informed on this topic, or simply feel uncomfortable with it, will often ask questions such as, “if The Supreme Court didn’t apply these rights to the states, couldn’t the states, for example, establish state religions”? While that would be a great question, it has already been answered: By the mid 1800s, all states in the union had already, by their own accord, disestablished all state religions in their respective states.

And, for the more conservative Americans, I would ask them to consider that The Supreme Court has used this very same, Supreme Court-created, Incorporation Doctrine, in their Roe vs. Wade decision, which has seriously hindered the individual states ability to legislate in the area of abortion, and Everson vs The Board of Education, which was the beginning of the end for school prayer etc.

In fact, I would encourage anyone who is reading this post to use this link to search for your state constitution, and compare it with The Federal Bill of Rights. I believe that many people will be surprised to find that most of the constitutional protections that we have come to treasure in The Federal Bill of Rights are already present in their state constitution. And, if they are not, there surely is a way to work toward amending your respective constitution.

While, in one regard, a Supreme Court decision may work for the good of some individual initiative, their decisions, as we have seen, can also lead to the nationalization of some very bad decisions – which, can have some very long-term, negative ramifications. In my humble opinion, it is far better to have a few states lacking in certain constitutional protections, which can be remedied by their respective citizens, then it is to have 9 people in our Federal Government, using their nationalist agenda, to further destroy our state sovereignty, and by extension, our individual rights, and sovereignty.

Whether it is our natural right to self-defense, or any other God-given right, we should hold firmly to this maxim: that, in regards to these rights, “No Federal Permission Slip Is Required.”

“Ought not a [Federal] government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are willfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.”

At the time that The Constitution was being written, Thomas Jefferson while serving as an U.S. Ambassador in France, wrote to James Madison, advocating for a Bill of Rights. Also, not pleased with the results of The Constitutional Convention, three of the remaining delegates refused to sign the document: Edmund Randolph of Virginia, George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. A Bill of Rights was demanded if they were to support the Constitution. It was to these men, the Anti-Federalists of the day, and their wisdom and opposition to The Constitution at the time, that we can thank for our treasured Bill Of Rights.

Inspired largely by The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), which was largely inspired by The English Bill of Rights (1689), James Madison introduced a series of legislative articles to the 1st United States Congress, which were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789; proposed, jointly, by Congress, on September 25, 1789; and through the process of state ratification, were adopted as the first ten amendments to The United States Constitution. The Bill Of Rights went into effect on December 15, 1791.

Since their inception, sadly, the amendments contained in The Bill of Rights have been more or less ignored and trampled on by different Administrations and Congresses throughout the years. But, since the horrific attacks of September 11th, 2001, it seems like there has been a torrent of never-ending attacks on these rights, by our Federal Government; all under the guise of safety and security.

Just as the events of 911 were heart-wrenching, and a sincere challenge to our country, so too was the recent tragedy in Connecticut, where several children were tragically murdered by a sick individual. But, as with 911, instead of just bringing the perpetrator(s) to justice, and/or seeking the “actual” motives behind the attacks, and facing up to the reality that there are evil people in the world, it appears that legislators are, once again, trying to hold all of society guilty for the sick acts of a very small number of people. I think Ronald Reagan summed it up nicely, when he wrote these wise words:

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

And, since this horrible event unfolded in Connecticut, the same alarmists and reactionaries are out, trying to tell us why we must now forfeit our 2nd Amendment rights. My reaction, aside from grieving for these poor children and their families, was to ask, “why the hell was The Federal Government ever involved in this area to begin with”? To start, The 2nd Amendment instructs The Federal Government that, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Therefore, what if each school district throughout the country were left to decide what their security priorities should be? Or, at the very least, each state had their own policies in place; isn’t it then conceivable that a would-be killer would not have chosen such an easy and vulnerable target had he known that an armed individual, or individuals, may have been inside the school, whose purpose it is to protect the children? It is also conceivable that the children are asking, why the bad guys with guns can enter their schools, but why weren’t there good guys with guns, there to protect them! That answer is fairly simple: because misguided politicians, in my opinion, are trying to teach our children that “all people” with guns are bad people!

And, if that were the case, then, it would also stand to reason that everyone in our military, down to the local police, are bad people — which is so obviously not the case! Just as every American citizen that gets on an airplane, is not a would-be terrorist! I often wonder why society, by in large, never holds Government responsible for the laws that they create; or, ask, how is Government culpable for these terrible acts? Too many people, blindly, assume that, because Government is doing something, that is must be good, or just. Nothing can be further from the truth!

Particularly where politics are injected, as opposed to sound and rational decisions, based on real-world implications. The idea that Congress can create these one-size-fits-all policies, for all 50 states, and over 300 million citizens, is beyond delusional; it is downright dangerous, and irresponsible!

