Tea Party Command Center Contributor Cap Black On Dr Gina ( Starts at 0:55:23 ) discussing #MerrittLandry & Post Zimmerman Home Defense, something EVERY Second Amendment supporter should seriously consider.
Cap Black The Hood Conservative
Original Post by National Director, Dee
AX ANNEX TO THE SAINT PETERSBURG G20 LEADERS DECLARATION
1. The G20 has been at the forefront of efforts to establish a more effective, efficient and fair international tax system since they declared the era of bank secrecy over at the G20 London Summit in April 2009. In an increasingly borderless world, strengthening international cooperation in tax matters is essential to ensuring the integrity of national tax systems and maintaining trust in governments.
2. The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes has
played a critical role in ensuring that the international standard of exchange of information
on request endorsed by the G20 is implemented effectively around the world. Since the
Global Forum responded in 2009 to the G20’s call to ensure rapid implementation of its
standards of transparency and exchange of information, the Global Forum has completed 113peer review reports and has issued over 600 recommendations for improvement, with more than 300 of those recommendations having been acted upon to date. The number of
jurisdictions that have committed to implement the standards and have joined the Global
Forum has increased to 120. All but 14 of the jurisdictions reviewed have advanced to Phase 2 reviews, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the peer review process in achieving the
implementation of the standards. Those 14 jurisdictions are urged to implement the Global
Forum’s recommendations without further delay. In July 2013, G20 Finance Ministers and
Central Bank Governors asked the Global Forum to give overall ratings of exchange of
information on request at its meeting in November 2013. The Global forum will draw on the
work of FATF on beneficial ownership and ensure that all countries have information regarding the beneficial ownership of entities operating in their jurisdictions.
3. The G20 has now endorsed the development of a new global tax standard: to
automatic exchange of information. At the Cannes Summit in 2011,the G20 agreed to consider exchanging information automatically for tax purposes on a voluntary basis. In 2012, the Los Cabos Summit welcomed the OECD report on automatic exchange and encouraged all countries to join this practice. Given the developments in the Global Forum and other recent advances, it is now time to migrate to a more ambitious, more efficient and higher standard, which is automatic exchange of information. Recent developments involving undisclosed foreign bank accounts have also highlighted the urgent need to move to this new standard which the Global Forum will monitor to ensure its effective implementation. In July 2013, G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors fully endorsed the ambitious OECD proposal for a truly global model for multilateral and bilateral automatic exchange of information for tax purposes and declared their commitment to automatic exchange of information as the new global standard. The OECD has initiated work with G20 countries to develop the new single global standard for automatic exchange of information. G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors have mandated the OECD to provide a progress report at the October Finance Ministers’ meeting, including a timeline for completing this work in 2014. The new standard (included in a Model Competent Authority Agreement) will be presented at G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ meeting in February 2014.There is a clear need for the practical and full implementation of this new tax standard on a global scale. The Global Forum will establish a mechanism to monitor and review the implementation of the new standard on automatic exchange of information and will be working with the OECD Task Force on Tax and Development, the World Bank Group and others to help developing countries identify their need for technical assistance and capacity building.
4. The next challenge regarding automatic exchange of information is now to get all
jurisdictions to commit to this standard and put it into practice. Calling on all other
jurisdictions to join us by the earliest possible date, we are committed to automatic exchange of information as the new global standard, which must ensure confidentiality and the proper use of information exchanged, and we fully support the OECD work with G20 countries aimed at presenting such a new single global standard for automatic exchange of information by February 2014 and to finalizing technical modalities of effective automatic exchange by mid-2014. In parallel, we expect to begin to exchange information automatically on tax matters among G20 members by the end of 2015. The multilateral Convention is key to ensuring rapid implementation of the new standard and to enabling developing countries to benefit from the new more transparent environment. In 2009 the OECD and the Council of Europe swiftly responded to the G20’s call for a multilateral instrument by amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters in 2010 to meet international standards and to allow all countries with domestic laws that are sufficient to uphold the confidentiality of tax information to join. All G20 countries have led by example in signing this Convention and to date more than 70 countries and jurisdictions are covered or are likely to be covered by the Convention, including significant financial centres. The Convention is a powerful tool in the fight against tax evasion and allows for all forms of cooperation in tax matters, including automatic exchange of information. We expect all jurisdictions to join the Convention without further
delay.
5. International collective efforts must also address the tax base erosion resulting from
international tax planning. Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) relates chiefly to instances
where the interaction of different tax rules result in tax planning that may be used by
multinational enterprises (MNEs) to artificially shift profits out of the countries where they are earned, resulting in very low taxes or even double non-taxation. These practices, if left
unchecked, undermine the fairness and integrity of our tax systems. They fundamentally
distort competition, because businesses that engage in cross-border BEPS strategies gain a
competitive advantage compared with enterprises that operate mostly at the domestic level.
