The first Congress that actually performs the self-sacrificing act of enacting Term Limits is most likely to be the Congress that enacts other Constitutional, limited-government legislation. How could it be otherwise?

::::::::

by James Jaeger

If you listen to the Left and Right arguing over taxes it's quite funny. The Left thinks the rich need to pay a larger share and the Right thinks the Left can "go to hell." Many scream for a flat tax, but when this comes up there are always two problems: a) what percentage should the flat tax be? and b) what percentage of the poor should be exempt from it?

What seems to be over looked is the reason we are having these tax problems -- the fact that we are violating two primary tenets of the U.S. Constitution:

1. We are supposed to have a limited government.

2. Taxes are supposed to be uniform.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "... all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." The word "uniform" means everyone pays the SAME and no one escapes -- is exempted. This is the idea of a so-called "fair tax" -- everyone pays the same tax, apportioned throughout the states. So where does the Constitution mention an Income Tax or a Sales Tax, or an Employment Tax, or any other Tax? It doesn't specifically; it basically calls them Duties, Imposts and Excises. A Duty is a kind of tax often associated with customs, a tax on certain items purchased abroad. An Impost is a tax levied on imports, in essence a tariff and an Excise is a tax on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of particular items within a country, such as gasoline, liquor, cigarettes, airline tickets, tires or trucks. The Excise tax is usually included in the price of the item.

All of these taxes are uniform, because again everyone pays the same and no one escapes payment. The rates are not progressive in that they get higher or lower depending on whether you are rich or poor. The idea of making someone pay at a higher rate just because they happen to be richer, is not fair. Thus the games the rich play with deductions -- have to play -- are CAUSED by the fact that they have been charged unfair, unconstitutional rates, rates that progress ever higher as their income rises. A Constitutional tax requires no deductions or credits the rich must engage in in order to effectively counter their unfair higher tax rate.

This is the way the Founders meant things to be. No games. No endless accountings and 200,000 page tax code. The U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1789, gave the "central government" the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

So where does it say a "progressive tax" is authorized? Where is the WORD "progressive" even IN the U.S. Constitution? It isn't. Clearly a progressive tax rate, as we see in today's income tax, is totally and completely illegal. It simply is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution. So why do we have it? Simple, the government started spending beyond its means -- mostly on wars -- and had to come up with a way to raise more money.

This has morphed into the ridiculous tax code we have today, complete with endless deductions, tax credits, loopholes, rebates and refunds, exceptions, special privileges, subsidies, classifications, ad nausium. In other words:

THE U.S. TAX CODE HAS BEEN MADE SO COMPLEX AND LENGTHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CITIZEN TO UNDERSTAND IT LET ALONE COMPLY WITH IT, THEREFORE HE IS FORCED TO OUT-SOURCE THE PREPARATION OF HIS TAX RETURNS TO TAX ATTORNEYS.

A tax attorney is an esquire of the State. This is why attorneys have the abbreviation Esq. after their name. This Esq. means they pretend to work for you, the "client," the "citizen," but in actuality they are agents of the State. They work for the State. And like any and all States, they too are mini blood-sucking parasites. Just like other attorneys (except for a small list of attorneys that are unusual), the tax attorney gets rich by contributing to the anti-Constitutional complexity of the tax law. The citizen, above a certain income level, is thus forced to hire them to fill out the very tax forms the attorney consulted the government in creating.

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN; IS THE ENTIRE US TAX CODE SHOULD BE TOSSED OUT ALONG WITH THE IRS AND CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES REINSTATED.

This means we would have a uniform tax on goods being shipped into the $15 trillion U.S. market; a uniform tax on all final products at the RETAIL point of sale and a very small flat tax on personal income. And that's it. No other taxes. No income tax on corporations to suppress production, no tax on capital gains to suppress capital formation, no incredibly suppressive "Value Added Tax" on products at every stage of manufacture and no property taxes to pay for public schools.

