- The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest
Vol: 118 Issue: 5 - Tuesday, July 05, 2011
The Day God REALLY Saved AmericaOn August 19, 1814 British warships sailed into Chesapeake Bay and up the Patuxent River headed toward Washington. The British mission was to capture Washington DC and take revenge for the burning of the British capital of Upper Canada at Niagara-on-the-Lake.Forty-five hundred British soldiers landed at Benedict, Maryland and headed towards Washington, where a force of 7,000 colonial troops waited nervously. The two armies met on August 24 along the banks of the Potomac during 100 degree heat.The British Army quickly routed the less disciplined American volunteers, mostly due to a series of American blunders and a new British rocket that did little damage, but unnerved the raw American troops with a very loud, shrill noise.President Madison and Secretary of State Monroe, who had led a group of officials to watch the battle, were almost captured in the confusion. After the battle, the British Army marched quickly into Washington while American soldiers, United States government officials, and residents fled the city.The only reason the war didn’t end right then and there in favor of the British was because there were no officials left in Washington from whom the British could seek terms of surrender. The British admiral ate dinner in the White House and then gave the order to set fire to Washington.George Gleig was part of the British force that invaded Washington in the summer of 1814 and later penned this eyewitness account:Within hours, the White House, the Capitol, and many other public buildings and residences were burning. On the morning of August 25, Washington was still burning.Throughout the morning and early afternoon, the British soldiers continued to set fires and destroy ammunition supplies and defenses around the city.As the soldiers spread fire and destruction throughout the city, the early afternoon sky began to darken and lightning and thunder signaled the approach of a thunderstorm. As the storm entered the city, a funnel dropped out of the clouds and right into the center of the British occupation.Buildings were lifted off of their foundations and dashed to bits. Other buildings were blown down or lost their roofs. Feather beds were sucked out of homes and scattered about.Trees were uprooted, fences were blown down, and the heavy chain bridge across the Potomac River was buckled and rendered useless.A few British cannons were picked up by the winds and thrown through the air. The collapsing buildings and flying debris killed several British soldiers.Many of the soldiers did not have time to take cover from the winds and they laid face down in the streets. One account describes how a British officer on horseback did not dismount and the winds slammed both horse and rider violently to the ground.It was followed by a soaking rain that lasted more than two hours. The heavy rains quenched most of the fires in the city, preventing the British from burning the city completely to the ground.As the British were preparing to leave the city, the following conversation was noted between one of Washington’s fine ladies and a British admiral:Whether the admiral believed that Providence was against him or not, the British were soon forced into a difficult withdrawal. Many of the roads out of town were blocked by fallen trees and other debris.Many of the waiting British warships were damaged; two had broken free of their moorings and run aground.The tornado saved the city of Washington from certain and deliberate destruction. It prevented the fall of the American capital. The British were forced to withdraw by the storm, not by an American counter-attack.President Madison and his Cabinet returned to Washington several days later to begin the city’s reconstruction. Never again would Washington be occupied by foreign troops and to this day, tornados are an extreme rarity in Washington DC.Since 1814, only seven tornadoes have hit the DC metro area, the most recent being in 1995. Damage in that storm was limited to a few uprooted trees.Assessment:That Washington DC was saved by an act of Divine intervention is questioned only by contemporary historians – nobody alive at the time had any doubts.It astonishes me that there is anybody alive today that has doubts, but even more astonishing is the number of Americans who have been convinced by secular writers that the Founding Fathers were not Christians, but Deists.Deism is defined by Mirriam-Webster as:Of the fifty-six men that signed the Declaration of Independence, twenty-four were ordained Christian ministers or held seminary degrees.George Washington is cited as an example of a Deist, based on selected comments taken out of context and repeated over and over. If Washington was a Deist, then he was also a liar:John Adams was both a signer of the Declaration of Independence and America's second President. His Christian worldview was expressed as follows:Of all the supposed Deists among the Founders, the two most often cited are Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson didn’t think he was a Deist. Jefferson thought he was a Christian. Or else Thomas Jefferson was also a liar.James Madison, whose administration witnessed the firing of the Capitol and its subsequent salvation, had this to say:Finally, we have Patrick Henry, ratifier of the Constitution whose stirring words, “Give me liberty or give me death” still reverberate across the ages. Patrick Henry is often accused of Deism, if not outright atheism.Every year the attacks on the Christian nature of America’s