Fair, transparent and efficient tax systems are not only key pillars for sound public finances,
they also provide a sustainable framework for dynamic economies. For these reasons, G20
Leaders identified the need to address BEPS as a priority in their tax agenda at the Los Cabos
Summit in June 2012. Additionally, we must achieve better international coordination on taxes. In this regard, we must move forward in fighting BEPS practices so that we ensure a fair contribution of all productive sectors to the financing of public spending in our countries.
6. International tax rules, which date back to the 1920’s, have not kept pace with the
changing business environment, including the growing importance of intangibles and the
digital economy. In response to a G20 mandate, the OECD Secretary-General provided a report in February 2013 outlining the issues related to BEPS, and has now presented an ambitious and comprehensive Action Plan developed with G20 members aimed at addressing BEPS, with a mechanism to enrich the Plan as appropriate. Countries will need to examine how their domestic tax laws contribute to BEPS and to ensure that international and domestic tax rules do not allow or encourage multinational enterprises to reduce overall taxes paid by artificially shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions. A G20/OECD BEPS Project has been established through which all non OECD G20 countries will participate on an equal footing to develop proposals and recommendations to tackle the 15 issues identified in the Action Plan. G20 Leaders commit 3 themselves to a swift implementation and they also have a vital role to play in urging other countries to join with us and to take the necessary individual and collective actions to implement these proposals and recommendations in a timely manner. G20 Leaders appreciate the swift and effective response by the OECD in advancing the BEPS agenda and urge the OECD to work closely with G20 countries for the proper implementation of this Project.
7. The Action Plan aimed at addressing BEPS sets forth an ambitious agenda to examine the
following fundamental aspects of the international tax rules:
Ø First, changes to international tax rules must be designed to address the gaps between
different countries’ tax systems, while still respecting the sovereignty of each country
to design its own rules. Instruments will be developed to neutralise hybrid mismatches
and arbitrage; recommendations will be developed regarding best practices in the
design of domestic legislation to protect the tax base of countries against shifting of
profits to no or low taxation jurisdiction (through strengthening or introducing so called
“CFC” rules – Controlled Foreign Companies); and recommendations will be developed
regarding rules to prevent base erosion through interest deduction.
Ø Second, the existing international tax rules on tax treaties, permanent establishment,
and transfer pricing will be examined to ensure that profits are taxed where economic
activities occur and value is created. The action plan is designed to establish anti-treaty
shopping provisions and develop changes to the definition of the permanent
establishment (that is, whether there is sufficient nexus to allow a charge to tax) to
prevent BEPS. Three actions are identified in the area of transfer pricing to put an end to
the divorce between the location of profits and the location of real activities.
Importantly, there is recognition that although the existing transfer pricing rules
appropriately allocate income in many instances, special measures, either within or
beyond the arm’s length principle, may be required to address certain specific
difficulties arising in the current system.
Ø Third, more transparency will be established, including through a common template
for companies to report to tax administrations on their worldwide allocation of profits
and tax. It also requires more transparency between governments, with the need for
countries to disclose rulings and other tax benefits to their partners, and disclosure by
taxpayers of aggressive tax planning arrangements. The Action Plan also provides
mechanisms to collect better data so as to be able to measure BEPS and carry out the
relevant economic analyses.
Ø Fourth, all the actions are expected to be delivered in the coming 18 to 24 months. To
ensure that the recommendations may be implemented quickly, the OECD will be
developing a multilateral instrument for interested countries to amend their existing
network of bilateral treaties.
8. Developing countries must reap the benefits of the G20 tax agenda. The G20-led
efforts can advance efforts to improve domestic resource mobilisation. The Global Forum on
Transparency and Exchange of Information, the OECD Task Force on Tax and Development, the World Bank Group and other international organizations are key partners who can assist
developing countries identify their needs for technical assistance and capacity building in
implementing of the transparency and exchange of information standards, including through
the multilateral Convention and automatic exchange of information. These efforts will help
developing countries secure the corporate tax revenue they need to foster long-term
development. The OECD’s Tax Inspectors Without Borders initiative to assist tax
administrations of developing countries plays a useful role in this regard. Finally, we are
committed to continue to assist developing countries, including through the IOs, in identifying individual country needs and building capacity in the area of tax administration (in addition to automatic exchange of information) and encourage such support to be developing country led.
9. International taxation issues do not stop at addressing double non-taxation. We encourage continued discussion on other tax matters among tax administrators.
ANNEX - The 15 Actions to Address BEPS ACTION 1 – Address the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy. Identify the main difficulties that the digital economy poses for the application of existing international tax rules and develop detailed options to address these difficulties, taking a holistic approach and considering both direct and indirect taxation. Issues to be examined include, but are not limited to, the ability of a company to have a significant digital presence in the economy of another country without being liable to taxation due to the lack of nexus under current international rules, the attribution of value created from the generation of marketable location-relevant data through the use of digital products and services, the characterisation of income derived from new business models, the application of related source rules, and how to ensure the effective collection of VAT/GST with respect to the cross-border supply of digital goods and services. Such work will require a thorough analysis of the various business models in this sector.
