At this point in America's history the federal government is taking almost 21 percent of the GDP in taxes. That means
the federal government is absorbing 21 percent of the total economic and productive output of every person,
every business and every industry in this country. The tax burden on the average American taxpayer is at its
highest point in history except for one year during World War II. In the face of all this, the average
employee/taxpayer has no idea how much tax he's paying.
Try this. Just approach any co-worker today and ask them how much tax they had to pay this year. The normal answer: "I didn't have to pay anything! I'm getting some back!"
Oh, how the politicians love this. They're ripping off the American worker at unprecedented levels, and the
taxpayers don't even realize it.
… lies withholding.
This is why Americans don't know how much they're paying in taxes, because they don't even know how much
You've already asked your co-workers how much they paid in income tax this year. Now try this. Ask them how
much they make! Yeah, that's an intrusive question, and more often than not you won't get a response. If you do
get an answer, though, it will probably be phrased, "I take home $___ a week."
You didn't ask them how much they "took home." You asked them how much they made! The problem is they
don't know! The only part of that weekly check that matters is the part they can cash. What's gone is gone.
Gone and forgotten, just the way the politicians like it.
The practice of withholding taxes from our paychecks was begun in World War II. The politicians told us they
needed to withhold taxes, instead of waiting for us to pay them at the end of the year, to fund the war effort.
Americans were told that withholding would end when the war did. The war has been over for almost 56 years. Withholding is still with us.
The politicians – those who seize our property and use that property to buy their positions of power and privilege
– know that there would be an instantaneous tax revolt if Americans ever figured out just how much they were
Wouldn't that be a wonderful day?
It's called a national retail sales tax. A bill will be introduced in this Congress to bring this about. If the American
people were behind it, it would have a chance. As more and more American workers are excused of any
responsibility for paying federal income taxes, this idea becomes more and more of a long shot. Spend some
time going over this Web site – you might find something here you like: http://www.fairtax.org.
... that tax forms filed by American taxpayers make up 82 percent of the Imperial Federal Government's entire
If you make a visit to your friendly IRS office, you might be lucky enough to pick up a nifty little refrigerator magnet
for your kitchen! At the top it says "The Tax Break for Hard-Working People." In the center you have this
You work hard? But you don't earn a high income? You may qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit."
What the hell is this "earned" bit? Is the federal government telling you that you have "earned" a right to some of
the money that someone else worked for?
That's what's going on here. This isn't a tax "credit." It's a transfer payment. The federal government looks at
your income and the size of your family and then decides how much money it is going to take from someone
else and give to you. It's not a "tax break," as the clever little magnet says. It's a welfare payment. Income
redistribution. Plunder at work.
I can't think of one single politician serving in any political office anywhere in this nation that I have more
personal fondness for than Georgia's senior U.S. senator, Max Cleland. How many people do you know about
whom you can honestly say that you've treasured every single moment spent in their company?
Senator Max is kicking off his Georgia campaign today. He'll be on the ballot in 2002. Thus far there is no clear
indication who his Republican opposition will be, and I can't think of one Republican I would like to see in that
race. Maybe that's because I plan to support and vote for the Libertarian candidate – if there's a qualified one.
Why not vote for Cleland? I love him as a rare and unique individual, but not as a U.S. senator. His last five
years have been in lockstep with the Democratic Party. I believe the Democratic Party to be the avowed
enemy of liberty, economic freedom, common sense and the very concept of the individual.
Party believes that income is distributed, not earned.
The Democratic Party can't bring itself to support an
across-the-board tax cut at a time of peace when the federal government is taking the largest bite ever out of the
Max couldn't bring himself to support the Bush tax cut, and I can't bring myself to support and
vote for any candidate who is not firmly dedicated to the idea of reducing the size and power of the Imperial
Federal Government, reducing our taxes and restoring the legal pre-eminence of our U.S. Constitution.
Then there's that bill – that seizure bill. I just could not believe that a legislator with any appreciation of the
history of this country, and of its founding fathers, could ever bring himself to put such a hideous legislative
atrocity in the hopper of the world's greatest deliberative body.
What bill? Well, as I heard the story, some North Georgia Sheriff approached Senator Cleland with an idea for
a law. The sheriff thought it would be nifty if he could just grab money away from some hapless person whom, in
the eyes of the sheriff, had too much cash on him.
The story about the origin of the bill may not be true, but the bill itself was very much real and the effect of the
legislation would have been quite ugly. If Cleland's bill had become law and if you, a law-abiding American
citizen, happened to be caught by any law enforcement officer in an airport, a train or bus station, on an
interstate highway or any similar place of public commerce or transportation with $10,000 or more in cash on
you, that law enforcement officer would be entitled to seize the money.