founding grow louder and more boisterous, but somebody is lying. It is either those that deny the Christianity of the Founders or it is the Founders themselves.Personally, I think the truth here is self-evident. That is why America is called the “Great Satan” and Israel only the “Little Satan.”The Enemy has no idea when the Rapture will happen or when the end will come, anymore than we do.But he knows numbers and he knows from the Bible that there are a finite number of believers that will come to Christ before the Rapture takes place. After that, Scripture says, he knows he has but a short time.His goal is to forestall that full company of believers from being completed and thereby end his dominion over the earth.Eventually, he knows, as we do, that the Lord will return for His Church and from there, his days are numbered.The only thing he can do to stall his fate is to separate America as much as possible from its Christian roots and convince America that Christianity is a myth. It is a losing tactic, but it is the only one left to him.“That day” is fast approaching. You can tell by how desperate he is getting. . . “America wasn’t founded as a Christian nation” -- are you kidding?Desperate times call for desperate lies.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- the dividend to the "FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS" is limited to 6% of their paid in capital [ note: not total money or profit of the Federal reserve "BOARD" actions.The part of the that Ron Paul and others that fall prey to the SECRET organization is the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE - this group under authorization from the statues and powers delegated by Congress to the "AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS" change interest rates, manage the amount of currency in circulation, borrow money, create monitory policy for the nation. All this happens behind closed door as most reasonable people would agree must be done as if the information was available speculators would destroy markets.The FMOC is made up of the 7 Directors appointed by the Presidents and approved by the Senate and 4 of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks. So, as anyone can see the civil servant appointed employees of the US Treasury department have the majority vote at all times. It is a packed government committee.Congress uses the Fed to hid behind when times get tough as they are now. So people like Ron Paul foment hate and fear of just another government agency that Congress created an manages from behind the curtain of banking committees.(a) Dividends and surplus funds of reserve banks
(1) Stockholder dividends
(A) In general
After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have
been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be
entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 percent on paid-in
capital stock.
(B) Dividend cumulative
The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be
cumulative.
(2) Deposit of net earnings in surplus fund
That portion of net earnings of each Federal reserve bank which
remains after dividend claims under paragraph (1)(A) have been fully
met shall be deposited in the surplus fund of the bank.
- Permalink Reply by
- FED is hinting at QE3 today (they are out of bullets).Maybe the RP crowd can get the Chairman of the Congressional committee in charge of the FED to tell them NO? Why isn't RP doing this on his own I wonder. Maybe he doesn't understand that Congress is in charge of the FED?Just sayin.
- Permalink Reply by
- The Fed runs out of power if the People just stop borrowing - the banks all are flooded with cash but no one in industry or consumers wants to borrow it so they just buy T-bills and collect interest from Congress? Raise the debt limit and create more money that only government needs, Talk about circular logic.Jobs will not be created by any more government priming the pump when the problem is we are all afraid of them changing the water level and we will then just buy the pump and still get no water. NO stability so we can see beyond a two year window - business needs 5 to 10 year stability or they will not take the risk of investment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Just think, full employment, no energy crisis ever, gold to make money valuable, make the dollar the strongest currency on earth, end inflation, end government debt. Just imagine "AMERICA REBORN AND THE DREAM FULFILLED!!!A BOLD NEW ENERGY POLICY TO SAVE THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE!!!
We put millions of skilled workers on manufacturing jobs building 500 to 1,000 Nuclear power plant of a low cost standard design. This will provide all the energy to accomplish a full restoration of our industrial base. How will this happen you ask?
First we "MINE" the oceans for gold, silver, copper, uranium, methane, manganese and other valuable minerals and metals. It has been estimated that it will be profitable to mine gold from the seas at around $ 3,000 per ounce. Second we use cheap nuclear power to extract these metals which could make a profit to pay off the national debt. Third we use the byproduct "WATER" to farm the huge vacant dry south west feeding the entire planet with low cost food.
Finally we use the cheap nuclear power to build factories to manufacture everything the entire planet needs and we return to zero unemployment and can pay good wages because we have free energy that makes a profit in it's creation.The money generated can payoff all debts, build nuclear reprocessing plants, research and develop a system to render nuclear waste harmless.
