What If ‘A Majority of Americans Support Slavery’?

An article I read carried this headline: “Big NY voter majority favors ‘millionaire tax.’” Articles like this one are designed to show that people with money should pay more taxes. If given the chance to vote on the issue, the majority of the people in the state of New York would vote to confiscate the money of other people. Here’s the opening paragraph from the article

Almost three-quarters of New York voters favor a tax on millionaires, a poll found, days after several hundred people marched to the homes of some of New York City's richest financiers to protest economic inequality.

Support for taxing wealthier people breached party lines, with 83% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans in favor, according to the Siena College Research Institute poll released Monday. A separate poll released by Quinnipiac University showed New York City voters support an extension of the tax by 61% to 28% percent, with Republicans favoring it by 55% to 38%.

Let’s go back 160 years and conduct a similar poll among non-slaves. “Do you believe that we should keep existing laws regarding slavery?” I’m sure the Occupy Movement, Democrats, some Republicans, and union members would object to the claim that there’s moral (or immoral) equivalence in slavery and taxation. But a slave owner benefits from the labor of the slave in the same way that people who believe it is right to tax the rich at a higher rate benefit from the labor and property of others that is not their own.

This means that if an article reported that 'A Majority of Americans Support Slavery,' where is the foundational moral outrage to be found?

Robert Ingersoll said it best:

“Every man is dishonest who lives upon the labor of others, no matter if he occupies a throne.”

Let me bring Ingersoll’s truism up to date:

“Every man is dishonest who lives upon the labor of others, no matter if he gains the fruit of a person’s labor and property by majority vote.”

How can Americans live with the belief that it’s OK to use the power of government to tax people in a disproportionate way? It’s no wonder that our founding fathers had harsh things to say about governing by majority rule.

Democracy is bandied about as an incantation. When “the people” express themselves in opposition to egregiously oppressive political regimes, this is claimed to be “democracy in action,” as if public expression ias somehow a magical spell that will make forty or fifty years of socialistic and communistic oppression and acceptance “by the people” go away, saying nothing of man’s sinful nature.

In the Federalist Papers (No. 10), Madison writes that democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention.” Pure democracies are “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. . . . In general [they] have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”[1]

Christian philosopher Francis A. Schaeffer described law by majority vote as “the dictatorship of the 51%, with no controls and nothing with which to challenge the majority.”[2]  What can be the logical results of a democracy with no controls other than the will of the majority?:

“It means that if Hitler was able to get a 51% vote of the Germans, he had a right to kill the Jews.”[3]

Is majority vote “the law” no matter what the outcome? What if “the people” vote for a communistic government? Would our Western values consider this to be a legitimate form of government? What of the oppressed minority? What if a majority of Muslims gained power in America, and once in power abolished or ignored the Constitution and the newly elected Muslim president ruled by Executive Order? Under democracy, would this be legitimate? If not, why not?

Democracy is busting out all over the Middle East. Are these Islamic nations choosing our system of government? They are not. Consider the wise words of John Adams, our nation’s second president:

Vox populi, vox Dei [voice of the people [is] the voice of God] they say, and so it is, sometimes; but it is sometimes the voice of Mahomet, of Caesar, of Catiline, the Pope and the Devil.’”[4]

Or of the mob. That's why our constitutional framers founded a Republic.


Notes:
  1. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist, Jacob E. Cooke, ed. (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), 61. []
  2. Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1970), 33-34. []
  3. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the 20th Century, 34. []
  4. John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, 15 April 1794. []

  • ArchetypeHooves
  • DontTreadOnMe11

    That's the problem. We a governed by polls. Our politicians do not do what is "right" for the country, they do what is best for them to get re-elected.

    • http://www.facebook.com/roy.mcdade Roy Mcdade

      One way or the other, this, I believe, will end soon enough...

    • Tom

      I was told by my State Senator at a public meeting that "you cannot be conservative all the time because once you are elected, you serve all your constituents". She, like many politicians, believes that she is there to do the bidding of her constituents regardless of what they ask of her, when, in reality, her intended purpose should be to protect her constituents from attempts to over-reach and limit their freedom. Our representatives should be our protectors, not our providers. That is where we went wrong. The beginning of the end, by the same token, for America was when in about 1913, we took away the only power the state government had to control the federal government. The 17th Amendment took away the state government's representative in COngress. The Senate was never intended by the founders to represent the people, it was to protect the states. The House of Representatives served the people - not the Senate. When I attempted to push for a plank in the WV GOP platform that supported the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the same Sanator mentioned above voted against it and another member of the committee made the empassioned comment that I"wanted to take away my representation in the Senate and give it to the state government. With this level of ignorance, we have some serious work ahead before we are safe again. May God grant us the time to do it.

      • Les

        Unfortunately, Tom, to few realize how right you are. Even fewer, I believe, have the countries best interest at heart. We have become a nation dependent on the government. When the founding fathers drafted the constitution and the bill of rights, they said that all men are created equal. They neglected to add the caveat, "In the eyes of God". For too long, "in the eyes of the law" are what the malcontents and leeches to our society have lived by. They believe, that because they are equal, they deserve all the benefits of the wealthy, without having to do what it took to get wealthy. They are the ones who demand redistribution of a wealth they have never earned. I could go on about this for hours, but to no avail. As long as we are a society living only too support those who won't do it themselves, we are doomed to keep doing it.

        • Progressive Republican

          "In the eyes of God" was deliberately excluded. The constitution is a secular document; not a religious one. All mentions of even a Creator were deliberately withheld.

        • http://twitter.com/jsbrodhead Jeff Brodhead

          The States Constitutions (EVERY ONE OF THEM) already recognize our Creator. The Constitution of the United States of America was created under the authority of the Several States, under the authority of We the People. The [U.S.] Constitution does not supersede the authority of We the People. Not mentioning our Creator in the Constitution is to tell the {U.S.] government to STAY THE HELL OUT OF OUR BELIEFS - DO NOT GO THERE - IT'S NOT THE DOMAIN OF GOVERNMENT, not to keep us and our 'religious' values out of government.

          The arguments over whether to include the Bill of Rights, was over just that issue - if it is mentioned in the Constitution/Bill of Rights 1) government must comply and 2) government will use legalese to insert itself in the very things it was told NOT to touch.

        • Progressive Republican

          Who mentioned state constitutions?

        • Cephyr13

          Our government actually used to let several religions have church in their government buildings in towns all over the US back in the early years of our country. Strangely enough, Jefferson had to fight against Islam's terrorists attacking America back in the 1800s. They did so because we were a "Christian" nation. Our laws are actually modeled after the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament. Go read it--you'll see how nearly identical our original laws are to several of the Old Testament laws. All of our Founding Fathers were Old Testament scholars. While the government couldn't choose or legislate or mediate religion, they could and did support Christianity in many forms. To try to separate religion from our country's inception would be absurd, and yet people try to do it. All nations laws are built on some belief system, most religious, a few anti-religious. And your name, Progressive Republican, is an oxymoron, by the way. Can't be one without the other, though, I'd say a lot of our Republicans in Congress don't understand that nowadays, because they seem awful Progressive.

        • Progressive Republican

          There is no question but that our nation was founded on religious principles. It is equally unquestionable that they were assiduous in their attempts at keeping religion and politics separate.

          Your claim that, "Jefferson had to fight against Islam's terrorists attacking America back in the 1800s. They did so because we were a "Christian" nation." is completely and utterly without merit. There are no facts to back up that claim. That sounds like something that Dinesh D'Souza should have flushed but typically chose to publish instead. He, like Breitbart.com and anyone associated with them are proven and inveterate liars. Those who believe them are idiots. Literally.

          You DO realize that not all Mosaic Law was used as a template for the constitution, right? There are vast swaths of his law that are not even mentioned in there such as Leviticus 1:9, Exodus 21:7, Lev. 15:19-24, Ex. 35:2, Lev. 11:10, Lev. 21:20, and much, much more.

          Benjamin Franklin, on the other hand introduced the constitution of the Iroquois Nation as a model for our own. The Iroquois' constitution, called the Great Law of Peace, guaranteed freedom of religion and expression as well as other rights later embraced in the U.S. Constitution. The Great Law said the national government should have a commander-in-chief and that person should present a "state of the union" address to the nation. States were first to solve disputes between them on their own. If resolution efforts failed, the national government would then assume authority. The Iroquois' also said that when a legislator was presenting an issue to the governing chamber that others should be quiet; a practice adopted by Congress that contrasted with protocol in the British parliament.

          There is one significant difference between the two, however. The Iroquois constitution specifically mentioned women. Many Indian nations were matriarchal with women nominating legislators. Maybe Mosaic law has somewhat less to do with the Constitution's creation than did the Iroquois. I'm thinking that that is the case.

          And now we have yet another historically ignorant person claiming that, "Progressive Republican, is an oxymoron, by the way." This didn't used to be the case. When the Whig Party split in the mid-1800s, the more progressive remnant later formed the GOP whose founding principles were those of fiscal and social responsibility. From these roots came Abraham Lincoln: America's first Republican president. Sadly these principles were abandoned by 1890 when the Republicons sold out to the robber barons.

          There was an all-too-brief resurgence in Republican progressivism with the election of Teddy Roosevelt who could be credited with ending the Gilded Age, the boom-and-bust economic cycles of laissez-faire, and rusher in the beginnings of the Progressive era. He and his cousin gave America the most stable economy in world history; at least until Pres. Ronnie came along, but I digress.

          The following makes little sense. "Progressive Republican, is an oxymoron, by the way. Can't be one without the other, though, I'd say a lot of our Republicans in Congress don't understand that nowadays, because they seem awful Progressive." What on earth makes you think that there are progressive Republicans in Congress? Perhaps you could clarify that and the, "Can't be one without the other" part.

