If It’s Reagan Principles You Want, Katherine Jenerette Is Your Gal

SC hotline ^ | 5/26/2008

[the invisib1e hand]

I think I want Rita Jenrette about 20 years ago.

[the invisib1e hand]

Those eyes are literature itself.

[A Strict Constructionist]

Figures, he fits the pattern.

[Professional Engineer]

You forgot this part

http://www.freerepublic.com/~kjenerette

[kjenerette]

Thanks for the feedback. The news story got it wrong about the sales tax reduction - these were the reporter's words not mine. Here is my short 'abstract' view on this issue:

Katherine Jenerette on Income Tax:

From its founding, our country operated without a personal income tax for 137 years.

My bottom line on income tax may sound simplistic, but I believe that a tax on a person’s income violates the basic principals of our original Constitution and the Declaration of Independence with regard to the equality of all men.

The basic principal of a free man is that he cannot be owned by another man or no man can own another man’s labor. To say that the government can violate this principal is a contradiction of our uniquely American beliefs of freedom.

Once the government can sweep aside the boundary between its hand and your wallet; which is your labor, they have violated the principal of a free man.

Secondly is the principal of a limited government is violated by creating institutions that both increase the size of the federal government; which in turn, allows those institutions to control and limit the opportunities of a free people.

While I support the fair tax, I believe it is an idea with its’ “heart in the right place; especially with the overriding objective of the repeal of the 16th Amendment but I believe it is a work in progress.

My legislative agenda is that there should be no income tax and the 16th Amendment should be repealed.

First, I would move to repeal the 16th Amendment. Concurrently; upon ratification of the appeal, institute a National Sales Tax of 23% which will be reduced each congress by 3%. By law, this tax will be reduced 3% every two years, which will force the government to shrink 3% every two years. Within 18 years, there will be no national Sales Tax and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will have to have shrunk by 23%.

I do not agree with the concepts of pre-bates. It is another federal government control mechanism that allows the federal government to maintain leverage over an individual which would be a close cousin to the system we have right now. This would build another level of dependency on the federal government, which would extend far beyond those persons dependent on the federal government right now. However, some legislative plan will have to be enacted for those persons below a certain income level that will be most impacted by the initial 23% tax and indexed until the moratorium is reached.

No matter how the legislation is worded or worked out the message to the Federal Government is this: Get away from our income. The only exception that I can conceive of myself, would be during a war declared by Congress in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8.

thanks

Katherine

Katherine Jenerette for US Congress

[kjenerette]

Thanks for the response. This is a short version of my position on life.

I am pro-life. Over the years as this debate continues, both my husband and I; in our personal and our academic lives, have written on our common position on this subject. Right now, we do not have equal protection under the law as guaranteed to us by our Constitution.

The following are my principals:

We have to respect and protect all human life To each individual their life is sacred. As a people, to begin to pass judgment or sentence on human life by age, quality, position or potential has the effect of placing a price or a measure on what can only be deemed a gift from our creator.

However, there is a paradox of life and rights: Our rights as a people for individual-self-government are based upon the uniqueness of human life with rights granted by 'nature's God,' which in turn are protected by our Constitution.

One must follow the other, or else the entire argument of human rights becomes based on man's opinion. Either life with rights is given at the same time that life begins or we have no rights beyond which other men or governments are willing to allow us.

If we as a people do not respect the sacred notion of human LIFE how can we expect to have respect for RIGHTS that are dependent upon the concept of human LIFE itself? Any society that diminishes the value of one life from another risks its very existence.

[pissant]

Hey hey, how did I miss your post.

[Luke21]

Man I hope not. John and Rita were bad news way back when.

[Luke21]

Thanks for that extra info. Really yukky.

[Rastus]

I just hope her mom wasn’t named Dee. ;)

[Non-Sequitur]

Thanks for that extra info. Really yukky.

I'm not passing judgement, just pointing out that there are issues she'll need to overcome.

[IMissPresidentReagan]

Okay....here's one of many problems I have with the allegations in the article.

She said she was bothered when she found that Jenerette did not acknowledge her sister as one of his children on Web sites about him and his current wife.
She said he has seven children, including four with Katherine Jenerette.
Jenerette-Begg said she had parted ways with her stepfather years ago.

She says that he didn't acknowledge her as his daughter, yet she refers to him as a "stepfather", and to Katherine as his "current wife", which tells me two things. 1. she is not his daughter and 2. he is not married to her mother any longer. What obligation does he have to list her as "his daughter" when she refers to him a stepfather?

Another problem I have is that she alleges that the abuse went on past the age of 20....that seems excessive. Also, she says the allegations aren't "about politics" but then asserts that her "stepfather and current wife" want to spread lies. I'm curious what lies in particular; and what does his "current wife" have to do with anything?

It seems highly suspect. I get really angry when women trump up charges like these because it then casts a doubt on those who genuinely suffer similar fates.

Unfortunately, as suspect as these claims seem to me, I'm sure it will be something Ms. Jenerette will have to combat. Unless you are a Democrat you don't get a pass on any scandal, regardless of the veracity of the allegations.

[snippy_about_it]

He was arrested and you can see the warrant on the internet. We will have to see what happens when he gets his day in court. You can see from the warrant that they have tape of him admitting to the charges. Both should be considered innocent until proven otherwise. Too many here are quick to attack the stepdaughter just because they like the politics of the wife of the accused.

You can sell her to the rest of the country but it will be SC that will be watching the trial and many here think the world of him but they just might have been misled.

Unfortunate for all but until the trial we just won’t know but it is baggage that she carries into the race, there’s no denying that.

[IMissPresidentReagan]

You're right; we'll wait and see. Just remember all the “evidence” Nifong had too, according to his warrants. Those boys were also arrested. Merely being arrested means little or nothing about one's guilt or innocence. I've seen plenty of misleading and overstated statements in arrest warrants. It's not uncommon, and is less about politics than it is zealousness for headlines.

I'm leery, having read the article and her blog. I'm not attacking the stepdaughter, although I do think she perhaps has “issues” as the youth say today, but I am skeptical, it's possible that it's the defense attorney in me. My skepticism has nothing to do with politics.

Unfortunately, too many think that to be skeptical is a personal attack. It's not. I don't know the girl, but her story doesn't jive with me. It's not a personal attack to point that out. Too often, I've seen empathy for “victims” overrule any objectivity that one would use to judge the facts. The more terrible and horrendeous the claims the harder it is to look at things objectively. However, just as you say some are quick to attack the stepdaughter because of “politics” of the third party candidate, others are just as quick to assume the guilt of Mr. Jenerette because of sheer horror of the claims she makes.

It's a shame regardless, that any baggage would follow the candidate, as she is merely a third party, who took no part in the events, and actually, I happen to like her politics. I wish the candidate the best and the rest will be what it will be.

[raygunfan]

im in

[Sun]

Thanks for your eloquent response.

I think the 5th amendment spells it out:

Amendment V

“..nor be
deprived of LIFE (emphasis mine), liberty, ..”

[Sun]

FYI: Please check out post #26.

[floriduh voter]

What state?

[Sun]

South Carolina

[floriduh voter]

You can tell I read your post from my pings.