It is totally unfair for people who have no kids, or who send their kids to private school or homeschool to have to pay for the forced-education of other kids. Property taxes and school taxes are government rape and pillage at its worst. Taxes on any kind of production, whether at the corporate level or the worker level are suppressive to a nation's general welfare.

People should be taxed on what they CONSUME -- not what they PRODUCE.

When you suppress consumption through taxation, people produce more and consume less. This means the civilization become wealthier. If you are making more than you are using, you are becoming wealthier.

Income greater than outgo means BIGGER. Outgo greater than income means SMALLER. Production greater than consumption means MORE. Consumption greater than production means SCARCITY.

Do these AXIOMS of physical reality REALLY need to even be explained? Apparently they do, for Keynesian economists; fiat currency central bankers; mainstream media propagandists; CFR-infested globalists; corporate fascist-cultural Marxists foaming at the mouth for the welfare-warfare state and ignorant, public school-educated citizens simply do not get it.

In order to create a PRODUCTION society to replace the current central bank-instigated CONSUMER society, we should define the total amount the citizen pays for all government services.

WE MUST DETERMINE AS A NATION WHAT PERCENTAGE OF OUR MONEY WE ARE WILLING TO ALLOCATE FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES.

WE THE PEOPLE PRESENT A LUMP SUM BUDGET TO CONGRESS AND THEY TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.

But how in Earth do we do that? What is our criterion and starting point for such a lump sum allocation?

I propose a rationale that has not yet been considered. This rationale will require that we take a fresh look at two institutions that dominate current civilization: THE CHURCH and THE STATE.

What is a Church? Isn't a Church really just another form of government? In the end don't governments and churches really perform the same exact services -- just camouflaged in different terms and different rituals? Isn't the primary function they BOTH perform to instill ETHICS into the individual with the slight difference that Church calls its ethics "morals" and the State calls its ethics "laws."

A further difference is the Church attempts to inculcate INTERNAL ethics and the State attempts to inculcate EXTERNAL ethics. A "moral character" requires an internal adoption of morals whereas a "good citizen" requires an external compliance with the law.

Accordingly, the State promotes its "laws" with judges, courts, juries, and punishment. The Church promotes its "morals" with deities, prophets, confessionals and the promise of spiritual enlightenment.

Again, the goal of the Church is to create an Individual who has internalized a system of ethical conduct such that he can VOLUNTARILY interact with others harmoniously, and the goal of the State is to create a Society that provides an external system of ethical conduct such that all Individuals are FORCED to interact with others harmoniously.

So, the idea that the State "protects liberty" and/or provides for the "common welfare" are really nothing more than sales angles to get people to support the State.

Likewise, the idea that the Church "forgives sins" and/or "provides eternal salvation" are also nothing more than sales angles to get people to support the Church.

THE CHURCH AND THE STATE ARE THUS IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER.

Both have their sales angles. Both have their methodologies and both have their results. But the fact remains -- whether an Individual opts to live in a civilization where ethnics are internalized or externalized -- both the Church and the State are in competition for PAYMENT, for that "lump sum."

The Church calls its payment DONATIONS and the State calls its payment TAXES.

Basically, it seems the Church wants 10% and the State wants 10% of every dollar transacted by the citizen. But today, it looks like the State is trying to bury the Church and take all the cash flow. The State seems to be demanding 20% or more of every citizen's productive energy. And it has basically attained this goal, no? The current Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. is about $15 trillion and the government's operating budget is about $3 trillion. That's 20%. And this doesn't even include the money extorted from citizens at the state and local levels.

So the State has definitely cut in to the Church's revenues. In fact, its program of cultural Marxism is effectively working every day to totally abolish the Church and the family unit in the name of equality, diversity and multi-culturalism as Pat Buchanan details in his must-read book, Suicide of a Superpower. Yes, folks, this is the very book that was so on point, Pat was fired from MSNBC, an oily little nest of cultural Marxism .

