Posted 11/24/08 THE MEDIA BLOCKADE
I checked my account at iUniverse Publishing Services and to November 2008--sold 4 copies of my book: Why the Reagan and Bush Tax-cuts are Unfair--despite an advertising campaign. First, I sent 14 copies of the first edition, published in 2005 and 14 copies of my 2006 updated version: to people in the media: no reviews, no comments, no replies...I was hoping people in the media would make my message public. Those people are named in the second edition.
I also tried to advertise my books on the Internet--using Ad Words without success.
When, I published the second edition with the 2006 and 2007 update in October of 2007--I sent twenty more promotional copies to the following people--in the media:
1. David E. Sanger, NY Times
2. Pete Williams, NBC News
3. Jeffrey Birnbaum, Washington Post
4. Charlie Rose
5. Brian Williams, NBC News
6. Senator Harry Reid
7. James Warren, editor of Chicago Tribume
8. Eleanor Cliff, Newsweek
9. David Brancaccio, PBS
10. Hugh Hewitt, Townhall
11. John Harris, Politico
12. Linda Robinson, US News
13. David Ignatius, Washington Post
14. James Kilfied, National Journal
15. John Dickerson, Slate Magazine
16. Ed Schultz
17. Tucker Carlson, MSNBC
18. Tony Blankley, The Mclaughlin Group
19. Robert Scheer, Truthdig
20. Al Gore
I continued to send out letters with the front and back covers of my book or the Frontpage of my new website: thetaxguardian: to about 250 people in the media and government. Of those--about 70 were editors of top newspapers. Here is a list of Senators and Representatives.
Senators: Patty Murry, Jack Reed, Jeff Bingaman, Christopher Dodd, Daniel Akaka, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Kent Conard, Joe Lieberman, Jay Rockeffer, Robert Bryd, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy.
Representives: Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, Charles Rangel, Sander Levin, Bob Etheridge, Pete Stark, Lloyd Dogget, Jim McDermott, Rahm Emanuel
Others: Allan Sloan, Newsweek; Professor Eleanor W. Brown, Regent University School of Law; John Roberts and Brent Baker, News Busters; David Cay Johnson, NY Times; Leo Linbeck Jr., Americans for Fair Taxation; Joan Claybrook, Public Citizen; Ralph Nader, Citizen Works; Gerald Prante, The Tax Foundation; Tavis Smiley, Arianna Huffington, Tom Gjelten, NPR; Danielle Brian, Taxpayers for Common Sense; Barbara Slavin, USA Today; Bill Moyers, Paul R. Krugman, Princeton University; Criag Brown, Common Dreams; Hamilton Fish, the Nation Institute; Scott Klinger, United for a Fair Economy; Willian G. Gate and Peter R. Orszag, The Brookings Institute; Gary Bass, OMB Watch; Leonard Burman, Urban Institute; Rich Cohen, NCRP; Betty Ahrens, Iowa Citizen Action Network; Anita Dancs, National Priorities Project; Isaish Poole, Institute for American's Future; Robert Reich, University of California; Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research; Jim Lehrer, Mara Liasson, NPR; David Wessel, Wall Street Journal; Marc Ash, Truthout; Patrick J. Buchanan, the American Cause; John McLaughlin, James Barnes, National Journal; Alexis Simendinger, National Journal Group, David Brock, Media Matters for American; Gloria Borger, CBS/US News; Katrina vandal Heuvel, the Nation; Gwen Ifill, Washington Week; Alexander Cockburn & Jeffrey St. Clair, Counter Punch; Chuck Collins, Responsible Wealth; Bob McIntyre, Citizens for Tax Justice; Robert Greenstein, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Mark Halperin, Time Magazine; Johah Goldberg, Natinal Review; Edmund L. Andrews, New York Times Company; Dan Balz, Washingtn Post; Charlie Savage, Boston Globe; George Stephanopoulas, ABC News; Kenneth Paulson, USA Today; Bill Keller, LA Times, Jack Z. Smith, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram; Robert Bixby, Concord Coalition; Cheryl Hall, Dallas Morning News; Dennis Prager, Townhall; T.D. Coo Nguyen, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy; Jeff Milchen, Reclain Democracy.org; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Karen Tumulty, Times Magazine; Stever Rendall, FAIR; Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Amy Goodman, Democracy Now; Michael Scherer, The Nation; Duane Parde, NTU; Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Annenberg Public Policy Center; Greg Mitchell, Editor and Publisher; John Walcott, McClatchy Newspapers; Michelle Cottle, The New Republic; Nichelle Bernard, Independent Women's Forum; Scott McConnell, the American Conservative; Rick Stengel, Time Magaine; Don Feder, Bosten Herald; Donna Brazile, Brazile & Associates; Mort Zuckerman, US News & World Report; Wolf Blitzer, Fox News; Brent Bozell, Media Research Center; E.J. Dionne Jr. NPR; Bob Drogin, LA Timnes; Bill Kristal, Weekly Standard; Byron York, American Spectator; Candy Crowley, CNN; Kim Genardo, WNCN - TV; Nina Easton, The Boston Globe; Judy Woodruff, WETA-TV; Brian Lehrer, WNYC Radion; Joe Conason, New York Observer; Matthew Rotschild, The Progressive; Cathey Madison, The Utne Reader; Charles Peters, Washington Monthly; Jeff Zeleny, New York Times; John Maggs, National Journal; Charles Green, Natinal Journal; Ellen Miller, The Sunlight Foundation; Martin Baron, The Goston Globe; Michael Cooke, Chicago-Sun-Times; Pat Matchell, PBS; Jane Mayer, The New Yorker; Jim Naureckas, FAIR; Dean Baker, CEPR; Bob Herbert, NY Times; Maureen Down, NY Times; Laura Flanders, Counterspin; Jim Hightower; David Corn, The Nation; Ben A. Franklin, Washington Spectator; William Whitworth, Altantic Monthly, Professor James Edward Maule, Villanova University School of Law; Chris Field, Townhall Magazine; Walter E. William, George Mason University; Gerald Marzorate, New York Times; Ben Bradlee, Washington Post; Dean Baquet, NY Timnes; David Mark, The Politico; John Judis, The New Republic; Chris Wallace, Fox News; Clarence Page, Tribune Media Service; Monika H. Bauertain & Marcia D. Grienberger, Mother Jones Magazine; Michael Duffy, Time Magazine; Lawrence Mishel, EPI; Ryan Ellis, ATR; Clay Waters, Media Reserach Center; Brit Hume, Fox News; Norah O'Donnel, MSNBC; Joe Klein, Time; Howard Fineman, Newsweek; Keith Olberman, NBC; Eugene Robinson, Washington Post.
Of these about 300 people: I got no response--except for the following:
1. Book to Tonly Blankley and Tucker Carlson were returned to me.
2. Twenty-one letters were returned to me: Charles Babington c/o Washington Post; Michael Martin, NPR; Isaiah Poole, Institute for America's Future; Editor of the Grand Rapid Press; Jim Hightower, David Moore, The Sunlight Foundation; Cynthia Tucker c/o Universal Press Syndicate; William Whitworth, Atlantic Monthly; Duane Parde, NTU; Charles Peters, Washington Monthly; Jim Naureckas, FAIR; Ben A. Franklin, Washington Spectator; Jane Mayer, The New Yorker; Charlie Savage c/o The Boston Globe; Judy Woodruff c/o WETA-TV; Dennis Cauchon c/o USA Today; Mort Zuckerman c/o US News & World Report; Robert Novak, CNN Crossfire; Doyle McManus, LA Times; Martin Baron, the Boston Globe; Pat Mitchell c/o PBS.
3. I got a letter from the editor of the Herald-Tribune, Dianne Feinstein, Peter G. Peterson, and Senator Joe Lieberman. He said, "Regrettably, due to the huge volume of mail that I receive, I am only able to research and address comments sent to me from Connecticut residents."
4. And, I got a letter from Al Gore, he said: he looked forward to reading my book.
This is one version of my letter:
My name and address
Name of organization
Date
Dear (name of person),
I am sending you a copy of the FrontPage of my new website--thetaxguardian--to enlighten the public on tax issues. It shows the front and back cover of my book: Why the Reagan and Bush Tax-cuts are Unfair (Second Edition). And it has important updates--at the end. Check it out: I exposed the federal budget deception, accused President Bush with misrepresentation, defended the Death Tax, showed the difference between McCain and Obama on taxes, etc.
If, my website and my book: contain truths, allegations, and revelations--that the public desire to know; then, it is the responsibility of the media--to tell them. It has failed to do that.
Walter F. Picca
Based on the sale of my book--to November 2008--4 copies and the low number of people visiting my website: my advertising campaign--has had very little impart. There are two possible answers:
1. The media believes the information is unworthy--to be made public.
2. It is a media blockade--because, they have opposite views--about taxes.
I believe the information in my books and website should be made public: the editors and journalists of the mass media--do not.
Update: 2/25/2019: They think Picasso, the painting pig, is more newsworthy.
Posted 10/28/09:
The National Budget Deception continues in the Obama Administration.
[revised 10/29/09, corrected 11/2/09]
It recently stated the budget deficit for FY year 2009 was $1.42 trillion. That is three times the 2008 deficit --or $4,700 for every man, woman, and child. What is appalling?--the public don't seem to mind. And, that is the partial deficit. The national debt from Oct. 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2009, increased: $1.78 trillion. That is the total deficit. The reason: not all government expenses are included in the budget: that is the deception. I first brought this to the attention of the mass media in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009--and they have not made it public. Why, they are protecting their Bush tax cuts.
The US government is headed towards insolvency: the interest on the 2009 National Debt is $383 billion. That is 42 percent of the $903 billion individuals paid in income taxes.
The reason it is lower than 2008: the interest rate on Treasury secruities--i.e., T-bills, etc. are at a record low. The reason for the that: the rate of inflation is near zero. And foreign countries are parking money in US T-bills to guard it against inflation in their currencies, but that won't last long. As we borrow more money to pay for our deficit spending and the world recession ends: interest rates--will rise again.
During the Carter years: it reached 15 percent.
The US government is currently paying about 3.8 percent interest on debt--that is down from 6.5 in 2000. And, as the rollover of T-bills takes place (i.e., low interest maturing T-bills are replaced with higher interest T-bills), the cost of the interest on the national debt will rise.