ACTION 2 – Neutralise the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements. Develop model treaty
provisions and recommendations regarding the design of domestic rules to neutralise the effect (e.g., double non-taxation, double deduction, long-term deferral) of hybrid instruments and entities. This may include: (i) changes to the OECD Model Tax Convention to ensure that hybrid instruments and entities (as well as dual resident entities) are not used to obtain the benefits of treaties unduly; (ii) domestic law provisions that prevent exemption or nonrecognition for payments that are deductible by the payor; (iii) domestic law provisions that deny a deduction for a payment that is not includible in income by the recipient (and is not subject to taxation under controlled foreign company (CFC) or similar rules); (iv) domestic law provisions that deny a deduction for a payment that is also deductible in another jurisdiction; and (v) where necessary, guidance on co-ordination or tie-breaker rules if more than one country seeks to apply such rules to a transaction or structure. Special attention should be given to the interaction between possible changes to domestic law and the provisions of the OECD Model Tax Convention. This work will be co-ordinated with the work on interest expense deduction limitations, the work on CFC rules, and the work on treaty shopping.
ACTION 3 – Strengthen CFC Rules. Develop recommendations regarding the design of
controlled foreign corporation rules. This work will be co-ordinated with other work as
necessary.
Dear Senator Cruz
Recently I received a letter from Kathryn Keneally of the Department of Justice. She was responding to a July inquiry made by Senator Flake on my behalf. I had asked to find out why the DOJ had never investigated: 1) ABC Tax Co. for tax fraud and 2) IRS Director Stephen Whitlock for committing honest services fraud. Listed below are the answers I received:
DOJ Refused to Investigate ABC Tax Co Fraud
I provided the DOJ with the identify of 4,236 ABC Tax Co tax clients who defrauded the US Treasury of $17 million during the 2009 tax season by claiming phantom income in order to qualify for earned income tax refunds that put $4,000 in the hands of each criminal. The DOJ gave the following response:
“With respect to the December 6, 2012 letter requesting that the Tax Division investigate ABC Tax Co, the responsibility for investigating potential violations of federal tax laws is vested in the IRS”
Senator Cruz, who are American citizens supposed to turn to if the Department of Justice refuses to investigate fraud?
DOJ Refused to Investigate IRS Employee Fraud
I provided the DOJ with documentation that Internal Revenue Service Stephen Whitlock employee committed two felonies. The first time he violated federal law was when he willfully misused section 6103 in response to the inquiry made by Congressman Schweikert. Director Whitlock committed a second felony when he failed to provide the public who he serves with the fiduciary duty of honest service. Director Whitlock is responsible for taking credit for phantom investigations and issuing results on investigations that were never performed. The DOJ gave the following response:
“To alleged misconduct by Whistleblower Office Director Whitlock and other employees in that office, the nature of your allegation is within the investigation jurisdiction of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration”
Thank God for Tea Party
Senator Cruz as a CPA I have witnessed firsthand the abuse of Internal Revenue Service for over 30 years. The IRS bayonet’s those who can’t defend themselves. The majority of Congress would love to see the Tea Party go away. American taxpayers should be forever indebted to the Tea Party for exposing the widespread corruption inside the walls of the Internal Revenue Service.
Senator Cruz I think the majority of Tea Party members would agree with the following statement. If Congress allows the IRS to put people in jail for fraud, then Congress has a duty to taxpayers to put IRS employees in jail for fraud. I’m writing to ask you to investigate why the DOJ won’t investigate a billion dollar fraud and why the DOJ won’t investigate IRS employee felonies? I look forward to hearing your written response.
Randall Sorensen CPA CFF
Are Hollywood actors cowards about Obama Syrian military action?
As President Obama prepares the nation to go to war through his apparent ‘go it alone’ strategy where are the screams of alarm from Hollywood? Remember when the left cost Hollywood elite accused former President Bush of “Cowboy Diplomacy?” Now, with Britain on the sidelines with the rest of Obama’s coalition of the unwilling, his charm offensive at the G-20 Summit in Russia is under performing. Hollywood’s liberal millionaires are currently deafeningly silent.
This is in strange contrast to the continued poisonous verbal assaults by Hollywood actors lobbed against then President George Bush. Unlike Obama, Bush worked tirelessly to build an international 46 nation “Coalition of the Willing” to join the United States in war against Iraq.
Obama on the other hand cannot seem to muster a 2 nation Coalition of the Unwilling. Barack Obama has not made his case to America nor to the world and it is totally apparent to Americans to many of the former American Iraq and Afghanistan allies. This is Obama’s War and its launch has more to do with his embarrassment over a red line in the Syrian soil which even now he has attempted to erase.
As U.S. military forces prepare for war through its Mediterranean battleship presence, Hollywood with its liberal Obama yes men and women, seem to be hiding and strangely and uncharacteristically silent about possible military action and war.
Seann Penn, who like Hanoi Jane Fonda has had a penchant for visiting wartime enemies of America has not flung one typically profane word or otherwise toward Obama. Where is the outrage Penn is famous for when he attacked Bush as a war monger? Are 100,000 dead Syrians and 40 thousand of them innocent civilians in this civil war conflict not enough for Penn and his conscience of convenience?
