Let's be clear about the surge.

OK, General Petraeus is going to report to congress in early September. It's no secret that I do not support the war in Iraq. I think undeclared wars in general are a bad idea, and even if this was a declared war, I think it is a mis-guided foray into nation building with no real bearing on our National Security. I mean really, this "we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" nonsense sounds so ridiculous when you consider just how wide open our borders are. It sounds especially ridiculous when you consider that more attacks have been attempted at places like Fort Dix and JFK airport.

But I digress, back to the surge. If I were President of the United States I would have brought the troops home by now. Nation building is not the role of the military. However, clearly, I'm not the president. Bush is, and therefore has the rights to make the decision on how he prosecutes the war. He has decided on a surge of troops.

Here's a shocker. . . I hope it works. Yes, that's right, I actually hope it works. I do indeed oppose this war and think it's a mistake, BUT, we are in the situation we are in and can't change that. We can't "un-ring" the bell. So we have to do our best to succeed and I think Bush is trying to succeed. I hope he does.

A military defeat would be an embarrassment and would set us back in resolving the Bin Laden situation by a few years. Plus, it's not exactly a bad thing for a free Iraq to exist. So, considering we have an idiotic foreign policy here, and considering we are stupidly engaged in a war where we have no business being at war, we should at least not look like fools and not render the sacrifice of American lives meaningless. I hope the surge is working and, since Bush insists on Nation Building, I hope the dang nation gets built and the troops come home sooner rather than later. Moreover, I wish the troops well. They aren't responsible for the idiotic decisions on their commanders and leaders, and should be honored and cheered for, although their opinion on the mission is meaningless in my view. Staying in Iraq because the troops think we should be there is like closing the shop early because the workers want to go home.

Now if we do elect someone who has a sane, non nation building policy, then the troops should come home NOW. Let's hope we return to sanity as soon as possible.

When in the course of human events

Let's talk tax reform, shall we?

OK, first go to this video of the August ABC Republican Presidential Debate. Fast Forward to the 1:07:57 mark, and watch the segment on what the candidates would do about the fair tax. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

First off, the Fair Tax . . is it really fair? Well, in my opinion, no it is not fair. What does the fair tax change? Proponents of the fair tax have set the sales tax figure at 23%. Why? Because that's the amount they would need to continue the current level of spending. So shouldn't we really be asking "do we need to tax at all?"

I agree, part of the problem with the IRS is the unfair code by which it operates. Nevertheless, it is equally unjust that government takes our money, on questionable constitutional history no less, for things that the governed have not given their consent to. It is a forceful and feared arm of the federal government and the engine by which the soft tyranny of the USA is driven.

I decided to do a blog entry on this because every candidate who answered gave a pitiful response. No one gave an actual conservative response. Changing the way you tax is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It doesn't solve the REAL problem.

Now to the candidates responses:

Huckabee

He probably gave the best response to the question. He obviously is in complete support of the fair tax. He talks about how it will rebuild America, referring to the idea that many manufacturers moved off shore to avoid taxes. And right there is where he goes wacko. Tell me Mr. Huckabee, how will increasing the price of EVERYTHING 23% make people want to buy more goods, American made or otherwise? Wouldn't this force Americans to want cheaper goods, possibly goods made in China where American companies outsource jobs to avoid unions and regulations? If I had to pay 23% of 5 dollars or 7 dollars, I'd choose $5 every time, regardless of how much more money I had in my pocket. It's really that simple.

As for the rest of his argument about the fair tax eliminating penalties in the current system and exposing the underground economy, well that may all be true, but at the end of the day, making food and gasoline 23% more expensive is not much of an alternative.

Mitt "spirit baby" Romney:

He makes a stunning statement. . . "The truth is we are going to have to pay taxes." Uh, Mitt. . . . WHY??? Notice the pre-supposition he has here. He begins by talking about taxes as if they have to be here. As if they are a simple part of life. He said it with the same urgency as if he would have said 'the truth is we are going to have to eat food'. I got news for you Mitt, I think your vision of America is small and decidedly un-American. We do not need taxes, and we should not tolerate them. Our government was designed to be small and limited and it is only because of you and your big government neo-con pals that we need things so sinister and monstrous as the Federal Reserve and the IRS.

He then goes on to mention that the President's commission didn't like it, and that the fair tax has flaws. Uh. . . who cares and no kidding.

Rudy:

After spending half his answer not answering the question, he goes on to say that a simplification of the tax code is what's needed. He does mention that it would be better to not have taxes, but like Romney, he thinks they are simply a part of life. There's isn't a dimes worth of difference between those two, on any issue.

McCain:

He didn't answer the question other than to parrot what Rudy said. McCain wants to be Vice President to Rudy. Then he talked about military bases and then said something so stupid, I just had to laugh out loud.

He wants to bring in Alan Greenspan to solve the problem. Way to go John!!! Way to show leadership!!! Bring in a traitor to this country, the former head of an organization that is slowly bankrupting this country with it's fiat money to solve our tax problems.

Everyone should remember this, that McCain wants to welcome the shadow government of the Fed Reserve. The Fed Reserve is neither Federal nor a reserve. It has no real money, and nothing of value. A board of private bankers from around the globe meet regularly to decide how much money they will print and what the value of that money is going to be. They literally hold the lifeblood of our country's economy in their hands. And our GOP leaders fall all over themselves, like McCain here, to praise them and welcome them into our government. Wall Street hangs on their every word. It's about time we had real, constitutional money, and treated these foreign Fed Reserve people like the traitors they are.

Tancredo:

Toncredo supports the Fair Tax because, in his view, an income tax manipulates behavior by deciding what can and cannot be taxed.

EARTH TO TOM EARTH TO TOM!!!!! A sales tax can be used the exact same way. Big Macs aren't good for you, so their tax will be 30%. Cigarettes 110% Whiskey to people under thirty 250%. Come on, you know you could see it. Also, the auto industry is in trouble, so we'll only tax cars 18%. Oh and perhaps if Ford holds a giant fund raiser, we'll designate their new "eco-friendly model" as a 17% rate.

Simply put, the sales tax would be an even bigger social engineering nightmare than the income tax.

Brownback:

Wants an optional flat tax. I'm not real sure what that is, but my understanding of it is that you would figure your taxes like normal and then choose between paying that figure, or an optional "flat" figure. That has so many problems, I can't even begin to express. First of all, when politicians start noticing that many will actually pay less if they pay the regular amount (as opposed to the flat amount) they are going to change the law. It's unsustainable. Not to mention that you are opening yourself to a major audit if you save too much.

Basically, Brownback, as usual, doesn't solve anything.

Again, notice all of the candidates response have the same presupposition. YOU MUST BE TAXED AND TAXED AT OR AROUND YOUR CURRENT RATE. This, no matter how it is packaged, is simply unacceptable.

Also notice one of the candidates they didn't ask this question too. Ron Paul. It's a shame too because Paul actually makes sense on the issue. Or at the very least, he gives the answer that is consistent with Liberty and Prosperity. It has become a hallmark of his campaign. "If I am President, I will do away with the IRS and replace it with NOTHING."

That my friends, is real reform. That my friends, is the sound of a man who loves liberty answering a simple question about taxes. Sounds different than the rest doesn't it? Could it perhaps be that they love to tax more than they love to guard liberty? Strange passions for those that are seeking an office who's first responsibility is guard liberty.