        • thismustend

          Seriously, media matters troll, go drool into a cup at the KOS or Huffpost. Your REVISIONIST & INCREDIBLY STUPID version of our history is LAUGHABLE & YOU are a PATHETIC JOKE. Your rhetoric may fly at the aforementioned sites but we know & share the TRUTH here. Now go jac k off to your Soros pics & slither back to your basement.

        • Progressive Republican

          That's right. When you can't take the truth resort to ad hominem attacks just like a good little Republicretin/Teandertal. Good boy.

        • http://twitter.com/ABN_PFDR_SSG US Army SSG (Ret)

          HOOAH!!! Hey @"LIBERAL"Republican, did you call ME and my fellow Veterans IDIOTS?!! Why don't you come and say that to our faces?

      • Sutekh

        The Left has taken this to the extreme. The politician defines his "consituents" as those who make the same amount of money he does, or those whose skin is the same color as his, or those who speak the same foreign language that he does, or those who belong to the same religion he does (be it Homocreationism, or Geocalorianism) and votes what a majority of "his people" want. We see echos of that in Eric Holder, who states that he refuses to prosecute "his people."

        • TheRaghead

          Amen brother....

        • Progressive Republican

          "The politician defines his "consituents" as those who make the same amount of money he does, or those whose skin is the same color as his, or those who speak the same foreign language that he does, or those who belong to the same religion he does (be it Homocreationism, or Geocalorianism) and votes what a majority of "his people" want," describes the Republicons to a tee. Well done.

      • John The Baptist

        That is why I think that "WE THE PEOPLE" need to vote OUT ALL incumbents and get some new blood in Washington and in our local government, because they have not done their job in protecting the CONSTITUTION of AMERICA. They can say all they want, but the fact is what it is. You have heard the saying "I'm from Missouri-show me". Actions speaks louder than words.

        • TheRaghead

          If necessary, we need a plan B with a few of my fiends,,,

        • Progressive Republican

          Fiends? That's one hell of a Freudian slip there.

      • http://twitter.com/jsbrodhead Jeff Brodhead

        Serve the Constitution and the rest will be ok!

    • Sutekh

      Term limits would help that problem, Don'tTreadOnMe11. If elected officials knew that merely pleasing the people would not allow them to stay in office and create Kennedyesque dynasty for themselves, they would be less likely to pander to the interest group of rowdies who managed to make the most noise. Who knows, some of them who actually have convictions other than criminal ones might vote according to those convictions.

      • fatman45

        Term limits don't work. Just look at any place they have been tried, like California. The reason they don't work is this: Say the voters are unhappy with their current DemocRAT rep. Without term limits, the only way to get rid of them is to vote for the Repulican challenger. With term limits, they just have to wait for the rep to term out and then pull the lever for another D. Worse still, the new rep won't have their own staff, so they usually end up inheriting the staff of the person they replaced. And since the staff members are the ones who actually write (and read) the bills, what you end up with is a more or less permanent class of unelected (=unaccountable) people writing your laws. No thanks!

        • cordwinder

          Sometimes to much to drink is just not enough

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-Kafir/100001899500966 Kelly Kafir

          We also see these termed out politicians just run for some other office

        • http://www.facebook.com/danny.groat.9 Danny Groat

          Or get hired as lobbyists

    • LeSellers

      You have highlighted the difference between politicians and statesmen.

      We suffer from too many of the former and too few (to a near nullity) of the latter.

      Mr. O'bama, where are the jobs?

      • [email protected]

        Obama is a communist and a homo sexual

        • TheRaghead

          Did you know the Democratic Party accepted the members of the Communist Party USA in 1953!!!

    • John The Baptist

      In that case, "We The People" need NOT vote them back in.

      • capitalust

        "We the people" need to VOTE THEM OUT. This is not the same as above.

  • deeme

    They do slavery to government, but I hope I'm wrong...I hope it's not the majority yet..although if we don't id the voter , I don't know if there's a choice in the matter..
    I really think it's not the majority rule anymore and I think that has happened by runaway congress people out for their own riches, unconcerned with We the People..Example, 80 percent , that would be the majority still believe in God, yet it offended a few and was taken out of everything..Not what the founders wanted, not what we the people wanted...
    "Prayer is one of the few things in the world that hurts no one and sustains the
    spirit of millions. The founding fathers felt this so strongly that they
    enshrined the principle of freedom of religion in the First Amendment of the
    Constitution. The purpose of that amendment was to protect religion from the
    interference of government and to guarantee, in its own words, 'the free
    exercise of religion.' Yet today we're told that to protect that First
    Amendment, we must suppress prayer and expel God from our children's classrooms.
    In one case, a court has ruled against the right of children to say grace in
    their own school cafeteria before they had lunch. A group of children who
    sought, on their initiative and with their parents' approval, to begin the
    school day with a one-minute prayer meditation have been forbidden to do so. And
    some students who wanted to join in prayer or religious study on school
    property, even outside of regular class hours, have been banned from doing so. A
    few people have been objected to prayers being said in Congress. That's just
    plain wrong. The Constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying;
    its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray." SEPTEMBER 18, 1982,
    IN A RADIO ADDRESS TO THE NATION Ronald Reagan..

    • polmutant

      wake up, America is gone you now serve allah in Amafrika. all the diareeha of the mouth will not help. no one cares about history and freedom, all they want is welfare.

    • http://www.facebook.com/roy.mcdade Roy Mcdade

      With the Constitution going up in smoke, so will our govt, opening the doors to Marxism, and Communism. There is a movement going on across America by We The People who will soon be putting an end to this "New form of hope and change". AMERICA WILL NOT FALL..... TO ANYONE

      • http://www.facebook.com/joe.zimmerman.77 Joe Zimmerman

        Grab your guns and ammo. and get ready !!!!!!!!!!

        • georgetheclown

          FBI needs to check you out. Promoting Civil War. RIGHT WING WACKO TERRORIST!

      • Tom

        That is because all of the believers in Marxism and Communism agree on the need to destroy the system that is in place before rebuilding on the foundations of Marxism or Communism. It is necessary to their cause and they are well on their way to the destination unless we stand and fight. Most of those supporting one world government come from groups founded by people that have one thing in common...the worship of the occult. Don't believe me...read the book, "Brotherhood of Darkness" by Dr. Stanley Montieth. It is fully footnoted, documented and factual. It will curl your hair when you realize how this has been spread and how deep its tentacles go into our government.

        • Progressive Republican

          Oligarchs also realize the need to destroy the system that is in place before rebuilding on the foundation of an oligarchy. They have a HUGE head start.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZWCQDCVCPVS2AOAKTD6HUNOEOI Enrique

      We need to get the Federal goverment of the schools.

  • polmutant

    because everyone in USA is a slave. too poor to pay attention the sheoples are slaughtered.

  • sonnieC

    Another 4 years with the food stamp president Obama and we the working class will all be slaves working to support the food stamp prople.

    • Les

      we are already slaves to the food stamp crowd. Everything we do is taxed or has fees attached. And everything we do is regulated to death, to the point that it is worth doing because it is over regulated.

      51% is always screwing the other 49% in a democracy.

      • CARLjr

        How much did we give the banks with TARP?

        • yadontwannaknow

          A whole lot more than to the "food stampers" .................

        • CARLjr

          Damn right. Free money for millionaires. Take home a few million in bonuses, you earned it this year for ruining the world's economy! Now go put it in your Cayman Island account and shred the evidence.

        • Progressive Republican

          Hurry, hurry! Time's a-wastin'!

        • Progressive Republican

          "Foodstampers" can't afford to perpetuate the lifestyle to which these traitors have become accustomed.

        • Progressive Republican

          Something like $737 billion or so with the banks "promising" to put it into loans to boost the economy, so there were no conditions set into the bill requiring it. Oops.

        • CARLjrf

          Nope, it's closer to $23 Trillion.

        • Progressive Republican

          That's how much economic damage was done by the banks, Wall St., etc. The amount I was referring to was the Troubled Assets Relief Program.

        • CARLjr

          I was talking about TARP too. There were secret loans, things that went around Congress. It's always much worse than we are told, sometimes it's way worse than we could ever imagine.

          http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/story/2012-08-11/bailout-neil-barofsky-book-review/56938196/1

        • Progressive Republican

          Thanks for the link.

          The article states that the $23.7trillion mentioned is commitments, not loans.

          Barofsky understates the situation when he says, "We may be in danger of quickly returning to the pre-crisis status quo of inadequately capitalized banks that take outsized risks while being coddled by their over-accommodating regulators and, if that occurs, a repeat of the financial crisis will soon be upon us."

          With Obama/Holder refusing to investigate and prosecute Wall Street and other responsible parties, those parties merely say to themselves, "We got away with it. Let's do it again!" You know they'l try unless regulations are in the way to prevent it. Rmoney has PROMISED to unchain the banks and Wall Street. This is not a recipe for disaster, it's a guarantee.

        • CARLjr

          It's hard to find any accurate account. Salon says its 16 trillion. I tried to post a link, but it didn't go through. It is crazy amounts. Enough to give everyone in the country food stamps and welfare checks for a decade.

        • Progressive Republican

          Given that there was a tacit agreement that the banks would loan out the money from the TARP bailout and then they didn't/haven't coupled with the over two trillion dollars they're sitting on there's a lot that COULD be done to stimulate the economy. That's not counting the couple of dozen trillion dollars being hoarded offshore.

