Mark Levin still promoting an Article V convention. WHY?

[johnwk]

Restore the Constitution is destroying the Constitution in a Liberals Mind.

As they piss on the Constitution...............

The Federal Reserve Act handed the coining of money over to the Bankers, who can create Trillions to place in their banks at virtually no interest while charging the Gov't Interest for transferring money to pay the bills.

The Constitution gave Congress the power to create Money, which was GIVEN TO THE BANKERS in 1913. Thus giving the bankers the power to coin money which they do all the time.

Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act would simply take the power away from the Bankers and back into the hands of the Gov't where it belongs.

The 17th Amendment allows us to have the BEST SENATE MONEY CAN BUY............. Which Madison and the Founders warned us about. They set it up to give the States a VOICE with Senators chosen by the State Legislatures.

Currently, since Woodrow Wilson, the State's have lost their voice and now Senators are virtually untouchable by the same States they claim to serve. With no consequences to VOTE AGAINST the Will of the State.


To the point of the thread. They warned about using this method as it could lead to tyranny of a temporary majority.

Yet why would you that oppose this give a shit on that statement, when you don't heed the warnings on the other side of the equation.

These two issues RESTORE the Constitution which were altered by Woodrow Wilson...................

and they both need to end.

But of course you'll say otherwise, but tommorrow you'll yell sorry ass Greedy Bankers, while still giving them the power to Fuck us all over anyway.

Libs stances are like a fish out of water. Flopping all over the place trying to gasp for air. On the one side you say we are going against the Constitution for putting it back the way it was.................

And on the other hand, you use Cherry picked data from the Founders to justify your statements for returning the system back to their original intent.

Pick a side for once Libs....................

There are but two "sides". Those who work to enforce our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and, those who work to circumvent the legislative intent of our Constitution.


I wonder why Mark Levin proposes to keep alive Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes, and ignores defending our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our founders, especially its rule of apportionment.

Likewise, why is it that Mark Levin has never, to the best of my knowledge, condemned Federal Reserve Notes being made a legal tender, when our founders specifically forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender? Why does Mark Levin constantly refer to Federal Reserve Notes as "dollars", when "dollars" under our Constitution, refer to gold and silver coin?

Are Federal Reserve Notes not the vehicle used by which our Washington Establishment plunders the real material wealth created by America's businesses, industries and productive working Citizens?


JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

I've been looking and haven't seen a clear statement from Levin regarding the Federal Reserve.

But it is my opinion that it needs to go, so if he is against it, then I'm against him. I believe giving the Federal Reserve over to the Bankers was one of the Worst moves in the history of our country. So I'd like to see it abolished.

I agree with Levin, and primarily with the Founding Fathers on the 17th Amendment. Thus I agree with it's repeal. Restoring the original intent of the Founders who did it to give the States a True Voice in the Gov't.

Mark Levin has commented on the Federal Reserve many, many times, including in “Liberty and Tyranny”. But he has never, to the best of my knowledge gotten to the heart of the matter which is Federal Reserve Notes being made a “Legal Tender For All Debts, Public and Private” in defiance of our founders expressed intentions!

In regard to the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, Congress unconstitutionally reassigned a power of Congress to regulate the value of our nation’s currency and placed that power in the hands of private bankers. But what few people realize is the very intention of the Act was to create a money monopoly for a few privileged private banks, and this was done by making Federal Reserve Notes a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, in spite of our founders expressed intentions to forbid Notes of any kind to be made a legal tender.


For those who are not familiar with our founder’s specifically stated intentions, here is what transpired during the convention with regard to bank notes being made a legal tender. SEE The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16


Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.


Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.

Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.


____ cut _____



Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.


Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")

On the motion for striking out
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.

The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers intended the market place, and only the market place, to determine what notes, if any, were safe and proper to accept in payment of debt, and they specifically chose to forbid folks in government making a particular bank note, or any “note” a legal tender, which if allowed would literally force people and business owners to accept worthless script in payment of debt.




As a matter of fact, one of the delegates to convention who helped frame our Constitution who lived in Connecticut was defrauded by a legal tender law made in Rhode Island which required him to accept worthless script in payment of debt. As one of the delegates to the Convention he was therefore quite influential in prohibiting our government to emit bills on the credit of the united States and likewise prohibiting folks in government making notes of any kind a legal tender in payment of debt!