If the reader can agree with that the Church and the State are in competition and both are offering society a similar SERVICE, all we have to do is determine what the fair value of that service is and this could be the amount of money each individual should allocate to the Church and/or the State.

I would suggest this sum should be 5 to 10 percent for the State and 5 to 10 percent for the Church.

If people want to pay higher taxes or donate more to their church, they should be able to do this on a voluntary basis. If people want to allocate 5% of their wealth to internal ethics and 5% to external ethics, or 7% to internal ethics and 3% to external ethics, then let the competition for funding between the Church and State begin. But no matter what sums are allocated:

MANDATORY TAXES CAN BE NO MORE ONEROUS THAN WHAT THE POOREST MEMBERS OF SOCIETY CAN EASILY AFFORD.

A poor person physically can't give the State 45% of his money because that doesn't leave him with enough for food, shelter, clothing, transportation and recreation. A rich person, on the other hand, CAN give the State 45% and still be able to provide for living necessities, BUT this not fair to the rich person.

If taxes are never any more onerous than what the poorest members of society can easily afford, this will encourage the State (and the Church) to provide services that truly raise the standard of living for the society.

But once an affordable tax is determined -- and bear in mind I am recommending an averaged 7.5% aggregate for federal, state AND local -- you can't have ANY exemptions. If you have people that are excused from paying taxes, yet receive government services, that is not fair to the rest of society. Also, when people receive free government services their demand for more services is endless. This is why the federal government is now so bloated. Endless demands for welfare and special privileges are being demanded -- and voted in -- by 50% of the population. This is democracy in action: voters at the public trough.

Because we have failed to heed the advice of the Founders, we have exempted about 50% of the people from taxes at the federal level.(1) Thus the only way these government services can thus get paid is with high tax rates on the middle class and rich.

THUS, THE SOLUTION TO THIS DILEMMA IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST BE SHRUNK TO A SIZE THAT IS AFFORDABLE BY THE TAXES STIPULATED IN THE CONSTITUTION

This would be whatever size government 7.5% of WE THE PEOPLE's money will buy with duties, imposts and excises.

As one can quickly see, the Founders were quite serious about limited government. A government that operates on 7.5% is a tiny government. But that's good. Bear in mind that whatever money the government doesn't absorb for its uses is money available for YOUR uses. You have to look at government as a parasite vying for YOUR resources. It's like a huge tick sitting there on your arm sucking blood. It just sucks and sucks and sucks. And it gets bigger and bigger. And as it gets bigger it spends more and more money on "security." NOT YOUR SECURITY. It just SAYS it's for YOUR security. It's really for ITS security, because the people that are on the government payrolls, directly and through the K-Street revolving door, KNOW that you are going to come after them sooner or later. They just know it. They KNOW they're doing something wrong. They know they're stealing through rampant over-taxation. They know they are violating the Constitution so their attitude is: "I'm going to get everything I can, exit that revolving door, and build a fortress complete with electric gates and neighborhood patrols and let them just try and get me."

And if you don't believe the statists subconsciously have these feelings, look at how they fawn and worship their own. Look at all the fuss they made over someone who was shot, just because she's a senator.

Regular citizens get shot every day. WE THE PEOPLE get shot every day. Who cares? To the state-infested media it's just a "news story." But who's really more important, WE THE PEOPLE or WE THE SENATORS?

Is some cop who's shot on duty -- who gets PAID to take the KNOWN risks associated with THAT duty -- any more special than WE THE PEOPLE when WE get shot just going about our lives being productive citizens? No they're not, but again, to watch the way the government and media act, you might think they were. The State-sanctioned media ALWAYS tries to MAKE them more special than WE THE PEOPLE. If a reporter or congressman is shot, boy that's hell, but if a common citizen is shot, it's just another "story." And why's this? Because when one of their OWN is shot, they can scream for MORE "security."

