Fake conservative talk show hosts embrace Herman Cain!

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It is not someone's fault if they succeeded, it is someone's fault if they failed,"___ Herman Cain

Of course Herman Cain, former ringleader of the Federal Reserve would say something like that, especially when the Federal Reserve and its un-constitutional money monopoly is in defiance of our founding fathers expressed intentions, and is used to plunder what America‘s Businesses and labor have produced.

And what did Daniel Webster have to say regarding working people: "Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."

Was Mr. Webster making something up? I think not as our founders were pretty much in agreement!

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.

Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")

On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.

Our founding fathers were well aware of the historical thievery which takes place when notes of any kind are made a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. And that is why they intentionally voted to forbid any notes being made a legal tender which, if allowed, would create an evil money monopoly and force businesses and individuals to accept worthless script in payment of debt, even if they were not “safe and proper”.

To bad our “conservative’ talk show hosts avoid talking about two specific key issues which our founding fathers addressed in great detail and provided specific rules in our Constitution to encourage and protect a free market system and prevent Congress‘s power of taxation being abused. The two key issues which our “conservative” talk show hosts fail to address are:

Federal Reserve Notes having been made a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE in defiance of our Constitution’s legislative intent, and our Constitution’s “fair share formulas” for both taxation and representation:

A few days ago Glenn Beck had Herman Cain on his radio show promoting his 9-9-9 plan, which includes a “national sales tax’, in addition to a 9 percent tax on corporate profits, and a 9 percent tax upon working people’s earned wages.

Glenn Beck was all in favor of the addition of Cain’s new 9 percent national sales tax to feed the beast in Washington, and didn’t even bother to play devil’s advocate and question its constitutionality, or the rational behind adding a new tax to Congress‘ menu while keeping existing taxes on incomes alive.

This is a typical example of our so called “conservative” talk show hosts avoiding two of the most important issues addressed by our Founding Fathers.

Why is it that our “conservative” talk show hosts will not talk about the unconstitutionality of federal reserve notes being made a legal tender for all debts public and private, nor talk about the rule of apportionment and how our founder’s agreed it would apply to any general tax laid among the States? Has Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, etc., ever mentioned our Constitution‘s fair share formula for any general tax laid among the States or federal reserve notes having been made a legal tender in defiance of our founders expressed intentions?

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.___ James Madison

There is but one way to transition away from our existing federal tax system, and it's not by adding a new tax, a national sales tax, while keeping alive taxes on incomes and taxes on the wages which working people earn when selling the property each has in their labor. And the only way to a irrevocable transition is to work to add the following words 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

Once these words are added to our Constitution, Congress is forced into making the transition to laying and collecting imposts and duties, (taxes at our water‘s edge) and internal excise taxes on “judiciously selected“ articles of consumption, with an emergency tax that can be apportioned among the states if shortfalls arise, and, the ugly head of income taxation will have been laid to rest!

JWK "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution___Jefferson

To fully understand the despotic nature of Boehner’s approved “Super Committee”, which may impose its will using the threat of blackmail [the threat to drastically reduce the funding of our nation’s military defense to encourage patriotic members of Congress to accept the Committee’s proposals], one needs to simply analyze the Washington Establishment’s repeated attempts to vest line item veto powers in the hands of the president which likewise proposes to concentrate policy making power in the hands of a few, and would also open the door to the evils of blackmail in the setting of public policy.

If line item veto were available to the executive branch of government, special interest projects and pork barrel spending favored by the president would almost assuredly prevail over projects and pork disfavored by the president.

In regard to line item veto power, Article 1, Section 7 of our federal Constitution contains a precise procedure for the president to follow regarding a bill having passed both houses of Congress ''__if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated__'' . No allowance has been granted to the president by the Constitution to alter a bill to his own liking by striking some parts and leaving others, and returning a bill so amended to the House in which it originated.

Likewise, no provision can be pointed to in our Constitution granting power to Congress to overrule the precise procedure stated in Article 1, Section 7 and vest in the president a “line item veto power” which is constantly sought by our Washington Establishment.

And why is “line item veto power” something to be dreaded by a freedom loving people? Madison`s Notes on the Convention of 1787 informs us that only three of the original 13 States allowed their executive to exercise a veto power (Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York), And, in discussing veto power, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4 of the Constitutional Convention reminds the delegates how veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the Convention should not grant such power to the president. He says:

''The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''

In fact, the primary objection to line item veto power being vested in the President is the associated blackmailing power that is connected to line item veto power.

Similarly, Boehner’s dirty dozen “Super Committee” intentionally introduces the element of blackmail, by linking the funding our nation’s defense to a “YEA” or “NAY” vote upon the dirty dozen committee’s proposals!

But now, let us take a close look at some of the particulars of Boehner’s approved “Super Committee”.

Will the Representatives of each of the States be present on the “Super Committee“? No

Will the Super Committee be creating proposed legislation? Yes!

When the proposed legislation is introduced in the House of Representatives, will the Representatives of each of the State’s various Districts be allowed to offer amendments to the proposed legislation to reflect the views of the people they represent? No!

When the proposed legislation is put up for a vote for passage, does a “no” vote automatically then require major cuts in our nation’s military defense? Yes!

Is it a fact then that Representatives of all but six States will be voting upon proposed legislation that they had absolutely no part in “making“, and if they should vote “no” on its passage, the funding of our military will be cut drastically? Yes!

In my view, this Super Committee crap borders on giving aid and comfort to our enemies!

JWK

Cain’s plan is adding a new tax, something which the Washington Establishment has been trying to get since the 1980s, a tax on consumption [national sales tax, valued added tax, fairtax,etc.] while keeping alive the Marxist income tax.

You can sugar coat it any way you wish, but the bottom line is Cain is proposing a new tax on top of existing taxes.

I am quite confident if you want someone to save the country, that person would not be one who proposes to put another tax on the menu for Congress to fatten itself with, a nine percent national sales tax, in addition to taxing corporate profits and the wages working people earn. Our founding fathers would never have tolerated the gouging of America’s businesses and working people in such an extraordinary manner to fund the expenses of Congress. Indeed, those familiar with our Constitution’s original tax plan, will testify to this fact.

And in reference to a “national sales tax” which I might add defies our Constitution’s rule of apportionment, and goes as far as taxing every necessity of life a working person buys, it is only self evident that such a tax is the darling of depots and political schemers who dream of a tax which may constantly be increased in such small increments, say a quarter of a percent at a time and would avoid significant outcry, that the proverbial frog will eventually be cooked before attempting its escape.

And yet, that quarter of a percent will cleverly drain billions upon billions of dollars from the American People’s pockets, which will then be used to grow the beast which our founding fathers intended to be the people’s servant and not their master.

JWK

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“.___ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

“They are elected officials, but Cain has elevated the idea that representation can go to hell.
We’ll just rely on a hand select “Super Committee”

See, I read Cain’s reference to the this a different way. It seems to me he is approaching a problem with a solution that will work in the mold that congress has set to work in for the time being.
We’ve done a lot of griping about Obozo’s delusions of monarchy, and his constant usurping of the 3 branches of government.
I don’t see this as any different than any other committee used in congress to hammer out a bill before it goes up before the whole of Congress. It also puts them in the game so to speak, and doesn’t seem nearly so much like commands from on high like we get from the idiot, and his czars.
I am also pretty sure neither the house or the Senate will look the way it does today after President Cain’s inauguration, so who’s to say a “Super Committee” isn’t a broad sampling of both houses, and folks whose judgement we trust? I could easily trust the recommendation of some guys named Rand Paul, Demint, Ryan, and a lovely young woman named Bachmann.

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.