To lean how Roger Sherman was defrauded see his work titled: A Caveat Against Injustice … An inquiry into the evils of a fluctuating medium of exchange.


And, the question is, how is it not a crime for our Treasure of the United States and Secretary of the Treasury to sign Federal Reserve Notes which state on their face “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE“? Should they not be charged with misfeasance and malfeasance in addition to complicity in an act of fraud?


JWK


"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel Webster.

 

[johnwk]

Because he believes in doing it.

Im not sure why it's so difficult for some people to understand that some people do things because they believe in those things.

And some people do things for nefarious reasons. You need to broaden your thinking.


JWK



Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because he believes in doing it.

Im not sure why it's so difficult for some people to understand that some people do things because they believe in those things.

And some people do things for nefarious reasons. You need to broaden your thinking.


JWK



Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.

I know people do things for nefarious reasons. Look at the President. The man is destroying our country for nefarious reasons.

 

[eagle1462010]

Well Johnwk............I agree with you if you are for repealing the Federal Reserve act. I've been arguing against this since the 90's.

 

[johnwk]

Well Johnwk............I agree with you if you are for repealing the Federal Reserve act. I've been arguing against this since the 90's.

And I, after having engaged in an intensive research project at the University of Maryland which covered a review of the historical documents which gave birth to our Constitution, I summarized my finding as follows: “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

Our founders experienced the evil effects of paper money, and the theft made possible when notes were forced upon the people via “legal tender laws”. And that is why they forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender! So why has Mark Levin, who is considered a genius and constitutionalist in many circles, never mentioned the un-constitutionality of Federal Reserve Notes being made a “legal tender for all debts, public and private”. Are they not the vehicle used by which our folks in Washington plunder the real material wealth created by America’s businesses, industries and productive hard working Citizens? The head of the snake with regard to today’s dishonest money system is in fact Federal Reserve Notes having been made a legal tender which prevents the market place from rejecting worthless script which are not “safe and proper” as Madison remarked! Why does Mark ignore the head of the snake which is not the Federal Reserve System as such, but rather, Federal Reserve Notes having been made a legal tender which allows the dishonest money system to continue, along with its never ending thievery?

And when it comes to taxation, once again Mark Levin refuses to attack the head of the snake which is the allowance of Congress to tax profits, gains and incomes, and ignore the rule of apportioning all direct taxes. So, let us summarize our Constitution’s original tax plan.

Our founding fathers intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and from excise taxes imposed upon judiciously selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. But if a shortfall was experienced and Congress found it necessary to lay a general tax among the States, each State’s share of a total sum being raised would be in proportion to its representation in Congress. This was to correct an evil of democracy in which 51 percent of a nation‘s population may vote away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. The founding father’s fair share formula for any general tax laid among the States is as follows:


States’ pop.
----------------X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE
U.S. Pop.

But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak for themselves:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Now, can you picture the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California’s, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts if their Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit they helped to create while in Washington, and these Governors and Legislatures would have to transfer that money out of their state treasury and into the United States Treasury? The truth is, our founder’s tax plan creates a very real moment of accountability which would end the irresponsible spending of “neo-statists” [Mark Levin’s terminology] and encourage Congress to follow sound fiscal policies to produce a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn would increase federal revenue brought in from indirect taxation and reduce the need for direct taxation.

Put this rule back in place and it would repair most of the damage caused by the 17th Amendment by encouraging each state’s congressional delegation while in Washington to live within the means brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption so as to avoid the direct tax!

Why does Mark Levin avoid talking about the brilliance and wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan, especially the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted as applied to direct taxation? Why does he propose to keep alive the head of the snake ____ a tax levied upon profits, gains, and “incomes” while ignoring the rule of apportionment?

JWK



"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not." ___ Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797

 

[The T]

Because he believes in doing it.

Im not sure why it's so difficult for some people to understand that some people do things because they believe in those things.

And I have NO CLUE why the author of this thread is so against it? WHY is the author of this thread for the status quo?

 

[The T]

Or perhaps the AUTHOR of this thread is a plant and detests Mark Levin?

Which is it?

 

[The T]

Restore the Constitution is destroying the Constitution in a Liberals Mind.

As they piss on the Constitution...............