Our Bill of Rights were conceived, and adopted, by very practical men, who were well-versed in history, and understood the need to keep a central Government from infringing on these rights. So many case studies could be listed, as to the tyranny that has been perpetuated by out of control Governments, who were not prohibited from disarming innocent, and law-biding citizens. Or, where the Freedom to speak one’s mind, or freely practice one’s own faith, was not safeguarded; or, where one’s right to be left alone, in their homes etc. was not protected. Each of those 10 Amendments, we call The Bill of Rights, had a historical precedent behind them.

But, besides the implications of these blatant, Constitutional intrusions by our Federal Government, is a larger, and moral question that should be asked: That is, if our original 13 states ratified our Constitution, and created our Federal Government, based on these contractual agreements; and, over and over, our Federal Government, in all of their arrogance, insists on breaching this Constitutional contract, then what is to stop us, as states, and individual citizens, from withdrawing from this contract? Where, and how often, in the real world, if a contract is so blatantly breached, that a person or business is forced to remain in that contract?

In 1913, The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, and The Federal Income Tax was created. However, today, I, and millions of other Americans, would argue that, it has done, and continues to do, immeasurable damage to our economy and our Individual Liberties. And, to add insult to injury: during WW2, the Federal Government, presumptuously, created the withholding provisions, as a so-called, “temporary,” war measure, which allowed them to extort our money directly from our checks, and basically forced business-owners, against their will, to be tax collectors for The Federal Government. Doesn’t it stand to reason then, that if one [our Federal Government] party can, arbitrarily, modify or disregard a provision or Amendment to our Constitution – in this case, our Second Amendment – that [We, The People] the other party, can do the same?

What if, for example, every business-owner in this country decided to stop withholding taxes from their employee’s checks, and instead, focused their time, energy, and money, on actual productive activities like building their businesses, and creating more opportunities for their employees? It seems to me that our Federal Government would not be too thrilled with that prospect. But, morally, and contractually, there would be not one ounce of difference from what our Federal Government, endlessly, and arrogantly, continues to do to the “law-biding citizens” of this country!

Ultimately, I am convinced that, our hopes of ever again having a Constitutionally Limited Government, however that outcome may come about, will not be achieved by policy-wonks and number-crunchers, who are very valuable to the intellectual side of this debate, and to whom, at times, I am one of them; rather, it is with the philosophical, moral, and emotional pleas, in the name of Individual Liberties, that, with a praise from God, we will change the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens, and once again, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Posted, originally at, The Original Republican

We often hear from the current class of Democrats, and those on the far-left, that rich people are not paying their (so-called) fair share; but, for the objective observer, that notion has been put to rest, many times over, as it is common knowledge that rich people, by far, and by virtue of amount, pay the most taxes in this country; which is used to fund our Government(s), social programs etc. But, even in light of these facts, the rich, to some, are still not handing enough of their money over to Government!

Many of us on the right are often accused of standing up for the rich, and big business, at the expense of so-called working people; as if we, on the right, are not also working people! But, regardless of the rhetoric from the left, I believe that we do a pretty good job at explaining the economic virtues of why money in the private (productive) sector is of far more value then handing more of it over to The Government. This, however, goes well beyond economic policy. This goes right to the heart of Individual Liberties! Since the days of FDR and The New Deal policies; or perhaps since the inception of The Federal Income Tax (1913), our Federal Government has largely led our citizenry to believe that Government, by virtue of their confiscatory powers, has first rights over our earnings. That is a notion that I, and millions of other citizens, adamantly reject! The money that a person earns, is, in fact, an extension of their property. Without money, we can not acquire, maintain, or build on our property – and therefore, the two are inseparable. And, isn’t it ironic how we hear so many voices in these unions, preaching constantly about worker’s rights? But, when it comes to workers who happen to own businesses, keeping the fruits of “their own labors” that right becomes null and void! The presumption is, if you built or own a business, that, you are no longer a worker. But, as those who have built businesses realize, it is a 24/7, never-ending, endeavor, to build a successful business. And, if there is no one building businesses, then, there most certainly would be no need for workers! Therefore, sanctioning Government to take more and more of a person’s income, through involuntary, confiscatory means, is no different, in theory, then sanctioning a gang of thugs to break into a neighbors home, and taking off with a bunch of their property. No matter how you frame it, the end result is still theft; regardless if it is legalized or not!