What about Jaime Foxx who has no problem playing a president on the big screen and also attacking Bush with comments over the Iraq war in 200. He then told MSNBC in an interview, "I think George Bush and the guys that are there, just don't have the charisma to pull off the things that they're trying to do.”
Now fast forward to November 2012 when Foxx stood on stage at the Soul Train awards and called President Obama, “Our Lord and Savior.” Where is the charisma that this same “Lord and Savior” was supposed to possess to dazzle and impress the world’s nations with? Foxx, like his fellow actors are cowards whose principles shift with the box office printouts of their latest movies, and took cover when Obama decided to use military action as a run up to a possible war.
THE RETURN OF THE ROBBER BARONS
The world in which the economist lives is as alien to the average citizen as are the Plains of Mars. Yet, economists and their postulates are the driving force of our “modern” economic system. Economists, since the Great Depression have had more impact on changing the character or our nation then any of the tumultuous events since that time including the disastrous economic and social upheavals of The Great Depression and World War II. One economist, more than any other is responsible for the economic and moral decline of America and for that matter of most of the western democracies. That man is John Maynard Keynes. It is an anomaly that this man and his monumental commentary on the causes and solutions to economic destabilization and the promotion of a universal economic and social equilibrium, (The General theory of Employment, Interest and Money), has so greatly influenced academia and has become so invested in government policy and is so widely accepted by government policy makers. His entire theory and his defense of it is so garbled, inconsistent, and so incorrect that it should have been rejected as rapidly as economists rejected the economic absurdity of Huey Long and Francis Townsend and his Townsend Plan during the 1930’s. This assessment of Keynes’ General Theory would be suspect if not for the fact that it is the consensus of a number of Keynes’ highly respected contemporary peers. Among his detractors we find F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises. A current critique is David Stockman author of the current bestseller, THE GREAT DEFORMATION, The Corruption of Capitalism in America (Public Affairs, 2013).
Keynes’ greatest contribution in aid of his monetary scheme is the concept that the government through its central bank should have exclusive control of the currency, print money and expand the money supply to the point where interest rates would be reduced to the zero point. To Keynes, interest rates naturally exceed the value of money lent and when allowed to rise will bring on a depression or recession. Hence, interest rates on invested funds (as well as stock dividends) should be eliminated. Although Henry Hazlitt’s critique of The General Theory consisting of a virtual word by word sentence by sentence examination and repudiation of the General Theory is greatly informative, it is burdened with a thoroughness that makes it as difficult to read and comprehend as is Keynes’ General Theory itself. Fortunately this problem has been remedied by economist Hunter Lewis in his recent E-Book WHERE KEYNES WENT WRONG, And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles and Busts. Mr. Lewis has reviewed, as did Hazlett, each paragraph of the General Theory and found it irrational and based upon suppositions, assumed facts and fanciful economic theory. Fortunately, he states his case in layman’s language. The question he tries to answer is the one that confounds even David Stockman and indeed the rest of the rational world: if Keynes is indeed as irrational as Hazlett asserts, why have economists from Harvard to Berkley extolled and adopted the dogma encompassed in his General Theory? Why is Keynesism the foundation of our national and world economic structure after having been so soundly repudiated? How can economists like Paul Krugman, Ben Bernanke, and Allen Greenspan along with virtually every member of the Federal Reserve Board and Treasury Department subscribe to Keynesian doctrine?
In my recent book OBAMANOMICS, Nation Building on a Charge Card (Amazon Kindle, 2013) I attempted to explain the popularity of Keynesism. I start by suggesting that the greater volume of the General Theory is irrelevant to the present economic community. For the liberal elite, their only interest in Keynesism is its assertion that the government should assume a dominant autocracy over a nation’s and for that matter the world’s money recourses. When he published his General Theory in 1936, many economists let it pass apparently believing it was not intended to be serious work. Others no doubt passed on criticizing the work to avoid the scathing broad side that Keynes was noted to unleash on his critics.
The General Theory was published when the world and America were in the trough of the Great Depression and Capitalism was under attack. Roosevelt, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler had each declared that Capitalism was a failure and that a new economic order was mandated to bring to the oppressed masses, social justice. Keyens’s General Theory, whether so intended or not provided a rational support to the rise of the super state. I do not intend by the above grouping to suggest that each of the world leaders were during the 30’s of the same character. Each, however, would lead their nations away from capitalist individualism and put their nation on the pathway to a new social order rejecting the legal and social traditions that would have placed restraints on their ambitions. Fortunately for America, the transition was not wrought by brutality and was imposed upon us by a gentler hand. (It was the old frog in the boiling pot approach). Roosevelt, upon taking office had already launched a program of big government spending and confiscatory taxation. Keynes’ General Theory, premised as it was on the concept of deficit spending and market intervention fit like a glove on Roosevelt’s heavy handed market intervention. Keynes’ theory on suppressing or eliminating interest rates and expanding the money supply through deficit spending to stimulate economic growth thrives yet today having been adopted as the policy justification underlying Roosevelt’s New Deal and has also the effect of confirming the liquidity policies of the Federal Reserve.