The Federal Reserve Act handed the coining of money over to the Bankers, who can create Trillions to place in their banks at virtually no interest while charging the Gov't Interest for transferring money to pay the bills.

The Constitution gave Congress the power to create Money, which was GIVEN TO THE BANKERS in 1913. Thus giving the bankers the power to coin money which they do all the time.

Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act would simply take the power away from the Bankers and back into the hands of the Gov't where it belongs.

The 17th Amendment allows us to have the BEST SENATE MONEY CAN BUY............. Which Madison and the Founders warned us about. They set it up to give the States a VOICE with Senators chosen by the State Legislatures.

Currently, since Woodrow Wilson, the State's have lost their voice and now Senators are virtually untouchable by the same States they claim to serve. With no consequences to VOTE AGAINST the Will of the State.


To the point of the thread. They warned about using this method as it could lead to tyranny of a temporary majority.

Yet why would you that oppose this give a shit on that statement, when you don't heed the warnings on the other side of the equation.

These two issues RESTORE the Constitution which were altered by Woodrow Wilson...................

and they both need to end.

But of course you'll say otherwise, but tommorrow you'll yell sorry ass Greedy Bankers, while still giving them the power to Fuck us all over anyway.

Libs stances are like a fish out of water. Flopping all over the place trying to gasp for air. On the one side you say we are going against the Constitution for putting it back the way it was.................

And on the other hand, you use Cherry picked data from the Founders to justify your statements for returning the system back to their original intent.

Pick a side for once Libs....................

There are but two "sides". Those who work to enforce our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and, those who work to circumvent the legislative intent of our Constitution.


I wonder why Mark Levin proposes to keep alive Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes, and ignores defending our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our founders, especially its rule of apportionment.

Likewise, why is it that Mark Levin has never, to the best of my knowledge, condemned Federal Reserve Notes being made a legal tender, when our founders specifically forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender? Why does Mark Levin constantly refer to Federal Reserve Notes as "dollars", when "dollars" under our Constitution, refer to gold and silver coin?

Are Federal Reserve Notes not the vehicle used by which our Washington Establishment plunders the real material wealth created by America's businesses, industries and productive working Citizens?


JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

I've been looking and haven't seen a clear statement from Levin regarding the Federal Reserve.

But it is my opinion that it needs to go, so if he is against it, then I'm against him. I believe giving the Federal Reserve over to the Bankers was one of the Worst moves in the history of our country. So I'd like to see it abolished.

I agree with Levin, and primarily with the Founding Fathers on the 17th Amendment. Thus I agree with it's repeal. Restoring the original intent of the Founders who did it to give the States a True Voice in the Gov't.

As do I agree with it. The 16th needs to go as well.

To do any less gives the progressives on BOTH SIDES more leeway to destroy this Republic.

The FED needs to go as well. WE have seen the damage it's doing now. WE were FINE before it...the PROGRESSIVES 100 years ago fucked it all up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don't pay too much attention to Mark Levin man... he's just an entertainer.

"Mark Levin still promoting an Article V convention. WHY?"

He has a radio show to attract listeners to in order to sell ads?

I'm not amused by your remark. Calling an Article V convention is a very serious proposal, as is advocating keeping alive taxes calculated from profits, gains and other "incomes" which is a primary power used by progressives and our Washington Establishment to control and plunder the real material wealth produced by Americas businesses, industries and productive wage earning workers.

When I hear Mark Levin propose the following 32 words as an amendment to our Constitution, I will be more inclined to believe he really wants to restore our constitutionally limited system of government as our Founders intended it to operate.


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

These words return us to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate, and help to remove the iron fist from the necks of America's productive citizens.



JWK




They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

The bolded, however, is extremely amusing.

 

[The T]

"Mark Levin still promoting an Article V convention. WHY?"

He has a radio show to attract listeners to in order to sell ads?

I'm not amused by your remark. Calling an Article V convention is a very serious proposal, as is advocating keeping alive taxes calculated from profits, gains and other "incomes" which is a primary power used by progressives and our Washington Establishment to control and plunder the real material wealth produced by Americas businesses, industries and productive wage earning workers.

When I hear Mark Levin propose the following 32 words as an amendment to our Constitution, I will be more inclined to believe he really wants to restore our constitutionally limited system of government as our Founders intended it to operate.