Someone who is reading this post, may say, “we are not looking to tax away most of our citizenry’s money, only the “top two percent.” Surely, they can afford to pay more”! But, therein, is the most disturbing of all factors, in my opinion. After all, isn’t two percent of our population, clearly a minority? Regardless of one’s definition or belief as to what a minority is, a minority is nothing more then a smaller part, or number, of the overall population; as opposed to the majority of the population. And, so often, we hear the left, sanctimoniously, claiming to be the defenders of minorities; yet, they are more then willing to target a mere 2% of our citizenry! I could not think of a more clear-cut case of discrimination! Just because a person has a lot of money, that does not diminish their rights as citizens, or sanction legislators to, punitively, create, and apply, different laws or standards to that group of citizens. It is beyond disconcerting to hear a President of The United States, constantly, making 2% of our population a target of his administration! The President, of all people, has a constitutional mandate to execute laws, passed by Congress, equally to all citizens; not to decide who the winners and losers are; or who has made too much or too little money.

The President takes an oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of their ability, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” No majority has the right to vote away another person’s life, liberty or property. And, the minute that we give into that premise, that will be the final death-blow to our Constitution. And, thereafter, no one’s inherent rights will be protected!

This, in my humble opinion, is not really about how much money a person has; rather, it is about a person’s right to be free, and to legitimately, and honestly, earn as much money as they like, or are able, without having to be concerned if some segment of our population, and our Government, for whatever reason, is going to come after them, or falsely blame them for the very problems that these politicians, themselves, have created! Furthermore, those who enable Government to go after rich people today, may unwittingly be going after the futures of their own children, and grandchildren; unless, of course, it is their goal to see that their posterity never has a chance to achieve what past Americans, through hard work and God’s Grace, have been able to achieve.

Posted, originally at, The Original Republican

In The United States Constitution, our Founders wrote these words:

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…”

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census…”

Our Founders, when creating The U.S. Constitution, in Philadelphia, in 1787, largely agreed that, all direct taxation should be in direct proportion to our Representation, in The House of Representatives, in Congress; as it only stood to reason that, no one should be taxed without having proper Representation; neither should they have considerable Representation, if their requisite, or proportional, amount of taxes were not paid to The Federal Government.

Below, are some words, by two men, who actually participated in those debates:

“All money to be raised for supplying the public treasury by direct taxation shall be assessed on the inhabitants of the several states according to the number of their representatives respectively in the first branch, … according to the general principle that taxation and representation ought to go together.” – Elbridge Gerry

“In one respect, the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress will necessarily depend, in a considerable degree on the disposition, if not on the co-operation, of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” – James Madison

Clearly, the Founders were attempting to create a system that was truly equitable, and impartial. And, while subsequent taxes may not have always been agreed upon by the several states, each person was required to truly pay their “fair share” of Direct taxation, so that The Federal Government could provide the services that were enumerated to them by our Founders. This system was also a great mechanism to prevent Government officials from arbitrarily punishing or rewarding certain persons, or states, based on some political agenda; which, sadly, is what we have become accustomed to, in our lifetimes, since the inception of The Federal Income Tax, with the (1913) ratification of The 16th Amendment.

The 16th Amendment, basically, flipped the Founder’s original concept of Direct Taxation on it’s head; as it included these words: “…without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

This debate, however, goes well beyond just tax policy. How can any politician, or citizen, make such a determination as to what is someone’s fair share of income? There are many different variables involved, when someone has earned/acquired wealth. For example, some people have inherited wealth; others may have won the lottery, or hit the jackpot at a casino. But, for the majority of people who have acquired wealth in our country, it is due to very hard work, very long hours, and their ability to take very big risks, with their own money, or borrowed money, which they have promised to pay back.

It is very disconcerting, and, at times, infuriating, to hear American politicians, and some of our own citizenry, trying to “impose” their own moral, and arbitrary, beliefs, onto fellow citizens. Often times, you hear things like, “it must be nice to have all that money,” when someone is referring to a successful business owner; but, if you ask that same person, “how would you like to have all of the same responsibility as that person”? The answer, generally, is “no thank you”! OK, fine, that is understandable. However, if you think that person should be forfeiting their so-called fair share of their income to Government, then, why are you unwilling to take on your fair share of their responsibility?

And, as much as I may enjoy these things, it can be asked, “why do people who play sports, or make movies, and music, often make so much money”? Why is that fair? How have they helped us to put fuel in our cars, food in our refrigerators, or clothes on our bodies? What is “fair” is not something that can be, or should be, determined by Government. Fair is determined by “consumer choice.” If a person is willing to pay top dollars to see a concert, or go to a ball game, then, that is “their choice.” And, as long as entertainers can bring in the spectators, then they can demand such salaries, and contracts.

Also, if a person is required to give their so-called Fair share of their income to Government, then, going back to the Founder’s original model, perhaps such people should then get their Fair share of Representation, in Washington D.C. In other words, taxation being directly proportional to your Representation. Conversely, if someone is paying zero in Federal income taxes, wouldn’t it only stand to reason that they should have zero Representation in Congress?