We are now experiencing the a lull before the storm. As yearly deficits accumulate and interest rates on Treasury securities increase: this is going to be a double drag on economy. It could bo back to 5, 6, or 7 percent: each 1 percent increase of Treasury yield: would raise the interest on a $12 trillion national debt: $120 billion--per annum.
The OMB predicts--$9 trillion in deficits in the next ten years: that added to the 2008 fiscal year-end deficit of $10.1 trillion: totals $19.1 trillion. Rising interest rates and higher deficits--will lead the US into a debt trap. Right now, the debt ratio to GDP is around 82 percent: the highest since World War II.
It was about 33 percent prior to Reagan.
It is expected to rise to 100 percent by 2011. Obama's plan of economic redemption for the US: economic growth through deficit spending. It is, like, spending more on your credit card--than you earn. Any idiot can do that. It takes a genius to increase GDP--faster than debt.
Obama thinks--because, we brought the debt down from over 100 percent of GDP after World War II--we can do it again. But, the facts are different.
Franklin D. Roosevelt did not wait for the depression to end to raise taxes, like President Obama. It shows the plutocracy is still in control of the US congress: no tax increases on the wealthy have been enacted.
Corporate tax havens have not been eradicated--as Obama promised to pay for the middle class tax cuts. A Senate report estimated in 2008 that the US loses up to $100 billion a year in tax revenues to off-shore tax havens. Yet, this legislation is stalled in the congress.
If, economic growth is lower than projected over the next ten years and interest rates on a growing colossal national debt rises--that will be devastating. The potential for future economic growth is less than after World War II. Here are 24 reasons:
1. There will be future energy and water shortages.
2. There will be increased foreign competition--after World War II much of the industrial capacity of Europe was in ruins.
3. There will be environmental restraints on industrial expansion in the 21st century--that were absent in the 20th century.
4. Economic growth after World War II was based on a higher fertility rate than exist now.
5. The US does not have the natural resources to support much higher population growth without lowering its standard of living: one in six--now--lives in poverty.
6. American's employment in manufacturing has fallen from 16.5% of total in 1987 to 10.5% in 2005 and suffered a job loss in 2006, 2007, 2008, and a steep loss in 2009: 51,000 in September.
7. The average rate of unemployment from 1946 to 1980: 5.1 percent: today: 9.8 percent.
8. The future cost of commodities (food), oil, and metals will increase--as world demand grows and supply diminishes.
9. Hyperinflation will reoccur in the next 10 years--if, right measures are not taken to control debt.
10. After World War II--the people needed houses, cars, appliances, TVs, etc.--now, they have them--except not paid for.
11. The paid-in S.S. surplus has subsidized the federal government since inception. That will stop--shortly, and the federal government instead of receiving this subsidy--will have to pay off the IOUs.
That debt now totals: $2.5 trillion.
12. The US had a trade surplus--until about 1977--and since then, a growing deficit. The August 2009 trade deficit: $30.7 billion.
13. The Afghanistan War has been going on for eight years--and the Iraq War for 5 years, yet, there has been no tax increase to pay for it. All presidents have raised taxes during wars--except George W. Bush. A war surtax would violate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. This obsolete pledge is hurting America.
14. After World War II, the economy grew an average of 3.7 percent from 1946 to 1980: in 2008: .43 percent and declined 1.4 percent in 2009 (est.).
15. The top income tax rate was 70 to 92 percent after World War II until 1980: today: 35 percent.
16. The $72 trillion hidden debt--i.e., for public entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the National Debt, and government pensions coming due will put esculating greater weight on the economy until it collapses--unless rectified.
17. The national debt in 1946 was only $$269 billion. Today, the National Debt is $11.9 trillion and growing at the rate of $3.81 billion a day.
18. Since 1980, a greater percentage share of the nation's income has flowed to the top 1 percent --less to the bottom 80 percent. That is bad for the economy--e.g., in 1965 the average total compensation of bank CEOs was 24 times average workers: in 2007: 275 times.
19. There is a decreasing number of producers--or workers--supporting an increasing number of non-productive people.
20. The US government and people deserve 70 percent of incomes over $10 million in income taxes. They pay about 20 percent.
21. If, deficits accumulate--and debt reaches $19.1 trillion by 2019--and the interest rate on government debt increases to 5.3 percent: interest on the National Debt will cost taxpayers over $1 trillion. That will put enornous weight on the economy.
22. Healthcare reform will put additional weight on the economy.
23. Tax credits and deductions have reduced--the percentage of filers that pay federal income taxes.
24. If, there is another recession in the next 10 to 20 years--after our National Debt increases to 100 percent of GDP--and interest rates rise--significantly, that could bankrupt the economy.
Remember what Ben Bernake said in July 2005, when asked: if, there was a housing bubble burst or recession--would prices come down substantially across the nation, he said: "I guess, I don't buy your premise. It is pretty unlikely possibility. We never have had house prices decline on a nationwide bases. So, what is more likely, house prices might slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumer spending a bit, I don't think its going to drive the economy from its full employment path."
".......I am confident, in fact, the banking regulators will pay close attention to the type of loans they make."
He is now Obama's Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Conclusion: the Obama Administration is not doing enough to lower the deficit, raise taxes and put the economy on a sound fiscal foundation. First, you have to admit: the deficit is $1.78 trillion for fiscal year 2009--not $1.42 trillion. That is a difference of $360 billion. The US government should--give a detailed account what the off-budget expenses are and stop deceiving the American people. Interest on "trust funds" is part of it, but, the rest --I don't know--and I doubt other Americans know.
Basically, it is a US government cover-up.
Furthermore; I believe, there should have been $200 to $400 billion cuts in government spending in 2009.
There is a lot of waste, fraud, and inefficiency in the federal government. I would begin--by restricting the use of Air Force One. I don't see the benefit of Obama's frequent ego-trips. He should reveal what it cost taxpayers to fly him and his family around the country and world. It should not be confidential.
For example, what did it cost taxpayers for him, his family, and dog for a one week vacation in Martha's Vineyard: including Air Force One, helicopters, two house leases for the Secret Service and White House staff, etc. (during the worst recession, since the Great Depression).
Answer: probably, close to $200,000. Air Force One--alone--cost $100,219--per hour to operate. Camp David, the presidential retreat, 70 miles from the White House, is not good enough for the Obamas.
His 9 hour flight to Copenhagen, Denmark, shows he does not have good judgment.
Things, like the Blue Angels--should be terminated. The government is concealing the total cost of this program: six F-18 Hornets, maintenance, training, jet fuel, crashes, etc. Times are changing.
Each jet burns 1,300 gals of jet fuel--per show.
Last night, I heard on CBS News: Obama has attended 26 fundraisers and raised $27 million, since being in office. The problem with this: taxpayers pays the hefty cost to fly Obama on Air Force One with a possible second dummy back-up plane and a C-17 cargo plane loaded with limo and staff vehicles, etc. I heard on the news--in September, he raised over $1 million at a fundraiser in Beverly Hills. But, he should reveal what it cost taxpayers to fly him and staff from the White House to Los Angeles and back: 4,588 miles. I believe it is a waste of taxpayer money and energy.
Twenty-six fundraisers in nine months: add it up--and then add up what it cost, if this practice is continued for 4 years. I don't see the benefit to taxpayers--or voters.
Cuts could be made in corporate subsidies--and limits on executive pay--that receive them. I don't think we should be subsidizing the producers of fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oil--billions of dollars a year--that makes us fat and clogs our arteries with plaque. We do, Senators take millions from corporations that do.....
Taxpayers should not be subsidizing Medicare--when, it has a $2.5 trillion surplus. I would stop coddling senior citizens. By their reaction to heathcare reform--shows they are spoilt to death.
I would dump part D--and redesign it.
My healthcare reform plan--would require people--to do four things--to bring down medical cost 75 percent.
Fraud in Medicare exposed by 60 Minutes cost seniors an estimated $60 billion a year. The ease that swindlers received payment from Medicare by submitting bogus bills is outrageous nonfeasance. But, the savings cannot be used for healthcare reform--as mentioned. It is not part of the general fund. It shows--you cannot trust bureaucrats or government entities. You not only need the power to investigate, but make the findings public--or else the government will not get off its lazy ass--and do something.
The Bernard L. Madoff case is a prime example.
It seems, everybody from the President down to the Miami, Florida, Medicare swindlers are getting away with ripping off the US government. Its refusal to answer questions is part of the problem.
Fox News does not even investigate. In fact, the News Corporation, which owes Fox News, should be investigated: why, it pays such low taxes. I tell you one reason: tax havens.
Secondly I believe, there should have been $400 to $600 billion in tax increases in 2009--and go from there. Letting the deficit increase: $4-5 trillion during the Obama four years in office is national insanity.
Posted: 9/10/2014 This is an email—I sent to Bill Gates:
Sept. 8, 2014
Dear Mr. Bill Gates,
I just posted 4 You Tube videos on my blog--THE TAX GUARDIAN--explaining why, President George W. Bush was a con man—the same as President Reagan—and should be in prison or executed for offenses committed in office.
And, you co-hosted a fund raiser for Bush in the rich Seattle suburb of Hunts Point back, I believe back in 2003.
And, you were a chief, if not the foremost, beneficiary of his tax cuts on income and dividends during two wars. Therefore, I feel you were one of his supporters—or accomplishes and a tax dodger. This is an excerpt from my blog posting: 10/24/2012 [revised]—“Bill Gates, the riches American, cheated Washington State of nearly a billion dollars in taxes by rerouting sales through an office in Reno, Nevada. Corporations use the same scheme to avoid paying U.S. taxes and after years of tax avoidance: Congress has failed to take action. Why? Campaign money. For example, Bill Gates said [on BBC News], he does pay enough in taxes, co-hosted a fundraiser for George W. Bush. He not only reduced the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 35%; but in 2003, he dropped the dividend tax, which was previously taxed as ordinary income down to 15%. In 2003, Microsoft began paying dividends. In 2004, Bill Gates received $360 million in regular dividends: tax savings [based on the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts]: $88.56 million. Bush said, his tax cuts were to help workers take home more pay. In 2004, Gates also received a $3.4 billion special Microsoft dividend: he transferred it to his family foundation: avoiding the dividend tax and, eventually, the estate tax. The profits from his foundation investments: tax exempt. When, does the federal government get paid for its contribution? It does not. Microsoft Corporation on its $29.5 billion in overseas earnings last year-- paid no tax: it has subsidiaries in these tax havens: Ireland, Bermuda, Singapore, and Luxemburg. I sent Bill Gates my tax book—[The Tax Guardian] and he sent it back (unread). As Elizabeth Warren said, “the system is rigged.”
