Ok so you've been handed a Book that you are to read, understand (hopefully) and answer various questions about what it means to become a Citizen of the United States of America. Huge event right? I mean adding good ol' Uncle Sam as your new family member is the end all of accomplishments, we have so much indicative of how much we throw away.
And now after all the effort of hoping to convince an Examiner that you have transformed yourself into one who will die to protect the integrity of all that is Holy within America, which is probably very hard to find, you must conclude by reciting the 'Pledge of Allegiance'. Written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, which is rather clever when it you start thinking that after reciting this several hundred times, it begins to sway your way of thinking.
But let's break it down a bit;
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America" Here you are essentially saying you recognize the Flag of the USA to be now the Flag you honor & cherish above all others and will defend to the death that this Flag shall not fall.
"And to the Republic for which it Stands" Well we I know we're supposed to be United as one Country but it's news to me that we are also considered a Republic. I wonder what the definition of Republic actually is? Well according to the Dictionary this is what a Republic means -->
- The American Heritage Dictionary
- 1. a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. b. A nation that has such a political order. 2. a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. b. A nation that has such a political order. 3. Often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France. 4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation. 5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters. [French république from Old French from Latin r¶sp¿blicar¶s thing; See r ¶- in Indo-European Roots. p¿blica,feminine of p¿blicusof the people; See public ]
r ¶-. Important derivatives are: real 1 republic To bestow, endow. I. Contracted from *re …-. Suffixed form *re …-i-, goods, wealth, property. RE 2 , REAL 1 , REBUS , REIFY , REPUBLIC , from Latin r ¶s, thing. [ Pokorny 4. rei- 850. ]
So that makes sense to me, it seems according to this description, we are indeed a Republic. And rightfully so, because our Founding Fathers resisted the Monarchy of Great Britain to such a degree that we shed blood in order to fight against.
"One Nation Under God" Ok there we go again, this concept of separation of Church & State really never started as such and Church seems to remain firmly dug into the backbone of our Governmental structure. God, looking down upon his children of America and has proclaimed this Country, His most Beloved.
And then we come to my favorite line;
"Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All" Justice for All, in America has got to be the biggest joke of the Century. There is no such animal as Justice, if you are poor. There is no such animal as Justice if you are a Minority. Actually, let's just cut to the chase, Justice neither is nor ever has been a condition of life. Some would claim justice is only shown on White Heterosexual Anglo-Saxon Middle to Upper Class Men, above all else. Well that statement isn't what people truly feel at all but instead what is actually meant is, in a situation where one is to be believed above another, the Law which began by White English speaking men with a more advanced formal education or more influential due to their social status, is and has always been given preference in the Eyes of the Law.
And yes, we are speaking of those very Eyes that are suppose to be Blind to All. If you are arrested in the United States of America and you are not borne from a family of social influence, you are more likely to be found guilty. But for certain, you will be treated as if you are guilty until your innocence is proven without any doubt.
All Justice for all in America is not a reality. Currently in America, there are hundreds of thousands of people incarcerated for crimes that they either did not commit or crimes that should not have rendered the penalties laid upon them. If you are a young Black Man who is without employment and lacks a formal education, living in Urban USA, you are 100% more likely to be arrested merely for being seen by a Police Officer if you happen to be in the vicinity of a crime. You will be harassed by the Police if you happen to be driving in a car with like companions late at night.
Compare the crime & punishment received by Ms. Paris Hilton to that of a young female minority who committed the same offense. If you investigate the charges against her, there are minorities still residing in prison who might have been convicted around the same time. You of course remember the young white blonde School Teacher arrested for having intimate encounters with a student under age at the school she taught at. She spent no time in jail and subsequently committed the same offense a 2nd time but still no jail time. I wonder how many Black Teachers would be out of jail for a similar offense. Now there's Micheal Jackson, who is Black but Micheal is wealthy and was able to pay people to make his problems go away.
Why should any person by allowed to pay a price to make it go away? What about people who don't have pay-off money? What about those who made a mistake one time only and yet the Court decided to make an example of them. Well I believe it would have been much more of an example to see someone like Hilton, remain in jail, under the very same conditions as one who does not come from a wealthy family, then and only then can the words, "And Justice for All" have meaning.
