Welcome to your Patriot Minute
The Magna Carta

This is the second video – last week I spoke about the NV ranch showdown.  Today is the official debut of my video series of short historical and topical events.  Subscribe to these videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/PatriotBeers

This video series is sponsored by and based upon my book – 'Beers with our Founding Fathers' available at the website of the same name.

Our Founding Fathers were the leaders of the Greatest Generation of their time.

Today is April 19, 2014 – Patriots Day – the first day of the American Revolution, or as I call it – the American War for Independence.  On April 19th 1775 – British troops were enroute to Boston to capture arms, ammunition and rebels.  At Lexington Green was ‘the shot heard around the world’ as England’s troops and Minutemen exchanged gunfire.  The Minutemen killed three times the better trained English troops over their own casualties.

In my book I began as near the beginning as I can with our history and freedoms – The Magna Carta or Great Charter of England (June 16th 1215 – more than 550 years before our Declaration of Independence and about 560 years before our Constitution.  What does a document in England, from the medieval era, have to do with the birth of our Country?
o   By signing the charter, by force, he limited his powers as king, and also laid the foundation for England’s parliament and citizen’s rights.

o   The concepts of this charter are found in our own founding documents.  It is important to note nearly every country, until the birth of our own, was ruled by royalty – king or queen, emperor or empress, czar or czaress, etc.  Other countries were ruled by dictators, etc.

o   Royalty ruled by absolute authority, until the Magna Carta and representation in a parliament.

o   The Magna Carta, for the first time, limited royalty and empowered – to a constrained degree – the citizens.

It should also be noted that the events leading up to this historical event were based on a conflict between the Catholic pope, and excessive – extortion levels – taxes.  For centuries, religious leaders held authorities, not much different than royalty.  There was a conflict between the king and the church over who should be the next archbishop.  As a result of this conflict, the king was excommunicated and banned church services.  The pope forced the king’s hand and ‘taxed’ the king any time he wished.  For this, and many other historical reasons, we have Freedom of Religion as a birthright in our Bill of Rights.  Moreover, the king taxed the landowners (commoners worked the land, they did not own it) – now known as ‘the rich’ excessively.  Of course these taxes were passed on to commoners working the land, in addition to the personal taxes they already paid.  For this, and many other historical reasons, we are not supposed to have taxation without representation. 

In retaliation, the landowners took up arms against the king and forced him to sign the Magna Carta.  However, the king had no intention to, nor did he, abide by the Magna Carta.  The landowners again took up arms and supported the invasion of England by France, and accepted their king.   They later turned against their new king and crowned the son of their own king. 

For all of these reasons, and many other historical reasons, we have the birthright to hold our government accountable and water the Tree of Liberty.  It is why we have the Right to Bear Arms as a sacred unalienable birthright in our Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court (all courts) considers and cites case law and legal documents as far back as the Magna Carta when reviewing and determining present case law, assessing the intent of our founding documents and Founding Fathers.  Yes, the Magna Carta is important.  What other laws are in the Magna Carta?  The Magna Carta consisted of 37 laws that were renewed or created.  These included laws regarding taxation (very limited, except as granted by representative parliament), separation of church and state, due process and trial by jury, and many others.  Historically, the Magna Carta has changed and evolved, but still survives in England today; now limited to three clauses.  However, United States courts look back to the Magna Carta and common law because our own laws are based on England common law.  History is important – even medieval history.

This has been your Patriot Minute.  Thank you for joining me and I hope you share this message and join me next time.  Please watch my books Facebook page for daily tidbits and also the next video of this series.  Visit Facebook and search for Beers with our Founding Fathers, and visit the book website of the same name.

View and share this video at http://youtu.be/3q7SdjaVtIM

Subscribe to these videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/PatriotBeers

Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
author and speaker
[email protected]

Individual and State Sovereignty is not a Federal issue

What started the standoff in Nevada with the private rancher?

Information and facts, over a 20 year period, are still uncertain. What is certain is one of the largest contingents of law enforcement since Waco, Ruby Ridge and others. Cell service was cut off and designated protest areas were forced to be dismantled.  Sounds like multiple violations of our Bill of Rights.

Reports are the rancher stopped paying grazing leases 20 years ago. Why? "Bundy, 67, and his large family cast their resistance to the roundup as a constitutional stand. He says he doesn't recognize federal authority over state land."

I agree.  As far as I'm concerned - the federal government became nothing more than cattle rustlers. This land is your land, this land is my land...

In my book I detail why states must take back federal land, no federal sales tax within the states, etc. In other words, the states need to take back their sovereignty. UT and NV both ceded large parcels of land to the federal government and have yet to be fully compensated. UT had started formal proceedings to 'foreclose' - not sure where that went.