          So long as Republicons insist on giving more money to those who are sitting on what they have instead of providing it to those who will go out and actually SPEND it, things will only get worse and these will become the good-ol'-days. Yippee.

      • Apolloone

        We have now including gov employees who get tax money

    • John The Baptist

      I believe that the ones that have PAID in to socical security should be the only ones to be able to recieve from it. If they have never worked, to bad be hungy. If you want to eat, go to work. The working class ,or the government DOES NOT owe you anything. Get off your back-side and GO TO WORK. I've seen on "youtub" Fat lazy woman, with 5 or 6 kids telling us to keep working so they can keep on having babbies. This needs to STOP.

      • TheRaghead

        Those that have not contributed should also be removed from SS. That would fix SS AND we want the money back in SS that the Dem congress stole!!!

    • Progressive Republican

      Instead of being slaves to further support the 1%?

    • TheRaghead

      My grandchildren and son are on food stamps due to Obama.... and his MoveON.Org.

    • richbrat

      Until you're rich, you'll always be slaving for somebody. Funny that working people begrudge the food-stamp crowd, you are SO close to being there yourself, many who used to have jobs had your same mean-spirited, stingicrat attitude. It wasn't the jobless who shipped jobs to communist Red China to exploit the slave labor there! BFOB (Before Obama); See: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/596305776

  • http://www.facebook.com/jimdshipley James Shipley

    History tells us that democracys last about 200 years. That is how long ti takes for lazy people to realize they can vote themselves the fruits of other people's labor.

    • capitalust

      Actually the U.S. has not been a democracy until very recently, so the lifetime of this one is much less than 200 years. The poor have already discovered they can legally loot the rich via the ballot, and have been doing so for at least 80 years. At this point it has become armed robbery. There is no "recovery" from this point. Get out while you can. Soon that will no longer be an option.

  • John Brashear

    the REASON we are a Republic is to save the Lambs from The LIONS, so the Majority cannot accomplish the slavery by any means, the Lions cant look at the Lambs and say "Whats for Dinner", and the Court says....well It wont be Lamb.....but all is no longer a "Republic" we are according to most, a democracy

  • Diehard Conservative

    If the wealthy are taxed excessively, they will no longer have the means to provide jobs for those who need them.

    • BigUgly666

      If the "wealthy" are taxed excessively, they will stop making the monies upon which they are being "taxed".

      • http://www.facebook.com/jimmy.douglas.31 Jimmy Douglas

        Exactly....Why can't people see this. Only an idiot would work their butt off to make more money just to have it taken away and given to some lazy bum? They would just go join the lazy bum and wait for the next hard working idiot to come along to support them. I normally blame the Liberals but it seems that the percent of conservatives in favor of this runs alarmingly high also.

        • capitalust

          There is the fundamental problem of socialism. If everyone gets the same reward regardless of ability or effort, pretty soon there is no ability and no effort, only rewards. Soon, without abliity and efforts, there are no rewards to distribute, and the society collapses, as is happening now in most of Europe AND IN AMERICA, today. The dollar lost half of its value just since Obama began his disastrous reign - a bigger and faster loss than ever in history (gold = $800/oz to gold = $1600/oz). The collapse has already begun. The only effect of who wins in November is how rapidly the rest of the collapse happens. Mitt will slow it down a little (not reverse it - that is no longer possible). Obama will speed it up a lot. The end result will be the same. The disease is fatal, and in its terminal stage.

        • guest

          You seem to think that want and deprivation are the spur for innovation and industry. Actually, healthy people like to be creative and busy. Forced labor does not build character or even create better ipads, that was voluntary. The problem is conservatives have no imagination for a better world or how to manifest it; they are all caught up in me, my, mine.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/VANDLWUQFMATFXKCCPCIOAFG2U Krissy

          capitalust: I'm just going to pretend that you did not make that stupid remark.....

    • guest

      It's not that they don't have the means; they would rather hire people at slave wages in other countries, not pay retirements and the environment-be-damned. You just can't get these rich brats to behave responsibly. This generation of industrialists are not like their parents, the latter who created retirement funds for their workers. The new MBA brats raid those funds. And where are all the jobs that we hoped businesses would create with the Bush tax cuts? Sort of blows holes in your theory, hmmm? Keep laying that one on Obama's doorstep if you can, TEA party activists were carrying banners 3 years ago, saying "We are not hiring until Obama is gone."
      Businesses in the 60's and 70's paid a lot higher taxes and we still had retirement plans back then.

      Why not automate as much as possible so we can pay people to sit on their asses? Even rich people like to sit on the beach and sip pina coladas. Not everyone is good at making money, and anyone who has worked in business (not as a job) knows how crooked the world is. And others have more scruples. So quit reducing it to your lowest & lamest possible terms because it dumbs people down rather than enlighten.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000104161614 George Gaither

    I hear the politicians all the time saying our democracy, I then think what a idiot, they don't know that we are a Constitutional Republic, so how can they defend something they have know knowledge of?

  • http://www.facebook.com/joe.zimmerman.77 Joe Zimmerman

    Yea ,, thats the ticket lets have a vote on sending all illegal Mexicans back to Mexico, and all Negros back to Africa ,,, thath sounds like a good plan !!!!!!!!!!

    • capitalust

      Abraham Lincoln campaigned much of his life to ship the negros back to Africa. If only he had... today he would be campaigning to ship the illegals back to Mexico.

      • Progressive Republican

        "Abraham Lincoln campaigned much of his life to ship the negros back to Africa." His turning point on the subject caused him to write and then issue the Emancipation Proclamation, after which he never broached the subject of repatriation again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/al.green.5895 Al Green

    i donts want to go to africa,they dont got welfare or foodstamps over their

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roger-Meyer/1785162356 Roger Meyer

      A Good Laugh. I doubt very much that you are either on food stamps or welfare.

  • flaphil

    The liberals hate ambition and success in business unless it's a protected group like politicians, artists, actors, newspaper people , union bosses and you get the drift. If you started your own company and made it, you're suspect. then if you fight over-regulation you're a target. You're excused if you kowtow to leftist interest groups, fags, atheists and other freaks-of-nature.

  • Earl P. Holt III

    Sign me up: When they start yammering about slavery, I tell 'em it was the last honest work they ever did...

  • http://www.facebook.com/al.green.5895 Al Green

    in america black peoples dont haves to work,we got whitie working for us paying my bills

    • John The Baptist

      You better take up a trade buddy, because your going to have to learn how to work come very shortly because we whites are going to make you. No more freebies. No workie, no eatie. Ha,Ha,Ha.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZWCQDCVCPVS2AOAKTD6HUNOEOI Enrique

    I wonder, how many High School graduates actually understand the difference between a Republic & a Democracy and why it is important?

    • http://www.facebook.com/al.green.5895 Al Green

      most americans are stupid they think we are a democracy when we are a republic-a nation of laws that all must abide by (until Obama)

    • capitalust

      None. Why do you think one of the top priorities of any totalitarian government is "free", universal public education CONTROLLED by the State? Get 'em while they're young.

  • SONOFAMILLIONAIRE

    As long as my slaves are white I can beat their asses any time I feel like it and they remain held with bond inside of my estate for at least 400 years fee simple. They can start slavery again tommarrow ! Where do I sign up !?

    • http://www.facebook.com/al.green.5895 Al Green

      is that you reginald ??

  • http://www.facebook.com/al.green.5895 Al Green

    this is too funny my great great grand pappy was a slave,now the white man is my slave

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roger-Meyer/1785162356 Roger Meyer

      The last true group of slaves were the Irish Bound Servants, brought over to the US by wealthy families to perform primarily household duties. They were not free to leave the family until they had paid off their BOND that was their debt to the family who brought them to the U.S.
      Most were not paid wages, although housing and food were provided.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Z6ZIFR7L3GDW7P5Q7IAO2TUKJQ Jerimiah

    Always remember the entitlement group who decides what they are entitled to are the politicians-don't believe me, look at all of the benefits they give themselves. All other entitlement groups are dependent on the politicians. Until the American people wake up and take back this authority from the politicians, we are doomed to giving them more and more..Obama now wants a salary for Aunt Esther aka Mooseshell. Taking more taxes ensures all entitlement group more and more benefits..

    • capitalust

      After Lady Clinton (similar to Lady MacBeth), I think we should pass a constitution ammendment requiring the president (whether male or female) to be single. Remeber - "you voted for one, but got two!"

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/E4S3WH7CYJHF2563DLTVSOEWLM Chickadee 1

    In this present political atmosphere, I would not be surprised if the vote would go that way. Only it would be whites that were in slavery . And there is a thing called "slavery to gov't"..And if Ohitler is re-elected, it just well may be that. This world is so turned around, i.e., evil is good and good is evil !!!!!!!!!!!!!! And Obama is the worst president I have ever seen!!!!!!!! He acts like an 18 year old with his first credit card!!!!! Put it on the credit card, you won't have to pay it !!!!!!!! Hurry up, Nov !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dexter L. Wilson

    Please everybody look up what was going on in communist Soviet Union--there were lines to by shoes, groceries, gas, commodities--if you vote for a communist like Barry Soetoro alias Barak Obama that is what you are looking forward to.

  • Schnitzelschitzen

    If in fact the media or our politicians are owned by individuals, or corporations that shape the news in favor of their own self interests and not the interests of Our Nation, Our people, we then can say that we owe our soul to the company store.

  • http://www.facebook.com/judy.ratliff.94 Judy Ratliff

    the rich and elite do support slavery. why do you think we have so many illegals now? whom better to hire than an illegal that you can hold deportation over their head? although with the idiot in OUR WH, they all will be sfae now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/al.green.5895 Al Green

    obama dist the black folks by giving our welfare monies to illegal mexicans

    • willythegeek

      What's the matter, you don't want to share with them; but, you want us to share with you. Sounds like your the one that being held captive. You'll end up losing all your freedoms to keep your free stuff when it starts falling apart, which it's doing right now. Better wake up and smell the roses, this is a chess game and your losing.