That is why Bill Gates rejected my book: He is a phony.”
Mar. 13, 2014, Bill Gates tells the American Enterprise Institute, “Don't tax my income, tax my consumption.” That is less fair, than the income tax. It hits lower incomes harder than higher incomes: it is regressive. It adds to the sales tax.
It is no replacement for the progressive income tax!
Bill Gates is greedy and irrational at times, like Bush!
AEI made no criticisms of Bill Gates—idiotic—suggestion, because, it is a right wing think tank funded by plutocrats. Since, Gates found a way to avoid paying the Washington State royalty tax, the corporation profit tax, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and the income tax, he will find a way to lower or avoid the consumption tax.
You have accepted interviews by CBS’s Charles Rose and ABC’s Christiane Amanpour who are nice to you, don’t ruff you up. When Amanpour asked you: if, you agreed with the Buffett rule? You laughed. That indicates: you feel--that is ludicrous.
Then, she asked a second time: Do you agree with the Buffett rule?
Gates said, “I'm not an expert on how we should do taxes.” That is a cop out. He is an expert on avoiding taxes—not fixing the tax code.
That is un-American, like Bush.
And, he said, “Clearly, you can't raise the taxes we need just by going after that one percent. Yes, I'm generally in favor of the idea that -- that the rich should pay somewhat more. But to really deal with the deficit gap we're talking about, that alone just numerically is not going to be enough.”
I agree, that is not enough, but it is the first step.
ABC’s Amanpour lacked the balls to ask these two questions:
1. Would you make your tax returns public? That would be helpful in reforming the tax code—making it fair!
His answer; likely, would be: No.
2. Should corporations also be made to pay their fair share of taxes?
This is a headline from Business Insider.com: May 23, 2013
IT'S NOT JUST APPLE: The Ultra-Complicated Tax Measures That Microsoft Uses To Avoid $2.4 Billion In U.S. Taxes
Would you like to answer this questions: Is Microsoft paying its fair share—or what should it be? ---Or make a comment on my four Bush videos--whom you helped to elect? Do you believe he is guilty—of any of these offenses while in office? Should he be in prison or executed? Should you serve some time for not paying Washington State’s B&O royalty tax for 12 years? Aren’t you being a hypocrite: by saying the rich should pay more taxes and support Bush for president? Do you think the Norquist pledge is constitutional? You knew Bush signed that pledge in 1999—stating, if elected: he would not hike taxes on individuals or corporations —didn’t you? Do you believe, it is alright to cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans during two wars, as Bush did? You receive over $400 million in dividends per year: do you agree with Bush: that it is double taxation—and should be eliminated? Do you believe we should have a one‑time-wealth-tax to collect back taxes owed (i.e., to pay down National Debt), since the rich have been under taxed since Reagan—the beginning of the spike in deficits? Do you believe, like George W. Bush, the estate tax should be permanently repealed? Isn’t true, you like the progressive consumption tax better than the progressive income tax, because, you would pay less taxes and are indifferent to the fact—it would be less fair, there would be ways of avoiding it, harder on the lower and middle class, become an economic disaster, and not generate enough tax revenues to support the federal government? Do you think: big money is corrupting law makers? Why did you return my book (gift)--The Tax Guardian [containing information on how to reform the tax code], rather than read it? Send me an email answer to these questions and I will post it on my blog. It would enlighten voters.
The Tax Guardian,
Walter F. Picca
Posting: 9/5/2014 Four new videos posted to the videos section: Did you know that President George W. Bush was a con man the same President Reagan.
Posting: 9/1/2014 Seven new videos posted to the video section: Did you know that President Ronald Reagan was a snake oil salesman and the Congress committed fraud in passing the 1981 tax cuts, the biggest in U.S. History, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Posted: 5/3/2014 Eleven new videos posted to the Video section contain these revelations: what Sen. Mitch McConnell said is wrong... the Norquist no-tax-increase-pledge is unconstitutional… Reagan put the nation on the road to bankruptcy… Reagan and George W. Bush duped voters… a short list of George W. Bush’s offenses while in office… Grover Norquist is America’s #1 fiscal enemy… voters, partly, guilty for the nation’s skyrocketing debt…the governing principle of taxation… the Republican Party should be banned from participating in elections… what is the one-armed congressmen...the violation of the oath of office... the Supreme Court is not acting as it should act…. For these and other important tax truths---view the 11 new and the 18 older videos. It is a public enlightenment imperative. [These 11 videos can also be viewed on YouTube.]
Also check: Disqus -- Walter F. Picca -- for comments on the CREW's call for an IRS investigation of the ATR, the Norquist no-tax-increase pledge, Thoma Piketty's book: Capital in the 21st Century, the Second Amendment, the Son of God, Noah and the Ark, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, and fixing Medicare.
Posted: 4/11/2014 Noah and the Ark (explained)
[see Art section]
Posted 4/3/2014 The Supreme Court is Crazy
It says, putting limits on aggregate campaign contributions violates the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech....” In these two phrases: there is nothing to base the Supreme Court ruling on.
There are many abridgements of the freedom of speech:
times limits,
who can speak,
when,
where,
subject matter,
and language.
These limits: exist in Congress, in the courts, in school, on television, in Church, at home, at work, and before the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court ruling says: Congress cannot set limits or caps on what individuals and corporations can contribute to political campaigns? That is ridiculous.
Too much money in the hands of a few destroys democracy—the will of the majority—and creates a plutocracy [rule of the rich].
Congress must have the power to set limits on campaign financing to protect democracy—from the influence of too much money in the hands of a few --based on the whether it feels it is a corrupting influence—or not.
Determining—that factor—is not the job of the Supreme Court: nine justices. It is the job of 100 Senators and 435 House members—elected by the people.
Considering median family income is $51,017, the present law: restricting someone from giving no more than $48,600 to federal candidates, and $74,600 to political action committees during a two‑year election cycle, for a maximum of $123,200--is quit liberal: unlimited amounts makes it more unfair: median family income cannot compete with higher levels. That gives the ultra-rich—far more voting power—than the average person—or family.
Nothing in the Constitution; remotely, prevents Congress from setting limits on political campaign donations. What needs to be determined: Is the cap set in 1974 too little or too much? That is up to Congress to debate and change.
Unlimited amounts means: a person can help sweep every Republican or Democrat into office and help defeat every member of the opposite party [i.e., during an election]. Republicans love this decision of the Supreme Court.
They represent the rich—95 percent signed the no-tax-increase pledge.
It makes elections—an unfair competition. The ruling gives the rich a decided advantage over the average person.
The growing gap in income and wealth in American—makes unlimited overall political contributions-- a bigger growing danger to democratic rule.
It facilitates the rule of the rich.
That is nothing in the First Amendment preventing Congress from setting political campaigns limits: that is just the stupid opinion of the Supreme Court (not intended in the First Amendment). That is like saying: speed limits are a violation of a person’s liberty—or pursuit of happiness.
The ruling principle here: do limits or no limits of political campaign contributions make the democratic election process—more fair or less.
That is the Congress’s responsible to decide—as representing the will of the majority of people or voters. The people want: Big Money Out!
The ruling made elections more costly for voters.
It is bad for congressmen: they have to spend more time on raising money and less time on congressional duties.
It favors the super-wealthy.
The first Amendment does not support –the ruling of the Supreme Court. It invaded the domain of the Congress and violated its constitutional power to make laws. It has overstepped its power and misinterpreted the intent of the First Amendment. This ruling: makes it easier to put more Republicans in office—and block higher taxes on the rich.
In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled: caps were legitimate; since then, the character of the Supreme Court has changed: it is now, politically, bias. It ruled in favor of one rich man against the best interest of 99 percent of the people.
Samuel Alito nominated by George W. Bush (R))
John Roberts Jr. appointed by George W. Bush (R)
Clarence Thomas nominated by George H.W. Bush (R)
Antonin Scalia nominated by Ronald Reagan (R)
Anthony Kennedy appointed by Ronald Reagan (R)
This is a political bias ruling—not based on the original meaning of the First Amendment. It meant to protect speech, formerly, considered seditious to the monarch and Church of England.
Total freedom of speech is dangerous! It can be libelous, misleading, disruptive, inflammatory, false, and harmful. Striking down the cap; is like, no limits on the size of engines in NASCAR racing. It is a bad idea. Limits and rules make the race fairer.
Posted 3/26/2014 3 New images in the art section.
Posted 12/4/2013 Jay Sekulow -- Part 1 of 3 Parts
He is the chief attorney for the ACLJ, who calls himself a Messianic Jew (i.e., a Jew that believes Jesus is the Messiah), but does not represents his teachings. As a religious-civil liberties attorney most of his litigations are wrong. He thinks the first Amendment is the right to collect religious donations at the LA airport, the right of prayer in public schools, the right to form religious groups in public schools, etc. These are not the teachings of Jesus, he said, “give until Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give until God what belongs to God”. In other words: these are two different domains: government and religion—and they should be kept, for the most part, separate. Here is a list of his bad litigations:
1987: Sekulow argued that LAX’s policy of banning the distribution of Jews for Jesus leaflets --violated the organization’s right to free speech.
That is wrong: it gives the right of the religious world to invade the private or government domain. That gives the right of the government or private domain to invade the domain of religious or the church. The right to invade: creates friction—or hostility; therefore, the reason for the separation.
1990: Sekulow argued on behalf of students who were denied their request to form a Bible and Prayer club at their school.
That is wrong. That gives the right of students—to enter the domain of religion: make speeches and form political clubs on church property. To form a Bible and Prayer club at a private schools would required the permission of the administrator or owner. The right place to form a Bible and Prayer club is at a religious school. Even there, they should hold the right to determine; whether, the club is compatible with their teachings. Entering a public school—to form a bible and prayer club is a violation of the separation of church and government. It creates dissent.