Students study for years to obtain a Degree in Law with aspirations of practicing Law but I wonder what has become their motivating reason for the years it took to pass the Bar? You can't say it's because they want to fight for those who can not fight for themselves. You probably could say it has become a necessary spring board for anyone who has their sights on a political career. Or maybe working towards becoming a Partner in a prestigious Law Firm. And we can't forget the comfortable living Lawyers enjoy especially for those who litigate in criminal matters.
But what saddens me each & everyday, is an obvious fact that you can not wake up any morning not being reminded of how many people right here in the USA, that sit in Court knowing their fate is in the hands of those who are more concerned with Tee Off times than why you might be there in the first place. How many people within our Society that disparately need someone to reach out and say, I'll help you even if you can't afford my fee because what happened to you is wrong and people need to understand this.
Ok the deal is I'm a big CEO sitting in my comfortable soft leather cushioned pivot & reclining chair within my office with more square footage than most small condos.
I'm thinking, given our National Government just forked over an insane amount of money bailing out an undeserving Banking Industry where Bank of America admitted on National TV that their Bank didn't need or want the money but was essentially forced to take it, while our profits have become extremely bleak due to all of the ego driven huge over zealous gas guzzling SUV's we've been pushing to an environmentally blind American Consumer who demonstrates an unwillingness to compromise their personal comfort for the good of the Nation. We should go to Washington and get some of that free money because Daddy needs a new pair of shoes.
Yep, that sounds overly simplistic no doubt however it's very close to what we face as a Nation. The CEO's of the large Auto Makers are banking insane amounts of salaries while at the same time crying the blues about how their companies are going Bankrupted. None of these CEO's have extended a willingness to reduce wasteful spending nor do they present Congress with a plan that would insure a sense of well-being that the Tax Payer's money would be well spent.
And to add insult to injury, none of these CEO's have indicated a willingness to forfeit or reduce any of their personal incomes and/or sell off their private Jets to help fund their self-created crisis.
So what do the Tax Payers do? Or maybe a better question is, what authority do we have as Tax Payers in allowing or refusing to allow their Government Representatives the ability to determine if this money should be forked over? "The answer my friends in blowing in the wind", to quote Bob Dylan . It has become obvious to me that Congress has what it thinks is a bottomless Well of Money to snatch from without recourse.
Why would I suggest 'without recourse' ? Well 'We, the People' are constantly reminded of how powerless we are when it comes to Congress simply because the truth about Politics is not common knowledge. CEO's of large corporations contribute huge sums of money to political campaigns for one purpose only, those contributions have little to nothing related to a CEO's passion about a particular Candidate but moreso what that Candidate will provide for them when they call in their chips. Take for instance Tobacco & Alcohol, those two items are nothing less than enormous killers within our Society and yet neither have been banned for the safety of our Citizens. Oh yeah, Congress has items such as Marijuana outlawed that completely baffles me given Marijuana is no where near a safety factor as Tobacco and/or Alcohol. Death & Injury related to Alcohol and Tobacco are so far & above what Marijuana related deaths are, it's not even worth quoting statistics. If you add up all death or injuries directly related to the use of Marijuana over the past 10 years, won't even scratch the surface of what Alcohol related deaths & injuries are in 1 year and we all know how many deaths are related to Tobacco in 1 years time and yet neither of these Killers being deemed an unlawful substance by Congress ever gets to the Floor for a Vote. Why is that ?
Well my friends, for the same reason Congress is ultimately going to give the Automakers the undetermined amount of money they are now seeking from our pockets. So not only do we have to shell out tens of thousands to buy a vehicle but we're also financing the making of them as well. American Tax Payers are dumb & dumber, this is a well known fact that Congress banks on.
We started this Country based upon unfairness of taxes levied on us by Great Britain back in the mid-1700's. The Boston Tea Party was a show of solidarity by the Colonies against Great Britain’s abuse of power and here we are once again but we are now afraid of exercising the Rights & Freedoms the victory in 1776 stood for.
When are we going to say once in for all to Congress, “We want Congress to enact the Will of the People not the Will of Congress be enacted upon us”. Bailing out the Auto Industry during this time of economical crisis must not be without the CEO’s of these companies forfeiting their personal and private luxuries, lavish perks and unreasonable salaries. When you consider the arrogance of a CEO flying to Washington in their private Jets, begging for Tax Payer’s Money without a plan of action as to what this money will be used for, is nothing less than a spit in the eye of American Tax Payers.
This is what I feel we should think about above all else.