Excerpts from the book, 'Beers with our Founding Fathers'...
Our Founding Fathers, in favor of states’ and individual rights with less government, intentionally gave more latitude for the interpretation of state sovereignty.  It is important to understand this essential interpretation – otherwise you have a ‘what came first, the chicken [state’s rights] or the egg [individual rights]’ question – individual rights come first, which cannot be infringed upon by the state or federal governments, and states’ rights cannot be infringed upon by the federal government.

The history of our Constitution is that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority over the states, except as provided under the commerce clause, and interstate activities and commerce.  By inference, it also provides that the states maintain exclusive jurisdiction over all matters within their boundaries, and which are not either reserved to or under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Second Amendment places the responsibility, and empowerment, to the individual to not only protect themselves, but to protect the sovereignty of their state and Country.

The history presented in this work ends with the ratification of our Bill of Rights, but our history, of course, does not.  One significant event was another revolution – the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865.  Often also referred to as the War of Northern Aggression, it was a War of States’ Rights.  It was a war in which growing animosity – political and socioeconomic disparity – would lead to the severing of the bonds that held the states together.  The federal government suspended rights of citizens and engaged in a war to enforce federal powers over state sovereignty.  But, that is perhaps another book, but an important lesson to look into as we decide the direction of our Country.

View and share this video at http://youtu.be/3q7SdjaVtIM

Subscribe to these videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/PatriotBeers

Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
author and speaker
[email protected]

First video commentary - Individual and State Sovereignty is not a Federal issue (http://youtu.be/3q7SdjaVtIM)

Subscribe to the Patriot Beers channel on YouTube at Subscribe at http://www.youtube.com/user/PatriotBeers

2014 – The Year of Reclamation

Just over one year ago I wrote the following words to begin my book, “Today our Country is faced with collapsing internally, with external forces also working against who we are.”  Since that time, there has been enough scandal, fraud and danger to write another.

How do we correct the course and direction of our Country?  We must begin at home, with our children.  Indoctrination begins in the schools – federally funded and regulated public schools.  The 2014 elections are the most important of our lifetime.  This is where we can prevent the collapse that will continue with the 2016 elections – between the current socialist agenda and the Getting Obviously Progressive (GOP) capitulation, we are well on our way to fulfilling the goals of the Progressives only 100 years ago.  How important is 2014 in defeating Socialism?

Why is 2014 the most pivotal year in our history and future?  Download this treatise here:
< 2014 - The Year of Reclamation >

Socialism is a Ponzi Scheme

Our Founding Fathers built the foundation for this greatest nation on their history, and prepared future generations for the same. The selfishness professed by socialism has stolen the honor they fought for and left us.

Socialism has been the goal. But, what no one has asked themselves is simple...why would the wealthy support 'reallocation' of wealth. Of course they don't...socialism creates barriers to wealth and greater divisiveness. That is the goal of the powerful. There can be no utopia, but ask a parasite who pays no taxes and they are entitled to everything.  These are the Parasitic Cult as defined in my book, ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’ and they do not realize they are simply victims of a self-perpetuating Ponzi Scheme.

Socialism – a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

(see ‘What do socialism and utopia have in common?’ at http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/07/what-do-socialism-and-utopia-have-in-common.html)

Ponzi Scheme – a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.

The form of ‘exchange’ is socialism is the economic means, just as a Ponzi Scheme.  The economy, as defined in my book, is a circular ripple effect as long as all parties are contributing to and taking from the economic pool.  However, implementing socialism redefines the economy as linear, and beginning and ending with the government.

Income inequality...

Coming from a guy who received aid as foreign student, has never released his college financial or scholastic records, has lived rent free in the People's house (in which they were later not allowed to visit), has spent taxpayers' millions on vacations and a perpetual socialist campaign, receives $400K annually, has no living expenses, has received millions from the less economically disadvantaged and better economically advantaged alike, has seen substantial increases of those in need and taking advantage of taxpayer funded government handouts, has seized both the college student loan program and healthcare - significant economic bases, and has seen more become uninsured than insured by about 5 to 1.

And he wants to talk about an economic policy to create income equality!

Let me give you two quick lessons from Beers With Our Founding Fathers (www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com):

1.  The economy is a RIPPLE - not a trickle up or down (though down might be better descriptive and advantaged, but it is less of a failure than trickle up); and

2.  Disparities of all kinds (race, economics, etc.) are a result of random data resulting in a bell curve.  A bell curve is a proven mathematical result.  It cannot be eliminated - such as by 'equality' and cannot be created by placing expected results in desired places and hoping for the expected result.

Income inequality…

The revitalized agenda of the chief socialist.  What is this?  Income redistribution (not just wealth - forget wealth, think YOUR income).  We’re all familiar with school grades, so let’s use that as an example.

Some people are getting an 'A', others are getting a 'C' and others are failing - 'F'.  We can all remember from school that some got an 'A' easily, others worked hard for it.  Some did what it took to be the 'C' average, and others it was all they could do.  Of course, some could care less and would live with an 'F', or even a 'D' just to move to the next grade - and some needed special help just to avoid an 'F'.