Keynes knew as few did at the time, that he who controlled the economic structure of any nation through a central banking structure controlled not only the wealth of the nation but also held dominion over the liberties and the limits thereon of the nation’s citizens. Keynes avoided the raging philosophical confrontation between Capitalism and totalitarian socialism by espousing yet a new doctrine which he asserted (when convenient) was not anti capitalist. Keynes believed and so stated in his General Theory, that the individual, whether businessman or laborer was too ignorant to wisely manage his own affairs, thus concluding that the wealth of a nation should be managed by others (never quite identified) who had the superior knowledge and experience to make the right choices and decisions in managing the nation’s capital. Of course this argument justifies in Keynes’ work that Central Banks and central planning is a necessity and that governments should have dominion over the individual, his property and his welfare. Keynes asserted that those superior persons appointed to manage our money and welfare would alleviate man from the burdens of every day endeavor and bring to all a universal, sustainable prosperity, eliminate recessions and depression and equally distribute the wealth of the nation. (This is of course the same allusions promoted by communists and socialists) Weather we call this system communism or socialism is basically irrelevant. It is however without doubt despotism in is most virulent form. It is our present misfortune to have a government of self anointed economic imperialists motivated not by our nation’s moral and law based traditions, but upon their Keynesian belief that they are superior to us all and through central banking and central planning can lead the nation into their conception of a new utopian social order.
As pointed out by his above named detractors, the greatest absurdity engaged in by present economists is the Keynesian concept that when the policy of deficit spending, regulation and taxation fails to stabilize the economy, the inevitable answer is that you obviously have been too timid and must create more debt, more spending and more regulation ad infinitum until your program finally works. This is the position taken by Paul Krugman, in his New York Times Articles. What is left of the economy and the savings of the multitude by that time you reach his intended equilibrium is not addressed in the General Theory. Keynes of course is no advocate of personal saving, to him that only defeats the market intervention. Savings to Keynes is considered almost anti social as it runs contrary to his conception that the more spending there is the more jobs are created. He ignores the fact that savings are converted into investments, but to him investing is defined as money printing and deficit financing.
Without addressing the cause of our current recession (yes, we are still in a recession) which I address in my book OBAMANOMICS Nation Building on a Charge Card I would again refer to the criticism of David Stockman and Mr. Lewis. The continuing bubble to burst economy they refer to is the direct consequence of Federal Reserve’s Keynesian money policy. Roosevelt and Nixon in order to finance larger and larger and more intrusive government knew they could not do so as long as the American dollar was the world’s reserve currency and was backed by a gold standard. Roosevelt ended gold-dollar convertibility and Nixon took the nation off the gold standard altogether. The dollar was allowed to float and money inflation became the means to finance big government. As a consequence the value of the dollar has decreased by 95% since the Federal Reserve took over the money market. Energy prices and food prices continue to rise as real personal income declines. Most significant, the rich are becoming richer while the rest of the population suffers from economic stagnation or retraction. How does this happen? The answer to this question lies in simple money market economics which Keynesian economist shroud in a jargon that is meant to and does mislead the public away from an understanding of how the general public is being pillaged through our Federal Reserve and big government policies.
The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It is owned and managed by member banks and is independent of and in many ways more powerful than our constitutionally created government. The chairmanship of the Fed is an autonomous office once the chairman is appointed. This independence is asserted to make the Fed immune from political influences which in itself is an absurdity. The Fed is, as intended by its early advocates, dominated by the large Wall Street banks as is the Department of the Treasury where Wall Street bankers find a home. The current Fed policy of quantative easing, pumping billions of dollars into the economy is supposedly intended to encourage economic growth and end our present recession is in actuality creating only inflation and dollar devaluation. There could be no other result when the Fed uses the Wall Street banks as the conduits to money expansion. Would it be a surprise to anyone that these banks, being the first to receive the funds would get the first take and would first enhance their own position before passing the money through their system to stimulate the economy by granting loans that are burdened with their interest costs? Books have been written about the Fed, its dubious founding, and its deleterious effect on our national economy. The paper money the Fed prints, supposedly backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government is in actuality a farce as the so called faith and credit is backed only by more printed money that has no real value except that value caused by the money monopoly enjoyed by Wall Street and the Federal Reserve. As President Obama sets out on a new crusade to allow the Federal government to entrench itself ever deeper into the nation’s educational institutions, he does so with the knowledge that there are no real restraints to his ambitions as the Fed will print the money to make it happen. It is time that our nation, as urged by David Stockman and many traditional economist, to eliminate the Federal Reserve and put our money back on a free market gold standard and thus eliminate the autocracy of the Wall Street bankers over the nation’s economy! It is time to end the crony Capitalism addressed by David Stockman that makes billionaires on Wall Street and paupers on Main Street.