In 1894 Charles Pollock was a Massachusetts citizen who owned only ten shares of stock in the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company. He sued the company to enjoin it from paying the tax. Pollock lost in the lower courts, but finally appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Arguing for the plaintiff Pollock was Joseph Choate, one of the most eminent Wall Street lawyers of his day.
The Supreme Court handed down its decision on April 8, 1895, with Chief Justice Melville Fuller delivering the opinion of the Court. He ruled in Pollock's favor, stating that certain taxes levied by the Wilson-Gorman Act, to the extent imposed on income from property, were unconstitutional. The Court treated the tax on income from property as a direct tax. Under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States at that time, such direct taxes were required to be imposed in proportion to states' population. The tax in question had not been apportioned and, therefore, was invalid. As Chief Justice Fuller stated:
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced—that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
The decrees herein before entered in this court will be vacated. The decrees below will be reversed, and the cases remanded, with instructions to grant the relief prayed. [158 U.S. 601, 638]
Justices John Marshall Harlan, Jackson, White and Brown dissented from the majority opinion. Justice White argued:
It is, I submit, greatly to be deplored that after more than 100 years of our national existence, after the government has withstood the strain of foreign wars and the dread ordeal of civil strife, and its people have become united and powerful, this court should consider itself compelled to go back to a long repudiated and rejected theory of the constitution, by which the government is deprived of an inherent attribute of its being—a necessary power of taxation. [158 U.S. 638]
In his dissent, Justice Brown wrote:
The decision involves nothing less than the surrender of the taxing power to the moneyed class...Even the spectre of socialism is conjured up to frighten Congress from laying taxes upon the people in proportion to their ability to pay them.
The Supreme Court did not rule that all income taxes were direct taxes. Instead, the Court held that although generally income taxes are indirect taxes (excises) authorized by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the taxes on interest, dividends and rents under the 1894 Act had a profound effect on the underlying assets. The Court ruled that the tax on dividends, interest and rent should be viewed as a direct tax falling on the property itself rather than as an indirect tax. As direct taxes, these taxes were required to follow the rule of apportionment found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.
The rule of apportionment requires the amount of a direct tax collected to be divided by the number of Representatives in the United States House of Representatives, the quotient is then multiplied by the number of representatives each State has to determine each State's share of the tax which it then needs to lay and collect through its own taxing authority.
Congress has had the power to lay and collect an indirect tax on incomes from the beginning of the American Government under the United States Constitution in 1787. The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to prevent the income tax from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and misapplied as a direct tax (as was done with Pollock). The Sixteenth Amendment made the apportionment rule inapplicable to income taxes, including taxes on income derived from property, by providing that Congress has the power to tax incomes from any source without having to apportion the tax by population.
In his dissent to the Pollock decision, Justice Harlan stated:
When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an amendment of the Constitution—two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States concurring—such property and incomes can never be made to contribute to the support of the national government.
In a nation where the Federal government was beginning its battle against monopolies and trusts, where the great bulk of wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few, the decision in Pollock was unpopular, much like the decision in United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895) of the same year. The following year, the Democratic Party, which had grabbed hold of the Populist movement, included an income tax plank in its election platform.
Nebraska Senator Norris Brown publicly decried the Court's decision, and instead proposed specific language to remove the Pollock requirement that certain income taxes be apportioned among the states by population. The proposal was later incorporated into the Sixteenth Amendment. Fourteen years would pass, however, before the Amendment was finally passed by Congress in 1909. Upon ratification in 1913, the Amendment effectively made the Pollock decision moot, removing any requirement that taxes on incomes derived from property be apportioned by population.
In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court declared certain income taxes — taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act — to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on "property by reason of its ownership," and should therefore be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks and so on burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on "property by reason of its ownership" burdened that property.
This meant that, after Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends and rent income were required to be apportioned by population. The Pollock ruling made the source of the income (e.g., property versus labor, etc.) relevant in determining whether the tax imposed on that income was deemed to be "direct" (and thus required to be apportioned among the states according to population) or, alternatively, "indirect" (and thus required only to be imposed with geographical uniformity).
From 1895 up to when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, while Congress could have re-imposed taxes on income from labor and other non-property sources without apportionment by population, imposing taxes on interest, dividends and rent income would not have been practical (as the dollar amount of income from interest, dividends and rent would virtually never be exactly the same amount for each and every taxpayer in the United States for any year). The Congress was unwilling to impose an income tax on labor and other non-property sources without also imposing a tax on income from property — and taxes on income from property were no longer realistic. The Pollock ruling made imposition of an income tax politically unfeasible from 1895 until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. At the same time, the Congress was reflecting the growing concern among many elements of society that the wealthiest Americans had consolidated too much economic power.
