Posted: April 1st, 2010 | Author: The 1st One | Filed under: Primary | No Comments »
The state legislature for Alabama is debating a bill right now that when approved by the people would remove the sales tax on all basic food products at the state level.
This reduces the sales tax on such items by 4%.
The offset is that the highest earning/achievers in the state will be hit with a lower deduction for federal income tax to make up the shortfall.
If you ask those who are backing it then you hear the excuse that it is being done to “help the poor”. There is a flaw in this theory and when confronted with it they ignore it. Somehow they think that if there are no evil words about anything they propose then there will be no evil in what they do.
Yes that sounds odd but think about it for a minute.
The very people that this bill is purported to help do NOT pay sales tax on food as by and large the poor are on food stamps and any purchase made with them is TAX FREE.
The purveyors of the myth of need over rights are again pushing the sanction of the victim as an excuse to take by force money from those who have done will in order to support BY FORCE OF GOVERNMENT those who have not.
This is in no shape, form or substance the purpose of government laid out in the constitution.
Why will the progressives (read welfare statists) not just come out and state what they are going for rather than hide it with altruistic warm & fuzzy beggings. Are they afraid that if they state their real intentions that the general public will refuse them and turn them out of office?
The next stage of the civil discourse in this state & nation will hinge on whether those who are for freedom and rights are wiling to stand up and push back against the mystics of muscle and the altruists in order to save this nation and keep us from becoming an average nation like all of those in Europe.
Below is the direct text of the Bill for those who are interested.
HB1
By Representatives Knight, Salaam, Hammett, Newton (D), Guin, Kennedy, Curtis, Letson, White, Dukes, Robinson (J), Taylor, McLaughlin, Spicer, Millican, Gordon, Black, Vance, Thigpen, Harper, Beasley, Coleman, Hinshaw, Graham, Page, Grantland, Irons, Todd, Hall, Warren, Hurst, McCampbell, Jackson, Buskey, Howard, Thomas (J), Boyd, Mitchell, McClammy, Baker (L), Moore (M), Morrow, Hilliard, England, Fields, Fite, Robinson (O), Lindsey and Sherer
RFD Education Appropriations
Rd 1 12-JAN-10
| SYNOPSIS: |
This bill would propose an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to repeal Amendment 225 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 211.04 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended; to limit the state income tax deduction for federal income taxes for individual taxpayers; and to exempt sales of food from state sales tax. |
A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
To propose an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to repeal Amendment 225 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 211.04 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended; to limit the state income tax deduction for federal income taxes for individual taxpayers; and to exempt sales of food from state sales tax.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:
Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, is proposed and shall become valid as a part thereof when approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon and in accordance with Sections 284, 285, and 287 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
(a) Amendment 225 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 211.04 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, is repealed.
(b) For all tax years beginning after December 31, 2010, federal income taxes paid or accrued shall be allowed as a deduction for individual income taxpayers, subject to the following limitations:
(1) For single, married filing separately, and head of household taxpayers with adjusted gross income of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or less, and for married taxpayers filing jointly with adjusted gross income of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or less, all federal income taxes paid or accrued shall be allowed as a deduction.
(2) For single, married filing separately, and head of household taxpayers with adjusted gross income of more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), the federal income tax deduction shall be reduced by an amount equal to one percent of federal income taxes paid or accrued for each one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) of adjusted gross income in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
(3) For married taxpayers filing jointly with adjusted gross income of more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), the federal income tax deduction shall be reduced by an amount equal to one percent of federal income taxes paid or accrued for each three thousand dollars ($3,000) of adjusted gross income in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).
(c) Beginning January 1, 2011, the sale of food shall be exempt from state sales tax. Local governments shall continue to levy sales taxes on food at the same rate collected for the local portion of the retail sales tax. For purposes of this amendment, food means food as defined for food stamp purposes in the Federal Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. §2011, et seq., regardless of where or by what means food is sold. Food does not include candy or soft drinks. Candy means a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruit, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces. Candy shall not include any preparation containing flour and shall require no refrigeration. Soft drinks means non-alcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners. Soft drinks do not include beverages that contain milk or milk products, soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes, or greater than 50 percent of vegetable or fruit juice by volume. In the event that the federal food stamp definition no longer exists, the Legislature shall provide a new definition of food by general law.
Section 2. An election upon the proposed amendment shall be held in accordance with Sections 284 and 285 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, and the election laws of this state.
Section 3. The appropriate election official shall assign a ballot number for the proposed constitutional amendment on the election ballot and shall set forth the following description of the substance or subject matter of the proposed constitutional amendment:
“Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to repeal Amendment 225 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 211.04 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended; to limit the state income tax deduction for federal income taxes for individual taxpayers; and to exempt sales of food from state sales tax.
“Proposed by Act ________.”
This description shall be followed by the following language:
“Yes ( ) No ( ).”
