Monday, January 6, 2014

Anti Federalist Papers No. 36 – Representation And Internal Taxation

A power to lay and collect taxes at discretion, is, in itself, of very great importance. By means of taxes, the government may command the whole or any part of the subject's property. Taxes may be of various kinds; but there is a strong distinction between external and internal taxes. External taxes are import duties, which are laid on imported goods; they may usually be collected in a few seaport towns, and of a few individuals, though ultimately paid by the consumer; a few officers can collect them, and they can be carried no higher than trade will bear, or smuggling permit - that in the very nature of commerce, bounds are set to them. But internal taxes, as poll and land taxes, excises, duties on all written instruments, etc. , may fix themselves on every person and species of property in the community; they may be carried to any lengths, and in proportion as they are extended, numerous officers must be employed to assess them, and to enforce the collection of them. In the United Netherlands the general government has complete powers, as to external taxation; but as to internal taxes, it makes requisitions on the provinces. Internal taxation in this country is more important, as the country is so very extensive As many assessors and collectors of federal taxes will be above three hundred miles from the seat of the federal government, as will be less. Besides, to lay and collect taxes, in this extensive country, must require a great number of congressional ordinances, immediately operating upon the body of the people; these must continually interfere with the state laws, and thereby produce disorder and general dissatisfaction, till the one system of laws or the other, operating on the same subjects, shall be abolished. These ordinances alone, to say nothing of those respecting the militia, coin, commerce, federal judiciary, etc. , will probably soon defeat the operations of the state laws and governments.

Should the general government think it politic, as some administration (if not all) probably will, to look for a support in a system of influence, the government will take every occasion to multiply laws, and officers to execute them, considering these as so many necessary props for its own support. Should this system of policy be adopted, taxes more productive than the impost duties will, probably, be wanted to support the government, and to discharge foreign demands, without leaving anything for the domestic creditors. The internal sources of taxation then must be called into operation, and internal tax laws and federal assessors and collectors spread over this immense country. All these circumstances considered, is it wise, prudent, or safe, to vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in the general government, while imperfectly organized and inadequate? And to trust to amending it hereafter, and making it adequate to this purpose? It is not only unsafe but absurd to lodge power in a government before it is fitted to receive it. It is confessed that this power and representation ought to go together. Why give the power first? Why give the power to the few, who, when possessed of it, may have address enough to prevent the increase of representation? Why not keep the power, and, when necessary, amend the constitution, and add to its other parts this power, and a proper increase of representation at the same time? Then men who may want the power will be under strong inducements to let in the people, by their representatives, into the government, to hold their due proportion of this power. If a proper representation be impracticable, then we shall see this power resting in the states, where it at present ought to be, and not inconsiderately given up.

When I recollect how lately congress, conventions, legislatures, and people contended in the cause of liberty, and carefully weighed the importance of taxation, I can scarcely believe we are serious in proposing to vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in a government so imperfectly organized for such purposes. Should the United States be taxed by a house of representatives of two hundred members, which would be about fifteen members for Connecticut, twenty-five for Massachusetts, etc. , still the middle and lower classes of people could have no great share, in fact, in taxation. I am aware it is said, that the representation proposed by the new constitution is sufficiently numerous; it may be for many purposes; but to suppose that this branch is sufficiently numerous to guard the rights of the people in the administration of the government, in which the purse and sword is placed, seems to argue that we have forgot what the true meaning of representation is. . . .

In considering the practicability of having a full and equal representation of the people from all parts of the union, not only distances and different opinions, customs and views, common in extensive tracts of country, are to be taken into view, but many differences peculiar to Eastern, Middle, and Southern States. These differences are not so perceivable among the members of congress, and men of general information in the states, as among the men who would properly form the democratic branch. The Eastern states are very democratic, and composed chiefly of moderate freeholders; they have but few rich men and no slaves; the Southern states are composed chiefly of rich planters and slaves; they have but few moderate freeholders, and the prevailing influence in them is generally a dissipated aristocracy. The Middle states partake partly of the Eastern and partly of the Southern character. . . . I have no idea that the interests, feelings, and opinions of three or four millions of people, especially touching internal taxation, can be collected in such a house. In the nature of things, nine times in ten, men of the elevated classes in the community only can be chosen. . . .
I am sensible also, that it is said that congress will not attempt to lay and collect internal taxes; that it is necessary for them to have the power, though it cannot probably be exercised. I admit that it is not probable that any prudent congress will attempt to lay and collect internal taxes, especially direct taxes: but this only proves, that the power would be improperly lodged in congress, and that it might be abused by imprudent and designing men.