Just take it. No charges, no arrest, no
court proceeding. Just take it. Seize it for the government.
The presumption would be that you are a crook, a
drug dealer, and the money would be gone. You want it back? So … sue! Your lawyer would probably cost
you more than the money that was seized, before the federal government was through with you.
Try this scenario. You have a car to sell. You place an ad in the AutoTrader. You get a call from Mobile,
Alabama. A man down there is ready to buy. You hop in the car and drive it to Mobile. A deal is made and the
buyer offers you a cashier's check for $14,000.
You've heard the stories about fraudulent cashier's checks, so
you insist on cash. He takes you to his bank, withdraws the $14,000 and the deal is made.
You head to the
Mobile airport to catch a flight back home to Atlanta. You pay for a one-way ticket with cash. You have no
luggage. The profile is met and you are pointed out to police and DEA agents at the airport. They search you
and find the $14,000.
If they don't believe your story – or if they choose not to believe your story – the money is
gone. It's the government's now. History. You want it back, you sue. Hello, lawyer! Here's my $5,000! Can you
get my money back for me?
Yeah, this type of asset seizure goes on now, with the complicity of the federal courts – but for a legislator
who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States to then propose a law that would allow the
government to use force to deprive a citizen of his property without any due process whatsoever?
So … just who will the Libertarian candidate be?
By most accounts President Bush handled things with the Chinese Communists rather well over the past two
weeks. The Chinese demanded an unqualified apology for the U.S. attacking their fighter jet and killing a
Chinese pilot. They got an apology for violating Chinese airspace after declaring an emergency.
Bush's good performance creates some problems for the left. If, after all, he's as stupid as the Democrats like
to say he is, how do we explain his good job with this first foreign policy crisis?
Well, it's easy, actually. Just follow Joe Lieberman's lead. He says, "We really don't know" whether Bush made
the decisions about China or not. You see, it wasn't him. It must have been Dick Cheney. Or Rumsfeld.
Maybe it was Colin Powell. But it certainly wasn't Bush. He's just too stupid, you know.
From July 9 to 20, the United Nations will sponsor a gathering called the "Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small
Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects." Basically, the folks who convene in New York will talk about gun
control. Gun control on a global scale.
See, it's no secret the U.N. hates guns. They want worldwide disarmament – and they don't like the fact that there
are more than 200 million guns in the U.S. To them, ANY gun in the hands of a civilian is an illegal gun.
So the U.N. tried its disarmament scheme in West Africa, starting in March 1999. First, they imposed a
three-year moratorium on manufacturing and trading in light weapons. Then, they set up a program to track
arms sales, publicize the moratorium, and help West African nations establish commissions to destroy
confiscated weapons. Canada was the first to pony up money for the enforcement program. They tipped in
about $6 million. Total costs of the program are approaching $12 million.
The net effect of the U.N.'s efforts against gun running in West Africa? Zero.
A confidential internal evaluation says the program achieved "very few results that could be described as
tangible." The report cites "financial irregularities" and a "lack of competence" in U.N. bookkeeping
procedures. And the report's authors reject the program director's claims that the project has helped destroy
weapons and train security forces in detecting weapons. Out of the 16 countries that were targeted, only three
have set up disarmament commissions – and the first two existed before the project began.
The bottom line: The gun runners are still doing their thing while the U.N. spins its wheels.
And they had planned to make the West African project the centerpiece of the July conference.
This is global gun control, my friends. It's a big, dismal failure in West Africa – but that won't stop the U.N. from
wanting your guns.
More details have emerged on that meeting Barbra Streisand had earlier this month with entertainment
luminaries and Washington's top class warlord, Dick Gephardt. They didn't just talk about Streisand's
three-page memo to the Democrats; they talked about so much more.
Barbra let loose with criticism against Georgia's Zell Miller, who voted with Senate Republicans for the Bush tax cut; the eight Democrats who voted to confirm John Ashcroft as attorney general; and all Democrats who refused to defend Bill Clinton.
But that's not all! Sources tell U.S. News and World Report that the diva wants to put together a group of
Democrats to buy a cable TV network so they don't have to watch Republicans. One source says, "Everybody
told her it was nuts."
We already have it, Barbra. It's called network news. ABC, CBS, NBC. And let's not forget CNN – the Clinton
News Network. Democrats already make up more than 90 percent of the print and broadcast news media, but
apparently that's not enough for Streisand, who wants a Republican-free zone. For that, she can just go to any
college campus, where conservative views are routinely quashed.
Why do Democrats even listen to the ramblings of a woman like Barbra Streisand? Would Dick Gephardt be
so attentive if she didn't contribute so much money to the party each year?
Would the American people care if she weren't a celebrity?
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.