That's life, that's the natural bell curve -- more will be in the C (that's why its 'average') an on either side some will have Bs and Ds.  At the very top and very bottom are those 5%-10% that get an 'A' or an 'F' - either through hard work or not.

Income redistribution is not about fixing an inequality - not everyone can win, more will lose (no, 50/50 don't win or lose - otherwise you would not have sporting championships of the top and then final two best teams).

Socialists feel that everyone can live with being a 'C'.  Communists feel that the elite will be 'A' and everyone else can live with a 'D', because everyone should sacrifice - everyone.  Socialism is but a very small step from communism.  Some feel socialism is Utopia (see the blog just posted at Beers With Our Founding Fathers).

Socialism is unconstitutional.  There is no question of this.  What laws, such as Obamacare, are is what I would call para-constitutional laws.  Those that look real, appealing and even constitutional; but are not and have subversive intentions.

There can be no ‘one class’ system of equality – it is impossible and not the goal of those pushing socialism.

Another analogy we could all be familiar with would be dinner with friends.  Friends come from various socioeconomic backgrounds.  Some can afford nicer restaurants with more frequency, and others can only go infrequently and are selective based on affordability. 

Why is the concept of ‘fair share’ imbalanced, impractical and impossible – and certainly nothing to do with ‘fair’ or ‘share’.  A simple demonstrative analogy will put this in perspective.  Friends like to go out for dinner, and when the check comes around there is the question, as soon as the check hits the table, of how to divide the check.  There are only two ways to do it:  1) Divide the total by the people – everyone pays an equal amount; or 2) Figure out what each person owes.  However, both need to consider:  1) Perhaps some were compelled to consider a budget or other concerns, and others were no; and 2) Perhaps some consumed alcohol or dessert, items that can add significantly to the cost of a meal.  What would each person’s ‘fair share’ be?  If the total bill is $100 for four people, that is $25 each.  What if the meals were $20 each and one person had a $5 drink and as a couple they had a $15 dessert?  It is not $25 each or even $50 per couple.  If split evenly, none of the party pays their actual cost.  The next time, each that paid less will repeat their actions of ordering higher, and those that paid more will recall the last experience.  It will not ‘work out in the long run’ or ‘balance out’ – eventually one or two in the party will continually pay more than they should, and the others will pay less.  A Parasitic Cult socialist will say this is how those that can afford to help out those that cannot.  A free market capitalist will determine it is harmful.  For those that would say that friendship should not get in the way, we are not analogizing friendship.  This could be applied to office dinner gatherings or other social events, but not among friends, environments.  The real definition of ‘fair share’ is simply paying what you owe for what you consume, or in the case of taxes – for what you earn.  In this scenario, ‘fair share’ is to pay for your personal liabilities of consumption.

At first it seems easier to just divide the bill equally between the four couples attending.  Some couples will have ordered more, others less, and even within a couple this may be true.  The next outing there will be those that think they were ripped off last time – having ordered less and paid more; and others who will think they should order more because everyone else will be contributing and fair is fair.  This fairness thinking simply increases the total dinner tab and everyone’s ‘equal’ contribution; but not equal consumption.  It will not take long for one couple to back out, realizing they are subsidizing the selfishness of another couple.  This again alters the dinner tab and everyone’s ‘equal’ contribution, but not equal consumption.  The solution to this would be agreement following discussion, having separate tickets by couple, or calculating the actual cost per couple.

This is what the current socialist administration and Congress have devised with the healthcare scam, nationalizing auto manufacturer and investment banking bailouts, etc.  This is what the socialist media is supporting by handing up their ideal candidate for the next presidential election.  If the 2014 mid-term elections are not successful in returning Constitutional Conservatism to Congress, and if the 2016 presidential election falls to a socialist, the future of our Country and Constitution are essentially irreversible.

Fiscal Culture of Capitalism vs. Parasitic Cult of Socialism
The history of a Government of the People, by the People and For the People to
a Socialist Government of the People, by the Government, for the Government
– Socialism. It is one or the other, we cannot have it both ways.

#####
Dean A. Beers is a United States Citizen, born in Fort Collins, Colorado.  The author is straight-forward, no non-sense and not politically correct.  A business owner, capitalist pig, and firm believer in the foundation and intent of our Constitution, Freedoms and Sovereignty.

Dean A. Beers, author and speaker
American Patriot
[email protected]
www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com

Federal Budget Showdown and Taxation

Originally posted 10/08/2013

As the ‘budget showdown’ – government slimdown – shutdown – whatever we call it, continues, I wanted to share some thoughts on this.  The events we are witnessing and unjustly subjected to are distressing – and meant to cause a great deal of emotional and fiscal pain.  The underlying issue is that equal taxation without equal representation has reached a point of do or die – its either about free market capitalism or socialism.  If the current tax law and code were abolished and started anew, the federal government would be unable to continue with the shenanigans of old and the events of today.  No more extortion of individuals, states, businesses and organizations.  No more political favors for gain.  The following are selected excerpts from ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’ (www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers).