Everyone is saying we have a pending water crisis - why not just get to and fix many of our problems including jobs?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here Lock:Made 2002...I still have it rcorded on my Tivo.I never get tired of it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- All of the Founders wrote of the dangers of usurpation when the congress and the courts get together as they did in the 1800s and then again in the 1913 Wilson era topping out in the FDR one vote saved nine period. Usurpation must be defeated with any and ll means available to the people as it will destroy the freedoms and unalienable rights both expressed and implied in the 10th amendment.America has been conducting a great experiment called Social Justice and equality of results. Basically code words for re distribution of wealth which is prohibited by the 5th amendment last sentence. The 16th amendment was passed so that they could fund this great goal and it has taken almost 100 years to bring down a great nation.Let us use California and several other States that have passed bill after bill to tax the RICH so they can fund the 50% that have needs and do not pay any income taxes. These States are in a state of rapid financial collapse as they have forced the rich to move their businesses to States like Nevada, Tennessee, Florida and Texas which creates a huge drop in tax revenues. The unemployment rates are increasing in those States as the revenues to pay benefits go down.The same situation is occurring on the national side, the RICH are moving out of the country like Jim Rogers who moved to ASIA. Corporation have done this for decades but not it is individuals and small businesses driving a huge loss in new business formations here and a corresponding decline in new job creations. The government has failed to do its Constitutional duty to protect the smallest minority - the Sovereign Individual from an oppressive Majority.This failure to defend and in fact assisting in the abuse have left the Sovereign Individual with only one acceptable alternative and that is to remove themselves and their wealth from access by this majority and the usurpers. The size of this movement is much larger than the media will present and most have no idea that it is happening except those that read and watch pure business media.Many rich are getting additional passports so they can be protected from legal actions and they are free to travel unrestricted by the USA government. Their wealth is now placed in a tax protected nation or ISLAND [tax haven] so they are just not taxed anymore. Super Super rich like Gates and Buffet use the charitable Foundation to remove their wealth from the tax exposure and shelter current income from income taxes. They give money away to themselves and then get to deduct it - they still have it all and they own the Foundation.Here is how it works for large Corporation and the super rich -Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocquevillede Tocqueville saw this a long time ago as he was born in 1805 and died in 1856 - so he saw the usurpation coming and the reduction of freedom more than 150 years ago.The social justice and the concept of equal outcomes according to needs and ability re distribution is a failed idea that broke a super nation - the only question remaining is do we the stomach for the fights to end this failed policy and restore freedoms of business and earnings.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jefferson to conressThomas Jefferson : First Annual Message to Congress
First Annual Message
December 8, 1801
FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
The fortifications of our harbors, more or less advanced, present considerations of great difficulty. While some of them are on a scale sufficiently proportioned to the advantages of their position, to the efficacy of their protection, and the importance of the points within it, others are so extensive, will cost so much in their first erection, so much in their maintenance, and require such a force to garrison them, as to make it questionable what is best now to be done. A statement of those commenced or projected, of the expenses already incurred, and estimates of their future cost, so far as can be foreseen, shall be laid before you, that you may be enabled to judge whether any attention is necessary in the laws respecting this subject.Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed. If in the course of your observations or inquiries they should appear to need any aid within the limits of our constitutional powers, your sense of their importance is a sufficient assurance they will occupy your attention. We cannot, indeed, but all feel an anxious solicitude for the difficulties under which our carrying trade will soon be placed. How far it can be relieved, otherwise than by time, is a subject of important consideration.The judiciary system of the United States, and especially that portion of it recently erected, will of course present itself to the contemplation of Congress: and that they may be able to judge of the proportion which the institution bears to the business it has to perform, I have caused to be procured from the several States, and now lay before Congress, an exact statement of all the causes decided since the first establishment of the courts, and of those which were depending when additional courts and judges were brought in to their aid.And while on the judiciary organization, it will be worthy your consideration, whether the protection of the inestimable institution of juries has been extended to all the cases involving the security of our persons and property. Their impartial selection also being essential to their value, we ought further to consider whether that is sufficiently secured in those States where they are named by a marshal depending on executive will, or designated by the court or by officers dependent on them.I cannot omit recommending a revisal of the laws on the subject of naturalization. Considering the ordinary chances of human life, a denial of citizenship under a residence of fourteen years is a denial to a great proportion of those who ask it, and controls a policy pursued from their first settlement by many of these States, and still believed of consequence to their prosperity. And shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a _bona fide_ purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us? with restrictions, perhaps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation of our flag; an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and loss on the genuine citizen, and so much danger to the nation of being involved in war, that no endeavor should be spared to detect and suppress it.These, fellow citizens, are the matters respecting the state of the nation, which I have thought of importance to be submitted to your consideration at this time. Some others of less moment, or not yet ready for communication, will be the subject of separate messages. I am happy in this opportunity of committing the arduous affairs of our government to the collected wisdom of the Union. Nothing shall be wanting on my part to inform, as far as in my power, the legislative judgment, nor to carry that judgment into faithful execution. The prudence and temperance of your discussions will promote, within your own walls, that conciliation which so much befriends national conclusion; and by its example will encourage among our constituents that progress of opinion which is tending to unite them in object and in will. That all should be satisfied with any one order of things is not to be expected, but I indulge the pleasing persuasion that the great body of our citizens will cordially concur in honest and disinterested efforts, which have for their object to preserve the general and State governments in their constitutional form and equilibrium; to maintain peace abroad, and order and obedience to the laws at home; to establish principles and practices of administration favorable to the security of liberty and prosperity, and to reduce expenses to what is necessary for the useful purposes of government.