      • mrbillsdog

        Um......its "wake up and smell the coffee"....... ;-)

  • WVF

    Maybe we should pass a law forbidding polls. This country is supposed to be governed by elected representatives, not polls! This is a Representative Republic, and that is why minorities in this country are protected from unfair treatment. Millionaires and billionaires are minorities and should be protected under our form of government. ALL citizens should pay the same percentage as all other citizens--that's fair! I say God bless those more fortunate than I, because if it were not for the truly wealthy, most Americans would not have jobs. May Bill Gates, the Apple Company, Warren Buffet, Walton family, and Donald Trump continue to thrive, as well as all others who are truly wealthy! Thank God for capitalism--not socialism!

    • Progressive Republican

      Noblisse oblige should be S.O.P.

      • WVF

        Progressive Republican, noblesse oblige is what happens in this country, because of the fortunate.  They do help/give others opportunity to help themselves, and a citizen should expect no more.

        • Progressive Republican

          Noblisse oblige DOES occur, but id rare at best. So long as the economic structure continues to move the nation's wealth from those who have little to those who have much the situation cannot help but deteriorate. It is unsustainable and will collapse. Again.

  • Gary Engler

    Our republic and the Constitution that defines it say that we are protected by LAW from such "tyranny of the majority."

  • Nathan51

    A large part of the problem is that the brain dead Leftist idiots ms-educated by our corrupt, failed education/Liberal indoctrination system do not have the slightest idea of the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. Sadly, most of the civics and history teachers do not have a clue either.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rwyatthaines Raeman Haines

    Obama has made slaves of us already . He has us working to pay for all his rediculous Green Projects and raises our taxes , made Obamacare law despite the public being against it and is trying to turn America into a dictatorship run by himself and his chosen cronies

  • jbeach

    The fact is that, regardless of the ideology, something always works for somebody. Slavery worked for masters, because slaves worked. Crime works for criminals. Stupidity rarely works for anybody. If there is a rule here, it is that we need to be informed about the law because the slave mentality works for masters. If Christians have had a problem with it throughout history, it because St. Paul did not answer the question of the morality of it. But, if "Art thou a slave? Seek not to be free. Art thou free? Seek not to be a slave"
    leaves doubt about the issue of slavery, "The workman is worth his hire" certainly does not.
    The justice of taxing the workman would be more so with a flat tax, say 15%, across the entire work force. If standard of living is relative to cost of living and determined by wages, whether one earns $20K or $20 Million, the same can not be true for the person who earns nothing and for whom the government taxes to raise standard of living.

  • henrybrauchler

    Most of New Yorkers are plain idiots to vote for BHO, why should they NOT be cabable of voting or doing other assinine things?!?

    • John The Baptist

      Hay! Don't say ALL New Yorkers. I was born there but I'm ashame to admitt it to day because of the politics in New York City,(Yes I mean the mayor poopburge) He is a discrace to ALL New Yorkers. He needs to be voted OUT.(OR something better) He has put so much shame on the people of New York.

      • henrybrauchler

        Hey John, the Baptist,
        I am a displaced New Yorker myself, sixty years. That's  why I speak with authority on the cesspool of Liberals up there. They moved in to corrupt the state, witness Robert Kennedy,et al  and the Clinton trash pile. To you my sympathy and appology !!!

  • Jim S

    The problem is this can bite on both sides of the political spectrum. If the majority voted to ban guns, there would be an uproar about the rights of gun owners being trampled by the majority. Yet the same folk will rant and rave about the "will of the majority" when talking about "gay marriage" or abortion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gus-S-Calabrese/1332043329 Gus S. Calabrese

    Gary, You rock

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Killgo/1637085325 Steve Killgo

    Go back to the late 1700s. Who got to vote? Everybody? Hell No! Only the affluent!
    Now look at who gets to vote today! Everything! Even illegals, dead people, some vote many times, people with no means of support except the Government get to vote for Communists that promise to give them more and more free stuff! The affluent are despised for having more than the homeless! The homeless are championed for standing up against the affluent and demanding MORE! If allowed to continue we will find true equality! We will all be equally poor! Are you unemployed? Do you think you will get a job from a homeless man?
    Don't try to tax the rich more! Stop giving away our tax money to the poor! When the economy turns around all that want a job can have one. Let those that don't want to work starve! They wont really starve. When they get hungry enough, with no food stamps, they will find work doing something, somewhere. That is how America was designed! We are a Republic! Some succeed some fail! We are not a democracy! No democracy can exist for long! The havenots always end up outnumbering the haves and if allowed to vote will always vote for those that promise them more! Why work hard when all your profits are stolen from you and given away to buy votes for people trying to destroy your business and your life.
    Defund the underclass! Support those that hire the majority of Americans and get everybody a job!

  • http://twitter.com/Paulc37 Conrad

    Blacks Love Slavery as they get to live off the fat of the land--WELFARE. ~100% vote for their Master the Democrat Party. That explains it all.

  • VocalYokel

    "What 'If A Majority of Americans Support Slavery'..."

    Apparently "A Majority" do, as the '99%' attempt to enslave the 1%

  • iBaconi

    We are governed by "the people' still, but not for long. Thus the intense effort by the "main stream" propagandia, Keeping the people ignorant is magnificently important to the growth of governance, for the good (my ass!) of the people. I'm tempted to say that it's unfortunate that the Constitution was not more clearly written, but the Constitution is now ignored in any case. The USA is presided over by a man who is absolutely constitutionally ineligible. The anti-federalists pointed out the path America has followed and if Slavery becomes supported by the majority of the people we can simply turn the phrase to the more accurate term of "slaves" rather than "governed," which we already are.

  • Knarley Junk Punch

    "What if a majority of Muslims gained power in America, and once in power abolished or ignored the Constitution and the newly elected Muslim president ruled by Executive Order? Under democracy, would this be legitimate? If not, why not?"
    Seems to me this frightning scenario is playing now at your local White House.

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6664/a-majority-of-americans-support-slavery/#ixzz2413RGfYF

    • John The Baptist

      Well Junk Punk, If you don't know the answer to the question then your part of the problem and not the salutation.

  • SFS444

    Whatvare we going to do about this folks? Stand by like Venezuelans or fight like Americans?

  • Ricardo

    We have dictators - Harry Reed & John B. - Reed and Reed alone can decide if something is put up for vote. What ever happened to one man one vote. The congress has allowed this to happen to give the majority more power. It's just not right. This is why we need 6 year term limits for both the senate and the house - with 1/3 elected every two years like the senate is now. But those clowns would never allow that to happened because they have created a way of life for themselves. Not to mention getting rich. The people would have to get a petition on a notional level and put it up for a vote during a national election for that to ever happen. Wouldn't it be nice to cut their umbilical cord and start sending them back home. We would have ordinary Americans running for 6 year terms. This would stop the spend spend spend spend attitude the lifers in the congress has now.

    • John The Baptist

      What happens when you get a splintter in your finger?....You take it out.

  • Dennis Davis

    If you were to go to the congress records from 1800 on to the 1900's you will find that democrats always favored slavery, and the KKK whom they created and always voted against freeing slaves and voted against any sort of civil right bills. Check it out, the Republicans were the ones always trying to introduce civil rights for all, and who freed the blacks from slavery sure wasn't the Democrats. It was the Republicans and the civil war it took to free them. Also look at who had the KKK members in Congress and a president who was a member of the KKK. Check it out. I have the complete voting of every held legislation sessions from 1800 to mid 1900's it is history and it is facts. I would put it here but quite lengthily. In the 1950's who started welfare? who seen that big pot of money called Social Security and couldn't wait to get their dirty hands on it, and then started stealing it with well used work by them we PROMISE to repay it with IOUs? "DEMOCRATS"!!! 1950's was the beginning of today's WELFARE (slavery-Uncle Sams Plantation for the poor) and the money was taking from? Our Social Security. Now saying this our Republicans did NOTHING to reverse and joined in spending our money. So Congress people are CROOKS and We The People should hold today's congress accountable for this. Can you imagine how much money we would have in that pot today if our dirty elected officials would of left it alone? I know this those on SS could be getting a nice check today and those of us getting ready to take it would not have to worry about it going broke. Democrats took it and used it for everything else but what it was intended for and Republicans joined in since they were put up against a wall do to a thing called WELFARE... Well guess you all can check it out for yourselves these are facts and archived in history's past.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Keith-Conder/100000478880519 Keith Conder

      You are correct. I'VE done the research as well. The raiding of the Social Security fund started under LBJ (Democrap) with Medicare. He had to use it to make the phony numbers sound plausible to the people. Well our current White House squatter had to use the Student Loan program to do the same thing in his Deathcare legislation. Think about it folks.

    • guest

      Print more money to replace it and stop giving it to bankers, they just discount it anyway, the more they have of it (why the value of the dollar goes down.) We need to dissempower those @ssholes and stop letting their perceptions drive up the cost-of-living!

  • Ken Howes

    There's no good reason for the Republicans to throw themselves on their swords for the rich. The rich voted for Obama. They wanted him. Let them pay his taxes. The GOP can re-evaluate its stance toward the rich when they stop electing congressmen like Tierney (MA), Himes (CT), Bishop (NY), Israel (NY), Maloney (NY), Lowey (NY), Schwartz (PA), Van Hollen (MD), Donnelly (VA), Schakowsky (IL), Wasserman Schultz (FL), Woolsey (CA), Boxer (CA), Eshoo (CA), Capps (CA), Waxman (CA), and Sherman (CA).K

    • DontTreadOnMe11

      We have a few in Michigan you can add to that list.