Equal Taxation and Equal Representation - Income, Inheritance, Payroll, Fines and Tariffs, etc.

“A government has become corrupt when they impose any tax, or any semblance thereof, without the expressed consent of the People.  From corruption is bred tyranny and oppression.” – Dean A. Beers

One of the specific founding grievances the colonies made against the crown in seeking redress was unfair taxation.  In our Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers stated, one of many just causes for independence being “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.”  Leading up to this, about one decade earlier and as noted in my book, was the Stamp Act of 1765.  In England’s parliament on February 6th 1765 England’s parliament heard fifty-five anti-colonial resolutions of his Stamp Bill.  A motion was offered to first read petitions of grievance from the Virginia colony and others, this was denied.  The bill was easily passed and then enacted by the crown.  With the exception of said petitions, the colonies had no other representation before parliament.  Also, in England the represented citizens were taxed at a rate that created a serious threat of revolt.  Sound familiar?  Progressively, as ‘progressive’ currently refers to, the whole of our Congress has imposed and manipulated taxes to garner votes and political contributions.  They are not doing so as representation, or in the best interests, of We the People.

Tax codes, laws, enforcement and judicial processes violate your natural right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness provided for in the Declaration of Independence.  Also, the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments of the Bill of Rights should apply, as well as due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.  For all states and citizens, the Sixteenth Amendment provides that, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The list of taxes, tariffs, fees, duties and excises is astounding.  It leaves one to wonder how any person has any disposable income left.  Courts have ruled that only income, not compensation, can be taxed – only for the same court to also later rule that the Internal Revenue Service can ‘label’ something as income and then tax it (i.e. bartering) and as is done in the new healthcare law.  If this code scares you, imagine the behemoth the code for national healthcare, enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, will become.  Moreover, the federal personal income tax is unjustly and unconstitutionally progressive – the more income a person has, the more taxes they pay – which violates the “…shall be uniform throughout the United States” clause.

The Parasitic Cult chant is that the rich need to pay their ‘fair share’.  The ‘fair share’ income tax should be inclusive of primary income and exclude secondary income, or double taxation.  Primary income being the first time that income was earned by the individual, and secondary income being any derivative of the primary income.  I would therefore eliminate all estate and inheritance taxes, investment income taxes, retirement taxes and so on.  In addition, the ‘Alternative Minimum Tax’ is unjust and invalid confiscation of earned monies.

Why is the concept of ‘fair share’ imbalanced, impractical and impossible – and certainly nothing to do with ‘fair’ or ‘share’.  A simple demonstrative analogy will put this in perspective.  Friends like to go out for dinner, and when the check comes around there is the question, as soon as the check hits the table, of how to divide the check.  There are only two ways to do it:  1) Divide the total by the people – everyone pays an equal amount; or 2) Figure out what each person owes.  However, both need to consider:  1) Perhaps some were compelled to consider a budget or other concerns, and others were not; and 2) Perhaps some consumed alcohol or dessert, items that can add significantly to the cost of a meal.  What would each person’s ‘fair share’ be?  If the total bill is $100 for four people, that is $25 each.  What if the meals were $20 each and one person had a $5 drink and as a couple they had a $15 dessert?  It is not $25 each or even $50 per couple.  If split evenly, none of the party pays their actual cost.  The next time, each that paid less will repeat their actions of ordering higher, and those that paid more will recall the last experience.  It will not ‘work out in the long run’ or ‘balance out’ – eventually one or two in the party will continually pay more than they should, and the others will pay less.  A Parasitic Cult socialist will say this is how those that can afford to help out those that cannot.  A free market capitalist will determine it is harmful.  For those that would say that friendship should not get in the way, we are not analogizing friendship.  This could be applied to office dinner gatherings or other social events, but not among friends, environments.  The real definition of ‘fair share’ is simply paying what you owe for what you consume, or in the case of taxes – for what you earn.  In this scenario, ‘fair share’ is to pay for your personal liabilities of consumption.

The tax system of our Country is so complex that fixing it is mostly political rhetoric, unless you throw the whole of the code out and start over.  There are too many people unfairly not paying taxes – income or otherwise and others unjustly and unfairly taxed.  It is unfair to disproportionately and progressively tax people based on the failures and successes they have had, accumulated and passed on.  Income is taxed more than once, including via capital gains and inheritance taxes.  It is time to toss the code and simplify the process equitably and across the board.  First, the issue of states providing revenue to the federal government so that it can be used as a tool of extortion is out.  This has historically been common when the federal government mandates, but cannot enforce, the states to adopt a holiday, speed limit, standard to determine driving under the influence, drinking age, etc.  Under the Tenth Amendment, the states are sovereign and extortion is how the federal government stomps on that amendment. 