1992: Sekulow served as co-counsel, arguing on behalf of ISKCON against a regulation that prohibited distribution of literature and soliciting donations in airport terminals.
Again: wrong: the right of religion to invade the domain of the property owned and operated by an agency of the LA government. That gives the right of political parties to enter the church or religious college campuses—distribute political literature and ask for political party donations. That creates dissent—friction.
1993: In another case involving use of school property, Sekulow represented Lamb’s Chapel, and their right to show religious-oriented films in a school after-hours.
That is also wrong. That gives the right of political groups to show political films on church property--after church.
Why does he take these positions: he is serving mammon—not God, what is right and good. His motive money. These are issues that generate big donations for his tax-exempt organization. Despite the fact, the invasion of religious activity into the domain of government is a violation of the separation of Church and Government. When JFK ran for president; because, he was Catholic, there was fear: the Pope would influence American politics and Kennedy said: “the separation and church and state is absolute.” One side trying to invade the domain on the other side, is the cause of warfare in the world; therefore, the separation.
This is a Sekulow quote: "Our public schools began as ministries of the church; now it is time to return them to the Lord." No. The public schools and church serves two different purposes: empirical education and transhuman [or divine] education.
2013: The ACLJ says, preventing a child from bringing a Bible to a public school and reading it outside of class time—is unconstitutional. That is blatantly false. It is a violation of the wall of separation. The Bible is the textbook for the church or religion. If, a child can bring a Bible to school—s/he can bring the Koran, the Puranas, the Zend Avesta, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. None of these are appropriate for children to read attending taxpayer supported public schools. School children should be using this time to study school text books. The place to read the Bible is at home—or at church.
The Sabbath is set aside for religious education. Reading the Bible at school, during the week, detracts or diverts a child from getting a government paid for empirical education essential for living in the material world, employment, and democratic government. A parent, who tells their child—to take the Bible with you to read in school, is violating the principle of the separation of State and Religion. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution meant-- to keep government education and religious education separate. Likewise, it would not be appropriate to bring secular books to read—at church.
If, parents want their children to read the Bible; then, it should be done at home—or sent them to church—or private school for a religious education.
Taking a Bible to a public school—for study on government property-- during school hours-- paid for by taxes is an intrusion of a religious education into the domain of government public education. The public schools are the place for an education about man and the physical world: the Church—God, as revealed by the scriptures. A child, who reads the Bible at school, is not taking full advantage of his/her public education.
To be technical, parents have a right to determine what their children read at home: religious and secular.
The church has right to determine what sacred books it bases its religion on.
The government has a right to determine what text books are used in public schools. I mean government by the majority of people—not by an individual, group—or minority.
Adults--have the right to read what they want: secular or religious books, newspapers, and magazines.
He can’t seem to divorce himself—from the ancient Jewish theocracy of the Old Testament. Even then, Israel divided into two kingdoms: Israel and Judah: representing theist and humanists: both should have their equal rights—protected—so, there is no warfare.
Now, we go to politics, Jay Sekulow endorsed Mitt Romney for the U.S. president in 2012. That is a big sin. In my posting: 2/13/12--Eight reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney--I gave the names of 8 companies he looted—that was one reason--and seven more reasons: he is not fit to be the U.S. President. He is the type of rich man--Jesus said, it would be harder for a camel to go through the eye of needle; than, enter the kingdom of heaven. That proves he is a republican plutocrat. He betrayed the teachings of Jesus. Mitt Romney wants to eliminate taxes on his investment income: capital gains, interest, and dividends—but, keep the tax on the wages of workers. He is not fair-minded.
But, the main focus of my commentary: the role Sekulow played in the ACLJ movie: “Tax Invasion”: he went berserk: he wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service—destroy the foundation of the U.S. government--because, it is a threat to his cash cows: money flowing into his tax exempt organizations from plutocrats or Tea Party supporters and credulous citizens that think their 1st Amendment rights are being trampled on. He has filed a lawsuit against the IRS—representing 41 plaintiffs angry at the IRS—for targeting their tax‑exempt non-profit organizations engaged in political activities.
Tory Marie Walker, president of WACO Tea Party, interviewed by an invisible source in the film, said, “They sent us these letters wanting information they were not allowed to ask.” I want to hear the IRS side of the investigation. WACO Tea Party does not sound like a Social Welfare group.
Of course, there was nobody there to ask: What kind of information?
A second woman was interviewed by Fox News and said the IRS asked her invasive personal questions and warned her if she lied—it would be perjury-- and she could go to jail. She was very emotional and upset. It sound like a set up interview to make the IRS look like an evil agency. Every government application you fill out contains the same perjury warning: drivers license, unemployment, income tax, juror duty form, etc. Asking to look at her Facebook pages and her Twitter record, is not too invasive to determine her intent. An employer or suitor might want to see the same information. Her name and the name of her group seeking tax-exempt status not given.
In the film, Megyn Kelly, a Fox News caster, appeared and hotly blurted out: “Has there been a crime committed here?”
In the film, Jay Sekekow, aligned himself with several of worst of the worst— Tea Party politicians and —and his friends: that would abolish the Tax Code and the IRS. The Tea Party gets its name from the Boston Tea Party—opposition to the British tax on tea. They, frankly, hate paying taxes. They have three goals: lower [their] taxes, reduce [others] entitlements, and rule the nation. They are not your friends unless you’re income is in the top 5 percent.
Here is a list of the people that he interviewed that supported his lawsuit against the IRS for targeting 501(c) groups, which might be violating their tax exempt status. He claims in the movie -- is illegal, inappropriate, and unconstitutional. That is false. He is an angry misguided litigator.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, the first person interviewed by Jay Sekulow in the movie, said: When working at the IRS—her job was to determined; whether people paid their taxes—and never looked for ideology. Well, since the ruling of the Supreme Court-- Citizens-United v. FEC— times have changed.
1. It made unlimited soft political contributions legal.
2. There was a rise of new application seeking 501(c)(4) status to capture this flood of money pouring into electioneering.
3. Existing 501(c)(4) social welfare groups decided to become more active in politics—to cash in on the Supreme Court ruling. As the woman said earlier in the film, who filed an application, “I want income.”
It is the job of the IRS to determine whether they qualified for tax-exemption status. But, it infuriated the Tea Party plutocrats —because, this is one of the means of getting their candidates elected. Plus—these 501(c)(4)s –unlike super PACs--are not required to disclose their donors to the public.
But, there is a problem here: these social welfare non-profit organizations to qualify for 501(c)(4) status-- must not spend more than 49% of their resources on politicking. But, there is no way to know, whether they crossed the line—except by scrutiny. And, that was the job of the IRS to find out, since they are tax-exempt non-profit organizations.
Now, what happened—because of the Supreme Court’s ruling—there was a surge of new groups filing for tax exemption under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. And, it was the job of IRS to examine and approve. To narrow the list down, they looked for words in the title, such as: Tea Party, Israel, patriot, liberty, etc, to identified applications: that might be engaging in electioneering.
This angered—Tea Party plutocrats—they cried foul. This is profiling, illegal, unconstitutional, etc.
That is like a calling it criminal—if a PSA agent questions and searches a man trying to board a passenger jet at the airport carrying a backpack with a beard and speaks Dari. That is insane. IRS targeted these groups -- to identified, who might be trying to become concealed political action groups under guise of being “social welfare” tax-exempt non-profit organization. It was justified. But, the Tea Party crowd: didn’t like it. They want to get away with using their big money; anonymously, to influence elections and legislative matters.
I prefer their suitcase go the X-ray machine at the airport—to safeguard America from big-dark money in politics. But, the Tea Party complaint was: IRS was targeting conservative groups—more than progressive.
But, you must also consider in the 2010, the majority of 501(c)(4) applications were conservative and the conservative groups far outspent liberal groups. That tends to level the playing field.
Hermain Cain, the second person interviewed by the Jay Sekulow, when asked how he reacted to the IRS investigation, he said: he was flabbergasted and outraged and said, it was working against the people. That is backwards. He said, for a hundred years we have been lied to about tax reform and not until Reagan did we get some good reform. That is so, wrong: FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK did not lie to us--and Reagan’s hatchet job on the income tax tables put us on the path of serfdom ever since. Hermain Cain is a big Tea Party supporter and ran as a republican candidate for presidency in 2012. Remember, his 9‑9-9 tax plan: that is the dumbest thing I ever hear. It is a regressive tax. It would not work. When asked his opinion about the tax reform, he said, “I would take it to another level, Jay: tax replacement.” He would replace it with a flat tax, a fair tax, or his plan. He is a moron. There is no fair replacement of the graduating income tax: Period.
Jay Sekulow asked, Does that mean we should scrape the Internal Revenue Code, as we know it? He said, yes.
After Cain finished his ridiculous spiel- Jay Sekulow—nodded head: yes. Both are anti-tax, anti-IRS terrorists.
Rev. Rob Schenck, another of Jay Sekulow’s interviewees, complained of the IRS investigating his tax-exempt religious organization. Well, sometimes it is justified—to determine-- if they are violating the rules of these tax-exempt organizations: mixing politics with religion. The only way to know—is to ask questions. On its website, Faith and Action: there is a photo of Rep. Paul Ryan—a [bad] Republican. It appears to be as invasion of religion into politics. It is a 501(c)(3) [religious] organization—and donations are tax deductible. Rev. Schenck, the president of the organization, when the IRS came to this office and asked for the group’s literature and list of top donors; he felt harassed and violated. Why? These questions are pertinent to determine tax-exempt status. And, he was fearful. And, Jay Sekulow used his fear, dislike, and possible donations to support his phony lawsuit against the IRS. He may think, his tax exempt religious organization has the right to engage in political campaign activities, but it doesn’t. Super PACs do—but, their donations are not tax deductible. They are under the authority of the FEC and not the IRS. He said, the IRS investigation of his organization was unprofessional, did not know what they were doing, and was “absolutely unwarranted.”
Not, if, he is violating his tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status. The IRS may have had cause to investigate. Jay Sekulow interview of this man was one sided, a possible distortion of facts. I also want to hear the IRS’s side of this investigation. This man needs to be cross-examined by a lawyer, who is antagonistic, not a dear friend and comrade. All the interviews conducted by Jay Sekulow in the film are for the same purpose: to make the IRS look evil. It is a personal vendetta—to protect his 501(c)s—or Cash Cows. Just because, a small fraction of employees, may have over stepped the rules—he wants to abolish the entire agency of 95,000 dedicated, well trained, and hard working employees.