Secretly, I bet government officials LOVE it when one of their own gets shot. This means they can extort more protection -- more security -- for themselves.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing that word -- SECURITY -- I'm going to vomit right in the face of the next person that utters it.

So, all this crap about security and the "War of Terror" is really to protect the unlimited government apparatchik that has grown in violation of the Constitution.

And this government -- like all the empires that came and went before it -- is no different, except that this government, through the miracle of computer-assisted, banking fraud, has figured out a way to suck blood out of the citizenry not only through taxes, but through debt, fractional reserve banking and endless banking tricks based on arbitrage and derivatives.

In essence, the Left likes to suck blood out of the rich citizens through taxes on every transaction and the Right likes to suck blood out of as many people as possible by monetizing endless debt and the hidden tax of inflation.

The only solution I can see to this state of affairs -- short of full, violent, bloody revolution -- is to keep voting out all of the incumbent congressmen UNTIL a set of congressmen arrives that enacts TERM LIMITS.

Term limits is the key. The enactment of term limits is the litmus test. The Congress that actually performs the self-sacrificing act of enacting term limits on itself is the Congress that's going to start working for WE THE PEOPLE.

Obviously, a congressman that can't even LIMIT his own term is NOT going to LIMIT the entire government.

So term limits is the absolute first Act that MUST be accomplished, and the term should be equal to the president's term: no more than 8 years.

The next thing such a congress must accomplish is it must enact legislation to forbid corporate money from entering politics. This means ONLY flesh and blood people should be permitted to make campaign contributions. If the money from corporations is removed from politics, the cost to run an election will drop dramatically. This will then open the door for a broader, more representative, cross section of the public to enter office. Right now Congress and the Executive is mostly filled with rich guys and lawyers. This is NOT a representative sampling to WE THE PEOPLE.

Obviously the definition of "person" and "speech" -- as handed down by the S-court, were erroneous. A corporation is NOT a "person" and MONEY is NOT "speech." Thus a corporation has NO business contributing money to elections. BUT if we deem a corporation NOT a person -- and the Constitution says PEOPLE should pay uniform taxes -- obviously corporations, not being PEOPLE, should thus NOT pay taxes. So all corporate taxes should be dropped. It's as unfair to business people to double tax them through corporations as it is to allow half of the taxpayers to get away with paying zero taxes. So BOTH the democrats and republicans are acting like idiots and morons in arguing past each other on these points.

A 7.5% flat tax across-the-board; no corporate taxation; term limits and no corporate money in politics, will bring the government back in the direction of the original intent of the Founders. And believe me, this will be painful. But it must be done, because a full, frontal, bloody revolution would be even MORE painful. And wars, all wars, no matter how "just" they are pronounced, always destroy much more than they create in the way of "technological advancement for humanity." So wars must be stopped, and the weapons that governments have psychotically stockpiled, at some point, MUST be destroyed.

THE ONLY VALID USE OF A WEAPON IS THUS TO DESTROY OTHER WEAPONS.

The problem is, as mentioned above, the blood-sucking parasite has all the guns, so this brings up some of the other things that would need to happen. Yes, our term-limited Congress must legislate yet more self-sacrificing Acts or voters may have to start again voting incumbents out to "uncle them" into the next "programs."

The next program would be a choice: the Federal Reserve System is audited and abolished OR a Constitutional amendment would have to be passed making it illegal for the federal and state governments from borrowing money.

Just as governments have no business taxing NON-people, a government has no business borrowing money. Let's start better-defining the hats and roles the various entities -- people, corporations, governments -- play in the Game of Life. If we don't, we will continue to see the conflicts of interest that lead to ever larger, ever more chaotic government. Remember, entropy is always a factor, probably the prime factor.

Since people, partnerships and corporations transact business for profit, only these entities should have the right, or privilege, of borrowing money. Since a government is NOT a business entity -- and NOT established for the purpose of generating PROFIT -- its has no business borrowing money, a tool of people, partnerships and corporations.