- Permalink Reply by on
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate & equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with *inherent and* [certain] inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles, & organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses & usurpations *begun at a distinguished period and* pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, & to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; & such is now the necessity which constrains them to *expunge* [alter] their former systems of government. The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of *unremitting* [repeated] injuries & usurpations, *among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest but all have* [all having] in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this let facts be submitted to a candid world *for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.*He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome & necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate & pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; & when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, & formidable to tyrants only.He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly *& continually* for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time after such dissolutions to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without & convulsions within.He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, & raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.He has *suffered* [obstructed] the administration of justice *totally to cease in some of these states* [by] refusing his [assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.He has made *our* judges dependant on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, & the amount & paiment of their salaries.He has erected a multitude of new offices *by a self assumed power* and sent hither swarms of new officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies *and ships of war* without the consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the military independant of, & superior to the civil power.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions & unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; for protecting them by a mock-trial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states; for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world; for imposing taxes on us without our consent; for depriving us [ ] [in many cases] of the benefits of trial by jury; for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences; for abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging it's boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these *states* [colonies]; for taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments; for suspending our own legislatures, & declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.He has abdicated government here *withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance & protection*. [by declaring us out of his protection, and waging war against us.]He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, & destroyed the lives of our people.He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation & tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy [ ] [scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, & totally] unworthy the head of a civilized nation.He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends & brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.He has [excited domestic insurrection among us, & has] endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, & conditions *of existence.**He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property.**He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.*In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuries.A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a [ ] [free] people *who mean to be free. Future ages will scarcely believe that the hardiness of one man adventured, within the short compass of twelve years only, to lay a foundation so broad & so undisguised for tyranny over a people fostered & fixed in principles of freedom.*Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend *a* [an unwarrantable] jurisdiction over *these our states* [us]. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration & settlement here, *no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expense of our own blood & treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituting indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league & amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and*, we [ ] [have] appealed to their native justice and magnanimity *as well as to* [and we have conjured them by] the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which *were likely to* [would inevitably] interrupt our connection and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice & of consanguinity, *and when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have, by their free election, re-established them in power. At this very time too they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch & foreign mercenaries to invade & destroy us. These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must [We must therefore] endeavor to forget our former love for them, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We might have been a free and a great people together; but a communication of grandeur & of freedom it seems is below their dignity. Be it so, since they will have it. The road to happiness & to glory is open to us too. We will tread it apart from them, and* acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our *eternal* separation [ ] [and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.]!We therefore the representatives We therefore the representatives of the United States of of the United States of America in General Congress America in General Congress assembled do in the name & assembled, appealing to the by authority of the good supreme judge of the world people of these *states reject for the rectitude of our & renounce all allegiance & intentions, do in the name, & by subjection to the kings of the authority of the good Great Britain & all others people of these colonies, who may hereafter claim by, solemnly publish & declare that through or under them: we these united colonies are & utterly dissolve all political* of right ought to be free & *connection which may independent states; that they heretofore have subsisted are absolved from all allegiance between us & the people or to the British crown, parliament of Great Britain: and that all political & finally we do assert & connection between them & the declare these colonies to be free state of Great Britain is, & & independent states,* & that ought to be, totally as free & independent states, dissolved; & that as free & they have full power to levy independent states they have war, conclude peace, contract full power to levy war, alliances, establish commerce, conclude peace, contract & to do all other acts & alliances, establish commerce & things which independent to do all other acts & things states may of right do. which independent states may of right do.And for the support of And for the support of this this declaration we mutually declaration, with a firm pledge to each other our reliance on the protection of lives, our fortunes, & our divine providence we mutually sacred honor. pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, & our sacred honor.The Declaration thus signed on the 4th, on paper was engrossed on parchment, & signed again on the 2d. of August.Some erroneous statements of the proceedings on the declaration of independence having got before the public in latter times, Mr. Samuel A. Wells asked explanations of me, which are given in my letter to him of May 12. 