No other economic system has brought more people out of poverty, provided for the health and well-being of millions and raised the standard of living more societies than capitalism. When people cooperate to fulfill their own self interest, they all benefit.
Capitalism and freedom are inextricably linked. When the Declaration of Independence was first drafted it read "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property."
This was changed later to read "pursuit of happiness" because the Founders did not want the document to be perceived to support slavery. But the first draft read 'property'. Why?
The concept of property, and private property rights are indispensable to freedom and liberty. They are also indispensable to capitalism. Realize first that the term property includes much more than the material items we buy, store or make. Property also includes our thoughts, actions, education and experience and labor. Our voices, spirituality and even our lives are also our property. What we do with our property, how we employ it to better our lives and take care of our families ought to be completely up to us. Government was created, and its only function should be to protect our property and our right to employ, or not to employ them as we see fit.
The Declaration of Independence listed those three specific rights, and then the very next line explained the function of government: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”. Then, in the US Constitution, the government created specifically to secure our rights is strictly limited in its power, lest the government created by the governed become too powerful. Also, to further restrict the power of government and to secure our rights and property, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution before the states would ratify it.
So, our God-given rights are also our property and government exists to secure these rights and the Constitution exists to protect us from government. The freedom assured to the people in such an arrangement naturally leads to capitalism. It is this system, a Federal government with strictly limited powers and a populace with the freedom to employ their property as they wish, allowed the United States to rise from a small, backward agrarian society to become a world power in less than a century.
It is this legal respect for personal property that allowed great innovation, invention and industry to flourish. It is the mobility that was granted to our people by our freedoms that allowed the country to grow and our people to prosper. The extension of the concept of property to include our ideas that allowed the Wright Brothers to invent the first powered aircraft. It allowed the Thomas Edisons, Henry Fords and the Steve Jobs of our country to patent and protect their ideas, grow companies and provide incomes and livelihoods to an untold millions of people. I’ve seen the other side. In my time in the Army, I’ve served both in Germany and in South Korea. I’ve seen what communism looks like staring back from across Europe's Iron Curtain and the DMZ. I’ve seen the misery and poverty that comes from a centrally planned economy where personal property rights don’t exist and liberty is unknown. The walls that I guarded wearing the uniform of freedom were not constructed by us to keep the forces of communism out. Those walls were built by the forces of communism to hold their own people in.
For once you strip the people of their liberty, their freedom and their property, in all its forms, you’ve stripped them of their individuality. They no longer exist for themselves, they no longer have any worth except to fill some role that betters the State. They are more like workers in an ant hill with no individual rights, no personal property, no way to improve their lives for all property and all means of production belong to the queen.
But, now, our Constitution and the concept of property are under attack. We have a president that is alienating those that create. He, and his allies on the Left, are making enemies of those that innovate, build and dream. He is espousing a philosophy that states that in order for anyone to get ahead, we have to pull the successful among us down. Somehow he is trying to convince us that by taking money from some of our citizens and giving that money to the government, that the poor among us will be better off. The truth is that all that will happen is that all of us become poorer.
This rhetoric is designed to simultaneously group us into the “masses” and divide us into groups. It has been called “class warfare” but it goes much deeper. The term “fairness” is used over and over to espouse a false argument that there should be an equality in outcome, that we should all be the same, that some having more is somehow unfair to those that have less. In capitalism, wealth can be created exponentially through innovation, invention and starting a small business, hiring people and becoming a large business. Having wealth and creating wealth is not dependent upon seizing the wealth from others. Now we are being told that we can achieve equality, and “fairness” only by seizing the wealth of others and to give it to those that do not contribute.
We must recognize that if we stand idly by and by our inaction, allow the government to seize the property of some of our citizens under the false premise that it benefits us all, we all lose. For once a freedom is lost, once we surrender a liberty, it will not come back. We must recognize that the government is not only trying to convince us they are only seeking to achieve "fairness" and only they can best determine what that means and they will take, by force, the property from some of our citizens for those ends. How is it, in the words of Mark Levine, that we are wise enough to choose our leaders, but not our lightbulbs? This entire concept turns our founding on its head and the government has become supreme. The people have surrendered their Liberty.
Capitalism, and the concept of private property, has proven that one can employ their property: their ideas, labor, capital, experience, education, hard work, spirituality, time and dreams and put them to work to advance their well-being, raise a family, and leave this a better country, a better world for your children than how you inherited it. We are close to losing this America. We are close to losing our freedoms. We have a government now that does not respect personal property and believes it can choose better how you should employ your property. For every new power the government gains, it must necessarily take a like amount of freedom from us.
To get an in depth researched read on this go to http://toupsmichael.wordpress.com
And here is a followup article
http://www.infowars.com/sen-graham-warns-of-nuke-strike-after-missing-nuke-report/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1C8QYZIrBk
China, Russia, Iran, Turkey all standing with the Syrian leader & the USA wants to jump in? Yesterday they said that we have spent 25 MILLION LAST WEEK just having our navy there off the coast.