I have heard several gentlemen, to get rid of objections to this part of the constitution, attempt to construe the powers relative to direct taxes, as those who object to it would have them; as to these, it is said, that congress will only have power to make requisitions, leaving it to the states to lay and collect them. I see but very little color for this construction, and the attempt only proves that this part of the plan cannot be defended. By this plan there can be no doubt, but that the powers of congress will be complete as to all kinds of taxes whatever. Further, as to internal taxes, the state governments will have concurrent powers with the general government, and both may tax the same objects in the same year; and the objection that the general government may suspend a state tax, as a necessary measure for the promoting the collection of a federal tax, is not without foundation.




Learn More About The History Of The United States.  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums in Virginia.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Gerald Celente - InfoWars Nightly News - January 2, 2014




Celente Trends 2014: Global Economies Tanking and Gold Prices Rising.  Though we are not real big fans of InfoWars, Gerald Celente is a person who can not be taken lightly by anyone.  So here is an interview that InfoWars put together with Gerald Celente.  We watched the entire episode before posting this video and can tell you that it's worth your time to watch it.  
Enhanced by Zemanta

Recreational Pot Causes Major Lines In Colorado

Day 46 - West Midlands Police - Cannabis Drugs...
 (Photo credit: West Midlands Police)



"Iraq war veteran Sean Azzariti described his purchase of recreational marijuana -- legally -- as a historic moment Wednesday.

"It's huge," he said at a marijuana store along a light industrial corridor outside downtown Denver. "It hasn't even sunk in how big this is yet."

Indeed, before the 3D Cannabis Center opened at 8 a.m. MT, more than 100 people were waiting in snowfall and cold under gray skies to be the next buyers of recreational pot under a landmark law voters approved in 2012. The dispensary was one of a handful that opened to lines of waiting people on New Year's Day, with scores more expected statewide in coming months."* Ana Kasparian, Cara Santa Maria (Take Part Live), Jimmy Dore (TYTComedy) and John Iadarola (TYT University) break it down on The Young Turks.
Our Notes:  The taxes are only 25%?  Is the state insane?  They should have at least 50% taxes on this.  The people are going to pay it.  Washington is next with legal dope.  It's only a matter of time before it's throughout the country.  Keep it highly regulated and highly taxed as well as all the same policies for getting and maintaining a job in place and there should be little to no issues.   Smoke all you want, but you can never get certain types of jobs.  Simple.  This will also put the spice shops out of the synthetic business but ripe for the real deal.

  Here is a real business opportunity.  Payday loan shops on one side, pizza and sub shops on the other side of the new head shop.  Mom and Pop would be proud.  But why stop there when you can go all out and combine these shops into an all in one market place?  One stop shopping.  Get an advance on your pay so you can buy some weed and pizza.  While your loan is being processed, so can your weed order and pizza or sub order.

FUTURE SHOCK:  Okay, the Mary Jane brownies are a given.  We are going to end up with a new vocabulary with all of this.  Weedza delivery.  That's your weed and pizza delivery.  High Times beer.  That's beer made with weed.  Pot Dressing.  That's salad dressing made with pot.  Mary Jane Milk.  That's the good milk to create strong bones while you relax.  Going green takes on an all new meaning.  Politicians have to come up with a new acronym.  Your a dope is now a compliment.  Pot holes are now donut holes with weed and not some strange road obstruction.  Potato chips are now in competition with Pot Chips.  Growing weeds in the backyard can be considered a dangerous concept, but a great way to get them pulled out if your neighbors are high enough to think it's the smokeable kind.

  Brownie sales take on an all new meaning.  School fundraisers now in danger.  Cheech and Chong movies make a comeback as does the band, Pink Floyd.  Green is the new Green.  Ideas and future business concepts are created but no one can remember them the next day.  Stock market crashes are now funny.

