The 16th Amendment as originally proposed did not tax earned income.


See on Scoop.itEagle Views

The 16th Amendment was sold to the American public as a way to make the rich pay their “fair share.” That law, which was billed as a “soak the rich” scheme, instead now threatens to drown us.

 

 

Well today is the last day to fulfill our obligations to the government under the 16th amendment to the Constitution. Every year the taxman comes around to collect their share of our labor to indulge in the reckless pursuits. It wasn’t always like this in America. In fact up until 1913 there was no income tax.

 

The current tax code is four million words long, and more than four times longer than the collected works of Shakespeare. It requires 25 volumes to contain it and takes up 9 feet of shelf space.

 

And it was sold to the American people as a way to “make the rich pay their fair share.” Sound familiar?

The current tax code is now four million words long, more than four times longer than the collected works of Shakespeare, and six to seven times longer than the Bible. It requires 25 volumes to contain it, and takes up nine feet of shelf space.

According to Forbes, it takes Americans over six billion hours to comply with its filing requirements. That’s the equivalent of 8,758 lifetimes – in people years, not dog years.

Making the rich pay their fair share has been the governments unending song from the beginning of taxation. They never have enough and the rich they think always has too much, the problem is they lied then and they are lying now. Let’s face it folks the government wants all your money, and they will never stop trying to figure out ways to get it, and hopefully they will even convince you to turn it over voluntarily.

Obamacare is one BIG TAX. The intent of the entire law was never about providing meaningful health care reform but to snowball you into agreeing to give them more of your hard-earned income in hopes of receiving some promised benefit. There is only one problem with this, the government lies all the time when it comes to separating you from your money. They sell you on the idea that the program they are proposing is FOR YOUR GOOD when they have designs on confiscating more of your personal belongings through taxation.

Prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment, almost the sole source of income to the federal government came from tariffs collected on imported goods. That itself was a profound limitation on the size and reach of the federal government. In 1910 the budget for the entire federal government was $1.042 billion.

 

Then just like today ordinary citizens figured out that the increased cost of goods fell upon the consumer while the corporations would pad their profit margins by raising domestic prices to just slightly less than the foreign imports prices, thus remaining competitive but at the same time generating a higher profit margin.

 

So the proposed cure is now worse than the original disease if in fact there ever really was a problem to begin with. Being competitive in a world market has always been sound business practices, and no amount of government intervention is ever going to change that dynamic. Businesses will sell their product to the highest paying consumer base or work in the most cost effect market possible to stay in business.

We have been sold a bill of goods and the average American citizen has swallowed this poison pill of covetousness to her own destruction. Politicians will continue to pit the rich against the poor and continue to cry injustice and how they are the ones to see to it that the rich pays their fair share all the while you and I are footing the bill as the fat cats continue to get fatter.

 

The marketplace is a wonderful thing if left alone to contend with competition. But once competition is eliminated or the federal government comes along picking winners and losers, it is you the American citizen who always comes up with the short straw.

 

Proverbs 6:6-8 (BBE)
6  Go to the ant, you hater of work; give thought to her ways and be wise: 7  Having no chief, overseer, or ruler, 8  She gets her meat in the summer, storing up food at the time of the grain-cutting.

 

Even nature teaches us that natural laws are at work in the universe and those who try to manipulate, or violate these natural laws do so at great personal cost. It would seem that ants are far wiser than the American culture because even the ant knows that there is a time of plenty and a time of want and during the time of plenty one must lay aside a part for the lean times that are sure to come.

 

 

Cover of "A Bug's Life [Blu-ray]"

Cover of A Bug’s Life [Blu-ray]

In 1998 Pixar produced the animated movie “A Bug’s Life” and the protagonists where grasshoppers who’d show up once a year at the ant colony to get their annual food offering so they would not have to work to produce their own food. One year they  arrived and the offering was accidentally spilled into the water and ruined. The grasshoppers did not forgive the ants required offering but instead gave them until the fall harvest to produce twice as much.

