Thursday Column
The Power to Tax ... and Revolt
"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." --John Marshall

Our great nation has retreated a long way from the American Revolution, rooted in a three-pence tax on a pound of tea, to the populist Sixteenth Amendment and its provision "to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived." The consequence of this assault on Liberty is the rise of the Socialist Democratic Party and the current NeoCom regime.
On December 16th, 1773, "radicals" from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw into Boston Harbor 342 chests of tea.
This iconic event, in protest of oppressive British taxation and tyrannical rule, became known as the Boston Tea Party.
Resistance to the Crown had been mounting over enforcement of the 1764 Sugar Act, 1765 Stamp Act and 1767 Townshend Act, which led to the Boston Massacre and gave rise to the slogan, "No taxation without representation."
The 1773 Tea Act and resulting Tea Party protest galvanized the Colonial movement opposing British parliamentary acts, which violated the natural, charter and constitutional rights of the colonists.
In response to the rebellion, the British enacted additional punitive measures, labeled the "Intolerable Acts," in hopes of suppressing the burgeoning insurrection. Far from accomplishing their desired outcome, however, the Crown's countermeasures led colonists to convene the First Continental Congress on September 5th, 1774, in Philadelphia.
Near midnight on April 18th, 1775, Paul Revere departed Charlestown (near Boston) for Lexington and Concord in order to warn John Hancock, Samuel Adams and other Sons of Liberty that the British army was marching to arrest them and seize their weapons caches. While Revere was captured after reaching Lexington, his friend, Samuel Prescott, was able to evade the Red Coats and took word to the militiamen at Concord.
In the early dawn of that first Patriots' Day, April 19th, Captain John Parker, commander of the Lexington militia, ordered, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they want a war let it begin here." That it did -- American Minutemen fired the "shot heard round the world," as immortalized by poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, confronting British Regulars on Lexington Green and at Concord's Old North Bridge.
By the time the Second Continental Congress convened on May 10th, 1775, the young nation was in open war for liberty and independence, which would not be won until a full decade later. (Read more here.)
Today, the tax burden borne by most Americans, even those who pay no direct federal taxes but still pay the enormous hidden tax burden created by federal regulations, is far greater than that which incited our Founders to revolution.

Thus, some 221 years after the ratification of our Constitution, Americans are once again at a crossroads with oppressive centralized government -- a point at which we must choose to turn up toward liberty or down toward tyranny and anarchy.
Those at the helm of the federal government, by way of generations of overreaching executive orders, legislative malfeasance and judicial diktat, have abandoned their sacred oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
Although our Constitution provides the People with an authentic means for amendment as prescribed in Article V, successive generations of leftists have, by way of legislation, regulation and activist courts, altered that august founding convention well beyond any semblance of its original intent.
Consequently, they have undermined constitutional Rule of Law, supplanting it with the rule of men.
They have done so in order to win the allegiance of special interest constituencies, which then ensure perpetual re-election of their sponsors in return for political and economic agendas structured on Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.
How have leftist politicians succeeded in this assault?
They accomplished this through direct taxation on an ever-smaller number of Americans for the benefit of an ever-larger number of Americans -- "progressive taxation" and "social justice" as the Left so self-righteously calls it.
So, shouldn't those who have more give to those who have less?
Well, yes, in my humble opinion, but individuals should rightly be left to decide how best to use their resources for the benefit of others. And in this respect, Americans are the most generous people on earth and from any time of human history.
However, Barack Hussein Obama, an ideological Marxist, believes that government should be the ultimate arbiter for the redistribution of wealth. Indeed, he said as much on the campaign trail in 2008.
Obama claims our economy is "out of balance," and our tax policies "badly skewed."
To resolve this, he says we need a "tax policy making sure that everybody benefits, fair distribution, a restoration of balance in our tax code, money allocated fairly..."
"Fair distribution"?
By this, of course, he means "redistribution."
It's not enough that 20 percent of Americans are already forced to fund 80 percent of the cost of bloated government largess; if Obama can saddle them with 100 percent of this cost, then he could anoint himself king.