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

These words return us to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate, and help to remove the iron fist from the necks of America's productive citizens.



JWK




They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

The bolded, however, is extremely amusing.

Defending your very own I assume? As A matter of course in your posting here over the years? I know to be FACT.

YOU still need to take that Avatar down, POSEUR.

YOU don't deserve to display it as YOU don't belive it in the least.

 

[eagle1462010]

Well Johnwk............I agree with you if you are for repealing the Federal Reserve act. I've been arguing against this since the 90's.

And I, after having engaged in an intensive research project at the University of Maryland which covered a review of the historical documents which gave birth to our Constitution, I summarized my finding as follows: “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

Our founders experienced the evil effects of paper money, and the theft made possible when notes were forced upon the people via “legal tender laws”. And that is why they forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender! So why has Mark Levin, who is considered a genius and constitutionalist in many circles, never mentioned the un-constitutionality of Federal Reserve Notes being made a “legal tender for all debts, public and private”. Are they not the vehicle used by which our folks in Washington plunder the real material wealth created by America’s businesses, industries and productive hard working Citizens? The head of the snake with regard to today’s dishonest money system is in fact Federal Reserve Notes having been made a legal tender which prevents the market place from rejecting worthless script which are not “safe and proper” as Madison remarked! Why does Mark ignore the head of the snake which is not the Federal Reserve System as such, but rather, Federal Reserve Notes having been made a legal tender which allows the dishonest money system to continue, along with its never ending thievery?

And when it comes to taxation, once again Mark Levin refuses to attack the head of the snake which is the allowance of Congress to tax profits, gains and incomes, and ignore the rule of apportioning all direct taxes. So, let us summarize our Constitution’s original tax plan.

Our founding fathers intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and from excise taxes imposed upon judiciously selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. But if a shortfall was experienced and Congress found it necessary to lay a general tax among the States, each State’s share of a total sum being raised would be in proportion to its representation in Congress. This was to correct an evil of democracy in which 51 percent of a nation‘s population may vote away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. The founding father’s fair share formula for any general tax laid among the States is as follows:


States’ pop.
----------------X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE
U.S. Pop.

But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak for themselves:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Now, can you picture the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California’s, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts if their Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit they helped to create while in Washington, and these Governors and Legislatures would have to transfer that money out of their state treasury and into the United States Treasury? The truth is, our founder’s tax plan creates a very real moment of accountability which would end the irresponsible spending of “neo-statists” [Mark Levin’s terminology] and encourage Congress to follow sound fiscal policies to produce a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn would increase federal revenue brought in from indirect taxation and reduce the need for direct taxation.

Put this rule back in place and it would repair most of the damage caused by the 17th Amendment by encouraging each state’s congressional delegation while in Washington to live within the means brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption so as to avoid the direct tax!

Why does Mark Levin avoid talking about the brilliance and wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan, especially the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted as applied to direct taxation? Why does he propose to keep alive the head of the snake ____ a tax levied upon profits, gains, and “incomes” while ignoring the rule of apportionment?

JWK



"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not." ___ Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797

1. I agree with the Founding Fathers as they were and still are probably the smartest people on the planet at the time and would still be that today.

2. On the issue of Currency Manipulation destroying our country and the world, you are SPOT ON with me on this issue.

3. In regards to Mark Levin. We are NOT SPOT ON, on all the issues. I haven't heard him or seen him attack the Federal Reserve, so you might be right about this issue.

Simple suggestion. Call him on the show and ask him. He's open for calls every single day. You can also send him this very discussion to his web site, and call him out on it. You may find you are wrong about him on this issue. Then again you might be right.

The only way to find out would be to send this threw his web site and see.

NOTE: Maybe you've tried. Maybe he'll think your part of the Occupy Wallstreet Crowd who WILL PROTEST ANYTHING IF POINTED IN THAT DIRECTION. Not even knowing the real reason they are there.

Furthermore, on Mark's plan.........................
He's SPOT ON calling a Constitutional Convention. Our Gov't has become so CORRUPT that they will NEVER DO THIS TO THEMSELVES. They are TIED to the POLITICAL MACHINE that WILL NOT ALLOW our views to take effect.

Which leaves us WITH NO ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN BLOOD SHED ANYMORE......
Our Gov't has become SELF SERVING. It has been for quite some time, AND THE PEOPLE KNOW THIS.