 

The colony is now in trouble, as there isn’t enough food to fulfill the grasshopper’s request and give sustenance for the colony. When the grasshoppers return to discover a meager offering, they take control of the entire colony and begin eating the ants’ winter store of food, and plot to kill the queen.

 

Their plot is foiled when the ants fight back.

 

When they all stood together and worked together they were able to overcome the oppressor and turn back the tide of tyranny.

 

You see the ruling class understands the power of the citizenry and fears it and it is for that reason the ruling powers continue to put wedges between groups to get them fighting with each other and not standing together uniformly to fight the real enemy.

 

The ant colony knew that by all of them working together the entire colony would thrive, but once dissension was sown into the fabric of their colony, destruction would follow soon after.

 

The grasshoppers would never stop coming to collect their tax, and each year the burden would get larger and would never end unless resisted in solidarity.

 

Personally I would like to see the 16th amendment nullified and the IRS eliminated. Is anyone willing to stand with me?

 

And that is the way I see it. What say you?

See on onenewsnow.com

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Rule of Law of the Rule of Man: Which is it?


Ro 1 (HCSB) Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God.

 

 

English: James Earle Fraser's statue The Autho...

 

If governments are given AUTHORITY from God and are instituted by God, then how is it possible to SEPARATE GOD FROM THE GOVERNMENT?

It is the disregard for God’s laws and authority that is the driving force behind all SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE talk.

Even if government was able to silence all opposing voices it would still have to face the final authority and the grantor of the government’s authority, God himself.

 

2 So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves.

 

This can be taken to mean that governments are not to be challenged or opposed, but you must read this in light of the previous verse. Because government is an idea established by GOD for civil order and to punish the wicked, it should be acknowledged as such. Disregarding God’s authority over our actions, (governance) is disregarding God. Therefore in order for a government to be legitimate it must acknowledge God’s final authority.

The saying goes that men will get the government they deserve, and this can be seen throughout the history of God’s people Israel. When they forgot who their Lord was they would find themselves governed by tyrants. It is forgetting who is really in charge that renders a people subjects to tyranny. Governments are to be subject to God’s rule, citizens are then to be submissive to the governments as God’s ministers. Separate God from the government and you have the illegitimate rule of man over man.

 

3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval.

 

This is how it is supposed to work. Laws are to be written to punish bad conduct not to regulate and restrict good conduct. If you go about your business in an ethical and morally upright fashion you should have nothing to fear from government. However it would seem that more often than not our current government is making lawbreakers of us all. To think that installing a light-bulb that does not meet government standards makes you a law-breaker is absurd. Yet that is exactly what we face today.

 

4 For government is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. Romans 13:1-4

 
Again the emphasis is on bad behavior. There is a legitimate purpose for government to regulate BAD BEHAVIOR. This is determined by God’s moral standard and not some arbitrary rule by some power-hungry man.

Our founders knew this and as such set up for us a government by rule of law which placed everyone on equal footing. All where to be held to the same standard. None was to be raised above the law nor given permission to get around the rule of law. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

But since there is no longer any fear of God in the eyes of the lawmakers, they have no problem passing onerous regulations and burdensome laws that punish law-abiding citizens. The purpose of which are to subject all but the chosen to the tyranny of the law makers. They do not wish to be subject to any law let alone God’s law but they want all the rest of us to be their subjects.

 

eagle_feather_icon.gifThis is a view from the nest. What say you?

But those who are waiting for the Lord will have new strength; they will get wings like eagles: running, they will not be tired, and walking, they will have no weariness. Isaiah 40:31 (BBE)

Along for the journey

tj201009292334-3.jpg

This has been A View from the Nest. The statements, comments, or opinions expressed are solely that of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of the host of this site or any affiliates thereof. Any questions or comments should be directed to myself and not to the host or hosts of this site.