  In all likeliness, growing Mary Jane would become this nation's number one crop as well as export.  Is this the industry coming in to replace all the other industry that has left?  What will this do to the concept of contracts?  Sorry but my buying that car yesterday is void because I was high?  Sorry, I do not have to repay that loan as I was high when I signed the contract?  Will you have to take a drug test to sign a contract?  We have a new set of issues we have not yet begun to explore over this.  
Enhanced by Zemanta

Governor McDonnell Announces Board and Commission Appointments

Governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell speaking at...
Governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell speaking at CPAC. Please attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
RICHMOND - Governor Bob McDonnell today announced additional appointments to eight Virginia boards and commissions.

Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers
·         Louis R. Jones of Virginia Beach, President of Hollomon-Brown Funeral Home, Inc.

Board of the Virginia Public Building Authority
·         Sarah B. Williams* of Richmond, Director of the Center for Women’s Enterprise  

Commissioners for the Promotion of Uniformity of Legislation
·         Mary P. Devine of Manakin-Sabot
·         Thomas A. Edmonds, Esquireof Richmond, Retired Executive Director of the Virginia State Bar
·         Christopher R. Nolen of Glen Allen, Partner at McGuireWoods

The Library Board
·         Carolyn S. Berkowitz of Burke, Managing Vice President of Community Affairs at Capital One 

State Air Pollution Control Board
·         Ann Flandermeyer Kirwin of Virginia Beach, Consultant and President or Kirwin Development Strategies

Virginia Land Conservation Foundation
·         Amy Saucier Kelley of Richmond, Director of Legislative and Government Affairs for the Office of the Attorney General   

Virginia Outdoor Foundation 
·         Charles H. Seilheimer, Jr., Chair* of Orange, Founder of Sotheby's International Realty Corporation
·         Matthew Lohr of Broadway, Director of Knowledge Center for the Farm Credit of the Virginias

Virginia Port Authority
·         Kim Scheeler of Midlothian, President and CEO of the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce


*Denotes re-appointment
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, January 3, 2014

How Sugar Can Become Toxic

Venezuelan sugar cane (Saccharum) harvested fo...
Venezuelan sugar cane (Saccharum) harvested for processing. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By Dr. Mercola
Mice fed a diet containing 25 percent sugar – the equivalent of three cans of soda daily – were twice as likely to die as mice fed a similar diet without sugar. 1
Such was the finding of a new 58-week University of Utah study, which once again highlights the early death sentence many Americans may receive for indulging far too often in this sweet treat.
While the mice did not display obvious signs of metabolic diseases, such as obesity, they were nonetheless significantly affected by the sugar. Male mice fed sugar were 26 percent less territorial and produced 25 percent fewer offspring, for example.
Said study author James Ruff in Time:2
“The [mice] are having fewer offspring because they are having a hard time competing, they’re less effective at foraging and raising young. That is due to lots of perturbations across their physiology.
Since most substances that are toxic in mice are also toxic in people, it’s likely that those underlying physical problems that cause those mice to have increased mortality are at play in people.”

19-Fold Increase in Sugar Consumption in Just Three Centuries

In Sugar Love: A Not so Sweet Story,3 author Rich Cohen chronicles the, often bloody, history of sugar and humans’ love affair with this sweet poison. One of the most noteworthy statistics is this: in 1700, the average Englishman ate four pounds of sugar a year.
This has increased steadily to reach 77 pounds of sugar annually for the average American today, which amounts to more than 22 teaspoons of added sugar daily.
And therein lies the problem. Consuming small amounts of sugar may not be a problem, but consuming sugar by the pound certainly is. As Dr. Richard Johnson, who was interviewed for the article, said:
It seems like every time I study an illness and trace a path to the first cause, I find my way back to sugar. Why is it that one-third of adults [worldwide] have high blood pressure, when in 1900 only 5 percent had high blood pressure?
Why did 153 million people have diabetes in 1980, and now we’re up to 347 million? Why are more and more Americans obese? Sugar, we believe, is one of the culprits, if not the major culprit.”
This isn’t simply a matter of consuming ‘empty calories,’ either, as the American Heart Association would have you believe.
“It has nothing to do with its calories,” endocrinologist Robert Lustig stated.“Sugar is a poison by itself when consumed at high doses.”4

