More evidence that lawyers should not pretend to be economists. Taxes imposed on manufacturers of anything are invariably passed on to consumers. This includes co-called “carbon offset” taxes. In the process, the money is laundered through exchanges and the state bureaucracy, enriching the non-productive leach sector of the economy at the expense of the middle-class.
You liberals whine about the inequality between the 1% & the 99%, then want to impose even more draconian financial policies that exacerbate the problem!
OH NO! THERE’S A CLIMATE CRISIS (there’s always a crisis) so we need to TAX MORE to CONTROL PEOPLE and SAVE THE WORLD! Ad nauseum.
In a major setback to effort to combat climate change, Australia’s Abbott government has secured a repeal of the carbon tax. It is the first major country to rollback on the basic environmental protection. Abbott’s government is suggesting that it will pay corporations not to pollute — a proposal that would cost a huge amount and environmentalists insist is unlikely to be successful.
“…The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” – John Swinton, Chief Editorial Writer, New York Times
With the concentration of ownership of mainstream media outlets by a hand-full of corporations – all of which are large donors to political agents – all with lobbyists and agendas of their own, you can assume that the news is manipulated to manage politicians and laws rather than inform the public as a primary agenda. Where the truth conflicts with a financial, PR, or political agenda, the story will be sanitized or buried.
The reason the States won’t nullify laws and regulations enforced by the Federal Government is because the States are dependant on federal tax money to fund their infrastructure. They suck on the milk of stolen money, and are now totally addicted. They will not nullify unconstitutional laws without risking their own re-election when the spigot gets turned off (as we are seeing with “common core” education funds). I believe the only real hope if our nation is to survive as a constitutional republic, is to do away with the income tax and the central bank. Otherwise, we purchase our own demise with our own money.
What Mark Levin says in “The Liberty Amendments” in support of an Article V convention is not true.1
On one side of this controversy are those who want to restore our Constitution by requiring federal and State officials to obey the Constitution we have; or by electing ones who will. We show that the Oath of Office at Art. VI, last clause, requires federal 2 and state officials to support the Constitution. This requires them to refuse to submit to – to nullify – acts of the federal government which violate the Constitution. This is how they “support” the Constitution!
We note that the Oath of Office requires obedience to the Constitution alone. The Oath does not require obedience to persons, to any agency of the federal government, or to any federal court.
We understand that resistance to tyranny is a natural right –…
With State Militias being subsumed under the authority of the POTUS, the arming of every federal government department (DOE, IRS, etc.) and the militarization of local law enforcement, there are standing armies in our midst. How soon until this massive domestic army is turned against the people?
This is an example of American citizens taking back their rights to the land that belongs to them. You think Federal land belongs to the people? Nope – it belongs to the land barons in DC who get to pick-and-choose who gets the land based on political influence and bribes. They hold resources hostage, such as oil, gas, minerals, water, and even grazing land.
“…the crime of battery was ‘satisfied by even the slightest offensive touching.’”
That means that for even a domestic misdemeanor (not a federal crime) the owning a firearm is now a federal offense.
The rapid encroachment on your 2nd Amendment rights is accelerating. Strangely enough, criminals will ignore this law, and a huge swath of citizens will now be disarmed. And the State loves it – as you are made ever more dependent on them for “safety”.
The real question is, who will be left to protect you from the State?
And families like this would also be disarmed, as under felony gun laws, there cannot be a firearm in the house.
Patricia Drake is certainly correct in her summary statement that “We can do better”. Other than that, there are several issues with the positions she takes in her article.
Siding with the Washington Education Association (WEA) President Mary Lindquist against Nick Hanauer, the “millionaire… theorizing from behind locked doors of high-rise buildings”, Mrs. Drake seeks to dismiss his reform agenda as inferior to her 44 years as an educator. She bemoans the fact that she has no voice when compared to the millionaire, and yet, if education reform were going to come from the WEA and the over 53,000 teachers they represent, and the millions of dollars they have to spend from teacher’s union dues on influencing public policy, shouldn’t it have happened by now? They’ve certainly had enough time!
Mrs. Drake then asserts that we need to become like the Euro-socialist Finland, a country the size of Montana with about 1.6% of the population of the U.S. I suspect something will be lost in translation when attempting to transform our system into theirs. I could be wrong.
Mrs. Drake then goes on to point out the school principal as the next most influential factor, and their need to build a more “positive” environment. Then it’s “administrative support”, then it’s “workplace conditions”, then it’s the cost of “standardized tests”. Sounds like the usual laundry list of union complaints. “We can do better”, but there’s really nothing new there. I’d use the word “innovative”, but every time a bureaucrat sneezes, it’s proclaimed “innovative”.
Mr. Hanauer’s reform agenda, while far from innovative, is certainly better than anything coming out of Olympia. I would like to suggest that the WEA, Washington State legislators, teachers, and civic leaders look up the word “innovate”. To quote a famous movie line, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”