He is the Hitler of evil litigation.
Senator Rand Paul, a staunch member of the Tea Party ideology, was asked by Jay Sekulow, what he thought, he said, “I think of this [i.e., the IRS investigation]--of all the scandals going on--one of the most offensive” and perpetrators should be fined or imprisoned. He believes— targeting these groups by the IRS—to determine whether they qualified for tax exempt status--is a crime. He said, “where is the taxpayer watchdog?" Well, I am the Tax Guardian, and I think you deserve the death penalty. The IRS is an internal government taxpayer watchdog—and targeting these groups is part of their job and justified—to protect America from dark money flooding the electoral process: changing this nation into dollarocracy.
What is wrong: the Supreme Court’s ruling--making unlimited contributions to these political action groups protected by the 1st Amendment. It does not. That is a misinterpretation. In spite of this, the IRS had oversight of 501(c) tax exempt organizations. Therefore, its investigation was legal and justified. Their expenditures from the 2008 election to the 2012 election: more than double: from $159 million to $333 million. The question is: Did some of these so called “social welfare” groups cross the 49% red line—and violate their tax exempt status? The reason: Tea Party plutocrats objected: they like donating to 501(c)(4) organizations that are not required to disclose donors to the public. That is their means of influencing voters--impeded: they responded —by claiming the IRS—acted illegally.
And, Jay Sekulow took the side of the Tea Party wackos and is suing the IRS—for carrying out its job of— protecting America from dollarocracy—the rule of money. Why, this hot topic? Because, it is very profitable.
The Tea Party created this phony scandal: they don’t like being investigated for violating their tax exempt status. And, the Congress created these tax-exempt, non‑profits--to fund election campaigns and made it difficult for the IRS to investigate –by giving them vague rules to enforce. Tea Party Republicans want the IRS to close their eyes and let these suspected cheaters board the plane, land in Washington DC, take over the Congress, cut their taxes and reduce social welfare programs—and eventually— rule the Nation.
Senator Ted Cruz, the next person interviewed by Jay Sekulow, said in the movie: the IRS investigation “is a gross abuse of power.” I find his filibuster against Obamacare is a gross abuse of power. He is a Texas republican plutocrat—like, the anti-Christ-- Rick Perry. Jay Sekulow said during the interview: the Attorney General, Eric Holder, said: “we’ve going to have a FBI investigation here, this is criminal.” That is not right, he said, and investigation to determine—“if, there were criminal.” There is a difference. I can’t see how the IRS sharing information with the FEC—is criminal. Later, in the re-cap—interviews, Tex Cruz, let go of a blockbuster statement: that is reprehensible for a senator.
Jay Sekulow and Ted Cruz are twins. Jay agrees with Ted—and Ted agrees with Jay: they are enemies of the US government.
Joe Gregory, co-founder of Kings Pharmaceuticals, who was also interviewed by Jay Sekulow in the movie, said: he was shocked, surprised, upset, and mad by the IRS investigation and -- “It was a terrible travesty.” You know what is a terrible travesty —big-dark money controlling US politics. He is a fat cat businessman, a Republican, and co-founder of a couple non-profits and supporter of the Jay Sekulow IRS lawsuit. Joe Gregory said, “you know me Jay.” They co-founded the same non-profit. This is a staged interview--of two comrades.
I don’t buy it—he was shocked, when they asked for his group’s literature and top donors: these are pertinent questions. I do agree: it made him mad: that shows he might be hiding something. These groups want to engage in politicking, keep their donors secret, and maintain their tax-exempt status. That is wrong, illegal and not protected by the 1st Amendment. Jay Sekulow fed the interviewees questions--to get the respond he wanted. Gregory called—the IRS investigation “oppressing citizens.” That, of course, is backwards. It is protecting citizens from tax-exempt groups engaged in unlawful dark money electioneering.
Dr. Ben Carson, the seventh person interviewed by Jay Sekulow, is a retired pediatric neurosurgeon, The ACLJ movie showed a clip of him saying at N.Y. prayer breakfast, saying: “What we need to do—is come up with something that is simple. And, when I pick up my Bible --You know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe--God. He was has given us the system: It’s called: Tithes.” That is the stupidest thing I ever heard. I would like to ask him: How much has he paid to the church in the last ten years and his total income? That is why it won’t work: it is voluntary. The federal government is much costlier, bigger, and has many more departments and functions; than, the Church—and cannot be supported by the principle of voluntary taxation. This pediatric neurosurgeon may know how to separate conjoined twins, but, he is no tax expert.
Jay Sekulow chose seven of the most bigoted Tea Party conservatives in America to support his lawsuit and crusade against the IRS. He hosted a completely bias movie: all congressmen were Tea Party Republicans. His motive: to solicit big contributions for the ACLJ. He has gone berserk-- advocating the abolishment of the IRS--employing about 95,000 people and provides hundreds of vital services, necessary to collect taxes to operate the federal government; simply, because, he and 41 plaintiffs—think the IRS by targeting conservative groups, those carrying backpacks and with a beard and speak Dari, acted inappropriately, unconstitutionally, and illegally.
Rep. Michele Bachmann reappeared in the film and said: “If, you and I were trying the IRS in a court of fairness, would they pass the text of being an agency they are commission to be? No, they would not. They are guilty [i.e., those that carried out these acts].” How could she say that? If, she and Jay Sekulow carried it out: it would not be fair. Like this movie, there was no cross-examination of witnesses— no defense attorney for the IRS: no IRS employees that carried out these so-called illegal acts interviewed. This film was no courtroom. It was a one sided film to pump donations for the ACLJ.
Sekulow summarized: the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS was a violation of the people’s 1st Amendment rights; when, it just the opposite. It was protecting the American people from tax-exempt groups trying to game the system: using dark-soft money to influence the outcome of congressional and presidential elections and ballot initiatives. That made Tea Party members mad and upset. The entire movie was a distortion. It was one sided. All his interviewees were Tea Party nuts and right wing Christians.
I would like to add one more to the list: Pat Robertson speaking with Jay Sekulow on CBN News, asked: “Is Lois Lerner going to jail?" Apparently, he thinks she committed a crime. That is going too far. What she did was appropriate: targeting non-profit groups suspected of hiding their political activities and determining; whether, new applications qualified for tax exempt statue. She is working for the people. Jay Sekulow is working for himself, who is the founder of a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) organization and 41 plaintiffs, who hate being investigated for possible tax exempt violations. It is the goal—of Tea Party Republicans to use these groups to influence elections, ballot measures, and take over the US government.
After presenting all this distorted and one-sided evidence in the ACLJ firm: Jay Sekulow asked, “What do we need to do right now?” And, he answered, “We need to abolish the IRS, get rid of it, start from scratch, and the Internal Revenue Code needs to go with it.” And, he said, “I am not the only one who thinks that”—and began a last recap interview of selected guests:
Sen. Rand Paul, he asked, “Should we eliminate the IRS as an enforcement agency?” He answered, “I think in many ways you could.” No we can’t. The federal government would collapse. There are different types of taxpayers: single, married, heads of household, self-employed, military, seniors, foreigners, etc. Then, there are different types of income: wages, bonuses, commissions, fees, business profits, dividends, capital gains, rents, interest, etc. Who is going to keep records? Who is going to enforce the tax laws? Who is going to collect the individual income taxes, business profit taxes, the FICA taxes, the estate tax, excise taxes, the al valorem taxes, etc.? Who is going to audit tax returns and investigate tax evasion and fraud? Are you going to let people, entrepreneurs, and corporations decide what they want to pay in taxes? You can’t abolish the IRS. That is insanity.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, Jay Sekulow asked: “What would you do with the IRS? What would you do with the Tax Code?” She answered: I would abolish it, number one, but, also think we need to abolish the IRS. You see: she is crazy. She also has a bad voting record, signed the no-tax-increase pledge, and said—the government shutdown: “It’s exactly what we wanted.”
We—means: Tea Party Republicans.
Joe Gregory said [i.e., to the same question]: “If, we can enact a fair tax system that is proportional, we don’t need the IRS.”
What he is proposing-- is like separating conjoined twins without drugs, with a single knife, and into equal halves. It is more complicated than that. No tax plan is going to work without the IRS. Right now, we a huge National Debt: millionaires and billionaires have been asked to voluntarily pay it down: donate: the results have been minimal. Tithes--the principle of Church taxation does not work for the federal government. We already have it. It does not work. The people don’t think Uncle Sam is the same as God—who can see the heart.
I will give you a fair tax enacted by Woodrow Wilson: it was called: the Revenue Act of 1918. It had 56 marginal income tax brackets from 4% to 73% and it had one: deduction. That is the Model T-Ford of taxation. But, you need the IRS to collect and enforce it. This pediatric neurosurgeon is an idiot, when it comes to the principles of government taxation. I want to check his tax returns.
Sen. Ted Cruz, when, asked: what should we do with the tax code? He said, “The simple and best solution is to abolish the IRS, shut it down, paddle lock it, and move to a simple flat tax that every man can fill out his taxes on a postcard.” You, see he is a dangerous idiot. That won’t work. Let me show how frickin ridiculous his plan is: Take a man in the top 1%: he might have a salary, bonus, business profits, capital gains [or losses] from hundreds of trades in the stock market, dividends from different corporations, income from fees, commissions, rents, royalties, endorsements, etc. He might have deductions for donations to charities, alimony, child support, legal bills, casualty losses, etc. It would be impossible to put these on a post card and sent it to the federal government with no ability to make background checks or enforce payment. It would be the honor system without the IRS. We already have the postcard: for a person with one job and no dependents: it is called the Short Form. His simple unfair, regressive, unverifiable, unenforceable tax plan [that the postman can read] would be a Colossal Disaster
Sekulow said to Hermain Cain, “So, we are talking about a complete replacement of the Tax Code, which leads to the question, which is a logic one, you know what that is: What are you going to do with the IRS?” He answered, “Bye--Bye.” That is not the solution. The solution: is reform the tax code—not replacing it with one his cockamamie ideas. There is no fair replacement of the graduating income tax: period. The flat income tax is not fair.
