Taxation without Representation

By Bob Beers Thursday, March 18, 2010

Article 1 of the US Constitution, first half of the third paragraph of section 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [Modified by Amendment XIV].

If you will notice, the US Constitution ties representation and taxes pretty tightly together. Theses links here and here will take you to a couple of sites that explain the working of our Constitutional government in plain, easy to understand language. The problem we have right now is we do not have a government that wishes to abide by the Constitution.

Typically, after a measure passes in the House, it goes to the Senate for consideration. A bill must pass both bodies in the same form before it can be presented to the President for signature into law. This rule is not spelled out in a single brief clause, but in a series of constitutional rules that in the past were considered inviolate, that is until the progressives began whittling away at what our founding fathers built with their own blood.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely “deem” that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway.

Louise Slaughter, A New York Democrat and chair of the House Rules Committee, under orders from the Speaker, is working on crafting a “self-executing rule,” also known as a “hereby rule.” This rule will side step the constitution and allow the House to vote only once on the reconciliation corrections, but not on the actual Senate bill. Here is where it gets sticky, constitutionally speaking, if the reconciliation corrections pass, the Slaughter rule would call the Senate bill presumptively approved by the House. There would be no up or down vote by the House, not even debate on the Senate bill. The President would be sent a bill to sign into law that did not pass both houses in direct violation of the US Constitution.

If you will remember, back when the Democrats were looking at becoming the majority party after their “8 years of hell” under George Bush Jr., Pelosi promised to “drain the swamp” and create the most ethical Congress in US history. When he was a senator, Joe Biden is quoted as saying the Democrats would not “abuse power” if they become the majority as the Republicans had done. You can even find then Senator Barrack Hussein Obama claiming that his party would be so much more transparent than the GOP. So what happened?

They lied.

“No Taxation without Representation”, the phrase was coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston in 1750, but it is found nowhere in the US Constitution, even though the concept is there in general. Some exceptions do exist, such as certain voting rights no being extended to convicts and immigrants. For most of its existence, Washington DC had no representation until the 23rd amendment came along.

So what do we do about this? It is obvious to anyone except the mushy-brained that the Obama administration is fully intent on turning the United States into a version of its preferred society, the old Soviet Union. Any who doubt that assertion should take a closer look at what Obama’s assorted “reforms” would do.

The Education Reform language inserted into the Healthcare Bill would make it illegal for an education to be privately funded. In the Healthcare Bill proper is language that would imprison a citizen daring to opt out of buying into ObamaCare. Actually the prison time is for not paying the massive fines attached to acting as a free person, but you’ll be behind bars just the same.

What really is happening is an assault on the very fabric of American Culture. If you boil down every complaint the left has against this country, it comes down to one essential phrase, and that phrase is this, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. The liberal left cannot stand the fact of true individual freedom. They cannot handle the idea of a man or a woman being able to pursue the career of their choice. They cannot stomach the idea of you being able to express your opinion without fear of retribution. Remember what Hillary Clinton said about the nuclear family? “It Takes a Village” was a call to replace that mother and father with the Nanny State.

Nancy Pelosi told Congress that they had to vote for the Healthcare bill so they could find out what was in it, while at the same time the DNC is running television commercials claiming that the bill will provide an assortment of freedoms. If we tried to do that with Congress we would be indicted for contempt. The Life portion of our declaration will be deleted in the Healthcare bill through the formation of the so-called death panels, the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards called for in section 3403 of HR3200. The text of that section can be found here.

Those who claim that the “cost saving” decisions made by these boards would not make them death panels need to look at the new mammography guidelines called for by the government. If every American woman waits until she turns fifty before getting a check up, a good many of them will have already contracted inoperable cancer. The end result? Death…and a significant cost savings for Obama and the lefties. My wife’s mother could be one of them and a close friend of hers, another.

The Liberty portion has already gone, by the way, but not enough for the Democrats. Measures are already being discussed at the Reid and Pelosi level to make opposition to the government illegal. This type of legislation has been tried before, first with John Adams and the Sedition Act of 1798. Under the Obama form, it has been suggested that any opposition to the current administration be a punishable offense.

The Pursuit of Happiness would be eliminated by Cap and Trade. If passed, this would dictate what type of income you will be allowed to make and, in the dreams of the mushy-brained, the sort of career. Try to be the kind of entrepreneur that made this country great and you’ll be locked away.

What do we do? We have to make our representatives in both the Congress and Senate understand without any doubt that if they do not protect our rights and restore the freedoms the progressives have taken away…

They will be replaced.

Canada Free Press.com

Bob Beers Bio

Bob Beers Most recent columns Bob L. Beers was a member of the Nevada Assembly representing District 21 in Clark County, Nevada. Prior to his election in 2006, he was an author involved in graphic arts and illustration. Originally from Eureka, California, Beers attended Arcata High School and Humboldt State College. He currently resides in Henderson, Nevada with his wife and son. Bob can be reached at: bobbeers@cox.net

The Constitution, Nazis, and the Corpse Man

Obama, like most Progressives, seems to have a problem identifying the U.S. Constitution

By Jim O'Neill Saturday, February 6, 2010

Recently I’ve noticed several things that the Progressives are having trouble with. Well, actually a LOT of things, but this article will focus on just a few of them.

First of all, Obama, like most Progressives, seems to have a problem identifying the U.S. Constitution.

In his State of the Union address, Obama stated that “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal….”