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Separation of Church and State… Is That Even Possible?


When Jesus came near, he spoke to them. He said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. So wherever you go, make disciples of all nations: Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to do everything I have commanded you. “And remember that I am always with you until the end of time.” Matthew 28:18-20 (GW)

Imagine for a moment that Jesus has just completed his three years of training with the disciples. He has been crucified and is now commissioning the twelve to go into the world and disciple the nations. Now imagine him also making this statement to them.

“Dear brothers, it is now time for you to share what you have learned from me. However, as you share with others be sure that you keep what I taught you separate from your social life. The principles I have shared with you only apply in situations inside your home. Do not try to make them fit into a social context. The miracles you saw in me can only be done in certain situations. Keep this in mind when thinking about praying for the sick or the lost. These truths will not work in society.”

Sound preposterous? It may, but this is the mindset of many in our world today. The spiritual does not mix with the everyday world. “What happens on Monday has no relationship to what takes place on Sunday,” they say.

These are the thoughts expressed so much in our day and time. If you heard it once you have heard it a hundred times at least. Separation of Church and State. The two should never mix. The two need to be kept apart.

The world would want us to keep our religion to ourselves and not to share it wherever we go. That is like asking you to live without breathing. It is not possible to live without breathing, nor is it possible to live your everyday life apart from Christ if you truly are a disciple of Christ. To truly follow him and live our life according to his principles it is impossible to live one way at church and an entirely different way at home or in society? Jesus would call this type of living hypocrisy. Either we are for Him or we are against Him. We can not serve Him only at our convenience for then we are not serving Him at all. We can not choose to love Him one day and ignore Him the next. 
 
We can not choose to follow His laws and commands only in the church since the laws were given to man before there was a church. The law of God was passed to Moses before there was a tabernacle or a temple. Moses was given the law of God and then instructed on how to worship Him. The law was given so that the Israelites would know how to live and prosper in the land God was going to give them. 
 
The laws were to be the principles by which God’s people were expected to live. God expected them to keep the law in all of society and not just the church. It is interesting to note that many of out founders knew how important God’s moral laws where to a civil society and based our own civil law on the Mosaic laws. No one would argue that murder is wrong. No one would argue that stealing is wrong. No one would argue that being respectful of our parents is a good thing for children to learn. No one would argue that infidelity in a marriage is destructive. 
 
Today however we hear that the law of God must end at the church door. We are told to not force our beliefs upon others, and yet those that say that have no problem forcing their beliefs on us. We are asked not to PRAY in public and yet how can we not when the world is faced with so many challenges? We are asked to not teach Christian values and principles, but how can we not if we actually believe that they are the way, the truth and the life? And yet it would seem that those who oppose God’s laws are winning the war on the separation of Church and State. Honestly how is that working out for our society? 
 
I can not force my views upon anyone since I do not have that power. All I can do is attempt to persuade others that God’s moral law is superior than anything man can come up with. Personally I have to choose for myself how to live in this world, whether I should obey the temporary dictates of man or the eternal law of God. I choose to obey the eternal law of God for I have found it to be just and right and holy and true. It is the only law that shows no partiality for all are treated equal under God’s law. There are no special exemptions for special interest groups. There are no lighter sentences for the well-connected. All are judged equally and punished accordingly. 
 
So by asking those of us who believe God’s law is superior to man’s law to shut up and keep it to ourselves, you have elected to be ruled by tyrants and subjected yourself to the inferior, biased laws of man. Remember those who make the laws exempt themselves from the law making the law only applicable to those who the lawmakers disapprove of.
 
If we acknowledge a Supreme lawmaker and judge then we have no control over how that law is going to be enforced, nor can we use the law to garner special treatment for ourselves, since we too will be judged by that same law and standard.
 