The three right wing Christians interviewed in the film share the same goals of the Tea Party: control of the government—[i.e., lust for wealth and power]. It is like the Brotherhood of Muslims trying to rule Egypt. But, the Tea Party group’s main goal is to cut their taxes-- not religion.
Jay Sekulow’s solution: we should “start over”--is not the right solution. It is like remaking the car: you can’t: you need wheels, motor, transmission, brakes, a steering wheel, etc. the same with the tax code. There are certain basic principles involved. You can add [and remove] gadgets: like, heater, radio, air conditioning, power steering, and the air bags; but, not the basic parts. The transmission is the graduating income tax. The flat tax is one gear: it would be hard for some and easy for others. And, removing these gadgets needs public support: they are not likely, to remove the air conditioning or the heater—to save money. The same with the tax code: it has many good parts; but, it needs reform--like, the old heavy chrome bumpers, they can be removed to make the car lighter; but, not replacement with a flat tax [no transmission], a fair tax [i.e., a national sales tax], the ridiculous 9-9-9 tax—or Tithes—or abolish the IRS [take out the motor and drive shaft]. And, Jay Sekulow during the movie--noddingly and verbally--endorse all these incredible stupid tax plans, made no criticisms, and offered no viable plan to replace the IRS or the Tax Code: he just likes to make money off this hot button issue.
In the ACLJ film—he put the IRS on trial and put only right wing conservative Tea Party witnesses on stand for questioning that supports his lawsuit and war against the IRS. It was bias, everything said was distorted: nobody was called as a witness for the opposite side—the defense of the IRS. There was no cross examination of witnesses. Sekulow, as an attorney, should know this was not a fair trial. The purpose of the film, seen in the film’s frame at the bottom: there is a box with the word: Donate.
The IRS is not the problem: it’s the tax code that needs reform: simplification, some deductions and tax credits removed and progressivity restored: to generate enough revenues to reduce the deficits.
The Congress; mostly Tea Party Republicans, as well as some Democrats---they are guilty not the IRS. They flattening the tax code, added too many tax deductions and credits, refuse to plug the loopholes, rewrote it and changed it thousands of times—striking out parts, and inserting others, that requires tax pros to understand, and creating these tax exempt entities with dual personalities: promoting social welfare and election campaign engineering. They should be: one or the other; then, there is no confusion—no need to determine whether these groups pass the 49% red line of tax-exemption, which is difficult to ascertain.
Plus, there should be no such groups—that engage in political campaign activities —that can conceal their donors. People should know who is for and against candidates and ballot initiatives. That helps safeguard this nations from the rule of the rich. That is the goal of the Tea Party Republicans.
Plus, the Congress has created 501(c)(4) social welfare non-profits: that legally—can spend no more than 49% of their resources on political activities—and then, tries to hand cuff the IRS from trying to identify groups gaming the system. The problem is the corrupt Congress and the Supreme Court—that created dollarocracy.
The new crackdown by the Obama Administration, the Treasury, and the IRS on 501(c)s—is proof: what --Lois Lerner tried to do --was right. Doing what is right and should not be illegal.
Jay Sekulow, one of the highest paid executives of a charitable organization, should tell us—what, he pays in taxes: that would prove, if, he is a loyal American. It also would reveal: the strategies and tax loopholes--the rich use to avoid paying US taxes.
He has build a financial empire—by way of—nonprofit and for-profit entities, that generate millions of dollars a year, that supports his lavish life-style, multiple homes, chauffeur driven cars, private jet plane, etc.
Jesus said, “you cannot serve God and mammon.”
If, Jay Sekulow was a righteous man: he would condemn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision: that gave birth to dollarocracy.
But, that would not be profitable—he, rather work on the side of Tea Party plutocrats that feeds his Cash Cows. He claims—he takes no salary from the ACLJ, but according to ACLJ fiscal year 2011, 990 form, it paid over $2.6 million to CLAG, a law firm—50% owned by Jay Sekulow.
His IRS lawsuit is a phony lawsuit. He is not serving God, what is right and good. He is serving mammon [money]—because, the actions of IRS are also a threat to his 501(c)(3) and (4) non-profits and 41 other plaintiffs, he is representing. He has declared war against the IRS: he wants to abolish it—for doing what is designed to do—determining whether these old and new 501 (c) groups qualify for tax-exempt status. The Federal Government cannot survive without the IRS to enforce the tax code, abolishing the IRS would undermine—the foundation of the federal government. He has gone overboard. One of his cohorts, even suggested taking up arms. He is the leading satanic litigator in this case. Therefore, I would prefer—to set up a guillotine in front of the capital building and line up Jay Sekulow and his cohorts for executions.
I might pardon some—if, they repent. Jay Sekulow is wrong and his followers. The IRS did not act unconstitutionally.
The truth of the matter: certain 501(c)s—may have acted illegally—including Jay Sekulow’s. This investigation is not complete.
Do I have legal authority to do this? No.
Posted 12/16/2013 Jay Sekulow Part 2 of 3 Parts
In the ACLJ film, Tax Invasion, Jay Sekulow interviewed Rev. Rob Schenck, the founder and president of Faith and Action—[a 501(c)(3) religious tax-exempt organization], who said, the IRS investigation of his organization was “absolutely unwarranted” That was a lie: I found several violations.
The photo on the front page of his website with Rev. Rob Schenck and Peggy Nienaber, Chief of Program, standing with Rep. Paul Ryan is a mild endorsement; because, he was Mitt Romney’s running mate, and he endorsed Mitt Romney for president in 2012. Besides that, he is a (bad) Tea Party Republican.
Here is one reason:
The US Constitution gives congressmen the power to raise taxes so they can pay all legal government debts, but, Ryan signed the Norquist no-tax-increase pledge: meaning he refuses to raise taxes to pay U.S. debts. Therefore, the federal government borrows the money: that is why we have a $17.2 trillion debt.
He made a pack with the Devil.
And, he has a bad voting record.
Besides that, I dug deeper in the organization’s archives and found a solid violation of his tax exempt status; when, Rev. Rob Schenck published this statement on the Faith and Action website: Oct, 17, 2012, he said:
"Why I will vote for Mitt Romney and not for Barack Obama!"
That is a violating of his tax exempt status. He does not have that right—legality—to endorse a political candidate and keep his tax-exempt status. To do that, he must do it from a different platform, where donations to his organization are not tax exempt. Therefore, Rev. Bob Schenck lied in the ACLJ movie—saying: the IRS investigation of his organization was “absolutely unwarranted.”
And, Jay Sekulow, who directed and hosted the ACLJ film covered up this violation—or evidence. He is a dear friend. Both are founders of a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt religious organization—and both endorsed Mitt Romney for president: Jay Sekulow in 2008 and 2012. These facts were omitted in the ACLJ film.
Let’s move to the Sen. Rand Paul interview in the movie, he said, “many places in churches, ministries are afraid to speak out.” Why? The law is fairly clear on that matter: pastors have the right to speak out on all issues of morality that are part their religious doctrine; but, they cannot endorse political candidates; but, Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the ACLJ, refutes that. He said on the subject, “[pastors] get notices from groups, that say, you know that, if you speak out in behalf of candidates for public office, we’re going to complain to IRS and get your tax exemption [taken away], which the Tax Code does not actually say, and the 1st Amendment says really, just the opposite.”
Sekulow is wrong. I am quoting from the IRS website, it says: “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
But, there is a second part this: Sekulow says, the 1st Amendment,” says really just the opposite. In other words, he is saying the IRS law is a violation of the 1st Amendment. He is wrong again. Only, two parts of the 1st Amendment are relevant here:
The first states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Religion here means: the belief in God or in a group of gods: Jesus said, on this rock: I build [establish] my church: the free exercise of—means teaching or practicing the religion’s beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods. It also means: a religion based on selected sacred texts.
Nothing here: that gives the church—or a religious tax-exempt organization the right to enter the domain of politics. In fact, if it did: it would violate the separation of church and government. Thomas Jefferson called it: the “Wall of Separation.”
The miracle of Jesus--multiplying two fishes and five loaves of bread to feed his disciples and followers sheds light on this subject.
First, they were in a desert representing: they lacked knowledge (i.e., food for the soul). That is where we are today.
They had only two fishes and five loaves of bread.
The two fishes represent two different spirits of man. He told his disciples to sit on the ground in groups of fifties and hundreds, representing different types of two groups of people on earth: the humanists and theists. Both groups are essential, both should have their rights; both are part of the scheme of God.
One version stated: they sat on the grass, representing the vitality of the earth: depends on the rights of these two groups. And, foremost: both can be his disciples: both groups contribute to the well-being of the world.
The five loafs of bread represent the knowledge of the Fifth Kingdom. This is indicated by the fact –he looked up to heaven—and blessed and broke the bread and gave to his disciples, then, to the multitude.
Now, five loaves of bread cannot feed five thousand men, besides women and children—and when you finish: have 12 baskets left—but you can with knowledge—by sharing it---it is never exhausted. The 12 baskets of bread left over, represents enough to feed his future disciples, followers, or students.
There are two versions of this miracle in the New Testament: the second: a few fishes, representing different spirits of man, and the seven loaves, represent the knowledge that men see the world differently with their seven senses.
The reason Jesus told the people to sit in groups; because, first, you must understand your rights before you stand up (i.e., exercise them)
But, it is the belief of some theists: we must force humanists, gentiles, or infidels to obey religious rules or laws. I got this impression by reading Rev. Schenck blog—archives dated: Oct. 2013: it seems to say, the Ten Commandments should be part of our legal system. He quotes a famous journalist, who said: they are commandments, not suggestions. He is wrong, if he thinks, they should be a model for state law; because, the first four pertain to religion: the fourth; for example, you cannot force secular people to keep the Sabbath. That is a violation of the separation of government and church. That is the cause of war in the world: secular people don’t want to be ruled by religious people, and religious people do not want to be ruled by secular people.
Therefore, the separation: both theists and humanists should have separate rights on this earth: to keep the peace. The 1st Amendment gives theists the right to establish and practice their religion—but, not force it on others. There is no evidence that Jesus forced his disciples to keep the Ten Commandments –or aspired to become a political Divine King [on earth]. That disappointed the nation of Israel. They thought the Messiah would be such a person—and free them from the yoke of Roman rule. But, this was new age—that was the old plan—during an age of illiteracy—the enlightened King knew what was best for the people.