Posted: March 31st, 2010 | Author: The 1st One | Filed under: Primary | No Comments »
If a person who is conscious of the constitutional ramifications of the bingo fiasco looks closely then there is an inescapable conclusion. The people have no “right” to vote on whether gambling is legal and at the same time the state nor the fed may decide whether or not gambling may exist as a private enterprise.
To make things clearer some definitions at this point must be stated.
Private Enterprise:
Business activities unregulated by state ownership or control; privately owned business.
privately owned business enterprise, especially one operating under a system of free enterprise or
laissez-faire capitalism.
Property Rights:
The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.
Premises – A physical location that represents a unique and describable geographic entity where activity affecting the health and/or traceability of animals may occur. In cases involving non-contiguous properties, the producer/owner should consult with his/her State Animal Health Official or Area Veterinarian in Charge to determine whether there is a need for one or multiple premises numbers. – National Animal Identification System (NAIS) A User Guide And Additional Information Resources Draft Version November 2006 – Glossary http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/guidelines/User_Guide.htm
“The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.” – George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.
As stated by the Justice Sutherland all three are guaranteed by our federal constitution and no state law or moral precept may override them.
Now that a foundation has been laid lets look at why I say there is no “right” to vote on the bingo.
Property is as stated the means used to earn property by use of his existing property. Be it a piece of land, a building or a piece of equipment. Gambling is a game that in some cases is an action of purely chance and others require skill.
As the owner of such a business the proprietor does not force any patron to come into his/her facility and participate in any gambling. Therefore any government mandate that a restriction on his right of practice of any business that presents no direct harm is a violation of the 4th amendment
Those who would say that what he offers is immoral are working on the premise of the rule of man over rule of law.
The “Moral” case for banning a specific business or product has no basis in the constitution and therefore is not applicable to any constitutionally allowed government action.
There are those who say “Gambling preys on the poor” or “It hurts families” as their basis for banning gambling. These people are falling into the trap of the sanction of the victim to exercise the “moral” law to violate the rights of the businessman in order to protect the victims from themselves.
There are those that claim the gambling halls bait them in with the possibility of fortunes to be won.
Yes they do advertise that you can win big money. But that is the purpose of advertising in a free market. The possibility of a fortune being won is actually there.
The odds are low but that is the nature of the game from the start.
Caveat emptor is the law of the land when the consumer is concerned in his/her interaction with the business.
No one forces the poor to go into any establishment to gamble or buy liquor or fast food or even coffee. No one forces the families to be hurt by the poor decisions made by those who support them.
The moment that the law is construed to protect a person or group from their own bad decisions on the premise that they are an assumed victim then the law has passed from its actual definition to a mandate of control of persons possible future actions actions and it has moved beyond protect of rights.
That being said we proceed to the claim that the people should be allowed to vote on whether gambling is legal is almost a moot point.
This is a republic by definition and as such the people have no right to vote. The founding fathers knew that the vote should be a franchise reserved to those who had a definite stake in the government and if given as a right then it would become a tool of plunder.
Therefore the allowance of the people to vote whether a business can exist or not is in direct violation of the constitution and by constitutional law the prevention of gambling or of any business that does not create direct harm is impermissible
Posted: March 23rd, 2010 | Author: The 1st One | Filed under: Primary | No Comments »
Recently you probably received a card and or form from the Census Bureau.
Did you notice on it that there was a statement “Your response to the Census Bureau is required by law”?
Yes they Do have the power under fed code to require you to answer all the questions and yes this is a direct violation of your right to privacy.
Think I am kidding about the requirement?
Here is the code itself.
Chapter 7 > Subchapter II > Section 221. – Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers
- (a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.
- (b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.
Furthermore if you decide to give them fake info on the questions that are outside of what is required by the constitution then they can charge you under the following statute.
Chapter 7 > Subchapter I > Section 214. – Wrongful disclosure of information
- Whoever, being or having been an employee or staff member referred
to in subchapter II of chapter 1 of this title, having taken and
subscribed the oath of office, or having sworn to observe the
limitations imposed by section 9 of this title, or whoever, being or
having been a census liaison within the meaning of section 16 of this
title, publishes or communicates any information, the disclosure of
which is prohibited under the provisions of section 9 of this title, and
which comes into his possession by reason of his being employed (or
otherwise providing services) under the provisions of this title, shall
be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Now somehow I don’t think that any of those statutes fit within the confines of the following from Article I Section 2 Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
I don’t see anywhere in there a requirement that I MUST answer their questions.
LIke Congresswoman Michelle Bachman I refuse to fill out the question beyond number in household as anything further is NOT required by constitutional mandate and neither should you as the census form has to go through many hands and you have NO idea WHO may want to use your information for nefarious purposes.
So when you get YOUR census think twice about exactly what you are giving them.