Never mind that progressive taxation constitutes, in effect, a "Bill of Attainder" as outlawed by Article I, Section 9, of our Constitution. Who in Washington these days pays that venerable old parchment any mind?
As devoted socialist George Bernard Shaw acknowledged, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul," which is the template for a bloodless socialist revolution.

Further, Obama asserts that free enterprise is nothing more than "Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself ... [a] tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity."
Free enterprise "doesn't require much thought or ingenuity"?
Only in the distorted worldview of a "community organizer" and lifelong adherent of Marxist doctrine could such an absurd assertion originate.
The current debacle of progressive taxation is the result of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's class-warfare decree: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."
We beg to differ. Roosevelt's "principle" was no more American than Obama's. Roosevelt was merely paraphrasing Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
At the time Marx was formulating his collectivist manifesto, classical liberal Claude Frederic Bastiat, a prominent 19th-century political economist, wrote, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. ... Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another... Then abolish that law without delay; No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic."
Now, according to Heritage Foundation's Index of Dependence on Government, "Despite the famed 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the more recent welfare adjustments in 2006, 60.8 million Americans remain dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care. Starting in 2016, Social Security will not collect enough in taxes to pay all of the promised benefits -- which is a problem for all workers, but especially for the roughly half of the American workforce that has no other retirement program. Add in spiraling academic grants, flat-out farm socialism, and the swelling ranks of Americans who believe themselves entitled to public-sector benefits for which they pay few or no taxes -- and Americans must ask themselves whether they are near a tipping point in the nature of their government." (Also see How the Tax Code is Expanding Government.)
Perversely, almost half of all American workers pay no income tax per the current tax code scheme, though under the Obama plot many now qualify for a tax refund.
Once a majority of Americans can be "protected" from a tax burden, they will ignore the constitutional, moral and civic implications of "progressive taxation."
The fact is that the only way to ensure fiscal accountability at the federal level is to directly spread the cost of government to a much broader number of taxpayers so all Americans "feel the pain." Of course, the Left understands that in order to escape any fiscal accountability, they need only ensure that the cost of government is borne by a targeted minority of income earners.
Obama is now poised to propose the implementation of a supplemental value-added tax, a national sales tax. Though this would seemingly spread the cost of government to all Americans (precisely what liberals want to avoid), Obama's VAT coupled with the myriad proposed exempt products and "rebates" to the "poor," would most assuredly be yet another avenue for the central government to use the tax code to bludgeon a minority of consumers in order to expand its authority and constituencies.
Vladimir Lenin asserted, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."
And that is precisely Obama's political model.
But the problem with the socialist model is, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, "they always run out of other people's money."
If I could emphasize but one point, it would be this: The Left has bankrupted the nation and the bill for freeloading on others is coming due. It will most certainly be paid back in the currency of liberty.
The time is at hand when we must inquire with a unified voice: "If there is no constitutional authority for most laws and regulations enacted by Congress and enforced by the central government, then by what authority do those entities lay and collect taxes to fund such laws and regulations?" (See the Patriot Declaration.)

It is time for tenacious resistance and rebellion against the current throne of government. This is not a call for revolution but for restoration -- a call to undertake whatever measures are dictated by prudence and necessity to restore constitutional Rule of Law.
Thomas Jefferson declared, "Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us."
Two centuries later, Ronald Reagan similarly affirmed, "There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. ... You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."
Which will it be?
The cause of, and necessity for, the American Revolution was the violation of fundamental rights, those to which Americans and all peoples are entitled by the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Unjust taxation was the catalyst for the first American Revolution. Today, once again, our fundamental rights are being violated by unjust taxation for purposes not authorized by our Constitution.
There is a groundswell of protest across the nation, which is far more powerful than what Obama dismissed as "malcontents" who are "waving their little teabags."
Millions of American Patriots are, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, mutually pledging to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor," in our endeavor to restore our Constitution's integrity and the Rule of Law.
(Note: For an excellent resource charting spending, taxes, debts, deficits and entitlements, visit Heritage Foundation's budget chartbook.)