  • mocha10

    Our founders gave the people the power by giving them the opportunity to vote every 2-4 years. Put the fear back in to the leaders to do what the people want or you will not lead anymore. Who are these politicians that vote on our behalf for 10 - 15 - 40 years? They are NOT voting on the behalf of the people, they are voting on their behalf. Stop voting for incumbants for any reason. Put new blood in to our government and start being slaves to big government.

  • mocha10

    AND STOP being slaves to big government!

  • Barto

    Eliminate all those on some form of welfare, Illegal Aliens and all Mexicans then do a poll to get a real balanced and unbiased result on more taxation of the wealthy! Most people with a grain of common sense realize most of those who are wealthy got there by starting, operating or investing in businesses that create jobs for WE the unwealthy....so where would we be without those wealthy people, well we are starting to see as Obama's policies are not making it condusive for job creation. Also, who do you think does most of the contributing to charities and other worthy causes. Why not compare Romney's wealth & charitable contributions to Obama's and let's see where they stand!

  • The J Man

    If the fatcats can't have fat then America can't have jobs. No Brainer!!!!

  • slidenglide

    After America , There is No
    Place to Go"

    The
    author of this article lives in South Dakota and is very active in attempting to
    maintain our freedom. I encourage everybody to read this article and pass it
    along. I see so many parallels in this country–are we going to sit by and
    watch it happen? Spread the word; also contact your congressional reps; vote
    them out if they don’t do what they should. If you don’t want to be
    bothered, then you’re part of the problem! Google Kitty Werthmann and you will
    see articles and videos.

    America truly is the Greatest Country in
    the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away

    By: Kitty Werthmann

    What I am about to tell you is
    something you've probably never heard or will ever read in history
    books.

    I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell
    you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We
    elected him by a landslide - 98% of the vote.. I've never read that in any
    American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his
    tanks and took Austria by force.

    In 1938, Austria was in deep
    Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25%
    inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.

    Farmers and business people
    were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house
    begging for food. Not that they didn't want to work; there simply weren't any
    jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need.
    Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor,
    hungry people - about 30 daily.

    The Communist Party and the
    National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities
    like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and
    petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they
    wanted.

    We looked to our neighbor on
    the north, Germany , where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been
    told that they didn't have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard
    of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or
    otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same
    way of life in Austria . We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the
    end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses
    would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent
    of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our
    ruler.

    We were overjoyed, and for
    three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new
    government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

    After the election, German
    officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order.
    Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that
    a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

    Hitler decided we should
    have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian
    women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked
    down on if he couldn't support his family. Many women in the teaching
    profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been
    required to give up for marriage.

    Hitler Targets Education -
    Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:

    Our education was
    nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was
    predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected
    Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix
    replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very
    devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion
    anymore. Instead, we sang "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," and had
    physical education.

    Sunday became National Youth
    Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden
    change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would
    receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be
    fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail.
    The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day
    we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got
    our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents
    about the wonderful time we had.

    My mother was very unhappy.
    When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a
    convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I
    grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any
    fun - no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt
    I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would
    go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing.
    Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By
    that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed
    strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I
    realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind
    of humanistic philosophy.

    Equal Rights Hits
    Home:

    In 1939,
    the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and
    could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment
    law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and
    if you didn't have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise
    their families didn't have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more
    suited for men.

    Soon after this, the draft was
    implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to
    give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the
    farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just
    like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated
    in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were
    used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and
    friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not
    equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I
    was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I
    was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military
    service.

    Hitler Restructured the
    Family Through Daycare:

    When the mothers had to
    go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care
    centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them
    there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government.
    The state raised a whole generation of children.. There were no motherly women
    to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology.
    By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been
    had.

    Health Care and Small
    Business Suffer Under Government Controls:

    Before Hitler, we had
    very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University
    of Vienna . After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone.
    Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free,
    the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor
    arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same
    time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait
    a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as
    it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools
    literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other
    countries.

    As for healthcare,
    our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately
    received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big
    programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were
    taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was
    entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and
    housing.

    We had another agency designed
    to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had
    square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round
    tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he
    had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business
    with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of
    business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones
    existed, it could be in control.

    We had consumer protection. We
    were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially
    abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents
    would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to
    produce, and how to produce it.

    "Mercy Killing"
    Redefined:

    In
    1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps . The villagers
    were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with
    snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were
    sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded
    adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named
    Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the
    window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where
    they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department
    would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to
    sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They
    were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause
    homesickness.

    As time passed, letters started
    to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The
    villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left
    in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this
    euthanasia.

    The Final Steps - Gun
    Laws:

    Next came gun
    registration.. People
    were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals
    (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were
    law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their
    firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone
    to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was
    futile not to comply voluntarily.

    No more freedom of
    speech. Anyone who said
    something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were
    arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke
    up.

    Totalitarianism didn't come
    quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship
    in Austria . Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to
    the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only
    weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the
    state, little by little eroded our freedom.

    After World War II, Russian
    troops occupied Austria . Women were raped, preteen to elderly.
    The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they
    took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process.
    They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn't destroy, they
    burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded
    themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the
    troops mobilized. Those who couldn't, paid the price. There is a monument in
    Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This
    is an eye witness account.

    "It's true..those of us who sailed past
    the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and
    opportunity.

    America Truly is the Greatest Country in
    the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away

    "After America , There is No Place to
    Go"

    Please forward this message
    to other voters who may not have it.

  • Native

    And every man is dishonest who sits on their ass rather than get a job because the government supports them, all at the labors of others.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PDK77FRFZ3T6V6JUC7M2T5GBNU Papermill

    You can tell that New Yorkers are mostly morons by who they elect governor, mayor, etc.

  • Dennis Davis

    If Obama is re-elected you will see slavery-Brother Hood of ISLAMIC Muslims will infiltrate the USA and begin to introduce their form of slavery as we see in the Muslim world and what is really mind boggling is many Blacks seem to embrace ISLAM which the KORAN states that NO AFRICAN will go to heaven, The Koran states that Allah will not allow Africans into Heaven (Koran 3:106) More:
    Again addressing blacks, Muhammad called blacks “raisin heads” (Al Bukhari, Vol. 1, No. 662 and Vol. 9, No. 256).
    Our African American friend s should take note of this when they claim that Islam is the black man’s religion, while Christianity is the white man’s religion!
    In fact, Jews are looked at by Muslims as “subhuman apes” (Koran 2:65). So beware of Obama and his WH.Women should really be a thinking... Has the Koran bettered the lot of women? What type of place and position do they occupy as it regards this religion?Off the bat, so to speak, Koran 4:34 states, “Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other.” So, immediately it is known as to what the religion of Islam thinks of women. In fact, women are looked at as mere property, somewhat like a field for men to plow whenever and however they like (Koran 2:223).Also, the Koran states that men are free to have as many as four wives at a time if they so desire (Koran 4:3).According to the Koran, men have the right to cohabit with women before marriage (Koran 4:24). And, oh yes, the Koran states that women must hide their faces with a veil, which is obvious to all who observe women in that religion (Koran 33:59). As well, in the religion of Islam, men can have as many females slaves as they so desire, and they may feel free to have sex with them as much as they desire (Koran 4:24).I think it should be obvious, at least if the Koran is a guide, that women are given little shift in the religion of Islam. As stated, they are no more than property, just objects. Something to remember is a Muslim can be Christians and are good people. ISLAM is the bad. Islamic Muslims are the murder's.. Look at Egypt and others.Women should really be a thinking... Has the Koran bettered the lot of women? What type of place and position do they occupy as it regards this religion?Off the bat, so to speak, Koran 4:34 states, “Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other.” So, immediately it is known as to what the religion of Islam thinks of women. In fact, women are looked at as mere property, somewhat like a field for men to plow whenever and however they like (Koran 2:223).Also, the Koran states that men are free to have as many as four wives at a time if they so desire (Koran 4:3).According to the Koran, men have the right to cohabit with women before marriage (Koran 4:24). And, oh yes, the Koran states that women must hide their faces with a veil, which is obvious to all who observe women in that religion (Koran 33:59). As well, in the religion of Islam, men can have as many females slaves as they so desire, and they may feel free to have sex with them as much as they desire (Koran 4:24).I think it should be obvious, at least if the Koran is a guide, that women are given little shift in the religion of Islam. As stated, they are no more than property, just objects. Something to remember is a Muslim can be Christians and are good people. ISLAM is the bad. Islamic Muslims are the murder's.. Look at Egypt and others.

  • SGT YORK

    this all comes to, count your guns boys,keep your powder dry and lock and load. lets Roll to the tune of Save America

    • capitalust

      Good moniker. You must be an old dude.

  • Joe

    You
    said “a slave owner benefits from the labor of the slave”. Tell me how that has
    changed when my master (government) gets the benefit of labor even before I do!
    Now that same master wants it’s slaves to rise up against the more industrious
    and confiscate even more of their labor!

  • Pappy Gringo

    New Yorkers have leaving in droves for decades. No state has lost more residents because of its outrageous taxes. So they are about to lose a lot more because people are dumb enough to buy into this redistribution nonsense. Such a pity that the greatest city in the world does'nt get it when it comes to big government.

    • capitalust

      California has lost more people, and MORE COMPANIES. That is the center of the infection. Sorry to bust your state in the chops, but compared to California they are amateurs.Calfifornia also has by far the largest state debt.