Problem is, they have been FED THE BS FOR SO LONG that a lot of the BS now seems like the Truth to the uniformed masses. We aren't really in that segment of the population. When I discuss this with others, and explain some of this stuff to them, MOST DIDN'T REALLY KNOW THE TRUTH. Most DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE was OWNED BY THE BANKS.

So, we have a KNOWLEDGE GAP IN THIS COUNTRY. In order to fix this, this Gap needs to be closed.

Catch 22..........So many are receiving Gov't Funds now, that they will NOT WANT THE GOV'T TIT TO BE TAKEN AWAY. A clear Strategy of the Marxist LIBERAL BRIGADE.......................Who want to IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON ALL OF US......If they can't win in Congress, they do it by PROXY of PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS, or GOV'T AGENCIES like the EPA.

If they can't win there, they do it in the courts. They don't care if they have to Lie, Cheat or STEAL to get their way, and they don't give a damn who sees it or doesn't like it. When they GET TEMP POWER, THEY PISS ON THE CONSTITUTION

The very issue we talk about today, was the TYRANNY OF A SHORT TERM IMPOSED BY WOODROW WILSON. He Fed the nation BS, CREATED A MOB MENTALITY, then THEY TORE THE CONSTITUTION TO SHREADS, and didn't even really know why they did it. The Politicians pushed it, primarily Wilson, and they DAMAGED OUR COUNTRY. The effects are still here today.

HOW DO WE FIX THIS.............................

We can't do it with those in office now. Mark is right, we MUST FIX THIS OURSELVES.....................

The only way to fix it is in a Constitutional Convention.

The problems with it, as you have warned against, using the Framers wisdom are also PROTECTED BY THE FOUNDERS WISDOM.

They put this in the Constitution for a reason. A WAY FOR THE PEOPLE TO TAKE BACK THEIR COUNTRY should the Gov't NO LONGER SERVE THE PEOPLE.

Secondly, since to RATIFY IS SO DIFFICULT, it MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO PASS ANYTHING. SO IF THE MOB ERUPTS, will this effect the entire country.

ONE THING. If a CONVENTION IS CALLED the ONES THAT ARE DESTROYING US, AND RULING US WILL GO BAT SHIT CRAZY

They will FLAME IT BY ALL MEANS, and WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO STOP IT. Since they OWN THE MEDIA ANYWAY, we'll even have to FIGHT THE MEDIA.

BUT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. We are on a PATH TO OUR OWN DESTRUCTION, and it should not be allowed to go down without a fight.

side note

When the Derivatives crash us again in the MARKETS THROUGH FIAT CURRENCY MANIPULATION, will we SURVIVE THIS TIME............................................

 

[eagle1462010]

STATE RATE TAX PLAN WAS THE ANSWER ? THEN | Township News

IN CONCLUSION (finally!)

Congress has never been granted a blanket power or unlimited power to tax the people. Congress has no power to directly tax one, for the benefit of another, a violation of voluntary association; nor a power to be benevolent at home or abroad at the expense of the American citizen through a tax on his money (property) or other property. Our Founding Fathers gave us a free country and meant for us to remain free, and gave us the tools with which to keep us free. The tools of the Constitution and the checks and balances it provides are to protect the sovereignty of the Citizen.

There has never been a grant of power from the people to the Congress to tax the people of the United States. The State Rate Tax is the constitutionally provided limited power of direct taxation permitted to Congress by the will of the people. And, we will continue to suffer as a nation until we demand our Constitution be followed…end of article


Whew! That was a lot. But importantly, it is historical information that gives you an insight as to how our Founding Fathers gave thought to complex issues of taxation. Unfortunately, things have gotten so out of hand that the only answer, I think is to declare bankruptcy, repudiate all debt, get rid of the Federal Reserve, reduce government to things specified in the Constitution, get rid of government controlling our schools, teach our young the Bill of Rights, repeal the 17th Amendment and put us back to a constitutional monetary system – absent the International Bankers. Of course, there is much more but we can’t continue living under a system without law and order. All the perplexities that abound are what we get in a “democracy” – the worse form of government. Constitutional government is the answer. We must defeat the Democrats in Nov.