First, revenue from the states to the federal government.  None, zero – all taken care of.  Now the federal government cannot meddle in the affairs of the states and the states cannot be extorted by the federal government.  The federal government collects income taxes from persons and entities in all states, plus tariffs, duties and excise taxes – additional taxes paid by the states is unnecessary and the extortion is unconscionable.  This would include federal taxes on any products sold within the states, no federal sales tax on any products or service.  One of the most common is fuel tax, which makes the costs of fuel and all associated byproducts much higher.  Eliminating the federal fuel tax would lower the cost of products and costs of living, increase revenues and discretionary monies for individuals and businesses, address state financial deficits, provide for the states to exercise their sovereignty, and will reduce the states’ financial dependency on the federal government.  Many problems solved.

As to personal income taxes, that is a responsibility of all residents of our Country.  The income tax must be proportionately equal across all incomes and persons.  I have not done the math, so the numbers are for simplicity; however, from the data I have seen, they seem feasible – or at least worth serious consideration.  I would propose an amendment that removes the authority of taxation and enforcement from one department and divide them.  The taxing would be under the legislative, enforcement under the executive and adjudication under the judicial branches of our government.

Any adjustments to the tax rate must be approved in a manner similar to a Constitutional amendment – the state legislatures have an up or down vote and a super majority of two-thirds of the states affirming and sending to Congress as the Peoples’ consent and final vote.  A super of two-thirds in both houses of Congress would also be required.  Introduction of a tax adjustment must be introduced to the states by April 01st and concluded by September 30th.  Any inaction or unconcluded action after that time the proposal is expired and void forever;

• All income is taxed at 10% on all derived income from business ventures and employment;
• No post-income activities are taxed, to include savings, retirement, investments and gains on personal and business holdings;
• Retirement, disability and public assistance are not taxed;
• Deductions would include all consumer and business loan interest, non-elective medical and personal care (eye, dental, etc.), education, charitable donations, medical accounts, retirement accounts, secondary education accounts, and income producing expenses and losses;
• No deductions for marital status, children or other personal lifestyle decisions;
• Exemptions for state and federally recognized non-profits business;
• Federal taxes of any form on all sales, goods, services and other in-state taxes all prohibited;
• Withholding is at 10% of the gross wage, salary or compensation paid;

The general concept is to reduce the onerous burden as taxpayers and filers, work to eliminate all non-payment of income taxes, eliminate the extortion practices of the federal government upon the states, and return taxation to the represented people beginning at the state level, and removing the unchecked taxation imposed by Congress and the Internal Revenue Service.

The issue of equal representation is synonymous with equal taxation.  The issue of immigration – legal and illegal aliens – together with the rights and privileges, income and taxation and other issues of citizenship, residency and immigration are founded in this issue of taxation and representation, and expand from this concept.  The reason these issues are founded in the issue of representation and taxation is because privileges of citizenship, including taxpayer funded public assistance or similarly subsidized programs are funded by represented taxpayers.  Moreover, services for the general welfare of all residents – from public safety and emergency services, to public education and transportation, are funded by all taxpayers through various manners of income and sales taxes.

#####

Dean A. Beers is a United States Citizen, born in Fort Collins, Colorado.  The author is straight-forward, no non-sense and not politically correct.  A business owner, capitalist pig, and firm believer in the foundation and intent of our Constitution, Freedoms and Sovereignty.

Dean A. Beers, author and speaker
American Patriot
[email protected]
www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com

The ‘Affordable Care Act’ is Bad Medicine

Today is the last day of free market capitalist healthcare.  Our healthcare system, as a whole, has flaws.  Because our healthcare system consists of the consumer, provider and insurer – the flaws are not easily resolved, nor are they resolved when each component is more damaged in the socialized transformation that is ObamaCare.

Having health insurance is not the only answer. Having a health plan and a reformed healthcare system, without government intrusion into our personal lives and economic overreach is what worked in the past. I would suggest those so highly in support of this to look at the history of healthcare in America and the world. Moreover, this ObamaCare is NOT about healthcare or you. If it were, there would not be so many requests and approvals of exemptions. The key to understanding is to be an informed leader and consumer, not a misinformed follower and parasite.