100 Comments
J Gover
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 12:57 AM
@ Dan WeberRegarding your response to my earlier post - I'm sorry but that was not a straw man argument by definition. It was a simple question of where, "on principle, do the President and this Congress most closely adhere to?" And I presented Thomas Jefferson and Karl Marx at basically opposite ends of the political and socio-economic spectrum for reference. In all seriousness and honesty, can you really say the current state and path of our federal government falls closer to the ideology of Jefferson than it does Marx?Perhaps we should clarify the arugment more. Snapshots in time are useful to a certain degree and we can place the country all along the political spectrum at various times in history. I'm certain it has varied from right to left, and left to right, depending on moment and circumstance. What we'd determine is that nothing is static - we're always in motion. So then it becomes important to analyze pathways within and upon that political / socio-economic spectrum. Which way are we going, how fast, and how far will we go?Yes, Reagan is often championed as a conservative. Was he a perfect conservative? No, of course not. But, where was he on balance within the political spectrum, especially in comparison to his contemporaries (or, the alternatives)? Was FDR the perfect progressive/liberal? No, of course not. But he did set in motion certain policies that in turn evolved and became pathways to socialism. LBJ also was not what one would necessarily consider the perfect progressive/liberal, but he and the Congress in power at that time passed expansive legislation that expanded and lengthened those pathways towards socialism.But since you're concerned with "straw man" arguments, let's go back to some key points of your first post. You said; "Obama has tried to save banks without nationalizing them, save car companies without nationalizing them, and save health care without going to a single-payer system. How can you possibly say he's devoted to destroying capitalism when some of his highest profile moves have supported private enterprise?"First banks. And I'm talking about real main street banks, not Wall Street investment banks, are, for all practical purposes, very nearly nationalized already - even before Obama arrived on the scene. Take a simple, conventional, home mortgage loan application for example. Fifty years ago you, as a consumer, could have walked into your hometown bank with a real estate purchase contract, filled out a one page application and within a couple of weeks (for title work) closed your loan by signing a single promissory note, a mortgage document, and been in your house. Now the paperwork required for the application, the preliminary and final loan disclosures, HUD settlement statements, required notices on 3 day right of recission (if it's a refi.), right to copy of the appraisal, insurance and escrow requirements, and on, and on, and THEN the loan and mortgage docs... and you'll be lucky if you can get through the process within a month (hence the 45 day rate lock). And ALL of it generated and required by the regulatory agencies of the Federal Government.Traditional bank are regulated beyond the laypersons common understanding, and examined by regulators with regularity. Yet, now we have more legislation coming down the pike that is rhetorically given by the President as; "needed to fix what went wrong" with regard to the financial meltdown. Strange that the main focus of this legislation appears to be to create yet ANOTHER regulatory agency that will have even more authority over the traditional banks (you know, the ones that DIDN'T cause the problem), while little attention, if any, is given to the GSE's (govt. sponsored entities) Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the non-bank lenders who WERE in fact primary causes of the problem through unsound lending practices, along with the investment firms who re-packaged their sub-prime products into the toxic Mortgage Backed Securities. Nor does any attention appear to be given to CRA in the bill, a regulation that played a large role in the irresponsible lending fiasco. But no, you're correct, nominally speaking... the banks have not been nationalized. But, the next time you apply for a home loan, or a car loan, or a business loan, and are both astounded and frustrated by the bureaucracy of it all... please don't blame the banker.As for the automakers. The government (or rather the taxpayers) own 61% of General Motors. I'm sorry, but when the nation owns 61% of something... I think that qualifies as the thing having been nationalized. Granted, not so much with Chrysler. Only 8% percent taxpayer ownership there. But then the UAW got handed an unprecedented deal by the adminstration, when they were jumped ahead of secured lenders and blessed with a 55% ownership position in the company. Hmmm... wonder how they rated that sort of consideration, given that a government authority granting unsecured creditors a position ahead of secured creditors seems to go against every concept of capitalism, common business practices, or fair and equitable treatment under the law.Lastly, the single-payer health care system. I really have to chuckle at that one Dan. Are you seriously suggesting to us that President Obama would not have imposed a single-payer healthcare system on the country if he could have??? C'mon!!! He himself is on record stating that his preference and goal is a single-payer government run system. He just couldn't get it done in one blow with the public opposition and failure to get enough of the House and Senate on board with the idea.Not sure what ground you're standing on Dan, when you assert President Obama's "highest profile moves have supported private enterprise." Seems pretty shaky to me.