Julius Caesar claimed to be one.
That is the cause of war, hatred, and hostility in the literate or new world. Peace is attained; when, you separate religion and government and give both human types their rights to govern themselves. Both groups contribute something different to the vitality of the world.
If, you’re not happy—you can switch sides.
So, the 1st Amendment—does not give the church the right to enter the political domain [i.e., seek political power]—or establish a state-religion.
The way religion affects the government—its teachings influence how people vote, how congressmen make laws, and leaders governor. It is indirect.
The second part of the 1st Amendment: the Congress shall make no abridgements of the freedom of speech or press. But, there are-- many and rightly so. You have the right to speak what is true and good—not what is false and evil—or harmful to man; for example, inciting a riot. Also, perjury is a crime. However, if Sekulow thinks, this clause of the 1st Amendment gives Rev. Schenck, as founder and president of a 501(c)(3) religious tax-exempt organization, the right to endorse a political candidate: he is wrong. If, Rev. Rob Schenck wants to engage in politicking—or endorse a political candidate: he must do on a different platform, such as: 501(c)(4) or under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code or form a political party—but, donations to these groups are not tax deductible.
It says, he is speaking as a private citizen; but, that does not exempt him; because, it is a blog on the Faith and Action website. He is the president.
Rev. Rob Schenck stating on his Faith and Action blog: Feb. 12, 2013: “As you well know by now, I didn’t support President Obama in either of his campaigns. In fact, I expressly warned against his election.” That is an admission: he violated of his tax exempt status, as the president of a 501(c)(3) religious organization and contrary to what Jay Sekulow says, it is not his constitutional right. That is the second violation.
Rev. Schenck’s explanation why he did—is lopsided. He is a friend of Mitt—and he left out the bad stuff. His looting of companies: his [bad] tax proposals: his greed, his dishonesty, his distortions in the debate with Barack Obama. He represents the top 1% [on taxes]. He also signed the Norquist [i.e., the Devil’s] no-tax-increase pledge. He helped foreign investors dodge US taxes by setting up accounts in tax havens. And since, he endorsed Mitt, he endorsed Rep. Ryan, his running mate—or pick for VP. He is a Tea Party adherent. When, you endorse a candidate: you endorse their agenda.
Can’t you see why the list of top donors—is relevant!
There has been no denouncement of their bad proposals and policies: 501(c)(3) groups have the right to criticize government proposals and policies.
When Jay Sekulow began this interview, he said: “You are never going to believe the story he’s going to tell.” He meant: how horribly Rev. Schenck was mistreated by the IRS’s investigation. The truth the matter, the Jay Sekulow interview of Rev. Schenck, horribly misrepresented the investigation.
Certain evidence was concealed; like, the killer’s gun.
In my opinion, the Church should have the right to state their position on faith-based issues: for and against—as a secondary function. However, the “wall of separation” is broken, when you endorse a political candidate--or attempt to take over the government by the Church—or established a state-religion. The primary role of the Church should be: enlightenment of theanthropic salvation—or the Higher Path.
But, that path is not compulsory.
Endorsing a political candidate for public office—by a religious tax-exempt organization is one violation; but, giving a tax-deductible donation to a religious organization to elicit a political endorsement-- is more complicit [sinister].
A list of top donors—might reveal that.
Now, I want to return to the interview with Sen. Rand Paul, he said [speaking with Jay Sekulow] “I can’t even understand my tax return.” Well, the Congress passed the Tax Code: that means: he doesn’t understanding the bills he votes on; therefore, not qualified to be a senator. They are just as abstruse. But, that is not the main point I want to make: Jay Sekulow asked Sen. Rand Paul, “What would you tell pastors.” He said, “don’t be afraid, speak out, no one has ever been prosecuted, no one has had their tax-exempt status taken away.” That is false: Christian Century lost its tax-exempt status for one year after it endorsed President Lyndon Johnson for reelection. He said, “don’t be afraid, speak out.” That is ill-advice. Yes, pastors can speak out on faith-based issues, preach the Gospel, etc., but not endorse political candidates from the pulpit.
Sen. Rand Paul is an idiot: everything he said—is fetid.
Or, certain Washington D.C. politicians are protecting these tax-exempt groups engaged in [illegal] political activities supporting their party.
The GOP’s angry grilling of Lois Lerner, the IRS director of this investigation, appears to be an attempt to curtail or stop this investigation.
Like Benghazi, this is a phony political scandal.
So, what the IRS has done—targeting conservative groups to determine their tax-exempt status—is not illegal or unconstitutional. If, there was a higher number of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, than progressive--and there was a greater amount of money funneled into these conservative groups in the 2010 and 2012 elections, as the facts indicate: extra scrutiny was warranted. Over half of the plaintiffs in the Jay Sekulow IRS lawsuit have the words: Tea Party in their title: that indicates they are political action groups seeking tax exempt status--not primarily social welfare groups. The reason: those words are part of their title; so, contributors can identify them. The investigation of the IRS protects America from big-dark money and the [corporate] Mass Media corrupting the electoral process: changing our democracy into a dollarocracy. IRS may have violated some improperly restrictive or murky rules by a few—but, that has not yet been proven. However, Jay Sekulow’s war against the IRS—wanted it abolished and theTax Code—is plain diabolical and crazy. One of his cohorts—suggests taking up arms. He should be tried for acting inappropriately, illegally, and unconstitutionally—and if found guilty—imprisoned [or executed] for wrong‑headed judicial terrorism, which would, if successfully carried out, undermine the foundation of the US government.
That is what a Divine King would do [unless he recanted and converted to Christianity].
Fortunately, for him: that is not legal in the US.
Posted 6/8/15 Jay Sekulow Part III
The Supreme Court in a decision: 9 to 0 favoring the right of his client: Jews for Jesus – to hand out religious literature at the LA Airport—launched him into prominence as a constitutional and faith litigator; even though, it was the wrong decision: no such constitutional right exists and it violates the separation of State and Church.
His Atlanta based investment firm went bankrupt in1980s; but, he discovered the secret of riches—taking cases funded by public donations to tax-exempt non-profit organizations—he founded or co-owns.
Lately, he has been pumping the IRS scandal for donations--another one of his money making tax-exempt schemes.
It is not a true scandal—it is politically motivated.
His latest book, Undemocratic, has got it all wrong: how unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats are stealing your liberty and freedom.
The big danger to democracy is not the IRS, VA, EPA, NLRB, HHS, etc. It is the concentration of income and wealth in the hands of the top 1 percent that is seizing control of the government and the U.S. Congress.
Their means of doing that: the Mass Media.
In Jay Sekulow’s first Livestream video: he pitches his new book, Undemocratic. To help him sell it, he plays the hymn: “My country tis of thee” written in 1831, is a hymn against the sin of slavery. It in no ways supports his new BOOK: how unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats are stealing your liberty and freedom. He calls them, the fourth branch of government, which is unconstitutional, because, the U.S. Constitution only created three branches, which is absurd. They are the employees of government departments created by Congress to carry out the functions of government.
They are not the real enemy: it is the U.S. Congress controlled by Republicans. Jay Sekulow is a Republican, because he endorsed Mitt Romney for president and his tax proposals are the same as the Republican Party. He is our enemy. In this video: he says, the most powerful branch of government is not the Supreme Court, the executive branch or the Congress: it is the bureaucrats; primarily, the IRS.
He says, it is over reaching and violating our rights.
It is the defendant in his lawsuit and he criticizes the Department of Justice, because it does not take criminal action against it.
In this Livestream video—he attacks the unelected officials of the IRS [meaning Lois Lerner, mainly]--because, he says: she was targeting citizens of the United States of America, because of their political and faith views: that is a wrong—a distortion. It was because, there was a surge of Tea Party applicants, seeking tax exempt status, to cash in on the Supreme Court ruling: Citizens United, titling the election process in favor of big money.
I believe the IRS action was justified.
Why, does Jay Sekulow defend these clients? Because, it is very profitable. He claims it has violated the civil rights of his clients.
Jay Sekulow has sided with the Republicans: they are mad at the IRS for interfering with or scrutinizing these Tea Party applications for tax free status, their new source of political contributions to their campaigns. Determining their legitimacy was the proper job of the IRS. Republicans were incensed. Jay Sekulow joined in the attack and misrepresented the work of the IRS—as an abuse of power.
He is a Republican at heart; because, he uses Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Dr. Ben Carson to support his attack on the IRS: all un-American idiots: based on their tax proposals.
During his Livestream video, a Periscope question came in [from an unnamed person], “Is anybody in Congress aboard with your IRS proposal?”
And Sekulow said, “You know what, a lot of people are [i.e., Republicans].”
Then he said, “Let me tell what the IRS proposal is that we have outlined in the book (i.e., that will improve our nation)." Here it is, he says,
“We need a simplified tax code.” Yes, that is true; but not his version: he says, “You go to a flat tax or fair tax.”
These are the wrong tax principles: they will strengthen the rule of the rich. It is the agenda of the Republican Party: the flat tax is not fair: it lacks progressivity. The Fair Tax is a bad idea for a myriad of reasons. It would excessively burden retailers across the nation to collect the local, state, and federal sale taxes. They would find ways to avoid paying the tax—cheat. It would create a Black Market for consumer goods. It would retard consumer spending. It would penalize tourists: they would be paying the income replacement tax on goods purchased, who are not citizens. It would burden the poor and middle class who spend a bigger share of their income on food, clothing, gasoline, consumer goods and services, than the rich. It is not a tax on income, the measurement of government’s benefits—or ability to pay. It is contrary to the Sixteenth Amendment that gave Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived. That is the proper form of an income tax, based on benefits received. The so called fair tax is not fair—it is based on the purchase of goods and services [or sales]: not on income [or profit]. The fairest tax is the graduating income tax, based on benefits received and ability to pay, which Jay Sekulow—dislikes, opposes, and wants to change.
Posted 2015 George McGovern is Right!
He said on the Charlie Rose Show Jan. 5, 2012: “The Reagan and Bush Jr. tax cuts on the wealthy are the cause of the two big bulges in the nation’s Deficits—along with increases in Military Spending.”