You may consider forwarding this to your elected representatives it may trigger new thought…I love you America.

COMMENT

Article posted by Johnwk.

EXCELLENT ARTICLE.................

 

[johnwk]

Because he believes in doing it.

Im not sure why it's so difficult for some people to understand that some people do things because they believe in those things.

And I have NO CLUE why the author of this thread is so against it? WHY is the author of this thread for the status quo?

I have given a number of reasons why I see calling a convention is a dangerous idea including a quote from Madison which was written shortly after our Constitution was ratified and there was a call for an Article V convention. Madison wrote:



“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville


In regard to your charge that I am for the "status quo", your charge is both insulting and unsubstantiated. What am I for? Well, I am not for making it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget which is what Mark Levin is proposing with one of his “Liberty Amendments”. I am for what our Founders intended and is articulated in THE FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.


Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.



“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money


NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitutions ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as founders intended it to operate! And, they would end Congress’ ability to financially punish successful businesses and hardworking wage earners while allowing the unproductive to escape contributing an equal share in supporting government. The words would also end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which they now use to divide the people while picking the people’s pockets.


"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 2 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised as agreeable to the Census fixed in the Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit:


States’ population

---------------------------- X ANNUAL DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that each state’s Congressional Delegation, whenever a direct tax is laid among the States to raise a specific sum, shall return home with a bill proportionately equal to its voting strength in Congress, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation! or, one man one vote and one vote one dollar.



"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect one year after the required number of States have approved it.


JWK

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

 

[eagle1462010]

I'm a math kinda guy..................

So let's test the Red State Tax Plan and crunch some numbers......................

States’ pop.
----------------X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE
U.S. Pop.

State and County QuickFacts

U.S. Population = 313,914,040
California = 38,041,430
New York = 19,570,261
Texas = 26,059,203
Alabama = 4,822,023
Rhode Island = 1,050,292

File:U.S. Federal Spending - FY 2011.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Spending Actual 3,539 BILLION

Bill sent to the state's based on percentage of population

California 12.11% = $428,572,900,000
New York 6.23% = $220,479,700,000
TEXAS 8.3% = $293,737,000,000
Alabama 1.53% = $54,146,700,000
Rhode Island 0.33% = $11,678,700,000

 

[eagle1462010]

I have given a number of reasons why I see calling a convention is a dangerous idea including a quote from Madison which was written shortly after our Constitution was ratified and there was a call for an Article V convention. Madison wrote:



“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville

[James Madison

The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny./COLOR]

We have a self serving Gov't NOW. In essence TYRANNY and they NO LONGER LISTEN TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage arising from the exercise of that power shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose. And in this case it is necessary to proceed with caution; for while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a reconsideration of the whole structure of the Government — for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door were opened, we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the Government itself. But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents: such as would be likely to meet with the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, and the approbation of three-fourths of the State Legislatures. I will not propose a single alteration which I do not wish to see take place, as intrinsically proper in itself, or proper because it is wished for by a respectable number of my fellow-citizens; and therefore I shall not propose a single alteration but is likely to meet the concurrence required by the constitution. There have been objections of various kinds made against the constitution. Some were levelled against its structure because the President was without a council; because the Senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose, and controls the ordinary powers of the State Governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary.

 

[eagle1462010]

Madison agreed to an Amendment process.

Our country was DAMAGED BY THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

So why can't we FIX IT WITH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

 

[johnwk]

I'm a math kinda guy..................

So let's test the Red State Tax Plan and crunch some numbers......................

States’ pop.
----------------X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE
U.S. Pop.

State and County QuickFacts

U.S. Population = 313,914,040
California = 38,041,430
New York = 19,570,261
Texas = 26,059,203
Alabama = 4,822,023
Rhode Island = 1,050,292

File:U.S. Federal Spending - FY 2011.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Spending Actual 3,539 BILLION

Bill sent to the state's based on percentage of population

California 12.11% = $428,572,900,000
New York 6.23% = $220,479,700,000
TEXAS 8.3% = $293,737,000,000
Alabama 1.53% = $54,146,700,000
Rhode Island 0.33% = $11,678,700,000

Now, with the above in mind, can you picture the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California’s, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts if their Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit they helped to create while in Washington, and these Governors and Legislatures would be stuck with the bill and have to transfer that money out of their state treasury and into the United States Treasury?