I can not separate my faith in God from His ways and laws. I can not live my life differently in public than I do in private. Since I believe

the teachings of the Lord are perfect. They renew the soul. The testimony of the Lord is dependable. It makes gullible people wise. The instructions of the Lord are correct. They make the heart rejoice. The command of the Lord is radiant. It makes the eyes shine. The fear of the Lord is pure. It endures forever. The decisions of the Lord are true. They are completely fair. (Psalms 19:7-9 (GW))

I shall continue to live my life by the law of God. You can have the inferior law of the land.

eagle_feather_icon.gifThis is a view from the nest. What say you?

But those who are waiting for the Lord will have new strength; they will get wings like eagles: running, they will not be tired, and walking, they will have no weariness. Isaiah 40:31 (BBE)

Along for the journey

tj201009292334-3.jpg
This has been A View from the Nest. The statements, comments, or opinions expressed are solely that of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of the host of this site or any affiliates thereof. Any questions or comments should be directed to myself and not to the host or hosts of this site.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Doing the Right Thing


Scripture tells us: Someone may say, “I’m allowed to do anything,” but not everything is helpful. I’m allowed to do anything, but not everything encourages growth. People should be concerned about others and not just about themselves. 1 Corinthians 10:23-24 (GW)

In other words. In a Free society we are free to do lots of things, but there are things which are not wise to do. We are free to do these things, but not all things are for the common good or work to betterment of society.

Benjamin Franklin, statesman and signer of our Declaration of Independence, said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” John Adams, another signer, echoed a similar statement: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Legality alone cannot be the guide for moral people. The moral question is, is it the ‘right’ thing to do? Keep in mind that slavery was legal; apartheid was legal; the Nazi’s Nuremberg Laws were legal; and the Stalinist and Maoist purges were legal.

Are today’s Americans virtuous and moral, or have we made immorality and corruption legal? Let’s think about it a little shall we?

Suppose I saw an elderly woman pain­fully huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. I credit Walter E. Williams for this analogy. She’s hungry and in need of shelter and medical attention. To help the woman, I walk up to you using intimidation and threats and demand that you give me $200. Having taken your money, I then purchase food, shelter and medical assistance for the woman.

Would I be guilty of a crime? A moral person would answer yes because I was stealing from my neighbor. Most Americans would agree that it would be theft regardless of what I did with the money.

Now comes the hard part.

Using Walter E. Williams’ analogy again.

What if instead of personally taking your money to assist the woman, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take your money? In other words, does an act that’s clearly immoral and illegal when done privately become moral when it is done legally and collectively? To put it another way, does legality establish morality?

I believe that assisting one’s fellow man in need by reaching into one’s own pocket is praiseworthy and laudable. In fact scripture teaches the same thing. Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan:

“A man went from Jerusalem to Jericho. On the way robbers stripped him, beat him, and left him for dead. “By chance, a priest was traveling along that road. When he saw the man, he went around him and continued on his way. Then a Levite came to that place. When he saw the man, he, too, went around him and continued on his way. “But a Samaritan, as he was traveling along, came across the man. When the Samaritan saw him, he felt sorry for the man, went to him, and cleaned and bandaged his wounds. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day the Samaritan took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. He told the innkeeper, ‘Take care of him. If you spend more than that, I’ll pay you on my return trip.’ “Of these three men, who do you think was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by robbers?” Luke 10:30-36 (GW)

This man took from his own resources to help the man in need. The first part of this story reminds me more of the government thugs who beat down businessmen on their way into town to do business and leave them by the side of the road as road kill. The poor business man was minding his own business, had profit in his pocket, and these thugs and robbers beat him down and took it from him leaving him to fend for himself. What this fellow needed was some compassion and someone to look on him to tend to his wounds but instead what he got was more ridicule, insults, and another beat down from the passers-by who wanted to take even more from him.

A good neighbor, or good Samaritan, or better put, a good citizen would have compassion on someone who truly is in need and would reach into their own pocket to provide for this persons needs. This is true charity and this is what the bible refers to as caring for a neighbor. This scripture condemns the ones who ignored the person in need as well as the robbers who beat and stole from the person.