19. before and now again referred to. I took notes in my place while these things were going on, and at their close wrote them out in form and with correctness and from 1 to 7 of the two preceding sheets are the originals then written; as the two following are of the earlier debates on the Confederation, which I took in like manner.On Friday July 12. the Committee appointed to draw the articles of confederation reported them, and on the 22d. the house resolved themselves into a committee to take them into consideration. On the 30th. & 31st. of that month & 1st. of the ensuing, those articles were debated which determined the proportion or quota of money which each state should furnish to the common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first of these articles was expressed in the original draught in these words. "Art. XI. All charges of war & all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by the United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex & quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony, a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially taken & transmitted to the Assembly of the United States."Mr. [Samuel] Chase moved that the quotas should be fixed, not by the number of inhabitants of every condition, but by that of the "white inhabitants." He admitted that taxation should be alwais in proportion to property, that this was in theory the true rule, but that from a variety of difficulties, it was a rule which could never be adopted in practice. The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly & equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might alwais be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States where there are few slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves. There is no more reason therefore for taxing the Southern states on the farmer's head, & on his slave's head, than the Northern ones on their farmer's heads & the heads of their cattle, that the method proposed would therefore tax the Southern states according to their numbers & their wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers only: that negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the state more than cattle & that they have no more interest in it.Mr. John Adams observed that the numbers of people were taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the state, & not as subjects of taxation, that as to this matter it was of no consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of freemen or of slaves. That in some countries the labouring poor were called freemen, in others they were called slaves; but that the difference as to the state was imaginary only. What matters it whether a landlord employing ten labourers in his farm, gives them annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them those necessaries at short hand. The ten labourers add as much wealth annually to the state, increase it's exports as much in the one case as the other. Certainly 500 freemen produce no more profits, no greater surplus for the paiment of taxes than 500 slaves. Therefore the state in which are the labourers called freemen should be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose by any extraordinary operation of nature or of law one half the labourers of a state could in the course of one night be transformed into slaves: would the state be made the poorer or the less able to pay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor in most countries, that of the fishermen particularly of the Northern states, is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of labourers which produce the surplus for taxation, and numbers therefore indiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth. That it is the use of the word "property" here, & it's application to some of the people of the state, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern farmer procure slaves? Either by importation or by purchase from his neighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of labourers in his country, and proportionably to it's profits & abilities to pay taxes. If he buys from his neighbor it is only a transfer of a labourer from one farm to another, which does not change the annual produce of the state, & therefore should not change it's tax. That if a Northern farmer works ten labourers on his farm, he can, it is true, invest the surplus of ten men's labour in cattle: but so may the Southern farmer working ten slaves. That a state of one hundred thousand freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred thousand slaves. Therefore they have no more of that kind of property. That a slave may indeed from the custom of speech be more properly called the wealth of his master, than the free labourer might be called the wealth of his employer: but as to the state, both were equally it's wealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of it's tax.Mr. [Benjamin] Harrison proposed as a compromise, that two slaves should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do so much work as freemen, and doubted if two effected more than one. That this was proved by the price of labor. The hire of a labourer in the Southern colonies being from 8 to pound 12. while in the Northern it was generally pound 24.Mr. [James] Wilson said that if this amendment should take place the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves, whilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves increase the profits of a state, which the Southern states mean to take to themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which would of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern. That slaves occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves & freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would give the jus trium liberorum to him who would import slaves. That other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed thro' all the colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, & sheep, in the North as the South, & South as the North; but not so as