    • John The Baptist

      I say to get rid of bloomburg and you'll get rid of the problem.......

  • http://www.facebook.com/stewart.fish.50 Stewart Fish

    I'M ALL FOR IT---IT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN PUT THE NEGROES BACK TO WORK

    • John The Baptisi

      Agin, Stewart. If you do your homework you will find out that there are alot of whites, mexicans etc. thats on welfare(not because of work or the lack of) but because they are to LAZY to work for a living and want all the freebies that they can get.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Collins/100000220517250 Thomas Collins

    Self government starts with exactly that, governing one's self. Today, we have many grown-ups, but few adults. The more people are able to govern their own actions, the less government is needed. But we have "liberation" movements that excoriate "inhibitions", that is, a sense of conscience. For every inner child running loose, we need more laws and regulations. Religion provided that self-government that made our society possible, but now religion is under attack as being paternal, not letting that inner child act out it's fantasies, and all the laws in the world won't be able to keep a lid on that.

  • carol

    It is a bit shameful, that anyone should think about taking anyones money, even millionaires....I do not have a jealous bone in my body about people who are wealthy...most of them earned it..some cheated, some inherited..but, i dont' feel that it is my call to say "take it". I don't have time to worry about such things...I have to keep myself afloat with all the socialization of America....I do not have wealth envy..sure, i see things i might like to have, but , i learned a long time ago..."The wanting is most often better than the having". I only want what I worked for, what I put back, what I am entitled to for the work i put out to get things i own...jealousy of another person's wealth or things is idleness of the mind...if you truely want something..then go out, work and save and get it...it will mean alot more than things that are given to you by a government that enslaves you...

    • Northpaw

      Carol, the irony is, the only rich people the Occupy Wall
      Street and other leftwing loons admire are those who DIDN'T earn it! They just loved Ted Kennedy, the Champion of Chappaquiddick,
      who was a member in good standing in the Lucky Sperm Club or West Virginia Senator
      Jay Rockefeller Democrat. It’s only the small business people who make it
      against all the odds that they despise. The lefties sicken me.

      • fightforfreedom

        OWS do NOT love the Kennedys, and small business people are not in the 1%. (hint - the word 'small')

    • John The Baptist

      That is called "CAPITALISM". which is the best form of government.

  • http://www.facebook.com/stewart.fish.50 Stewart Fish

    THE NEGROS AND THE ILLEGALS NEED TO BE DEPORTED AND THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STOP HANDING OUT WELFARE

    • John The Baptist

      Stewart, Don't say negros, they are not the problem, thats what they(the Democrats, or the leftist) what you to think. there are probely as many blacks that work for a living as whites. Can't you see past the smoke stream. It's a class/race problem and we fall for it. Don't get caught in their problem. You have to be better than that. WE Americas have to work together to solve this problem and get rid of the ones that are trying to keep it going.

  • samtman

    The simple answer is, you would have to abolish the 13th Amendment and the abolition of slavery. I guess that some of you did't know that this was in the Contition.

  • Art

    That is a dumb question. What is the LAW? and if it was not a law we would have to make it one
    We had a civil war over that. Majority rule is a democracy. We live in a Republic and the rule of law. NOT MAJORITY RULE

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=598149295 Joanne Long

    There are some good reponses here. The majority of people don't know the differneces of a Republic or a Democracy. But I do find it interesting, those that want democracy, and say thats freedom are only putting themselves in chains. Picture this!--Waking up one morning, say about a year from now and they tooted their horn for Obama and he did win, and finding themselves enslaved. LOL wouldn't that be a hoot! Just hope it doesn't happen.

  • CARLjr

    We are already slaves to the banks. They own us all - including everyone in Washington. Why do none of these bankers get brought up on charges when they have been caught red handed again and again and again? The plan to fix "too big to fail"? Give the bankers free money. Let them grow even larger and absorb the failed banks. The revolving door of government official to bank board member, back to government, back to banking, etc. assures them they will keep themselves safe no matter what crazy corruption they decide to pull.
    LIBOR, HSBC money laundering, subprime mortgages and predatory lending, credit derivatives, credit default swaps, insider trading, the shadow banking system, hedge fund manipulations, robo-signing mortgages, raising the debt ceiling over and over, getting our credit rating downgraded, the federal reserve just prints money to cover it. (They may have also raided Fort Knox and stolen all the gold out of it. No one knows and it apparently cannot be audited) Is it any surprise to anyone that Goldman Sachs got bailed out by Henry Paulson, the US treasury secretary and former Goldman CEO? FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD But no one will ever pay the price except us. Most of these bastards are exempted from judicial oversight.

    The civil war will not be public v. government, red state v. blue state, conservatives v. liberals or christians v. muslims. It will be us versus the banks.
    And they have all the resources.....

  • DrBillLemoine

    The twisted logic and mismatching of comparisons here is astounding. There's no comparison between taxing authority and slave ownership whatsoever. After 300 years of slavery on the continent, mankind moved to match the rest of the civilized world without people treated as chattel. In this nation after 'four score and seven years', the nation finally implemented its unalienable rights to life to apply to black slaves. After 130 years of no national taxation, this country was deemed to be in the modern world, one of its leaders, having global responsibilities and instituted progressive income taxes. That's been the standard that brought us to undisputed world leadership with more responsibilities that require administration of many rules and regulations--a nation of laws. And I believe like millions of hard working, successful and wealthy people, that those who benefit more from this global leadership position should pay more than others. All the bellyaching from greedy, selfish, risk taking 1% of the population can't change that unwritten rule of civilization. Tax the successful proportionately more than the poor, underemployed, detached, primitive lifestyle people.

  • Northpaw

    I’m all for
    sharing, but being taxed is not sharing. Taking money from one neighbor to help
    another neighbor is not sharing. If a person wants to appeal to his neighbors
    to help another neighbor, that’s a good thing.

    There is no
    forced governmental altruism mandated in the Bible. The Good Samaritan (Luke
    10:25–37) uses his own money to care for the robbery victim left for dead. This
    story cannot be used as a directive for social spending by governments. Jesus
    never calls on the State to act in an altruistic way. The State can’t be
    altruistic since it has nothing of its own to give. The eighth commandment
    applies to civil governors in the same way that it applies to self-governors.
    Neither is permitted to steal to help others.

    You can’t
    be altruistic with other people’s money. Taking money from one group of people
    and giving it to another group of people is not altruism, even if a majority of
    people vote for a program that does it. It’s theft. Theft by “majority rule” is
    still theft.

    • guest

      It's not your money, read whose name it belongs to on the top of the bill, yes the state can give that money away. Jesus said pay the tax, and God doesn't care WHO does His will, just so long as someone does it. You gripe as if jobs are everywhere falling like ripe fruit. Your traitor bud GW handed the US economy to communist Red China when ha gave them most-favored-nations trading status. Blame him and the US traitor corps who moved there, not your unemployed countrymen on food-stamps.

  • georgetheclown

    More Daily HATE from the RIGHT WING WACKO TERRORISTS!

    • kill em all,

      your right george, its hard to stop th hate , desparation,,
      we cant enslave niggers, cause somebody will set them free and history will repeat itself,,, again.
      not all blacks are bad,,, just the 97% sponging in the USA

  • Evermyrtle

    The Democrats were those who supported slavery before and made the Ku-klux-Klan so if it happens again, the Democrats will be behind it try to blame the GOP

  • fair_conservative

    Lets put both the issue of slavery, and the issue of illegal aliens and amnesty status to a vote of the people. Let the people vote on whether these aliens should receive food stamps, welfare, education, medical, voting rights, drivers licenses or anything else know as a "benefit"! Yes, arrange a vote of the people!

  • yadontwannano

    Republic for the United States of America 1789 - 1860 ; Norther Union vs Confederate states 1860-1860 ; Corporation of America 1871- present ( democracy ) Since 1913 ,all profits have been privetised and all losses socialised .........Socialism is all about sharing whatever is left over after you all have been robbed ..................

  • Raule

    We can all thank the founding fathers of our Constitution that the USA is a Republic and not a Democracy. Rule by law instead of rule by majority. Most people are too ignorant to know how to make good decisions.

  • Mason

    Bogus as usual. Taxes are lowest in 50 years. So we've been taxing rich people under Republicans and Democrats. Wasn't Eisenhower a Rep. Made over 1M taxed at 90%. I guess he was a commie sleeper. Even Reagan said rich people had to pay their share. Selective memory and throwing all your former Rep leaders under the bus". Who will y abandon next. Rimney most liberal background of any Rep. Rove picked him for you. Y followed her Meistersinger orders. Sheep to the slaughter. Sucker born every minute. Now edgi g toward I Really didn't mean what I said about reforming Medicare and SSI, really. Trust me.

    • capitalust

      The. U.S. now has the most progressive income taxes (as called for in the Communist Manfesto) in the world. Not even France collects 41% of all tax from the top 1%, or zero taxes from the bottom 50%. Once you reach that state you have totalitarianism in practice. Reagan is right - rich people do need to pay their fair share, which ideally would be the SAME AMOUNT (a real flat tax) as everyone else (after all, they get the same amount of benefits as everyone else). AT WORST they should have to pay the SAME PERCENTAGE as everyone else (a flat RATE tax). The idea of their rate increasing as their income rises is straight from the Communist Manifesto, and Marx understood intuitively that this was one of the surest ways to destroy a capitalist economy. Mason, go to hell.

