Why does Mark Levin perpetuate FDR’s slavish Victory Tax with a Liberty Amendment?

In one of Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments he promotes keeping alive taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

If one wants to judge the motives and character of those who advocate changes to our Constitution, there are two specific issues which give us a clue: (a) the manner in which Congress fills our national treasury; and (b), what our nation uses for “legal tender”. In other words, “its all about the Benjamins”. So, let us take a look at issue (a) and ask ourselves why does Mark Levin offer to perpetuate taxes calculated from profits, gains and incomes which is a tool of despotic governments and particularly embraced by our progressive domestic enemies?

To fully understand this issue one must first be informed about the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, a movement which was, among other things, intentionally designed by its leadership to enslave the working class person, not to mention seizing an iron fisted regulatory control over America’s businesses and industries.

In 1913 the leadership of the progressive movement convinced the working person [that’s your ordinary working person] to get behind the 16th Amendment. It was sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their “fair share” in taxes.

During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording “unearned wealth“ as distinguished from earned wages.

And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor: As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).

But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal government’s manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working people’s earned wages from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff has ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which the imposition of the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942, not letting a crisis go to waste!

Roosevelt’s class warfare tax expanded the “income tax” upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent “temporary” tax upon working people’s earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax “unearned income”, the temporary tax on working people’s earned wages was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort. But somehow Roosevelt’s class warfare tax, which robs the bread which poor working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence, an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and captive voting block!

Now, with this in mind the question is, does Mark Levin’s proposed Liberty Amendment to reform taxation offer real change, or is it a “fan dance” to keep alive the source of power which is now used to create an iron fisted control over America’s businesses, industries and working class people? Why does Mark Leven avoid getting to the root cause of our miseries and could be ended by adding the following 32 words were to our Constitution?

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the evil power Congress now exercises which has socialized America‘s once free enterprise system. The words would also help to end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which America’s businesses and labor have produced.

JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

The country needs to consider the original federal tax policy imo. More specifically, note that Thomas Jefferson had clarified that only the rich paid federal taxes which were tariffs that they paid on imported goods.

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied (emphasis added). … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.

But since there no way that the rich can presently afford to pay for Congress's irresponsible spending, it would be up to the rich to do the following. The rich would have to police Congress to make sure that Congress complies with Justice John Marshall's official clarification that Congress is prohibited from spending tax dollars on anything that it cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers and other constitutionally mandated expenses.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

"Actually, Mark Levin needs to study our Constitution's original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate.?

Mark has his own reasons for avoiding issues. His daily infomercials, which I often find informative, are an enormously valuable marketing tool for which he is paid! Who else gets paid to sell his own products three hours each day? I'm a capitalist. No one needs to listen to his harangues. Levin's ideology may be more tactical than strategic.

I suspected, and had confirmed in Mark's Liberty and Tyranny, p37, that our framers intentionally omitted term definitions from our Constitution. Try to find one! There is but one narrowing of one word overused by the British, which I'll leave for the reader to find. The one exception proves the rule. Mark quoted a Madison letter to a friend and colleague, in which Madison explains this. It reminds of a principle assumed by astrophysicist called 'time invariance of physical law'. If one looks at light from stars and galaxies transmitted ten billion years ago, the only way to analyze the meaning of what that light reveals is to assume physical laws haven't changed. Madison explained that the only way to understand our Constitution, which was written presuming the eternal truth of ‘Natural Law’, which was the foundation of our Declaration and Constitution, is to use the language and law common to our founders and framers when they wrote the document.

Mark, unfortunately, repeated the misdirection, one about which he is certainly familiar, since he wrote about it, that “Our Constitution doesn't define who are natural born citizens because they didn't define the term.” Mark also, just recently, in an interview with Hannity after an embarrassing exchange with someone at a book signing, stipulated, talking about Ted Cruz, but the stipulation would apply to McCain if it were true, that “The 1790 Naturalization Act makes Cruz (and McCain), eligible without any doubt.” His statement is not true, and I find it hard to believe he, more a Constitutional Scholar than Obama, who never claimed natural born citizenship, that Mark doesn't know the truth. He is also well aware of separation of powers, and that Congress has no authority to re-interpret the Constitution.

The 1790 Naturalization Act was entirely repealed in 1795, signed by the same President Washington, with the new act containing the same legal context, Article 1 Section 8 uniform naturalization rules, but the stipulation that children born to citizen parents “across the seas” (out of U.S. sovereign jurisdiction), were made ‘citizens. No mention of natural born citizens appears in U.S. Code since the mistake in the 1790 Act was corrected. One can surmise that Congress realized that using Article I Section 8, a 'naturalization' provision, to affect Article II Section I, 'natural born citizen' and its presidential eligibility stipulation, was seen to be the conflict that it is. Were the 1790 Act not repealed, Congress could redefine who was eligible to be president.

The same trick, citing the 1790 Act, was deployed by Obama’s Constitutional Law professor, Supreme Court wannabe, Larry Tribe, and by the sad product of the Congressional Research Service's Jack Maskill in three remarkably error-filled efforts to cloud the issue of Obama’s ineligibility.

Why would I listen to Levin? Mark's Landmark Legal Foundation gets most of its business from conservative clients. Karl Rove and Jihadi Grover Norquist could probably shut down Landmark Legal. They certainly know Obama is illegitimate, but watched McCain fight law suits and Congressional hearings from 2001 on. McCain's questionable legitimacy was well published in the WaPo, NYT, LA Times, Chicago Trib... It is a tangled web which may never be untangled, but if Levin were to weigh in, with his following, many Republicans would be removed from the dole, and probably Levin as well. It cannot be a coincidence that the media and Republican movers float one naturalized citizen after another, Jindal, Haley, Rubio, Cruz, for 2016 when we have so many who are natural born.

Why didn't Republicans promote the justifiable constitutional amendment to make McCain eligible? Democrats did! Clair McCaskill, Obama’s 2008 campaign co-chair, and Obama sponsored Senate Bill 2678, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’ Democrats also sponsored four amendment bills , two by John Conyers and one each by Menendez and Frank, which would have made Obama eligible. Democrats wanted McCain to be their opponent, and Levin, who is unequivocally hostile to McCain, is implicated in the cover-up, much as I suspect he would rather not be.

I will buy Levin's new book, but believe the words of Levin's former boss apply: “Trust but Verify”. My take is that he doesn't feel he could defend the economics of the proposal eliminating the graduated income tax, and trying to defend that particular thesis would cost him more influence. Clearly, he doesn't understand, or won't address eligibility. But many of his suggestions seem very worthy of careful examination. Not having read the book, but having listened to his daily recitations about it, his exposure of the Constitutional mechanism may be end up at the most valuable contribution, and one he attributes to a retired judge and professor from Montana (I don't recall the name, but he was the source for Levin of the clarification). If his infomercials make him rich, and he keeps his audience, more power to him.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.