to slaves. That experience has shown that those colonies have been alwais able to pay most which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or white, and the practice of the Southern colonies has alwais been to make every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his labourers whether they be black or white. He acknowledges indeed that freemen work the most; but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater surplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so expensively as a freeman. Again white women are exempted from labor generally, but negro women are not. In this then the Southern states have an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been said that slavery is necessary because the commodities they raise would be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen; but now it is said that the labor of the slave is the dearest.Mr. Payne urged the original resolution of Congress, to proportion the quotas of the states to the number of souls.Dr. [John] Witherspoon was of opinion that the value of lands & houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true barometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and unequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the food of freemen & therefore should be taxed. Horses also eat the food of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said too that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the state is to pay, we do no more than those states themselves do, who alwais take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay. But the cases are not parallel. In the Southern colonies slaves pervade the whole colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent. That as to the original resolution of Congress to proportion the quotas according to the souls, it was temporary only, & related to the monies heretofore emitted: whereas we are now entering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.Aug 1. The question being put the amendment proposed was rejected by the votes of N. Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode island, Connecticut, N. York, N. Jersey, & Pennsylvania, against those of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North & South Carolina. Georgia was divided.The other article was in these words. "Art. XVII. In determining questions each colony shall have one vote."July 30. 31. Aug 1. Present 41. members. Mr. Chase observed that this article was the most likely to divide us of any one proposed in the draught then under consideration. That the larger colonies had threatened they would not confederate at all if their weight in congress should not be equal to the numbers of people they added to the confederacy; while the smaller ones declared against a union if they did not retain an equal vote for the protection of their rights. That it was of the utmost consequence to bring the parties together, as should we sever from each other, either no foreign power will ally with us at all, or the different states will form different alliances, and thus increase the horrors of those scenes of civil war and bloodshed which in such a state of separation & independance would render us a miserable people. That our importance, our interests, our peace required that we should confederate, and that mutual sacrifices should be made to effect a compromise of this difficult question. He was of opinion the smaller colonies would lose their rights, if they were not in some instances allowed an equal vote; and therefore that a discrimination should take place among the questions which would come before Congress. That the smaller states should be secured in all questions concerning life or liberty & the greater ones in all respecting property. He therefore proposed that in votes relating to money, the voice of each colony should be proportioned to the number of its inhabitants.Dr. Franklin thought that the votes should be so proportioned in all cases. He took notice that the Delaware counties had bound up their Delegates to disagree to this article. He thought it a very extraordinary language to be held by any state, that they would not confederate with us unless we would let them dispose of our money. Certainly if we vote equally we ought to pay equally; but the smaller states will hardly purchase the privilege at this price. That had he lived in a state where the representation, originally equal, had become unequal by time & accident he might have submitted rather than disturb government; but that we should be very wrong to set out in this practice when it is in our power to establish what is right. That at the time of the Union between England and Scotland the latter had made the objection which the smaller states now do. But experience had proved that no unfairness had ever been shown them. That their advocates had prognosticated that it would again happen as in times of old, that the whale would swallow Jonas, but he thought the prediction reversed in event and that Jonas had swallowed the whale, for the Scotch had in fact got possession of the government and gave laws to the English. He reprobated the original agreement of Congress to vote by colonies and therefore was for their voting in all cases according to the number of taxables.Dr. Witherspoon opposed every alteration of the article. All men admit that a confederacy is necessary. Should the idea get abroad that there is likely to be no union among us, it will damp the minds of the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, & lessen it's importance; because it will open to our view future prospects of war & dissension among ourselves. If an equal vote be refused, the smaller states will become vassals to the larger; & all experience has shown that the vassals & subjects of free states are the most enslaved. He instanced the Helots of Sparta & the provinces of Rome. He observed that foreign powers discovering this blemish would make it a handle for disengaging the smaller states from so unequal a confederacy. That the colonies should in fact be considered as individuals; and that as such, in all disputes they should have an equal vote; that they are now collected as individuals making a bargain with each other, & of course had a right to vote as individuals. That in the East India company they voted by persons, & not by their proportion of stock. That the Belgic confederacy voted by provinces. That in questions of war the smaller states were as much interested as the larger, & therefore should vote equally; and indeed that the larger states were more likely to bring war on the confederacy in proportion as their frontier was more extensive. He admitted that equality of representation was an excellent principle, but then it must be of things which are coordinate; that is, of things similar & of the same nature: that nothing relating to individuals could ever come before Congress; nothing but what would respect colonies. He distinguished between an incorporating & a federal union. The union of England was an incorporating one; yet Scotland had suffered by that union: for that it's inhabitants were drawn from it by the hopes of places & employments. Nor was it an instance of equality of representation; because while Scotland was allowed nearly a thirteenth of representation they were to pay only one fortieth of the land tax. He expressed his hopes that in the present enlightened state of men's minds we might expect a lasting confederacy, if it was founded on fair principles.John Adams advocated the voting in proportion to numbers. He said that we stand here as the representatives of the people. That in some states the people are many, in others they are few; that therefore their vote here should be proportioned to the numbers from whom it comes. Reason, justice, & equity never had weight enough on the face of the earth to govern the councils of men. It is interest alone which does it, and it is interest alone which can be trusted. That therefore the interests within doors should be the mathematical representatives of the interests without doors. That the individuality of the colonies is a mere sound. Does the individuality of a colony increase it's wealth or numbers. If it does, pay equally. If it does not add weight in the scale of the confederacy, it cannot add to their rights, nor weigh in argument. A. has pound 50. B. pound 500. C. pound 1000. in partnership. Is it just they should equally dispose of the monies of the partnership? It has been said we are independent individuals making a bargain together. The question is not what we are now, but what we ought to be when our bargain shall be made. The confederacy is to make us one individual only; it is to form us, like separate parcels of metal, into one common mass. We shall no longer retain our separate individuality, but become a single individual as to all questions submitted to the confederacy. Therefore all those reasons which prove the justice & expediency of equal representation in other assemblies, hold good here. It has been objected that a proportional vote will endanger the smaller states. We answer that an equal vote will endanger the larger. Virginia, Pennsylvania, & Massachusetts are the three greater colonies. Consider their distance, their difference of produce, of interests & of manners, & it is apparent they can never have an interest or inclination to combine for the oppression of the smaller. That the smaller will naturally divide on all questions with the larger. Rhode isld, from it's relation, similarity & intercourse will generally pursue the same objects with Massachusetts; Jersey, Delaware & Maryland, with Pennsylvania.Dr. [Benjamin] Rush took notice that the decay of the liberties of the Dutch republic proceeded from three causes. 1. The perfect unanimity requisite on all occasions. 2. Their obligation to consult their constituents. 3. Their voting by provinces. This last destroyed the equality of representation, and the liberties of great Britain also are sinking from the same defect. That a part of our rights is deposited in the hands of our legislatures. There it was admitted there should be an equality of representation. Another part of our rights is deposited in the hands of Congress: why is it not equally necessary there should be an equal representation there? Were it possible to collect the whole body of the people together, they would determine the questions submitted to them by their majority. Why should not the same majority decide when voting here by their representatives? The larger colonies are so providentially divided in situation as to render every fear of their combining visionary. Their interests are different, & their circumstances dissimilar. It is more probable they will become rivals & leave it in the power of the smaller states to give preponderance to any scale they please. The voting by the number of free inhabitants will have one excellent effect, that of inducing the colonies to discourage slavery & to encourage the increase of their free inhabitants.Mr. [Stephen] Hopkins observed there were 4 larger, 4 smaller, & 4 middle-sized colonies. That the 4 largest would contain more than half the inhabitants of the confederated states, & therefore would govern the others as they should please. That history affords no instance of such a thing as equal representation. The Germanic body votes by states. The Helvetic body does the same; & so does the Belgic confederacy. That too little is known of the ancient confederations to say what was their practice.Mr. Wilson thought that taxation should be in proportion to wealth, but that representation should accord with the number of freemen. That government is a collection or result of the wills of all. That if any government could speak the will of all, it would be perfect; and that so far as it departs from this it becomes imperfect. It has been said that Congress is a representation of states; not of individuals. I say that the objects of its care are all the individuals of the states. It is strange that annexing the name of "State" to ten thousand men, should give them an equal right with forty thousand. This must be the effect of magic, not of reason. As to those matters which are referred to Congress, we are not so many states, we are one large state. We lay aside our individuality, whenever we come here. The Germanic body is a burlesque on government; and their practice on any point is a sufficient authority & proof that it is wrong. The greatest imperfection in the constitution of the Belgic confederacy is their voting by provinces. The interest of the whole is constantly sacrificed to that of the small states. The history of the war in the reign of Q. Anne sufficiently proves this. It is asked shall nine colonies put it into the power of four to govern them as they please? I invert the question, and ask shall two millions of people put it in the power of one million to govern them as they please? It is pretended too that the smaller colonies will be in danger from the greater. Speak in honest language & say the minority will be in danger from the majority. And is there an assembly on earth where this danger may not be equally pretended? The truth is that our proceedings will then be consentaneous with the interests of the majority, and so they ought to be. The probability is much greater that the larger states will disagree than that they will combine. I defy the wit of man to invent a possible case or to suggest any one thing on earth which shall be for the interests of Virginia, Pennsylvania & Massachusetts, and which will not also be for the interest of the other states.* * *These articles reported July 12. 