For a real history and solution to healthcare in our Country, please visit my commentary of May and July 2013 at http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/nationalized-healthcare-nobamacare-a-better-solution.html

ObamaCare is supposed, but not intended, to help those that cannot afford health insurance. Let's take a single mother of two earning $20 per hour - a decent wage, twice the average starting wage. What is her 'affordable' insurance that she is REQUIRED to obtain? How about $100 per week or $400 per month! This is NOT something that can be suddenly  budgeted and her employer will not be increasing her wages by 15%. How about a family of four earning $50k annually? How about your own?  Go to http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator and see just how affordable it will be. Before someone mentions tax subsidies - remember those are taxpayer funds, not 'government' funds - someone pays it. Moreover, all premiums are paid before taxes are filed. Why are employers being required to give something – other than a wage – for work performed? Why are self-employed required to reduce their profits for something that is elective? Government intrusion, economically or socially – and ObamaCare is both – is never a solution. This is about economic control, not your healthcare. If it were about your healthcare, and it had more benefits than detractions, those that wanted it and those who passed it would not  be requesting or making exemptions post-legislation. No one supporting this fraud has offered a shred of information to support it, or any reasonable alternatives. I have and can.  As an example, here is the single-mother of two earning $20 per hour at 40 hours per week ($40,000 annual gross income).  This does not include any out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles and co-pays, or services not covered.

• Household income in 2014: 205% of poverty level
• Unsubsidized annual health insurance premium in 2014: $5,114
• Maximum percentage of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy: 6.47%
• Amount you pay for the premium: $2,587 per year
• (which equals 6.47% of your household income and covers 51% of the overall premium)
• You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to: $2,526
• (which covers 49% of the overall premium)

ObamaCare needs repealed or unfunded.  Its simply bad medicine for our Country and economy.  To go down the road this will create is destructive; there is no U-turn, and not one ‘promise’ made in the course of the legislative campaign or post-legislation is true.  Why else are there so many requests and grants for exemptions?  This includes those who wanted it and those who passed it - and the guy that campaigned for it and signed it into law.

I most often hear two reasons from the so few support this law:  1) they have pre-existing conditions; and 2) they can finally afford healthcare (not the insurance premium – that bill has not come yet).  Let's go with those two.  No one argues with reform being needed, and for decades these two reasons were why.  But NEVER did Congress address these.  Instead, they – and the voting morons of healthcare reform – wanted single-payer.  To fix these two above reasons, why is it REQUIRED that every person be insured – either required as an employer benefit or individually purchased?  If not purchased, why are you are penalized and why is this tied into the income tax filing and payments?  Why is the IRS in charge of enforcement?  Because this is a tax, it is a new – and will be growing – source of revenue for the government.  When this fails, and it is designed to, the fix will be socialized medicine will be paid for similarly to social security:  the employee will have a payroll deduction and the employer will have a matching contribution.  It is that simple.  Just like the employee no longer notices their payroll deductions, they will not notice this new deduction.

No one has ever argued against appropriate healthcare reform.  However, NO ONE should be able to agree that being forced to purchase a product or service, or provide a product or service for free or substantial loss, is ‘the right thing to do’.

This law is designed to fail, leaving the 'only' alternative being socialized medicine.  It is NOT about your healthcare, it is about getting more of your money through penalties and taxation, while also controlling the healthcare economy.  When employers cut hours and do not provide insurance, it will turn employees against employers, and has turned people against each other.  Do you believe these are unintended consequences?  I do not.  Congress has long intended to make non-income benefits taxable – they have long said health insurance is one of them.

If employers are required to provide healthcare, and every person is required to have it - a new tax base is created.  An additional (estimated) $20K plus per year, per person, is intended to be taxable.  Although you will not receive these funds directly in your paycheck, the taxes will come from said paycheck.  If you pay for your health insurance, you cannot be taxed.

The background of employer provided health insurance supports this.  Employer provided health insurance was first introduced as a means to increase the value of an employee during wage freezes of the 1930s – no wage increases, but giving a non-income benefit was a work-around.  In later years, the teachers' union in Texas negotiated employer provided health insurance – the first time it was a required and widespread benefit.  Through the 1970s this was common practice.  However, as this benefit began to fade and unions began losing members and influence, together with the call for health insurance reform – Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) were introduced.  HMOs were going to solve all the problems – the same ones ObamaCare is to solve.  HMOs were not designed to and neither was ObamaCare – they are steps to socialized medicine.  The underlying intent is the have a new taxable and economic base for the federal government.

Unless you are into socialized medicine, paying more taxes and having less disposable income in trade for nothing much better, except feeling better, you cannot support this unconstitutional fraud.  Scrap this dung pile of 'reforms' and do something that truly works for the individual.  What is the history of healthcare?  What reform addresses the real issues of healthcare?  http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/nationalized-healthcare-nobamacare-a-better-solution.html

Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
Author and Speaker

www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com
Blog - www.WeLoveOurUSA.com
www.facebook.com/BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com

The RICO Administration
(Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization)
A Translucent Administration of Transparent Frauds

The Department of Justice - specifically Attorney General Eric Holder - lied just before that last presidential election?  Say it ain't so!

"Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation admit they inflated claims about mortgage fraud crackdown last year"

On October 09, 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder held a press conference and issued a statement that claimed 530 criminal defendants on behalf of 73,000 victims who suffered over $1 billion in losses.