Why Calories from Sugar and Fructose May Increase Your Risk of Serious Disease

According to Dr. Lustig, fructose is "isocaloric but not isometabolic." This means you can have the same amount of calories from fructose or glucose, fructose and protein, or fructose and fat, but the metabolic effect will be entirely different despite the identical calorie count.
This is largely because different nutrients provoke different hormonal responses, and those hormonal responses determine, among other things, how much fat you accumulate.
Half of the sugar the average American consumes in a day is fructose, which is 300 percent more than the amount that will trigger biochemical havoc. And many Americans consume more than twice that amount! Thanks to the excellent work of researchers like Dr. Robert Lustig, as well as Dr. Richard Johnson, we now know that fructose:
  • Is metabolized differently from glucose, with the majority being turned directly into fat.
  • Tricks your body into gaining weight by fooling your metabolism, as it turns off your body's appetite-control system. Fructose does not appropriately stimulate insulin, which in turn does not suppress ghrelin (the "hunger hormone") and doesn't stimulate leptin (the "satiety hormone"), which together result in your eating more and developing insulin resistance.
  • Rapidly leads to weight gain and abdominal obesity ("beer belly"), decreased HDL, increased LDL, elevated triglycerides, elevated blood sugar, and high blood pressure—i.e., classic metabolic syndrome.
  • Over time leads to insulin resistance, which is not only an underlying factor of type 2 diabetes and heart disease, but also many cancers.
This is why the general rule that you can lose weight only by counting calories simply doesn't work. After fructose, other sugars and grains are likely the most excessively consumed foods that promote weight gain and chronic disease.

This also includes food items that are typically viewed as healthy, such as fruit juice or even large amounts of high-fructose fruits. What needs to be understood is that when consumed in large amounts, these items will also adversely affect your insulin, which is a crucially potent fat regulator.
So even drinking large amounts of fruit juice on a daily basis can contribute to weight gain... In short, you do not get fat because you eat too many calories and don't exercise enough. You get fat because you eat the wrong kind of calories. As long as you keep eating fructose and grains, you're programming your body to create and store fat.

The Fat Switch: Unveiling the Five Basic Truths That Can Help You Lose Weight

Dr. Johnson discovered the method that animals use to gain fat prior to times of food scarcity, which turned out to be a powerful adaptive benefit. His research showed that fructose activates a key enzyme, fructokinase, which in turn activates another enzyme that causes cells to accumulate fat. When this enzyme is blocked, fat cannot be stored in the cell.
Interestingly, this is the exact same "switch" animals use to fatten up in the fall and to burn fat during the winter. Fructose is the dietary ingredient that turns on this "switch," causing cells to accumulate fat, both in animals and in humans. His latest book, The Fat Switch, dispels many of the most pervasive myths relating to diet and obesity. There are five basic truths that Dr. Johnson explains in detail in the book that overturn current concepts:
  1. Large portions of food and too little exercise are NOT solely responsible for why you are gaining weight
  2. Metabolic Syndrome is actually a healthy adaptive condition that animals undergo to store fat to help them survive periods of famine. The problem is most all of us are always feasting and never undergo fasting. Our bodies have not adapted to this yet and as a result, this beneficial switch actually causes damage to contemporary man
  3. Uric acid is increased by specific foods and causally contributes to obesity and insulin resistance
  4. Fructose-containing sugars cause obesity not by calories but by turning on the ‘fat switch’
  5. Effective treatment of obesity requires turning off your fat switch and improving the function of your cells' mitochondria
I highly recommend picking up a copy of this book, which is a useful tool for those struggling with their weight. Dietary sugar, and fructose in particular, is a significant "tripper of your fat switch," so understanding how sugars of all kinds affect your weight and health is imperative.
Is Any Amount of Sugar Safe?
Excess sugar consumption has been clearly linked to health problems like diabetes,5 heart attack6 and much more, so it’s likely that the less sugar you eat, the better, and this is particularly true when it comes to fructose. As a standard recommendation, I advise keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per dayFor most people, it would also be wise to limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams or less, as you're virtually guaranteed to consume "hidden" sources of fructose if you drink beverages other than water and eat processed food.
Fifteen grams of fructose is not much -- it represents two bananas, one-third cup of raisins, or two Medjool dates. Remember, the average 12-ounce can of soda contains 40 grams of sugar, at least half of which is fructose, so one can of soda alone would exceed your daily allotment.  
I realize that there is a controversy over fructose from fruits. I believe that the average American will benefit from following these fructose restrictions, as many are seriously overweight. But for those who are fit and normal body weight, I suspect you could increase those levels significantly if the fructose is from WHOLE fruit, not juice, and not suffer any complications. More than likely you would receive health benefits from the phytonutrients in the fruit as long as you were fit and not overweight.
In his book, The Sugar Fix, Dr. Johnson includes detailed tables showing the content of fructose in different foods -- an information base that isn't readily available when you're trying to find out exactly how much fructose is in various foods. I encourage you to pick up a copy of this excellent resource. You can find an abbreviated listing of the fructose content of common fruits in this previous article.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Dirty Local Government Construction Secrets