And he said, "I believe in the graduated income tax that we got under Woodrow Wilson—many years ago. I think it is the foundation stone of all these programs to strengthen the United States. It means the more you make, the higher your tax rate goes. And, that is the only fair way to do it. “
He is right,--not Jay Sekulow. He is also wrong, according to the teachings of Jesus, he advocated an income [or profit] tax.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in a message to Congress June 19, 1935, “Our revenue laws have operated in many ways to the unfair advantage of the few, and they have done little to prevent an unjust concentration of wealth and economic power.
With the enactment of the Income Tax Law of 1913, the Federal Government began to apply effectively the widely accepted principle that taxes should be levied in proportion to ability to pay and in proportion to the benefits received. Income was wisely chosen as the measure of benefits and of ability to pay. This was, and still is, a wholesome guide for national policy. It should be retained as the governing principle of Federal taxation.”
He is right, not Jay Sekulow.
President Theodore Roosevelt in his speech in 1910 to promote “real democracy” he said, “I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes…[and he gave the reasons]. ”
He is right, not Jay Sekulow.
Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, wrote in The Wealth of Nations, “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
He is right, not Jay Sekulow.
President William Howard Taft pushed for a corporate and individual income tax: it later became the Sixteenth Amendment.
He is right, not Jay Sekulow.
The income tax under President Woodrow Wilson, in 1918, had 56 income tax brackets from 6% on income from $0 to $4,000 to 77% on income over $1,000,000—adjusted for inflation: $0 to $60,820 and $15,204,901.
Today, there is no higher tax rate on income over $464,850; even though, the top .001 percent of Americans had an average income of $62,068,187 in 2010. And, they paid a lower tax rate on their income than the top 1 percent, because, it is mostly, investment income: dividends and capital gains.
Some Republicans want the tax on dividends and capital gains reduced to zero: give an inch and they want a mile. Jay Sekulow went against the teachings of Jesus by endorsing One, Mitt Romney for president.
Once in power: R-plutocrats, don’t listen to reason [or facts]: they take, using false and deceptive arguments; like, Reagan and Bush.
Jay Sekulow is a Republican MFKR [i.e., the Motherland]. He misrepresented the intentions of the IRS. I bet, if he made public his tax returns, based on his benefits, he pays very little income tax. He is an American miscreant along with Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Dr. Ben Carson: his Republican anti-graduating income tax supporters. See the ACLJ film: Tax Invasion.
These are all bad characters: three have signed [or support] the Norquist [Devil’s] no-tax increase pledge (i.e., refuse to pay government expenses like, two wars, if it means raising taxes, just add it to the national debt).
Herman Cain likes the numbers: 999 and Dr. Ben Carson likes the biblical principle of Tithing to pay for the federal government.
Jay Sekulow showed—he has a character defect: wanting to buy a Gibson guitar, simply, because, it was illegal. It is part of his video.
● It is alright, if Jay Sekulow is a rebel.
● It is not alright, if Lois Lerner is a rebel.
The problem with the tax code of the United States of American: is legal tax evasion: individual and corporate. And, as long as Republicans control the U.S. Congress: FAIR tax reform is dead. The IRS was doing its job, protecting Americans from the big money takeover of our government, and Jay Sekulow wants criminal charges filed; therefore, he is an anti-democratic, anti-tax plutocrat. His book: WRONG!
He blames the increasing power of the fourth branch of government, the bureaucrats; principally, the IRS, which he says, has over reached its bounds and is the biggest threat to our democracy. Adding to the list: the VA, EPA, NLRB, and HHS --makes his thesis, even more ridiculous. Before criticizing the federal government of systematic abuse and zero accountability, he should clean up his own House:
● The Better Business Bureau reported that the ACLJ does not meet standards for board oversight, board size, board meetings, board compensation, effectiveness policies and reporting, accurate expense reporting, annual reports, website disclosures and cause marketing disclosures. [March 2010]
● His private practice, which focused on creating tax shelters and financial deals for the renovation of historic buildings in Atlanta, collapsed when investors sued him for securities violations related to the renovation deals. He and his firm filed for bankruptcy protection in 1987, and more than a dozen creditors filed suit.
● Since 1998, the two charities have paid out more than $33 million to members of Sekulow's family and businesses they own or co-own, according to the charities' federal tax returns. [Reported by the Tennessean: 9/5/2010]
● Of his ten landmark cases: six are wrong….
● One of the charities is controlled by the Sekulow family — tax documents show that all four of CASE's board members are Sekulows and another is an officer — an arrangement criticized by a nonprofit watchdog group.
● Members of the Sekulow family declined requests for interviews.
The biggest threat to our democracy are not these government departments: it is the Republican control of Congress, cutting taxes on the wealthy and protecting their loopholes—to garner contributions for their election campaigns to get in and stay in power. The Republican controlled Congress demonstrated its evilness--by cutting funding of the IRS, for trying to protect our Nation from a takeover of wealthy plutocrats. Instead of Jay Sekulow admitting his mistake, is suing the IRS and seeking criminal charges for its good work, in sniffing out phony applications, and has written his new Book to defend himself and is going to great lengths to market it-- using TV, radio, the Internet, the past de facto national anthem, a song played by his band that refers to the IRS by the –“three letter word” -- calling it undemocratic, calling Americans to fight back, resists the IRS, and using his skills as a lawyer to dupe people into supporting a cause that is against their best interest. His tax proposals are undemocratic and favor the rule of the rich. He is on record, in the ACLJ film, wanting to abolish the IRS. His book, Undemocratic, and song, Undemocratic, are creating hostility towards the IRS, the wrong culprit. The primary purpose of his Livestream video, to convince gullible fans, kooks, and anti-tax conservatives: how unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats are stealing your liberties, to sell his book, make the New York Times Best Sellers List, so royalties and donations pour into his tax exempt non-profits. The truth of matter: his book, song, and tax proposals are undemocratic and would make matters worse. Therefore, he is an enemy of the United States. He is in bed with the Republican Criminal Syndicate—trying, desperately, to rule this Nation.
He is the modern day: Judas Iscariot: Traitor.
Posted 1/28/2015 I have added Ramses II and St. Peter to the Art Page
Posted 1/21/2015 Huckabee and James Dobison: Twins
The idiot from Arkansas, who loves grits and gravy, and you can tell-- by his waist line, is back on TV-- on the James Dobison’s Life Today show: Jan. 20, 2015.
After Dobison described his Utopian Economic Plan, Huckabee responsed, “There is a way to do that-- the fair tax”, which is a tax on consumption: it is not a fair tax. Huckabee thinks it is. He says, “the rich would pay the most taxes, because, they consume the most.” That is fallacy: they would pay less taxes, than they would pay under the income tax. And, it would increase the tax on the poor and middle class; because, a bigger percentage of the income—goes for the necessities of life: rent, food, clothing, gas, healing oil, etc.
The consumption tax is an unfair tax, because, it is a double-triple tax on consumption: it would be added to the state and local sales taxes: that would be a bigger burden on the lower and middle class. It is a regressive tax.
The second [bigger] defect: the fair tax would replace the income tax-- and Huckabee claims: the best thing about that: we would get rid of the IRS--forever and ever-- and the audience clapped.
Well, that is false: I gave the reasons before, when he was running for the U.S. presidency—as a Republican. He has learnt nothing since then.
He says, he believes in biblical principles; but, taxing consumption rather than income is not a biblical principle.
He says, taxing productivity is unfair.
What did Jesus say to Peter? He said, take the first coin from the mouth of a fish and pay your taxes to Cesar. He was a fisherman: that was a tax on income. Now, what is troubling: James Dobison, who is supposed to be a Christian agrees wholeheartedly with Mike Huckabee. He wants him back.
Both of these men are Christian idiots and enemies of the US: they would destroy the income tax and the IRS—that collects it.
And these Christians in the audience should be ashamed of themselves: they disagree with Jesus—and agree with Huckabee, the Devil.
Posted 3/27/13 It is Simple!
DOMA is constitutional: Congress has the right to pass the law: the Supreme Court cannot undo it. The claim, it is unconstitutional-- is ridiculous. It is a good law—it is moral—it protects society from the advancement of same-sex marriage, which in time would undermine—traditional marriage.
Gays and lesbians do not deserve equal rights-- or marriage equality; because, they are not equal: one is a procreative pair--one is a non-procreative pair. One serves a social purpose: one does not-- it turns society upside down.
It is not on par with heterosexual marriage.
It is a mistake—to make them equal.
Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional—it wrong for one homosexual judge—to overturn the will of 7 million California voters. It must be rescinded by the people.
DOMA must be overturned by the Congress. It not unconstitutional.
Actually, the Congress and the People have the right to legalize or ban same-sex marriage. It is their power as law makers. However, they must live with the consequences. That is the beauty—of democracy.
Posted 3/5/13 Proposition 8
The Obama administration has filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging the overturn of Proposition 8-- approved by California voters: defining marriage as between man and woman. President Obama believes it violates equal protection of laws guaranteed by the Constitution; despite the fact, I sent him my book: The Tax Guardian with a posting—that explains in detail: why-- it does not!
The Tenth Amendment leaves it to the states to decide and they did. Thirty-nine ban same sex marriage: nine approved. That is their right.
In time, what happens will prove who is right. There are consequences to same sex-marriage that will show up in the future: like diabetes.
The 33 page Brief by Solicitor General, Donald Verrilla, is pure garbage. It is a perversion of rational thinking; like lawyers, who defend a guilty person. It ends in this statement: “Prejudice may not, however, be the basis for differential treatment under the law.” The arguments in Defense of the Marriage Act are not based on prejudice.
There are valid reasons: why, it is correct.
I read -- Justice Anthony M. Kennedy could be swayed by the change in Public Opinion: he is an idiot: it does not make any difference, whether 100 percent of people favor same sex-marriage. Proposition 8 is still not unconstitutional.
The U.S. constitution does not guarantee: the right of gays and lesbians to marry. It allows states or voters to decide either –way.
Thirty-nine states ban same-sex marriage: 9 approve: It should be left to the states or voters to decide —not the Supreme Court. To strike down Proposition 8—would deprive voters of the right to decide the kind of society they want.
The president of the U.S.—should always take the high path—unfortunately he has taken the down path—with Hollywood.
And, the US Attorney General- Eric Holder –agrees: two African-American buddies supporting same-sex marriage rights, an aberration of Nature, rather than the DOMA, a fundamental principle of civilization.
v