In his dissent to the Pollock decision, Justice Harlan stated:
When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an amendment of the Constitution — two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States concurring — such property and incomes can never be made to contribute to the support of the national government.
I came upon a Website today (maybe a little late I suppose) named "justsaynodeal.com" Ok I must declare that I can not speak intelligently about this Site simply because I haven't had enough time to fully investigate the full premise of this Site, therefore nothing you read in this Article is or should be costrude as condoning their premise.
Having said that, in keeping with my original stance that I will never divulge my Party Affiliation or whom I am supporting for President of the Untied States. Therefore, I will simply say, I did find myself amazed at the blatant unfair treatment dealt to Sen. Clinton during the Primary Season where she clearly had policy ideas superior to what I've seen or heard from subsequent Candidates on either side.
So I find myself gazing at this Website and thinking to myself, if I were a supporter of Sen. Clinton, would I vote for Sen. Obama? Well the answer to that is easy, it depends on the motivating factor of why a person votes. Would I vote for someone because of their Ethnic or Gender Origins?
I think Sen. Hillary Clinton would have been the better choice for the Democrats had the majority of them not listened to the Bias Network Media. I recall hearing someone telling me, the reason they didn't want Hillary was because teh former President would back in the White House. Well I immediately considered that person as of the Planet's Uninformed and nothing they have to say would be note worthy going forward. In my humble opinion, Hillary Clinton as President of the United States would have an added bonus being married to a former President who could provide very valuable Foreign Education. It would have been like having two Presidents for the price of one.
I, for one am not so absent minded that I've already forgotten how strone our economy was under watch of the Clinton Administration. Yes, Bill Clinton screwed up bigtime with his extra-marital affairs and lies to the Grand Jury. There's no way to spin that other than bad bad move Mr. Clinton, however with all of that aside, he actually was a good President for the People and some believe Hillary would have acoomplished much more as President.
So in conclusion, if I were a Clinton Supporter, I'm not certain I would feel very good about pulling the lever for Barack Obama given the tactics I witnessed being waged against her while he benefitted from the Network bashing Hillary indured and to now see her hold her head up high and pose in support of what could be determined as a Sandbagging?
You decide but I've made up my mind. Check it out for yourself at Just Say No Deal. Com
William J. Clinton, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush can you tell me the order of their importance based on historical events in the past decade?
Well I suppose one would initially consider the current arrangement as accurate. William J. Clinton ending his reign as President touting a resume of fiscal prosperity and growth but regrettably tagged more so with a legacy of scandal while Osama bin Laden began fostering his hatred for American political influence throughout the World as he deemed geared towards denying the rights & freedoms of an oppressed Islamic Culture. Then orchestrated terrorist activities which led to the World Trade Building tragedy on Sept. 11th, 2001 which then President George W. Bush promising a revenge thirsty American Public, misguidedly waged war against Iraq and Dictatorial Ruler Saddam Hussein under the guise of harboring Al Qaeda Extremist and stock piling WMDs' Weapons of Mass Destruction which gave little room for any reasonable resistance to a movement bound to radically alter our prosperous direction forever and equally as important, solidified deeper divisions of our social & political beliefs in the United States.
So there you have it, four men who's ideology and actions within ten short years may be identified as the single most significant period in Human History that can determine the outcome of Our World as we know it. Of course this sounds admittedly dramatic and possibly outlandish to consider the events of the past ten years have ignited the spark towards Armageddon but consider if you will Prophecies of the Bible. Providing if you will that what has been ordained as inevitable by the Word of God, one could say none of these men nor the actions they are identified with, had any recourse but to follow a prescribed plan.
Here’s my point, at the end of the day, participants deeply seated in religious persuasion that recognize no bounds in how self-severing righteous radical views carry out their objectives of cooperation or conform shatter the fabric of society here and abroad and are often looked upon as the ineffectiveness of our Leader’s ability to insure Peace & Security around the World. Tax Payers have an ongoing burden of sacrificing their future hopes of a comfortable retirement, sending our children to college and affording the higher cost of living when our Government’s needs out-weigh the needs of our personal desires & requirements.
Becoming the President of the United States of America subtitled the most Powerful Leader of the Free World, amounts to very little in terms of how we will ultimately prosper in our lifetime. The President is now nothing more than a figure head atop of a multifaceted spin machine poised and ready to deceive public awareness and manipulated public opinion.