Released on by an online correction, it is now admitted only 107 criminal defendants, 17,185 victims and the losses totaled $95 million.

Actual defendants: 20% of claimed
Actual victims: 24% of claimed
Actual losses: 10% of claimed

This may seem trivial - but it is not.  It is more deceptions of a translucent administration that has inflated successes, hidden failures and targeted opponents that make FDR and Nixon pale in comparison.  These were done to win an election.  They are still hiding a much larger fraud - someone that likely is not eligible to be president, and likely the first election being as fraudulent as the first.

Similarly, the actual debt of our Country is not $17 TRILLION - it is $70 TRILLION after including unfunded liabilities.  That's 400% of the claimed debt.

Again, this may seem trivial - and why include unfunded liabilities.  Well, when you apply for a loan or file bankruptcy - all of your liabilities are included, not just debt balances.  Detroit being the latest, and will not be the last, is bankrupt because of ...  UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.  It cannot pay what it has guaranteed.

And socialists want to exponentially add to this.  I'll give you another hint ... all of these unilateral, and unconstitutional, decisions by the president to delay components of the Obamacare (http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/nationalized-healthcare-nobamacare-a-better-solution.html).  What is important, as noted in the earlier blog, is that this does not waive compliance – and does not include individuals.  Your funds are going to be used to fund the growing deficit, falsely showing a reduced growth of the nation’s debt.  Like so many other taxpayer funded programs, and particularly those benefiting the Parasitic Cult, these funds will be robbed from Peter to pay Paul.

This idea of false statistics is not new to any administration.  Another false statistic?  Unemployment.  The REAL unemployment rate consists of those who have expended the benefits term, given up, or found jobs - mostly part-time (check your local fast-food restaurants - adults, which also impacts the young adult unemployment).  Estimates are at least 15% and as high as 25%.  The increase in food stamps, as an example, corresponds directly to the increase in the real unemployment - which is not 8%.  The unemployment being reported is one-third to one-half of the real unemployment.

How else is this administration preparing to mask real numbers of job and economic growth?  Obamacare.  You are now asking how this will happen.  Its simple.  If you take all of the information from this posted commentary, and extrapolate it to the criteria of Obamacare, you will find that by the next presidential campaigning and election, the numbers will be as fraudulent as this president and administration.  Obamacare recognizes full-time as 30 hours or more per week; however, employment numbers are based on those no longer receiving benefits and new jobs are based on - new jobs.  To defeat Obamacare, business owners will be reducing their full-time work force to less than 50 people and shifting positions to part-time.  Joe Citizen and his wife Jane, who typically had 1.5 to two jobs per family, will be working at least three (likely four) part-time jobs.  That, in a translucent fashion, would be three to four jobs created - multiplied by thousands of businesses and formerly full-time employees, with disrupted lives and financial burdens due to the fraud, corruption and scandals of this administration and president.

Senator Paul Ryan recently released a survey – “Tell Us What’s Important to You”

I have not looked at the survey, as I am sure that the only correct answer is not a choice: 
Why a survey? Defend our Constitution and defeat socialism!

#####
Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
author and speaker

www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com
Blog - www.WeLoveOurUSA.com
www.facebook.com/BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com

Is Racism Class Warfare?

Adapted from the book chapter, “Bigotry, Class Warfare and Tactics of Divisiveness More Exploitation of America”.

I have truly never seen such racial divisiveness as in the last 6-7 years.  Racism is not a pandemic - it is now more often used to divide a group of people by sensationalizing the non-issues - and exposing the race card serves that purpose.  Unfortunately, racism is legitimate and it will never be erased - as long as humans have emotions and false judgment (prejudice).  It has been very distressing to see this beast raise its ugly head, particularly by those that have tasked themselves with ending it.  They are false prophets.

Racism is not the only bias of humankind.  Bigotry is more accurate.

What is bigotry?  It is making a person’s own opinions or preferences greater than another’s due to a real or perceived difference in a personal trait.  The most common form is racism, which is any detrimental or preferential treatment of a person of ethnicity or ethnic group because of their race.  There is no other definition – for good or bad, it is to use ethnicity for a purpose.  Observations have shown that racism only becomes an issue when other efforts to overcome an obstacle are fruitless, and it is the racist that first makes it an issue.

Bigotry will exist as long as humans do.  Bigotry is any defining characteristic prejudiced for or against a person or group.  This includes race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age and other personal and class characteristics that are of birth and not of choice.

Fifty years ago, the current purveyors of socialism did not support equality.  Their position has changed and the socialists have reared the ugly head of racism that fifty years ago they did not embrace solutions to.  I submit that there are two reasons issues of bigotry become themes of campaigns, politics and rhetoric:  1) Continues the divisiveness needed to feed the disparity of socioeconomic classes; and 2) Vote pandering.