Dan Weber
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 1:37 PM
@JGoverIn all honesty, I don't think our current system of government looks much like the ideals described by either Jefferson or Marx. That's why I said I thought it was a false dichotomy. We're certainly not the agrarian nation Jefferson envisioned before he was president, and we're certainly not the proletariat-controlled industrial state Marx wrote about. I don't see either man's vision as 100% fulfilled in modern day America, and I don't think it's particularly valuable to try to make the complexity of today's America fit either man's viewpoint. Re: banks. Excuse me, are you equating a more cumbersome loan application process with nationalization? I don't have a clue how you jumped from A to B on that one. If you want to rail against how we've gotten away from the way we issued loans in the good old days, fine; if you want to say that's a bad thing because that change was driven by regulations, also fine. But nationalization is a matter of debt and equity, not of regulating one part of a bank's business. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.Did it escape your attention that Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are both now bank holding companies that take deposits and access the Fed's discount window? In addition to the "main street" banks that you insist are getting screwed by regulation, GS and JPM also fall under that regulation. We are not just talking about mom 'n pop banks, and I wonder why you insist that we are.Little attention has been given to GSEs & non-bank lenders? Are we reading the same piece of proposed legislation, or looking at the same changes to Fannie, Freddie, and Sallie?Next time I apply for a loan, I'm not supposed to be mad at the banker if I think the whole process takes too long...ok??? I've never applied for a loan and been enraged by the process, and I've never held bankers responsible for any rage I did or didn't feel. So...uh...alright then!Your concept of the sacrosanctity of "secured creditors" is surprisingly limited. In the course of the debate about how to help the auto industry, I was struck by how quickly people came to agree that the unions were the problem, that their onerous compensation plans were hamstringing GM & Chrysler. What was left out of the conversation, however, was that the UAW was the only actor who behaved with the long-term best interests of its constituency in mind. Management made years of bad decisions, but the UAW only clung to one demand: comprehensive health coverage. Over the decades, the UAW bent on vacation time, salary, educational benefits---everything except health benefits for members and retirees. And management agreed to that bargain because the short-term balance sheet gains made from cutting salaries seemed more appealing to managers than keeping their firms safe from crushing medical expenses. So, if we're going to talk about what's fair, why did the UAW---so pliable at the negotiating table for so many years---have to offer anything? Why wouldn't it have been fair for them to say, "Look, we told you what we wanted, and you said we couldn't have it, so we gave up everything except the one thing we absolutely need, and you agreed to that. You made your bed, now sleep in it"? I hope you enjoy chuckling as much as you enjoy dabbling in counterfactuals. Yes, Obama has said that he'd prefer a single-payer system (and I happen to agree with him). But we don't have a single-payer system, even after a 14-month-long debate. That's a fact, and I don't know why you're choosing to deal with a hypothetical situation rather than a real one. What, exactly, is your point? The ground I'm standing on? Well, let's go through how you addressed my points:1. "Obama tried to save banks without nationalizing them." You say that the increased paperwork related to loan applications is a sign that we have nationalized our banks. I think that's absurd. You also refuse to deal with investment banks, choosing instead to talk about "main street" banks. I don't know why, but that's what you decided to do. As things stand now, the vast majority of American banks remain in private hands. If you can demonstrate to me that that's not true, we can end this debate right here and now. If you can't, I'd ask that you stop playing with semantics and get down to brass tacks.2. "...save car companies without nationalizing them." You see 61% control of GM as nationalization; fine, I don't need to debate that point because you admit in your next sentence that Chrysler wasn't nationalized. QED.3. "...save health care without going to a single-payer system." Your argument here boils down to "But he would have if he could have!" My counter-argument: "I think it's wonderful that you're able to read the president's mind, but the fact is he didn't create a single-payer system. If single-payer was really that important to him, he could have vetoed the bill." I'm trying to deal with the world of "is," not the world of "could be," and I'd love it if you could join me. Are my arguments so sound that you have to resort to hypotheticals to debunk them? If they're not, then why did you seek the gauzy refuge of counterfactuals rather than deal with the world as it is?