In my view, it will mean nothing more than one group feeling they won over the other when the Election is over. As for realizing the promises offered up by each Candidate, all I can ask is, do you seriously believe any legislation will be initiated against large corporate operatives who drive this Country’s economy, effects employment numbers and funnels millions into the pockets of our Law Makers to provide incentives for these corporations to offset profit loss by hiring non-American Workers? And for the older of members of our society, you’ve heard the term, ‘Universal Healthcare’ since the early 80’s and we are still acting as though this time it shall come to pass. I’m intend to do you all a favor by breaking down exactly why we will never see Universal Healthcare in our lifetime but for now, vote for your favorite candidate, go home and begin counting the days until Election 2012, when we will begin listening to the next group tell you how they will actually accomplish what the current President didn’t.
It is clear to me that the American Voter typically gets it wrong when selecting the person who will govern our Country's Policies. We tend to coronet charisma and personal appeal over substance and practicality. Former Vice President Al Gore co-presided over one of the most fiscally positive presidential terms in American history yet he wasn't able to stand on the many achievements of the Clinton Administration, which included if nothing else, the Family Medical Leave Act, that has benefited the Working Class's ability to secure their jobs in times of physical and or emotional distress not to mention allowing parents a reasonable amount of time away from work to careful and bond with their newborn children.
The cost of Oil per Barrel never rose above $35 during Clinton's eight years in the Oval Office and still an articulately challenged unknown Governor from Texas with little to no foreign policy experience was able to topple Vice President Gore's inevitability of securing the reigns from his former Boss.
How could that have possibly occurred during a time of financial prosperity and minor military conflict around the World? My theory, governors do a much better job in managing a business much like the operational requirements of a State’s fiscal assets. Most who have aspired to the status of congressional senator, seldom have in their portfolio any experiences that qualify them in this manner.
Then there were three: Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama stood alone after the Primary Campaign dust had settled. Once again American Citizens missed our Window of Opportunity by over looking the credentials of Governor Mitt Romney and former Mayor Rudi Giuliani, who both can boast high marks in successful stewardships of high profile organizations such as managing New York City and the State of Massachusetts.
But we decided that history should be made by selecting a Senator and I can’t help from failing to see the common sense or wisdom it demonstrates not to mention the two we now have to choose between. Once again I dare say we dropped the ball in not truly understanding what a golden opportunity it would be for our Country during these critical times to prove we've finally risen in stature as intelligent beings destined for a harmonious community by not only selecting a woman to the highest Office in the Land but one who happens to have a former President of the United States, as her husband.
Just how many errors in judgment do you believe would occur with essentially two Presidents guiding our governmental growth for the next four years? Well one could argue, Hillary Clinton made several errors in judgment in how she ran her Campaign and I for one could not agree more. And to witness such a strong division amongst those who are truly wanting prosperity to reign supreme in America and those who are making their choice based solely upon one's ethnic origins, leaves me with utter disenchantment for a society that wants everything yet offers little in terms of intellectual stimulus.
We seem to have a history especially in the past 3 decades where my respect and admiration for the Office of President means very little in terms of true guidance. Our government has demonstrated to me that my tax dollars are available for the taking. We are no longer given a choice in how our government should be run, we are only given a choice in which party gets to call the shots. Politicians and I'd have to say, especially Senators, know full well that we can be misled to no extent with empty promises. Politicians have become skillful in knowing how to manipulate any conversation intent on persuading the voting public that this person will finally provide what we've been promised numerous times before.
We, the People have pretty much adopted a number of reassuring slogans composed to soften the harsh reality that government and corporate greed are infact Bed Fellows, such as; "He's at least not as bad as the other guy", or "Best of the Worst" or "Better than Nothing" and probably the most pathetic of them of is the old saying the illustrates our complete surrender, "So watcha ya gonna do?". Well what we do is form massive lines to the voting booths which accomplish nothing more than provide our stamp of approval to those whom sit in Washington while wining & dining on enormous amounts of Tax Payer dollars, earmarked for the very same Special Interest that they claim they intend to do anyway with. All I can say in conclusion is, I truly hope & pray you aren't believing anyone in Washington DC has any intension on ridding those Hallow Halls of Pork Barrel Spending in its' true sense because it's those of us who do believe these tales, you are what fuel the fires of deception.