Email, fax , call your elected ask them to say no to Syria & defund Obamacare
By Oscar Y. Harward
Education for our children, whether it be public schools, charter schools, private schools, church schools, etc., must focus on training more ‘values’ of ‘right v. wrong’ on civility as taught in ‘civics’ classes; an approach that seems to have become minimized, or perhaps, disappeared. It appears children are not even taught ‘privacy rights’ in ‘public schools’. Children and older individuals and groups ignore and infringe on personal properties as it these ‘rights’ do not even exist.
Prior to the 1963 SCOTUS decision to remove the ‘Holy Bible’ from our public schools, there was very little crime in each community. As ‘God’ was removed, our public schools became unguarded zones to open sex, illegal drugs, guns, etc.
Now, there are many schools that seem to have ‘teachers’ in ‘public schools’ who do not even know and/or teach our Constitution and its’ values. It has become a rarity to even recite the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’ in public schools. Parents are joining and encircling their children’s lives in parent/child(ren) public schools, yet seem to be swallowed by our immoral individual teachings.
Fundamental freedoms, as written by our Founding Fathers, in building our nation based on Christian values are most important to restoring our social, fiscal, and national security, ‘in that order’.
Each responsible parent wants his/her child(ren) to get the best education. Each responsible parent should be allowed to choose from multiple approved responsible school resources, and taxpayers’ funding(s) should be directed to the child(ren). No schools, public schools, charter schools, private schools, church schools, etc., should be allowed to continue with public funding without responsibility of teaching our children these values.
Here we go again...another politician needs a war to cover their rear on more important matters, like Benghazi, IRS,
NSA, Deficit, and Jobs etcetc...
Why are we, mostly Jewdayoh(phonetic?)/Christians aiding Muslims who are killing Christians?
WE, the U.S. in U.S.A., founded our country on the belief in GOD and Biblical Principles.
We are surrendering to Godless Muslims and Political B.S..
Return our Rights to our States and abolish Federal Incompetent Govt.
P.S.I deeply pray the politicians who cause so many useless deaths and misery should meet EACH of their
victim's soul on Judgement day and explain to them why it is so, in the presence of GOD.
Cal
Is Obama Impeachable?
Just what makes a president impeachable? The Constitution states very plainly that a president may be impeached for “… high crimes and misdemeanors…”. Can he be impeached for lying about the Bengazi attack? Nope. If Lying were an impeachable offense every president since at LEAST Buchannan should have been impeached. Lying is immoral, but it is not a crime. Now if that lie obstructed justice in some way that would be a crime; however I have no idea how we could prove that one unless we could come up with something in writing. We certainly can’t expect either Hilary or Holter to fill us in. They have both been caught lying to congress.
Did the President authorize the stand down o our forces when the diplomatic mission in Bengazi asked for help or did some ground commander accept Hilary’s orders.
I recently read a blog on a Tea Party site that listed 100 reasons he is impeachable. Guess what? Maybe three of those one hundred reasons are actually impeachable offenses!
How about Fast and Furious? Sorry you can’t impeach for the actions of a subordinate. Now if there is PROOF that he personally authorized that then just maybe that is a crime. But first you have to prove that the law was in fact violated and that the whole thing wasn’t a case of really bad judgment. If the goal was to put guns in the hands of known criminals, then yes that is a felony. I believe Holter did do that, but who is going to prosecute him. He is the nation’s chief prosecutor! Is there anyway to prove to the senate that Obama did in fact have prior knowledge that this crime was to be committed and either overtly or tacitly authorized it? I doubt it. Once again we know Holter isn’t afraid of congress or of blatantly lying to them. He was convicted of contempt of congress for that and just laughed it off. Again who is going to prosecute?
Spying in many ways with many of the agencies he controls on average American Citizens without due process? Impeachable and we can prove it. He has admitted it openly.
Ignoring the Constitution by consistently violating the second, fourth, fifth tenth and fourteenth amendments? Impeachable because it violates his sacred oath. Violation of a sworn oath is a misdemeanor and in this case, probably a felony.
He has disclosed secret grand jury material by exposing the existence of a sealed indictment of one of the Benghazi attackers in violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that clearly states: “… no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.’’
It is said that he has thwarted Congress by (1) failing to enforce all or parts of laws duly enacted by Congress, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Affordable Care Act; and (2) after Congress refused to pass his Dream Act, unilaterally issuing an executive order directing immigration officers to no longer deport an entire class of illegal immigrants who came here as children, regardless of individual circumstances, and to give them work-authorization permits. Impeachable. No President is above the law. But that one is on very shaky ground. Law enforcement agencies have use their own discretion when enforcing laws for literally centuries in this country. Otherwise you should be arrested in South Dakota for drinking a malt on Sunday or taking a drink of alcohol on Sunday in some southern states.