Bigotry, for decades, has been politicized and used for personal gain.  Civil rights groups that elevated the issues of bigotry to the public awareness have since twisted their success, also becoming politicized and polarizing by their emotional hags and part of the Parasitic Cult.  Many are as full of bigotry as those they crushed – and now crush those that aided their successes. 

The use of illegal immigrant labor is bigotry.  The politicizing of illegal immigrant labor for the economic benefit of another is bigotry.  The politicizing of workplace conditions to the economic benefit of another is bigotry.  The politicizing of race for the economic benefit of another is bigotry.  The largest minority in our Country, the world, is the individual.  That is the core issue – we are all individuals, and to make any decisions based on a personal characteristic that is not by personal choice is bigotry.

I hold no concerns of a person’s race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual preference or other personal trait.  I judge by character.  To hold views against a radical faction of a group is also not bigotry.  This also applies to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age and other personal and class characteristics that are of birth and not of choice.  The ‘radical’ transforms these to characteristic traits and removes them from the person or class traits.

Activism regarding race, sex, religion, sexual orientation and all other class characteristics have been polarizing and self-serving to the leadership of the radical groups pushing a politicized agenda.  More importantly, this is at the expense of the individual and group they purport to represent.  It is extortion by exploitation. 

The days of organizations that promote a class characteristic above all others is not equality – it is bigotry.  Those organizations, from civil rights activists to divisive associations (i.e. racial beauty pageants or men only clubs) are more divisive than beneficial and have taken the low road for the high cause of equality.   To promote the use of bigotry as a means to an end is unacceptable and it is time to cease the unwarranted attention.  The victims of these groups are those they purport to protect and advance.

Like immigration and labor, our Country is a melting pot of persons of different personal and class characteristics.  We cannot and should not change the person, we are all who we are and change can only come from within.  We can change how we address the relevant issues of bigotry by first dissolving those that promote it as a means to keep the historical wounds fresh.

When you hear a pundit or activist speak of how a race acts or reacts to an issue, or asks how a race will be affected, that is bigotry.  We can all work to end this by refusing  to sensationalize based on bigotry, while not forgetting that it does exist and not condone it.

For some, racism is like cancer - some feel the drug companies could cure it but will not, in order to make a profit.  The same could be said for racial activists.

#####
Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
author and speaker

www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com
Blog - www.WeLoveOurUSA.com
www.facebook.com/BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com

Fixing a Broken Election System

Our Founding Fathers were geniuses – individually and in the whole.  Over two centuries, some of their genius has been altered in order to garner political control.  Three of these are the Electoral College, President and Vice President elections, and popular vote of Senators instead of elected by the state legislatures.

It is time to return some of these to their original purpose, and fix those that have been maligned for political gain.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE
The Electoral College was setup to assure that the majority did not ignore or rule over the minority.  Generally, a state has the same electoral votes as their total Senators and Representatives in Congress.

There are two essential problems to this system:  1) there is inconsistency – states can choose to give all votes to the popular vote of their state or split their votes based on the popular vote; and 2) some states have such a majority of votes that campaigning is done based on their being able to win these majority states (i.e. 270 votes are needed, CA alone is 55 winner take all).

The Electoral College has a lasting purpose and can be easily fixed.  First, get rid of the ‘winner take all’.

-- All states must follow the same guidelines for designation of votes;
-- Votes will be divided in the following manner:

• Equal to Representatives – these will be awarded by the winner of the congressional district getting a vote.
• Equal to Senators – these two votes go to the winner of the state popular vote (not Electoral College votes).

-- The Electoral College must vote consistent with the popular vote (there is presently no requirement that they do so, votes may be cast at their discretion; unless otherwise specified by state law).

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
The election of the president and vice president was originally not by party ticket, but by popular vote.  The winner was elected president and the next was elected vice president.  You may have the same party win, or one from each party.

We should return to that.  There might be some political flak and disagreement – but at least some balance might be restored.

SENATE BY STATE LEGISLATURES
Until the 17th Amendment to our Constitution, championed by early 20th century progressives (socialists), Senators were elected by state legislatures to assure that the states were represented in Congress.  The Representatives were elected by the people.

With the 17th Amendment, Senators – like Representatives – are elected by popular vote of the people.

It would be best to repeal the 17th Amendment and return to the state legislatures electing Senators.  Like reforming the Electoral College, there might be some political flak and disagreement – but at least some balance might be restored.

TERM LIMITS
Many speak of term limits in Congress.  As detailed in ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’, there are many issues with attempting this.  The best term limits are by the voter.  Two issues – supporting and defending our Constitution and promoting free market capitalism – both as elected officials and government.  For the Senators, if they are doing as their state requires, the state legislature can put forward a new Senator.  For the Representatives, if they are not doing as their district requires, the constituents can put forward a new Representative.  It is not about party – it is about the two components of the Constitutional Conservative ideology.

Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
 author and speaker

www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com
Blog - www.WeLoveOurUSA.com
www.facebook.com/BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com