76 were debated from day to day, & time to time for two years, were ratified July 9, '78, by 10 states, by N. Jersey on the 26th. of Nov. of the same year, and by Delaware on the 23d. of Feb. following. Maryland alone held off 2 years more, acceding to them Mar 1, 81. and thus closing the obligation.Our delegation had been renewed for the ensuing year commencing Aug. 11. but the new government was now organized, a meeting of the legislature was to be held in Oct. and I had been elected a member by my county. I knew that our legislation under the regal government had many very vicious points which urgently required reformation, and I thought I could be of more use in forwarding that work. I therefore retired from my seat in Congress on the 2d. of Sep. resigned it, and took my place in the legislature of my state, on the 7th. of October.On the 11th. I moved for leave to bring in a bill for the establishmt of courts of justice, the organization of which was of importance; I drew the bill it was approved by the commee, reported and passed after going thro' it's due course.On the 12th. I obtained leave to bring in a bill declaring tenants in tail to hold their lands in fee simple. In the earlier times of the colony when lands were to be obtained for little or nothing, some provident individuals procured large grants, and, desirous of founding great families for themselves, settled them on their descendants in fee-tail. The transmission of this property from generation to generation in the same name raised up a distinct set of families who, being privileged by law in the perpetuation of their wealth were thus formed into a Patrician order, distinguished by the splendor and luxury of their establishments. From this order too the king habitually selected his Counsellors of State, the hope of which distinction devoted the whole corps to the interests & will of the crown. To annul this privilege, and instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more harm and danger, than benefit, to society, to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society, & scattered with equal hand through all it's conditions, was deemed essential to a well ordered republic. To effect it no violence was necessary, no deprivation of natural right, but rather an enlargement of it by a repeal of the law. For this would authorize the present holder to divide the property among his children equally, as his affections were divided; and would place them, by natural generation on the level of their fellow citizens. But this repeal was strongly opposed by Mr. Pendleton, who was zealously attached to ancient establishments; and who, taken all in all, was the ablest man in debate I have ever met with. He had not indeed the poetical fancy of Mr. Henry, his sublime imagination, his lofty and overwhelming diction; but he was cool, smooth and persuasive; his language flowing, chaste & embellished, his conceptions quick, acute and full of resource; never vanquished; for if he lost the main battle, he returned upon you, and regained so much of it as to make it a drawn one, by dexterous man;oeuvres, skirmishes in detail, and the recovery of small advantages which, little singly, were important altogether. You never knew when you were clear of him, but were harassed by his perseverance until the patience was worn down of all who had less of it than himself. Add to this that he was one of the most virtuous & benevolent of men, the kindest friend, the most amiable & pleasant of companions, which ensured a favorable reception to whatever came from him. Finding that the general principle of entails could not be maintained, he took his stand on an amendment which he proposed, instead of an absolute abolition, to permit the tenant in tail to convey in fee simple, if he chose it: and he was within a few votes of saving so much of the old law. But the bill passed finally for entire abolition.In that one of the bills for organizing our judiciary system which proposed a court of chancery, I had provided for a trial by jury of all matters of fact in that as well as in the courts of law. He defeated it by the introduction of 4. words only, _"if either party chuse."_ The consequence has been that as no suitor will say to his judge, "Sir, I distrust you, give me a jury" juries are rarely, I might say perhaps never seen in that court, but when called for by the Chancellor of his own accord.
- Permalink Reply by on
- 'A Progressive is one who is in favor of more taxes instead of less, more bureaus and job holders, more paternalism and meddling, more regulation of private affairs and less liberty. In general, he would be inclined to regard the repeal of any tax as outrageous.' H. L. Mencken, 1926
- Permalink Reply by on
- 55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling DealThursday, July 14, 2011AdvertisementAs the Beltway politicians try to figure out how they will raise the debt ceiling and for how long, most voters oppose including tax hikes in the deal.Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not. (To see survey question wording,click here.)There is a huge partisan divide on the question. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats want a tax hike in the deal while 82% of Republicans do not. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 35% favor a tax hike and 51% are opposed.Americans who earn more than $75,000 a year are evenly divided as to whether a tax hike should be included in the debt ceiling deal. Those who earn less are opposed to including tax hikes.Voters remain very concerned about the debt ceiling issue. Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe that it would be bad for the economy if a failure to raise the debt ceiling led to government defaults. Only 6% believe it would be good for theeconomy. Fourteen percent (14%) believe it would have no impact and 11% are notsure. These figures are little changed from a few weeks ago.At the same time, however, 52% believe it would beeven more dangerous to raise the debt ceiling without making significant cuts in government spending. Thirty-seven percent (37%) take the opposite view and believe a government default would be more dangerous.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Case Name: FLEMMING V. NESTOR 363 U.S. 603NO. 54. ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 1960. - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1960.In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.The Minority opinion written by Justice Black, held to your idea.THEY CANNOT CONCEAL THE FACT THAT THEY SIMPLY TELL THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS INSURANCE FUND THAT DESPITE THEIR OWN AND THEIR EMPLOYERS' PAYMENTS THE GOVERNMENT, IN PAYING THE BENEFICIARIES OUT OF THE FUND, IS MERELY GIVING THEM SOMETHING FOR NOTHING AND CAN STOP DOING SO WHEN IT PLEASES."SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A HANDOUT; IT IS NOT CHARITY; IT IS NOTRELIEF. IT IS AN EARNED RIGHT BASED UPON THE CONTRIBUTIONS ANDEARNINGS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. AS AN EARNED RIGHT, THE INDIVIDUAL IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE HIS BENEFIT IN DIGNITY AND SELF-RESPECT." 102CONG. REC. 15110.But that was the minority opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment