AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I pray I am not too late!

I also want to research and discuss the procedure for filing a complaint such as this directly with the USSC, with my two lawyer friends. Also, I need to decide whether I want to do this pro se, or with a lawyer actually representing me pro bono, rather than merely advising me.

As W.C. Fields was fond of saying, "We shall see, my little chickadee!"

Perhaps somebody would like to defend Secretary of State Clinton for this benefit extended to foreign governments?

Breaking: Major has orders revoked, by questioning Obama's legitimacy
(Dianna Cotter, The Examiner, July 14, 2009)

This story has been slipping under the Main Stream Media Radar for some time now.

U.S. Army Major Stefan Frederick Cook filed a restraining order asking for legitimate confirmation that his Commander in Chief was legitimately in Office, giving him his orders to Deploy to Afghanistan with his unit.

Today in a stunning development, the Military rescinded those orders.

This has set a precedent heretofore unknown. The entire US Military can now not only question it's orders, a requirement of their duty when they believe that an order is given illegitimately, but can expect that their orders will also be rescinded should they question the legitimacy of the CIC who is the ultimate Authority in Command. In other words, Obama.

Orly Taitz, Major Cook’s lawyer filed the request for a temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia asking the court to grant her client’s request for proof of Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

Stating in her filing that Cook “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties,” Ms Taitz has essentiality won her case as the military has ducked on the issue.

Ms Taitz is quoted by WND as saying: “"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate " and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"”

At first glance this may seem to have ended the case. However, it must be noted, that if Obama cannot legitimately give an order to deploy, then he cannot rescind the order either.

Things just got real interesting folks.

Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps somebody would like to defend Secretary of State Clinton for this benefit extended to foreign governments?

Perhaps the answer is that Clinton is not a true liberal, in the same sense that every putative conservative who pursues a policy or supports a position that doesn't fit into your impossibly cramped definition of "modern American conservative" isn't a true conservative. You know, like George W. Bush, John McCain, and the rest of the right-wing screw-ups that you vigorously criticized over the past eight years for abandoning conservative principles.

Principles for a Successful Real Stimulus

Our alternative vision. . . .should have five goals.

First, to build on the 59-21 majority of Americans who believe cutting business taxes will produce more jobs than increased government spending (January CBS news poll). Americans implicitly understand what creates economic growth and a vigorous national dialogue on these terms will expand public support for tax policies that actually create more jobs.

Second, to offer tax changes which are big enough and bold enough to work. Even in its current, weakened state, America has a $12 trillion dollar economy. A small tax-cut bill simply does not matter and will be absorbed without any effect.

Third, the specifics of the tax cuts have to be vivid enough that people understand how it will affect their economic security. People will feel more compelled to support a government plan that puts money in their wallet instead of in the hands of bureaucrats.

Fourth, economic freedom should be returned to the American people-and not centralized in Washington. Politician-bureaucrat-lobbyist centered systems inevitably bring about corruption, political favoritism, and increased poverty. For long-term economic health, our small business and entrepreneur-focused, pro-growth alternative must reverse the damages the power driven elites have done.

Fifth, our tax cuts must be paid for with serious cuts in spending and economic growth. Our current economic predicament was, in large part, caused by problems created by excessive debt. As part of our recovery, we have to return to the path of fiscal responsibility and renew a call for a balanced budget.

A Real Stimulus for Our Economy: Tax Cuts for More Jobs, Higher Take Home Pay and Greater Prosperity Through Economic Growth
With these goals in mind, the following tax cuts should be at the heart of our alternative vision that would achieve a fundamental shift from politicians to small business, from lobbyists to entrepreneurs, and from bureaucrats to investors:

A two-year, 50% reduction in the Social Security and Medicare tax for both the employee and the employer. This provision would guarantee that virtually everyone who pays federal taxes (many of whom do not pay income tax but do pay payroll taxes) will have an immediate boost in income and that small businesses will see a dramatic increase in available cash to hire more people or make investments for the future. This reduction would also help the cash flow problems of government at all levels, which also have to pay the employer's match.

This proposal creates the opportunity for a serious conversation with every employer about how it would increase their income and give them more resources to create jobs. The revenue loss to the trust funds would be transferred from the general fund (a better use for the money than either TARP or the Politicians Spending Act of February).

Permanently match the Chinese capital gains rate, which is zero. This is the rate Alan Greenspan testified in the late1970s was best for economic growth. It is also a relatively inexpensive thing to do in the current economy because people are going to have smaller gains.

Match the Irish corporate tax rate of 12.5%. America has had the highest corporate tax system in the world (if you combine federal and state taxes). Moving to a 12.5% corporate tax rate and combining it with zero capital gains will make America the most desirable economy in the world in which to invest.

