Is Mark Levin, talk show host, a RINO in drag supporting Herman Cain?

11-5-11 | JOHN W K

[x]

Wait a second. Look over the thread and see how I have been insulted from the very beginning and repeatedly so throughout the thread. BTW, who have I insulted? JWK

Okay. I took your saying that Herman Cain wanted to trash the Constitution as insulting to him.

I guess you could respond that it's not an insult, just your understanding of what he's actually doing.

Fair enough, but if enough people insulted you, chances are they also took what you said as a low blow, so it's not just me.

When somebody advocates policies I don't approve of, I try to start out assuming that they don't know the consequences or haven't thought things through, at least until I see evidence that they actually intend to do wrong.

That can be patronizing, I suppose, but when someone starts out assuming a candidate of his or her own party -- and his or her own wing of the party -- is bent on doing wrong, it's natural that people will react angrily.

[JOHN W K]

But I stated my case and instead of responding to my charges, the personal attacks came like an avalanche.

So, why do our conservative talk show hosts call Herman Cain a conservative? Do any of our “conservative” talk show hosts have any idea what Cain is proposing with his “opportunity zones“? People and businesses situated in those zones would be relieved of paying taxes which people and businesses situated a block away would be forced to pay. That just happens to be a flagrant violation of equal law and our Constitution’s rule that requires direct taxes to be apportioned and indirect taxes are to be uniform throughout the United States.

Cain’s plan would in fact have the Washington Establishment picking winners and losers, just as Obama has been doing with his Solyndra swindle which leaves the American taxpayer on the hook. Are our “conservative” talk show hosts comfortable with Cain’s Soviet style central planning crap? Why do they not object to Cain’s proposed attack on our free market system?

Cain’s plan would also ignore our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment which was specifically adopted to guarantee federalism, our Constitution’s plan. And the above objections do not even take into consideration our founding father’s intentions stated in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6 of our Constitution which forbids the federal government to grant preferential regulations of commerce within the various united States.

So why does Mark Levin and our other “conservative” talk show hosts [Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Doc Thompson, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, and FoxNews personalities] call Herman Cain a “conservative” when his “opportunity zones" are anything but conservative and mimic Soviet style central planning crap?

JWK

Read my lips Herman Cain. Keep your freaken nose out of my State’s internal commerce!

[x]

Well, okay, you've got legitimate complaints. It sounds to me like Cain got flak over 9-9-9, and threw in the "opportunity zones" to cover himself with his critics. It may not be a very good idea or very well-thought out.

Still, "enterprise zones" or "empowerment zones" or "opportunity zones" have a long history going back through Jack Kemp, Margaret Thatcher, Bobby Kennedy and Milton Friedman (though their proposals didn't exactly correspond to Cain's).

So far as I can tell it's not really a big government, Soviet-style central planning idea -- not if Milton Friedman gave the notion some impetus and Margaret Thatcher implemented it in her country. We already have something very similar on the books, so I doubt it's actually likely to be ruled unconstitutional.

I can't really see supporting a national sales tax on top of the other taxes we pay. My main gripe, though, and I assume many other people's gripe, is that Herman Cain is not the enemy. He may be wrong, but if you think so you shouldn't run him down as much as you do.

[JOHN W K]

X, I have been at this for many years, and as far back as the 1980s, the Washington Establishment has been trying to figure our how to get a national consumption tax [value added tax, national retail sales tax, fairtax, etc.,] adopted in addition to keeping alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes, without the people rising up in rebellion.

Herman’s 9-9-9 plan would, if adopted, would give the Washington Establishment exactly what they have been trying to get for many, many years! And if our folks in Washington ever get a national consumption tax going as proposed by Herman Cain, which means keeping alive the power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes, we can kiss America as we know it goodby. If you think the income tax has allowed Congress to control and regulate almost every aspect of our private lives, apply the same thirst for a regulatory power using a tax which touches almost ever single article of consumption we buy and the regulatory power Congress would exercise connected with a national retail sales tax.

I remember when Herman was promoting the “fairtax” on the radio he wouldn’t acknowledge the fact that if the fairtax were adopted along with H.J.RES. 16 [the fairtax companion legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment] Congress would still maintain the power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits and gains as laid under the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 and upheld in Flint vs. Stone Tracy, and would also maintain power to lay and collect taxes calculated from “incomes” as was laid during the Civil War and upheld in Springer vs. United States. And now Herman actually has a good portion of the nation cheering him on to adopt a national sales tax while keeping alive Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes.

JWK