And, if there is one true purpose for our Federal Government, it is their job to protect, and guarantee, Individual rights, not to provide Equal things.

1. “My view is to allow the minimum wage to rise with the CPI (basically, a measurement of inflation), or with another index…”

2. “I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”

Allow the minimum wage to rise? Keep up with inflation? Repair the (Federal) safety-net?

Minimum wage, while on the surface, may seem compassionate, it is actually a policy that keeps the skilled-workers working, and freezes out the less-skilled, and first-time workers. And, Inflation is caused by the incessant printing of money by The Federal Reserve, which devalues our currency, and causes all goods and services to rise in cost. Therefore, if I am not mistaken, Mitt Romney is basically suggesting that, under his Presidency, inflation, the minimum wage, and the welfare state, are here to stay, and will be tweaked, and adjusted, by the Technocratic Manipulators in his Administration!

So, while Mitt and friends, continue to print monopoly money, and prices continue to rise – some of us, who are fortunate enough to be employed, as the minimum wage increases, will be employed, and the rest of society will survive by living in the demoralizing world of food stamps and welfare?

Minimum wage, inflation, and the Federal safety-net, are all a creation of BIG GOVERNMENT; and, over the years, has been protected, and maintained, by a Federal Government that has long forsaken, and far exceeded, it’s Constitutional Limits! All three go against the very principles of a Free-Market economy; all three add up to tax increases; and, all three fly right in the face of Conservative economic policy in The United States! Mitt Romney, not only is no friend to The Free-Market, but, he is most certainly not a friend to The United States Constitution!

Romney’s remarks only confirm, and underscore, the fact that, just because one is a successful businessman, it doesn’t mean they understand how a free-market economy is suppose to function.

I, therefore, stand by my belief that, we are not in need of a successful businessman in The White House, but, rather, a person who understands The Constitution, and will work to return us to our Constitutional Foundation!

I recently saw this clip of Elizabeth Warren, where she says, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.” That, in my humble opinion, and in the context of how she framed it, is not only very disturbing, but it also confirms another presumption by the left, that, business owners, who have become successful in business, are the only ones who gain from their business. Nothing could be further from the truth! For example, let’s consider a local supermarket: Every day, that supermarket works around the clock to bring fresh food products to “their communities.” This is a “luxury” that we Americans really take for granted; but, this luxury is a direct result of our mostly free-market economy, and the entrepreneur who “took the risk” and opened that supermarket.

We also need to consider the hundreds of employees that the supermarket owner employs. And, how about the thousands of companies that manufacture these food products? The supermarket owner, by buying and selling their products, has helped those companies to grow; and, by extension, has helped those respective companies to hire more people, as their needs grow.

The value that this supermarket owner created, has not only benefited their community, but it has benefited thousands of people all over the country. And this is only a few of the thousands of examples that one could think of, when pondering all the “reciprocal benefits” of a successful business.

When most of us clock out, and go home for the evening; or spend our weekends in leisure, we should consider the millions of people who have worked around the clock, rarely took off, and sacrificed most of their leisure time, and personal lives, so that they could create a successful business – that not only bettered their lives, but hundreds, if not thousands of lives as well.

Therefore, for anyone who wants to continue believing that rich people and business owners are just greedy, and out for themselves, I would ask you to reconsider your mode of thinking, and try to see how, and why, we should actually be grateful to most of the people who have become wealthy in our country.

While such things may appeal to the sensibilities of voters, and are a clever way for politicians to win our votes, I often take exception to these sorts of questions:

In our Federal Constitution, The framers gave The United States Congress 16 explicit, and Enumerated Powers, to which they could legislate. And, since then, there has been 27 subsequent Amendments. Nowhere in our Constitution is it written that anyone in our Federal Government shall have the power to legislate the values or morals of each “individual” in this union of “sovereign states.”

By no means, am I suggesting that values are not important. The values we hold, are a core part of who we are, and of our very existence.  However, each of us has our own set of values, our own morals, and our own faiths. The Founders also made We The People the sovereigns in this Federalist system of ours, and outside of the Limited and Defined, Constitutional Powers, that We The People have given to our Federal Government, all other things should be left to our respective states, or to us, as sovereign individuals.

Therefore, in my humble opinion, the above questions should be answered as such:
The vision, and direction of our “Federal Government,” should always be moving in the direction that our Federal Constitution, ”explicitly,” calls for; which is the formula that made this country great from it’s inception. Period!

Regardless if I share the same values, or faith, as a person running for office, I still expect them to uphold the very document that they have taken an oath to; and let us, the people of this great country, decide how we should best govern “our own lives!”