Watch your tax dollars closely:


Since the beginning of taxation there has been a certain class of people who think they are entitled to steal tax dollars.  A lot of this theft occurs through local, state and federal government construction projects.  Federal projects seem to be the hardest government projects to target, due to the mostly stringent safeguards that were established after years of theft.  Those safeguards are only effective when they are enforced; unfortunately enforcement becomes lax during some projects and theft still does occur.  State government projects are next in line because anti-theft safeguards and their enforcement are often less stringent than those of the federal government.  Local government projects are by far the easiest construction projects for thieves to target due to the lack of effective safeguards and the non-enforcement of safeguards that may exist.  The average citizen who passes by or visits a school construction project seldom wonders or questions whether all of the tax dollars appropriated for the project are being used just for that project.

The players who perpetrate this type of theft are normally within the higher echelon of local governments, construction companies, professional engineering services firms, etc.  Within local governments the key players are people like public school superintendents and their immediate staff, construction managers, purchasing agents, finance directors, county administrators and their immediate staff, county attorneys and elected board members.  The players within the businesses are generally the owners, CEO’s, CFO’s, sales reps and in many instances sub-contractors hired by the construction companies.  The players will often times manipulate governing laws in order to limit the number of people involved in certain projects.  In many instances they have been known to fabricate justifications for construction process decisions by manipulating committee member selections and agendas, providing false estimates of projected costs, manipulating professional services selection processes to limit the number of design engineers involved, manipulating construction company selection processes, passing insider information and limiting the involvement of the average citizen and tax payer. 

Some contractors have ongoing arrangements with government players that enable them to bid a predetermined percentage lower than the lowest responsible bid.  There are also instances where contractors will be among the last to submit a bid so they can wait for a government player to provide information on the first bids submitted.  The contractors then adjust their bid price accordingly and in many instances will include exclusions for various scopes of work that will later be charged as change orders.  Government construction project budgets normally have funds set aside to cover unforeseen increases in construction costs. Well bid, designed, constructed and managed construction projects normally will not require the utilization of these contingency funds.

Multi million dollar construction projects require the purchase of many types of building materials.  The quantities of a vast number of these materials will fluctuate somewhat with project construction.  Most of these fluctuations are considered normal within reason. Unfortunately, this normal occurrence is used in many instances as the catalyst to perpetrate numerous crimes to include the theft of tax dollars.  In most instances no cash changes hands between the thieves because moving large quantities of cash is becoming ever harder to hide. Payoffs are more frequently made in the form of things like building materials and labor to provide someone a new house, catering and other expenses at someone’s wedding or other private function, assistance in loan financing, a new car or boat, trip and travel expenses, college funds, etc.

When building materials are used for payoff, shipments of the necessary payoff quantities are normally diverted to a location other than the intended government project. The cost of the materials is then buried in the government project costs and no one is the wiser.  When labor is used or included in a payoff, subcontractors associated with the government project are normally used.  All or a portion of the labor costs to build the payoff house are also then buried in the government project costs.  The tax payers are ripped off and one of the perpetrators builds a house for a fraction of what it would really cost. 

Enhanced by Zemanta