He has violated the Constitution when, on January 4, 2012, (1) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, actions that were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which affirmed previous decisions by the Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit; and (2) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
These last three are direct quotes from the articles of impeachment offered to the house by The Black Republicans Association. These articles are well thought out and I recommend reading all of their Articles of Impeachment at
http://godfatherpolitics.com/12154/blacks-file-articles-of-impeachment-against-president-obama/#CYGEY4TrqmQ5cLaU.99
So OK, he is indeed impeachable and the House of Representatives can do that with a clear conscience; however, once impeached by the House he must be tried by the Senate. The Senate is controlled by the democrats and led by a fervently anti-constitutionalist senior senator from Nevada known as Harry Reid. Just how far do you think that trial would go? Even as far as Slick Willy’s? Probably not.
Tea Party Leader Who Endorsed McConnell Opponent Is Registered Democrat freebeacon.com A prominent Kentucky Tea Party leader who endorsed the Republican primary challenger to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a registered Democrat who signed a pledge to support Democratic polici
There is no wonder why the vast majority of Americans are opposed to military action in Syria when the possible outcomes are so damaging:
1. The US military attacks with cruise missiles which does some damage, Assad stays in power, their civil war continues as it has. Why attack, no change? Except with no international support, the credibility of the US is severely damaged. Bad outcome. US forces are put in harm's way and we kill people with no strategic change in the situation in Syria.
2. The US attacks, Assad stays in power, Syria and/or Iran attacks Israel in retaliation to US attack, much larger regional conflict is ignited. Bad. We could be dragged into defending Israel from an attack which we instigated with no long-range plan of success. Or we could abandon Israel. Also very bad outcomes.
3. The US military attacks, destroys Syria's air force and air defenses, Assad falls. Rebels, including Al Qaida seize control including Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles. Bad. This scenario doesn't even guarantee the end of the conflict as Hezbollah, Al Quds, Iran, Alwites still support Al Assad and could easily continue fighting even after Assad is gone - Think Egypt, only worse. Very bad outcome. We give chemical weapons to Al Qaida.
To make matters worse, our allies have decided NOT to assist us in military intervention. The UN will not support military intervention. 81% of Americans are against intervention. Russia and China have warned us against intervention (which would make no difference to me if our national security was threatened, which it is not), Syria and Iran have promised to attack Israel if we attack Syria. Again, we have a totalitarian regime fighting against Islamic extremists groups, including Al Qaida. What's our role here?
We can, however, provide humanitarian aid to the victims and Syrian refugee civilians, support our true ally in the region, Israel and interdict Iran's supply routes into Syria in Iraq. All good outcomes.
Chemical weapons cannot be destroyed by an air attack. Delivery systems can be damaged and the chemicals themselves can be spread by the use of explosives, but not destroyed. Either Assad will retain the chemical weapons or the opposition will seize them.
How can this Administration convince us that they know everything that happened in Damascus with this chemical attack- what weapons were used, how they were delivered, who conducted the attack, and just as importantly, who did not conduct the attack, how many casualties there were, which chemical agents were used, etc with a "high confidence" ? But they still can't tell us anything about Benghazi where we apparently had dozens of CIA agents on the ground? So, we're supposed to trust their word now? How many times has this administration lied to us?
Barack's Brother is Founder of the Muslin Brotherhood.
By a Proud American
Barack has been funneling billions of dollars to the Muslin Brotherhood in Egypt and ordered Louis Lerner to grant the Brotherhood non-profit status via the IRS. This in addition to donating billions to Muslin Madrases in the United States for their mosques, and he claims the power to do so.1
Barack has left a wide trail of:
contempt for the American people from the 9/11 Twin Towers destruction, to
blocking development of our tremendous national resources that could bring us out of the Barack-induced recession from
banning drilling, cancellation of the Canadian pipe-line,
refusal to grant permission to develop our vast oil and natural gas resources,
going to bed or merely playing cards while our ambassador and his team were massacred in Benghazi, thus defying the long-standing policy of “leave none behind”,
denying U.S. Corporations the right to non-profit status while
granting his Muslim buddies unquestioned non-profit status retroactively for over 2 years, (8) changing the U.S. Culture and its sense of independence, freedom and caring about out neighbors in time of need, as well of a sense of
(9) loss for our personal privacy,
(10) choice of health care and/or
(11) well-being.
The U.S. Constitution demands representative government. This is too much for Barack to stand.
(12)HE IS A DICTATOR, NOT OUR REPRESENTATIVE!!!
He claims the right to plunge us into a war supporting his brother-in-law and risking possible boots on the ground midst nerve gas, as well as
the future destruction of America's future. Why? Because
he claims that he has the right to plunge the U.S. Into a war with Syria when there is LITTLE OF NOTHING IN IT FOR US!!!
You Barack are not an American! You hate us and have sworn to plunge it into the 17th century so deeply that it may never recover!
Even your wedding ring declares Allah as the only true God.
We gave you every chance to prove yourself. YOU HATE AMERICA. Well, fella, the feeling is mutual. You have done nothing but earn total and absolute contempt in return!
It's time. IMPEACH BARACK!!! and send him back to the the world country he came from, never to return!
No more Barack, No More!
###
1Obama's Brother Linked to Muslin Brotherhood. NewYork Time, Michael Savage 8/20/13