Jesus taught to go and do like the good Samaritan. Reaching into another’s pockets is despicable, dishonest and worthy of condemnation.

Some people call governmental handouts charity, but as far as charity is concerned, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” To my knowledge, the Constitution, as penned by Thomas Jefferson has not been amended to include charity as a legislative duty of Congress. Granted our Supreme court has figured out some way to weave the ‘General Welfare’ clause to include whatever congress wants to do in order to take money from one person to give to another. This is not done for charitable purposes but rather to maintain positions of power and control over the population. Making dependents of people is the aim and not tending to make these people better citizens. In order to offer this ‘assistance’ the government must steal the resources of another person thus depriving them of their rights and liberties. And some call this ‘charity’.

“Our current economic crisis, is a direct result of immoral conduct”. This again comes from Walter Williams. It is legal alright but it is immoral none-the-less.

I like how the purveyors of entitlements like to frame the argument that you are greedy and mean-spirited to deny help to the needy while at the same time they ignore their own greed and the mean-spiritedness of their own actions by demanding the property of their neighbor. They do not ask politely, they are not even concerned if the person from whom they are stealing can afford to have their possessions confiscated. Since the recipients of such ‘charity’ are not the ones actually stealing from their neighbor they somehow feel justified in wanting more and more of what belongs to their neighbor. This is called covetousness and is condemned by scripture. Just because something is legal does not mean it is the ‘right thing to do.’ And it is certainly not in the general welfare of society to be stealing from one person just to give to another.

Roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of our federal budget can be described as Congress’ taking the property of one American and giving it to another. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for nearly half of federal spending. Then there are corporate welfare and farm subsidies and thousands of other spending programs, such as food stamps, welfare and education. Yes, education. Education is a welfare program because you are not paying for the education of your own children but rather you are demanding that your neighbor pay for your child’s education. Since the cost of educating your child is spread among your neighbors you do not see the real cost and burden your actions is placing upon society and the burdens you are forcing your neighbors to bear.

According to a 2009 Census Bureau report, nearly 139 million Amer­icans — 46 percent — receive handouts from one or more federal programs, and nearly 50 percent have no federal income tax obligations. In other words roughly 50% of our population are taking something from their neighbor and giving nothing back. They are contributing nothing to the “general welfare” of their neighbors.

In the face of our looming financial calamity, what are we debating about? It’s not about the reduction or elimination of the immoral conduct that’s delivered us to where we are. It’s about how we pay for it — namely, taxing the rich, not realizing that even if Congress imposed a 100% tax on earnings higher than $250,000 per year, it would keep the government running for only 141 days. Ayn Rand, in her novel Atlas Shrugged, reminded us that “when you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good.” In other words when you legalize immorality you have people acting immorally and demanding more and more from their neighbors. There are too many thieves and robbers in our society and not enough good Samaritans.

That is the way I see it! What say you?

This has been A View from the Nest. The statements, comments, or opinions expressed are solely that of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of the host of this site or any affiliates thereof. Any questions or comments should be directed to myself and not to the host or hosts of this site.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Illegal Activity of Illegal Aliens Equals a Good Citizen?


Does this individual appear to you to be interested in making America a better place to live for everyone or rather like someone who thinks America owes him something just because he says so? Well obviously the latter is the case. So now I ask you if an individual performs an illegal act does that make the person guilty of an illegality? If so then is it okay to call them criminals? Okay if it is okay to call someone breaking the law a criminal then how come people who trespass on private property are not considered criminals but instead they are considered necessary to our economy? The individual in this picture obviously thinks America owes him health care, a job, tax free income, a house and all the food he wants to eat, paid for by someone else. And apparently our President agrees with this sentiment because he thinks these folks should be given a pathway to citizenship.