Usually when a government borrows money it is up to no good. It borrows because it has generated some emergency through neglect or unintended legislation. Worse, it borrows to go to war or enhance its OWN security. In my opinion, I respectfully posit that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is erroneous in that it allows Congress the power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." Major mistake, given what we se has happened today. This should be amended.

EITHER FIAT MONEY HAS TO GO OR GOVERNMENT BORROWING HAS TO GO.

If the government can't borrow -- for the above reasons and the many other reasons too numerous to discuss here -- it will be more careful in all its deeds and allocations. The moral hazard will be reduced. WE THE PEOPLE must thus remove the borrowing power from our government or it will not only continue to use this power to wage perpetual war, but facilitate a banking and corporate class in their quest to generate unjust enrichment.

All this leads to an ever-expanding warfare and welfare state. Government borrowing through its partnership with central banks is detrimental to the general welfare and the security of a nation.

All of this temptation must be removed from government if we are to effectuate a limited government. When a government can borrow, too many temptations are open, not only to government officials, but to WE THE PEOPLE.

Remember the old saying about democracies?

ALL DEMOCRACIES ARE DOOMED TO FAILURE, FOR AS SOON AS THE PUBLIC REALIZES THAT IT CAN VOTE ITSELF PERKS AND SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, IT WILL DO SO ENDLESSLY UNTIL THE DEMOCRACY HAS TURNED INTO AN EMPTY SOUP BOWL OF DUST.

And again, one of the prime ways it does this is through war -- the "health of the state" -- as Randolph Bourn once observed.

And surprise! The current government has involved WE THE PEOPLE in four or five wars that were all undeclared by Congress. HOW do you think it was able to do this? Borrowed money. Monetizing debt. UN resolutions. All this is sneaky. These machinations must NOT be permitted. WE THE PEOPLE are in charge of when we will go to war and when we will be at peace. THIS IS OUR SOLEMN DECISION. We make this decision through our Representatives in Congress, NOT the President or the UN.

It is OUR little boys that do the fighting of wars. How DARE a bunch of entrenched Democratic and Republican congressmen delegate their responsibility for declaring wars when WE THE PEOPLE have not given them OUR express consent to send our little boys to their deaths. WHO THE f*ck DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE?

And if WE THE PEOPLE want a war badly enough, WE THE PEOPLE better PAY for it CASH -- none of this BORROWING crap. If it's not "just" enough to PAY for, then it's NOT a "just war." And THAT is the acid test. An honorable man pays for his fights, he does not make his children pay for them through debt. We are a dishonorable society, thanks to the infiltration of cultural Marxism through the Hollywood-based movie industry, the New York media, the government-run school system and the pseudo-intellectuals spewed out by the nation's filthy liberal colleges.

If we don't TAX ourselves EQUALLY to pay for a war, then that war is FRIVOLOUS and criminal. And the killing of little boys in another man's nation for an unjust cause -- like a preemptive war or a war for oil -- is just as criminal as killing our little boys.

Again, WE THE PEOPLE should be willing to pay for our just wars through taxation, NOT borrowed money thorough the machinations of sneaky congressmen and the United Nations. This is despicable. Government, through these actions, has shown that it is irresponsible with debt. Thus the privilege of borrowing must be terminated for this government. Let the United States set an example for the rest of the world on this issue, and if it leads to our demise, so be it. As Arthur O'Shaughnessy once wrote:

"With wonderful deathless ditties, We build up the world's great cities, And out of a fabulous story. We fashion an empire's glory: One man with a dream, at pleasure, Shall go forth and conquer a crown; And three with a new song's measure Can trample an empire down."

I guarantee, with WE THE PEOPLE allocating 5 to 10 percent (average 7.5 percent) of our energy to government, that government will be quite limited and quite Constitutional.