The truth is, our founder’s tax plan creates a very real moment of accountability which would end the irresponsible spending of “neo-statists” [Mark Levin’s terminology] and encourage Congress to follow sound fiscal policies to produce a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn would increase federal revenue brought in from indirect taxation and reduce the need for direct taxation.

Put this rule back in place and it would repair most of the damage caused by the 17th Amendment by encouraging each state’s congressional delegation while in Washington to avoid depleting their own state treasury and live within the means brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption, so as to avoid the direct tax!

Why does Mark Levin avoid talking about the brilliance and wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan, especially the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted as applied to direct taxation? Why does he propose to keep alive the head of the snake ____ a tax levied upon profits, gains, and “incomes” while ignoring the rule of apportionment?


JWK



“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

 

[johnwk]

Madison agreed to an Amendment process.

Our country was DAMAGED BY THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

So why can't we FIX IT WITH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

Yes! During the framing of our Constitution Madison was in favor of Article V, but after seeing what transpired during the convention of 1787 and being a bit more wiser, he was very distressed in calling another convention for the reasons he stated in the quote I gave you. This does not mean he did not support amending the Constitution, but only indicates a "general convention" was a very dangerous idea, and I agree with Madison for a number of reasons I have already stated.


JWK





If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

[eagle1462010]

Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California according to this site collected $313,999,000,000 for 2012

In 2012, under the Red State plan, they would have owed $428,572,900,000.

So they would be short by $114,573,900,000 for 2012 in REVENUES needed to operate the Gov't in 2012.

Which CLEARLY SHOWS WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM.

What my data doesn't include is lost revenues to import excise taxes. aka FREE TRADE as cost us a bundle.

 

[eagle1462010]

I'm a math kinda guy..................

So let's test the Red State Tax Plan and crunch some numbers......................

States’ pop.
----------------X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE
U.S. Pop.

State and County QuickFacts

U.S. Population = 313,914,040
California = 38,041,430
New York = 19,570,261
Texas = 26,059,203
Alabama = 4,822,023
Rhode Island = 1,050,292

File:U.S. Federal Spending - FY 2011.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Spending Actual 3,539 BILLION

Bill sent to the state's based on percentage of population

California 12.11% = $428,572,900,000
New York 6.23% = $220,479,700,000
TEXAS 8.3% = $293,737,000,000
Alabama 1.53% = $54,146,700,000
Rhode Island 0.33% = $11,678,700,000

Now, with the above in mind, can you picture the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California’s, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts if their Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit they helped to create while in Washington, and these Governors and Legislatures would be stuck with the bill and have to transfer that money out of their state treasury and into the United States Treasury?

The truth is, our founder’s tax plan creates a very real moment of accountability which would end the irresponsible spending of “neo-statists” [Mark Levin’s terminology] and encourage Congress to follow sound fiscal policies to produce a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn would increase federal revenue brought in from indirect taxation and reduce the need for direct taxation.

Put this rule back in place and it would repair most of the damage caused by the 17th Amendment by encouraging each state’s congressional delegation while in Washington to avoid depleting their own state treasury and live within the means brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption, so as to avoid the direct tax!

Why does Mark Levin avoid talking about the brilliance and wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan, especially the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted as applied to direct taxation? Why does he propose to keep alive the head of the snake ____ a tax levied upon profits, gains, and “incomes” while ignoring the rule of apportionment?


JWK



“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

Quite frankly, YES.

I've always been a Constitutional guy, and believe in Limited Gov't and STATE'S RIGHTS.

You are preaching to the choir here.

But I'm appreciative on this issue, as it prompted me to do some reading to understand the points you are making.

And as I'm a Math guy, I chose to crunch REAL NUMBERS to the equation.

Your not going to return to the Constitution with the Self Serving Pricks we have Ruling now who have pissed on the constitution. The only way to do so anymore is through the Convention process.

While your points of the MOB EFFECT are NOTED, it was put into the Constitution for a time when our Gov't is out of Control.

Our Gov't is out of Control now.

So option 1, Change the Constitution back to it's intended way through the Amendment process. Try our BEST TO CONTROL THE MOB when it occurs.

Our OPTION 2. Dump the Tea into the Harbor and keep the powder dry.