Eliminate the death tax permanently. Inheritance is the most powerful accumulator of capital and eliminating the death tax has been consistently supported by over 75% of the American people.

Give President Obama the Opportunity to Keep His Word. Adopt the best of the small business tax proposals announced by candidate Obama in October 2008 and forgotten by the Obama Administration in 2009.

Paying for Prosperity, Job Creation and Increased Take Home Pay:

1. Capture as much of the TARP money as remains unexpended.

2. Carefully go through the uncommitted portion of the $787 billion politician pay off bill from February and set aside $300 billion to $400 billion to pay for the tax cuts.

3. Incorporate into the bill offshore drilling and other pro energy measures. These would be accurately scored as revenue raisers through more development and from the economic reflow in higher tax revenue through keeping the energy money at home instead of sending it overseas.

4. Sell the private sector assets the government has unwisely acquired during the last year. The economy will grow faster without the threat of government controlled, bureaucratically supervised and politician defined companies. Whatever the value of the government stake in the various companies, put them on the auction block and get them back into the market. This will yield billions in revenue.

5. Have a one time recapture of frozen corporate assets currently held offshore with a one or two year window for returning them to the United States. This has been estimated to produce a substantial amount of revenue for the government.

6. Have a six month amnesty for back taxes to generate voluntary self policing. When tried at the state level this has produced significant resources.

7. The bigger economy with more jobs will take people off of unemployment and off of welfare and will reduce the dependence on Medicaid and other government programs. The resultant drop in the cost of government will be a significant drop in government expenditures offsetting a significant part of the short term revenue loss through the tax cuts (this was our experience in the late 1990s and in this down economy it would be even more true).

Does this mean you cannot defend it?

I don't care whether she is conservative, liberal, or a chimpanzee.

The liberals accuse the MACs of paranoia about all sorts of things, the latest being accusations that the conservatives are paranoid for objecting to selling out the USA in ways that favor foreign governments.

For now let's pretend we don't know the source of this

Foxfyre wrote:

Does this mean you cannot defend it?

I don't know enough about it to defend it or attack it, and frankly I don't care enough about it to learn more.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't care whether she is conservative, liberal, or a chimpanzee.

Clearly that's not true, since you preceded your query about Clinton with this:

Quote:

The liberals accuse the MACs of paranoia about all sorts of things, the latest being accusations that the conservatives are paranoid for objecting to selling out the USA in ways that favor foreign governments.

You want liberals to rush to Clinton's defense, but maybe Clinton's not a true liberal. After all, in your estimation George W. Bush isn't a true conservative, so why is it so difficult to believe that Hilary Clinton might not be a true liberal?

The liberals accuse the MASs of paranoia about all sorts of things, the latest being accusations that the conservatives are paranoid for objecting to selling out the USA in ways that favor foreign governments.

Biden Rejects Palin Complaint She Was Victim Of 'Political Blood Sport'

Foxfyre wrote:

For now let's pretend we don't know the source of this

I do not need to pretend. I honestly do not know the source.

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

For now let's pretend we don't know the source of this

I do not need to pretend. I honestly do not know the source.

Good. I would like to keep it that way until there has been some comment on the points listed.

We found several sites offering useful information about taxes:

United for a Fair Economy, is a non-profit organization that "raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart." UFE published an article that answers some common questions about US tax policy "Winning Responses to Tough Tax QUestions."

The Tax Policy Center, run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute compiles a wealth of analysis of tax trends over time. For example, the TPC reports that corporate taxes have been falling sharply as a share of government revenue.



Other useful statistics can be found at the IRS Tax Stats page.

The Center on Budget and Tax Priorities works to protect low and middle income groups by analyzing policy proposals and publishing extensive data on the social consequences of economic policies.

Citizens for Tax Justice also represents middle class people.

The group Empower America argues for tax cuts and other reforms aimed at reducing taxes.

And Taxpayers for Common Sense watchdogs government spending to help control waste.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

April 6, 2009 6:30 PM
Poll: 74 Percent Support Higher Taxes On The Rich

I appreciate that so far you have demonstrated little interest in anything of substance on this thread, but I was hoping that maybe others might.

I wonder if American diplomats should pay property in foreign countries?
Or to put a question: why don't they pay it? (The answer: that's according to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.)

Other Exemptions Diplomatic agents in the United States and the members of their households are generally exempt from federal, state, and municipal taxes. They are responsible, however, for indirect taxes that are part of the price of goods, taxes on property inherited from a citizen, taxes on any real property they own privately, or capital gains taxes on profits from personal investments. Diplomatic agents have no obligation to serve in the U.S. armed forces. These exemptions also apply to the administrative and technical staffs of the mission and their families. The service staff and private servants are exempt from taxes on wages received from their employment with the mission or its members.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ambassadors+and+Consuls