  • capitalust

    I wonder when it became popular to claim that the United States was a democracy? Technically it is a constitutional republic. The founders specifically rejected democracy as an unworkable idea. When did it become the mission of America to "make the world safe for democracy"? That is not so very different from spreading communism. Future historians will be able to fix the beginning of the end of America if they can pin down the date it became a democracy in practice, if not in law. That is the point that everything began going downhill irreversibly. I think it may have been in FDR's disastrous reign, which Obama appears hell-bent on not only repeating, but magnifying by many times.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Zarahn/100002272096015 Eric Zarahn

    The Muslims are crucifying people in Egypt. Obama shares the guilt.

    • liliq

      Big O shares the joy

  • Raule

    The polling results are BS. Republicans don't feel that way because it is contrary to the principles. People that feel like that are Rinos, Dems or communists only. A decision like, by definition would end the USA. This is a BA article.

  • MidnightDStroyer

    "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." -- Thomas Jefferson.

    If you read the Constitution, particularly the 10th Amendment, you can see that there is NO specific power granted to ANY government officer that could allow them to violate any of the clauses in the Constitution...NO MATTER WHAT WE THE PEOPLE TELL THEM. This is why the practice of "lobbyists" influencing government is the single biggest flaw in our political system.

    The Constitution doesn't allow our officers to "pick & choose" what they will uphold or not...It is a Contract of Employment between We the People (employers) & the people who enter government office (employees); even the Uniform Commercial Code derives its definition of what contracts are from the Constitution & the how contracts legally bind people to the terms & conditions.

    THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT ALLOWS FOR TAXING THE LABOR OF THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN. Not even in the 16th Amendment. Your labor is a contract between you & your employer that specifies what your labor is worth to the employer...Your paycheck & whatever benefits-package you get for your labor is YOUR SOURCE OF LIVING. The employer is investing his/her own money in your labor for the hope of making profit or gain made from your labor.

    The SCOTUS has long ruled that one of our inalienable Rights.is to "engage in a lawful occupation to earn a source of living" & another ruling that defines "income" as "the profit or gain derived from a source or principal." This second ruling mentioned here was in conjunction with SCOTUS confirming that the 16th Amendment grants NO NEW POWERS of taxation to the government. Labor IS your Source...Profit or Gain from your investments IS your Income. When YOU work for your money, it's your Source...You can then use your Source or Principal to make an investment, it may grant you Profit or Gain, which is the Income.

    The Constitution even has its own way of modifying the terms & conditions for employment within the government...The Article 5 process of Amendment Ratification. Any time any government pundit tells you that it's a "living document" & twists away from the plain meaning written in the Constitution, they are VIOLATING their Oath of Office! These are the people who follow the tactic in the Communist Manifesto that describes the twisting of the language in order to control the minds that are dependent on the use of the language.

    They willfully ignore Article 5 altogether & alter the meanings & definitions of the Constitution's use of language...The ONLY true interpretation of the Constitution is found by determining the "original intent" of those who ratified it & those in session of Congress when Statutory Law & Amendments were ratified. In short, you must look into the HISTORY of those people (through their writings & documents) as THEY saw & wrote their views & debates about the writing of the laws.

    This is the primary difference between a Democracy (widely viewed by the Founding Fathers as "mob rule") & our Constitutional Republic. The Constitution establishes the Rule of Law, not the Rule by Men or Rule by Mob.

  • Larry

    Okay, assuming that the majority of Americans favored slavery and wanted to return to that system, where in the world would they get the slaves from? One can't go and get them from Africa again, at least not living; cause you would have the fight of your life with them. Would they come from Greece or another financially stressed Euro country? From Asia, I don't think so. From Mexico, not likely either. Okay, from the middle east, try your luck but you'll lose.
    So, the class of slaves you might envision will have to come from Europe if you want a period of prosperity.

    • liliq

      We is here bro' --waitin on Big O with bated breathes-- Youse knows how he attacks Whiteys with them Mexicans, just like his role model Pancho Villa done tried down on Coote Hill in Columbus, New Mexico back in 1916, Whooo--yaaah.

  • http://www.missiontoisrael.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    Why do Christians think a Republic is so superior to a Democracy? A Republic is just as much a government of, by, and for the people (instead of, by, and for Yahweh, the God of the Bible) as is a Democracy. 17th-century Colonial America looked to Yahweh as their King and therefore established their governments on Yahweh's immutable morality as found in His commandments, statutes, and judgments instead of man's fickle edicts:

    "Their form of government was as strictly theocratical insomuch that it would be difficult to say where there was any civil authority among them distinct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Whenever a few of them settled a town, they immediately gathered themselves into a church; and their elders were magistrates, and their code of laws was the
    Pentateuch…. God was their King; and they regarded him as truly and literally so…." (William Holmes McGuffey, McGuffey’s Sixth Eclectic Reader (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1879) p. 225.)

    Faithful Christians point people back to our true 17th-century American Christian forefathers rather than the late 18th-century imposters.

    • liliq

      Just institute Big O's favorite laws and constitution of his mother country Indonesia, that he urges all the world to immitate.
      "[President Obama] praised Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation - for a 'spirit of tolerance that is written into your constitution, symbolized in your mosques and churches and temples, and embodied in your people,' a quality worthy for all the world to emulate." Wilson, S. (Nov. 10, 2010) "Obama praises Indonesia's 'spirit of tolerance' as a model" retrieved Feb. 10, 2012 from
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110906579.html?wprss=rss_print

    • http://www.missiontoisrael.org/ Ted R. Weiland

      Find
      out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh's
      moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution
      Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionsurvey/constitutionsurvey.php
      and receive a free copy of the "Primer" (an 85 page book, normally $7
      plus shipping) of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The
      Christian Perspective."

  • wolverineinohio

    I'd support slaver if those niggers weren't so freakin' lazy ..You'd end up shooting them all for dereliction of duty (but that wouldn't be such a bad idea either , get these punks out of our lives , prisons , liquor stores , etc) ... Bring back slavery and end an epidemic all at once .. Now that's multi tasking ...

  • liliq

    We have our old tired outdated outmoded Constitutional government of checks and balances that would prohibit the popular adoption of slavery. Not like Indonesia's constitution and laws Big O urges the world to adopt or European constititions which Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg admire for their modernity above our own

  • mrbillsdog

    I never understood slavery, even tho its been around since before recorded history. Take the American colonies. You could pay a farmhand 25 cents a week. Why did they pay big money in gold to 'own' a slave?
    I find it ironic that 'lifetime servitude' began in the colony of Virginia at the hand of a free black man. Anthony Johnson was one of the original slaves sold by traders to colonists in 1621. Around 1643(?) he argued before the British court for lifetime ownership of one of his servants....and won. So began slavery in America.
    Also, early indentured servants were only used if they were non Christian, it didn't matter what color or race they were. These facts aren't taught in our schools but should be.

  • guest

    The above article is superficial for many reasons. Americans have always supported WAGE slavery, coercing people to take any kind of work, however demoralizing, dangerous, monotonous, back-breaking. It's part of St. Paul's notions and protestantism. Any work is considered better than no work, it's called "the work ethic." People are supposed to derive their self-respect from working (participating in commerce, serving society, filling a need.) Their is never any consideration of "Leisure-As-the-Basis-for-Culture" (by a book of the same name.) The right to be lazy is never discussed. Rich people have "earned" that right by working or profiting from the work of others, so they can "manage their investments;" but since money is just paper and can do no work, is merely a means of controlling other people's labor. The question of how money is earned and what constitutes work is seldom discussed. The Old Testament rails against lending at discount & interest, oppressing the widow, orphans & poor. Private corporate retirement plans used to cover workers, but they "went away" over past decades (along with the jobs) when companies realized they could hire cheaper labor overseas without such voluntary profit-sharing plans, even as the corporate tax rate has gone down. Engineers have thought up many labor-saving devices-- tractors, combines, automation, and lately, robots, that can put vast percent of workers out of a job, but still work is considered a justification for getting paid. No profit-sharing is required by law, apart from taxes, which businesses and working people carp about. So the real issue (beyond getting paid for not working) is profit-sharing, taxes, or a fair tax system. One might hope that would put an end to the acrimony over the fact that some people like to be busy working and some people like to sit on their @sses, while others enjoy work that is not commerce-related. The question is how can we create a harmonious planet where people can be relatively happy in whatever their station without being judged by others. A WI University proposed dinging money transfers, 1/10th of a percent. In 1995, over $555 TRILLION dollars passed through the FRB of NY. Of course there isn't that much USD on the planet, but it recycles through commerce.) Congress could vote to pass such a tax system, all they need is instruct the banks to make the deduction, the banks are already set up to do it. Everyone would pay, rich, poor and middle-class alike. Do the numbers, it really adds. up.

  • usluv

    Isn't this just what Obama/Davis is doing....by getting all these unassuming people on welfare....and this illegal amnesty (2 million more)? Not to exclude what he's working on now...the middle class? Another Hitler diguised as an African American, Indonesian, Kenyan. Sounds like making slaves to me.

  • CARLjr

    Remember when we gave bankers $700 billion in taxpayer money back in 2008?
    Remember how it turned out to be way more because of secret deals that went around Congress, perhaps as high as $23trillion?
    Remember how it was essentially interest free, or way below market value, and there were no penalties for late payments or no payments?
    Remember how it was so complicated and convoluted that no one knows exactly how much went to who and who has paid what back?
    Remember it was sold as though it was going to be the end of the world if it wasn't passed in less than a week?
    Remember how is was a bipartisan decision that practically no one voted against?
    Remember how these bankers gave themselves millions in bonuses, even after public outcry demanded they don't collect a bonus that year?
    Remember how these bankers are the biggest donors to politicians campaigns? - on both sides?

    Hey bankers - You screwed the country's economy. Twice.