And I would venture we all would benefit from this. We want this because, to the degree the government does less, YOU and I will have MORE. We will also get to DO more. This will make you, me and our children stronger. Producers are stronger than government beneficiaries. If some government does something for you at every turn -- and taxes you for the "service" -- how are you going to learn to do it for yourself and become independent?

Contrary to what you might read in the pages of FOREIGN AFFAIRS magazine, what we need is MORE independence and LESS inter-dependence. "Interdependence" is one of the favorite words globalists pushing a one-world government use. Their next favorite word is "security." Security for this and security that. Endless security. If government insures everything in your life to make you endlessly "secure," how are you gong to become self-reliant and independent? You're not. You're going to become a sick, writhing worm sitting on a couch watching government-sponsored, network propaganda. Panem et circenses.

And contrary to the fear-based memes put out by the power elite trying to establish the "liberal world order," becoming self-reliant isn't an onerous task. It simply means that the resources the Universe provides to us all are allocated to the INDIVIDUAL, not some governing, or corporate entity.

This means more control for you and less control for your government. Your government has no AUTHORITY to abridge your freedom or self-reliance in any way. Remember, the State and the Church are competing for you reliance on them. One offers a system or external ethics and the other offers a system or internal ethics.

Self-reliance and independence are based on a system of internal ethics. This is also the definition of "freedom," and its more responsible big brother, "liberty."

Greater liberty is greater control because liberty requires greater knowledge and control is based on knowledge. An individual that's knowledgeable and free is an individual that's in control and powerful. The State does NOT want you to be powerful. Perhaps the Church does, but no more powerful than God.

The State attempts to dictate your every move, and tax you for the "service" in order to pay for the police powers it uses to dictate future moves. This is not freedom or liberty, but enslavement. You will become stronger, and so will your children, only to the degree you reject interdependence and embrace independence. And believe it or not, you will also have LESS competition to deal with, for your greatest source of competition comes from the State. It competes for your money, your time, your allegiance and your system of ethics.

The road back is to get in place a Congress that can start reversing legislation, de-funding departments, and terminating programs. Legislators that come to Washington should be validated for every law they RESCIND rather than PASS. Ron Paul is your model. He votes for very few bills. He never expands the government. Almost all the other congressmen expand the government. These congressmen are violating their oaths of office to serve the Constitution and its doctrine of limited government. WE THE PEOPLE must not continue to allow these violations. These violations are grounds upon which we must continue to vote out incumbents.

Take the first step. Continue to vote out every incumbent UNTIL a congress arrives that is willing to enact term limits. That's the litmus test. If we can't accomplish this simple task, we will NEVER be able to accomplish any of the other tasks.

A congressman who won't limit his term, will not limit the government.(2)

---------------------------
(1) But when the poor get tax refunds, they often must use these refunds to pay for their state and local school and property taxes. We are way over taxed as a nation. We have a tax revolt 200 years ago when taxes were only a fraction of what they are today. Why is everyone so scared? They are scared to revolt because they know we now live in a police state.

(2) For more information on why term limits are necessary and why voting out incumbents will work, see OVERTHROWING THE CORPORATE GOVERNMENT - How to Regain Control Over a Hijacked Congress and WHY REMOVING ALL INCUMBENTS WILL WORK

Authors Website: http://www.mecfilms.com

Authors Bio:

James Jaeger is an award-winning filmmaker with over 25 years experience producing, writing and directing feature motion pictures and documentaries. For complete bio see http://www.mecfilms.com/jrjbio.htm

Jaeger's first documentary, "FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution" featuring Ron Paul went viral hitting #1 on Google Video 3 times and won a Telly Award. Since FIAT EMPIRE, Jaeger has written and directed five additional political documentaries, "MOLON LABE - How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom" being the most recent. MOLON LABE features Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Alex Jones, Larry Pratt and others. The official site is www.molon.us To screen all of Jaeger's films visit www.YouTube.com/OriginalIntentDoc or get DVDs at www.MoviePubs.Net/dvds