Darn near made me want to stand up and salute, (something our POTUS could use some lessons in, by the way). There’s a problem here, however. It turns out that “the notion that we are all created equal” is not “enshrined in our Constitution”—it’s from the Declaration of Independence.

Doesn’t say much for Obama’s grasp of the Constitution, when he confuses the U.S. Constitution, with the Declaration of Independence

This mistaken attribution is an understandable faux pas for your average “Joe six-pack,” but Obama’s supposed to be a Harvard-trained Constitutional lawyer. It doesn’t say much for Harvard Law School, or Obama’s grasp of the Constitution, when he confuses the U.S. Constitution, with the Declaration of Independence.

(Note to the White House (and Harvard Law School): they are two totally different documents, with different wording, and different purposes. They are not interchangeable. I know—bummer).

One can imagine Obama’s final exam on Constitutional Law:

Harvard Law professor: “Mister Obama, what are the opening words of the U.S. Constitution?”

Obama: “Uh, ‘When in the course of human events….’”

Harvard Law professor: “Close enough! You pass!”

No wonder these folks have so much trouble following the Constitution.

If I may, let me make a suggestion to the Progressives (and Harvard). The Cato Institute sells a small book that contains a copy of both the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. It’s inexpensive, so there’s really no excuse for you not to have one—as a handy reference, you know.

No need to thank me, it’s what I do.

Next, I would like to discuss the Nazis—again.

The Progressives, and their Islamic buddies, are still showing a fondness for equating conservatives with Nazis. It has been repeatedly pointed out to them, that conservatives are not Nazis—that if anyone’s a Nazi, it’s them. All to no avail.

Disparaging a conservative, by calling them a Nazi, is no doubt insulting, but it’s also misleading, misguided, and nonsensical. Nazis are a Far Left phenomena all the way, but this obvious point is simply not registering with the left-wing.

So once more unto the breech, dear friends. I will write this slowly so our Progressive friends can follow along, and hopefully, finally see the light. (It’s worth a try, right?)

To understand the roots of Nazism is simplicity itself. NAZI is an acronym (in German) for Adolph Hitler’s political party, the “National Socialist German Workers Party.” Take out the words “National,” and “German,” and you’re left with the “Socialist Workers Party.”

The “Socialist Workers Party.” Hello? That is unequivocally NOT a conservative outfit, folks—that’s as Far Left as you can get. I can easily picture a “Socialist Workers Party” being a voting bloc at a Democratic convention—but at a Republican convention? Puh-leeze.

Adding the concepts “National” and “German,” is what makes Nazism a fascist, as opposed to a communist, variation of Marxism. The German Nazis (like Mussolini’s fascists) practiced a National brand of Marxism, as opposed to the Russian communists, who practiced a Global brand of Marxism.

It’s illustrative to look at the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. The Iran-Iraq war was not between different theologies, but between differing interpretations of the same theology, (Sunni Muslims, versus Shi’ite Muslims).

In much the same way, the war between Hitler and Stalin, was basically a turf war between two differing interpretations of the same ideology.

Fascism and Communism are closely related, and Progressivism has links to them both.

So you Progressives can take back your swastikas, Hitler moustaches, and “Sieg heils.” They’re yours, and always have been. Here—don’t forget your arm-bands.

The inextricable link between the Nazis and Progressives, helps to explain the Progressive’s fondness for abortion, euthanasia, and population control. It’s nothing more than the “same old, same old.” The same old Nazi song and dance, hidden behind new names, new “clothes,” and the passage of time.

It is no coincidence that George Soros, the most visible of the puppet masters behind the modern Progressive movement, and founder of “Project Death in America,” was once a Nazi collaborator.

The Progressive’s link with the Nazis also helps to explain their ever-increasing anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist stance

The Progressive’s link with the Nazis also helps to explain their ever-increasing anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist stance.

If you doubt that anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism is rampant, and growing, in Progressive Europe, then you haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on in “Eurabia” these days. I strongly suggest that any Jews who consider Progressives to be the best thing since sliced matzah, reconsider their position. Excepting those with a taste for masochism and suicide, of course.

Study some history—preferably from a history book not written by a Western civilization hating, Judeo/Christian-culture despising, capitalism deploring, left-wing Progressive academic. You’ll have to search far and wide for such a book, but it’s well worth the search.

In closing, there’s one last thing I’d like to touch on.

The other day Obama repeatedly referred to a U.S. military corpsman, as a “corpse-man.” The use of such a misnomer needs to be nipped in the bud, before it catches on.

Yelling out “Hey, I need a corpse-man over here!” in the thick of battle, would not only prove unnecessarily alarming to any wounded, but would be detrimental to troop morale as a whole. Someone needs to inform the POTUS that corpsman is pronounced “core-man”—with the “p” and “s” being silent.

In all seriousness, Navy corpsmen (and Army/Air Force medics) have historically been among some of the bravest people in the U.S. military; often putting their lives on the line in order to help others, and at times paying the ultimate price for doing so. Many vets, and serving personnel, are alive today only because of some corpsman’s heroic and timely efforts.

The POTUS would do well to read up on some of the many corpsmen who have won the Medal of Honor over the years. At the very least, the CIC (Commander in Chief) should learn how to pronounce the honorable name of “corpsman,” properly.

Laus Deo

Jim O'Neill Most recent columns

Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two. A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award.” The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National Enquirer for libel.

Jim can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com