J Gover
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM
@Dan WeberThanks for your responses Dan. You've essentially answered my question, albeit in a roundabout and convuluted manner.
Dan Weber
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 10:11 AM
@J GoverHappy to help. You asked three questions and I believe I addressed them directly. On the other hand, you've explicitly not answered any of my questions. And considering that your post ran 44 words longer than mine, I'm not sure why I get the "roundabout" descriptor---unless you're also willing to call your own writing roundabout? Glad to see you're interested in an exchange of ideas...
Fred Magee
Tuesday, April 27, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Your essay most eloquently explicates the need fora new political party. I would submit it should benamed,"Party of the Constitutionalists".This maysound lengthy, however I think it is time that wecome to expect comprehension from the "New Dysfunctional" lower third of our citizenry, of words or statements of more than two syllables.This represents a Herculean task, but nothing ven-tured, nothing gained.I'm not sure simply renamingthe Republican party would be way to go because agreat deal of Democrats would feel disenfranchised,and there are plenty of them who feel the same way.After all,Thomas Jefferson was one!April 27,2010.
Haarvik
Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 12:19 PM
We should have a vote of no confidence, and do a recall on Obama in much the same manner as California did it's governor!
Dan Weber
Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 1:28 PM
@Haarvik, can you show me where in the Constitution it says we get to do that? I'm just concerned, since most of the folks on this site are really, really serious about limiting constitutional interpretations to the literal and the explicit, so if you could point me to the section that allows for a popular recall of a President, I'd love to read it.
Glen J. Luecke
Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 11:26 PM
Mark, this essay was your best yet. The ills you describe on our hopelessly convoluted tax system could be made right by adoption of the Fair Tax! In that plan the rich would continue to pay higher taxes and the poor would pay little or no taxes as they do today. Rather than list all the advantages of the Fair Tax, I urge all of your posters.....many of whom post brilliant analyses...to read the books and understand why this is the most compelling idea to which I have ever been exposed. Our current govenment seems intent upon implementing a VAT, which would just about finish off the job of ruining our nation.
jim schippers
Monday, May 31, 2010 at 4:58 AM
Mark,you are the very best conservative writer in the USA. We need you to write an educational essay for wide spread dissimulation on the defination of socialism. The object is to teach kids and ordindary citizens the wrongs embodied in that philosophy. Because it is not taught in school (except in a favorble light) I have heard young people ask, "what's wrong with socialism?"Because they really didn't know. Please........js
Andrew Eifert
Thursday, November 18, 2010 at 12:59 PM
I am happy to see the results from the election this year, and for our nation of true American citizens to finally be awakened by our present condition and the social society our government has become. My worry though is we may get comfortable and lazy quickly as the steam runs low on our energy to overcome. So what can we do as members of an elite group of American's to elevate the message and number of supporters for the great cause we have begun. Assume everyday the responsibility to communicate to everyone WE come in contact with, the message of right and truth with great moral respect to our Country's Constitution is how. I believe if we continue to spread the word, fight the fight, and not let but no rock unturned in the cesspool our government has become, we shall once again re-establish our constitutional rights as to self manage and control our resources as responsible citizens as our Constitution once intended. Please keep up the good work Mark and family for we have a long road ahead, but truly feel that we are making the difference that needs to be recognized in order to achieve our goal. Thank you to all my brothers and sisters for your effort and time given, WE true American Patriots so greatly appreciate and honor your sacrifice. Patriot; Andrew Eifert