    How about you pitch in at least at the same percentages as the rest of us, and include all your accounts into the mix, you corrupt bastards.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Keith-Conder/100000478880519 Keith Conder

    Taxing the wealthy, what a huge misunderstanding we have of that term, mainly due to Democraps intentional misuse. No one, not one person in this nation is taxed on their wealth. Wealth taxes were tried very early on in the history of our nation and they failed. As a result, our taxation systems transitioned to primarily tariffs. They remained that way until the Civil War when the first income taxes were levied. Those were temporary and done away with after a decade or two. Then, with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, they were brought back from the scrap heap. Th rates have bounced up and down with the top marginal rates running up in the 90% - 100% range when FDR was in office. The last decent Democrap to hold office as President was JFK and he proposed reducing those rates. Unfortunately, it wasn't until Reagan that they were brought down significantly and the economy exploded as a result. Now we argue about whether or not we shoukd raise taxes on the wealthy, as if we are going to somehow tax what they have already earned. No, we are still just taxing income. The alleged income inequality we are talking about centers around dividends, interest and capital gains tax rates. Guess what, even though you are likely getting those three things tax deferred in your IRA or 401(k), the operative word is deferred. When you get ready to start drawing that money out, you will be taxed at the same rate as you believe you are asking the wealthy to pay. Want to shoot yourself in the foot in retirement, go right ahead. I've already cashed out all of my retirement accounts to avoid this stupidity. No, we do not nor will we ever tax wealth, only income. Everyone needs to understand the difference.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ronald-Ostrowski/100001857190279 Ronald Ostrowski

    Doesn't the person collecting dividends live on the labors of somebody else? Or did the corporation pick the money off a tree? Seems like you should be consistent. Seems like all of US live on the backs of labor including football players, actors, politicians etc.

  • Tom

    The greatest mistake every made in this country was universal suffrage. Once they opened the flood gates to non-property owners -- not rich people necessarily, but those with a stake in society, property to loose -- they created that fracture whereby those with nothing could vote themselves gifts from the public treasury. We've been heading down hill ever since.
    They say we won the Cold War. No we didn't. Our own domistic communist left has succeeded in surplanting the Kremlin's occupants as the leaders of the world communist movement. I wasted a career in the military defending us from communism because our own mindless masses are voting to recreate it right here. The question is, will be simply sit back and allow them to do so.
    I keep reading phrases on blogs like, "Keep your powder dry." I'm beginning to believe that's a wise suggestion.

    • Libertarian58

      "America will become communist and they will vote it in themselves"
      --Nikita Khrushchev

  • Sutekh

    A flat tax encourages enterpreneurship.
    At one time, the cutoff for Social Security taxation was $60,000 a year. A reachable goal for many Americans. But it was raised again. The only time excessive and progressive taxation is permissible is in time of war -- a war declared by Congress, by a majority of war.

  • guest

    The wealthy are the freest people on earth, give me a break, Gary. If anything they want to enslave US. I cannot believe that an ostensible Christian minister with all your years of school would get one of the most fundamental points of the Bible wrong. The rich oppress the poor, not the other way around. Always apologizing for them. well you are on the wrong side of the gospel is all and will deal with your own Maker at the appointed time, for every idle and bogus word. for my part I shouldn't waste my own time reading you.

  • fredsmith

    wall street financiers take unfair profits because they are an old boy oligarchy

  • Josie

    I say that if anyone is stupid enough to support slavery then we should make them happy and make them slaves. The rest of us can live free to go about our lives and let them serve. Why fight it if they go along?

  • TheRaghead

    Sounds great! Give me few mil from Ophra, Michelle and Barrack Obama, Rupert Murdock, Bill Gates and Cher. I could certainly use it to keep my small business afloat due to Obamanomics.

  • DAY8293A

    IT IS NOW MOB RULE.... THAT IS WHY GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS ON TRIAL... THE BLACK MOB CRIED OUT FOR HIM TO BE CHARGED WITH MURDER, EVEN THOUGH THE MAJORITY OF EVIDENCE POINT TO SELF DEFENSE, THE MOB CRIED FOR "JUSTICE" WHICH MEANS THEIR MOB JUSTICE... THE EVIDENCE BE DAMNED....

  • http://twitter.com/jsbrodhead Jeff Brodhead

    Their "democracy" is TREASON! (that goes for every POTUS, VEEP, Senator, Representative, Justice... all the way to local Dog Catcher.. Anyone who has sworn to defend the Constitution and calls America a democracy is in violation of their Oath!

  • guest

    The United States Federal Government was dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 stat 1, Public Law 89-719, declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent H.J.R.192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933-joint resolution to suspend the Gold Standard and abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the sovereign authority of the United States and the Official capacities of all United States governmental offices, officers, and Departments and is further evidenced that the US Federal Government exists today in name only.
    The citizens have been debt slaves since 1933 when Congress usurped power that didn't belong to them( was not the first, the second, or the last) an put the power in the hands of the Federal Reserve/IMF..
    People really need to do their homework, instead of trying to guess at something you may not know enough of. This Country became a democracy March 9, 1933...It's really not that hard to look up statues, codes, Resolutions and Acts..Do some research on this subject and you will learn who yours, mine and our master(s) really are....

    • Libertarian58

      Here's more on that same subject. . .
      http://thedrcoldwellreport.blogspot.com/2010/07/permanent-state-of-war-proclamation.html

      All this began in 1913 with the greatest act of treason ever perpetrates upon the citizens of the U.S.- The Federal Reserve Act.

      • guest

        This goes as far back to 1871, when Congress usurped power an signed the " Act of 1871" What that did, it turned the Central Government into a US Corporation, " A government within a government" and, they were ONLY to "control" the territories they had aquired or already had. That would be Quam, Purto Rico, the Virgin Islands,,, NOT the 50 Sovereign states (actually 49 states, HI was not a part of the US yet, an today, it is the Territory of the US Corporation...When the Act was put into effect, it closed the door( Out of Business sign) on a Constitutional Republic and CON-gress tossed Our Constitution into a dusty corner, and during that time an "Amended" version THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was written up( It was written up to look like our Constitution to fool the masses), it is NOT, it is a Corporation Patent, nothing more, nothing less. Our Original Organic We the Peoples 1788-89 Constitution reads as such, The Constitution FOR the United States of America. That was also done with the aid of a Rothschild Agent(s) within the Halls of Congress..
        Welcome to the United States of Illusion!

  • GWY

    True bliss would be a government that stayed within the confines of the constitution. We have only ourselves to blame when the politicians slowly redefine the constitution to make wealth for themselves and tax the rest of us into "slavery". That was the basis of power for the Nazis in Germany and the Communists in the USSR.

  • America First

    The MAJORITY OF US DO SUPPORT SLAVERY .... FOR DUMB DEMOCRATS!!!

  • richbrat

    Gary:

    How can you support the American Revolution that took place over 200 years ago, and then say that God supports slavery (Jesus said: "Serve your masters well.") So which is it?; make up your damn mind; on second thought, don't bother.

  • chvietvet

    What is written here is mainly theoretical speculation. In practice, all decisions in the United States today are made only by the rich and powerful. The rest pay for everything. Elections are won almost always by those with the most money to spend on the campaign. Our Congress is peopled by zombies whose bodies and souls are owned by those who have bought them their seats.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/VBXLH7TYTXXHVOUK4Z6DFAZR3U Racefish

    Polls can be misleading, especially if the question is slanted to a particular result.

  • Don

    If the state you live in is not a sovereign state, you should be contacting your elected leaders and have them get the state senate and house to vote FOR soveriegnty.

  • darkcyder

    Trhen let's screw up their polls by stopping answering them. This is starting to sound like the beginnings of the Frensh revolution as forthe ones who marched on the homes of the bankers in New York- I have only one comment- Let them eat cake!

  • Marty

    The death of Socrates is one of the oldest examples of majority rule (democracy, so-called). As sad as that is, the fact that Socrates ACCEPTED his fate and thought it proper, is sadder still.

  • http://www.facebook.com/danny.groat.9 Danny Groat

    Years ago, our Congressman announced his upcoming retirement due to health reasons. The party, not wanting to lose the seat put $1 million into his campaign fund and he suddenly recovered.

  • thismustend

    The media, Democrat/Marxist politicians & Hollywood have done a SPECTACULAR job of demonizing the "rich". According to populist MYTH these richies were handed their wealth while throwing parties & jetsetting, they are lazy, irresponsible & do not "deserve" their money. Of course since that is EXACTLY how they got THEIR wealth they just assume everyone with money & success did the same. Those of us with a BRAIN know that 99% of millionaires worked their A$$ES off to achieve that success.
    All you Socialist NYers should try starting a business from scratch or climbing the corporate ladder for 20 years, putting in 16 hour days & having no social life. Ahh but it is MUCH easier to make SIMPLE MINDED ASSUMPTIONS about others than to get off YOUR LAZY A$$ES & WORK yourselves, huh?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/XVTJQAWWQOSXUP6YN4JATR2FYA Charles C

    A very major purpose of our Constitution is to protect minorities -- I don't mean ethnic or racial minorities (though they are and should be protected) but those whose opinion is in the minority. If a majority thinks we should ban redheads (a ridiculous point, for the sake of argument) do we do so?

    A majority vote in an election for office wins. But majority opinions on social issues are not to be the law of the land unless they do not violate Constitutional protections.

    To be truthful, though I hate cigarette smoke and have never smoked even one of them, I have often wondered if all our laws against smoking don't really violate the constitution. (I personally wouldn't want to return to the "old days", but I'm not sure we've done right to smokers, given the Constitution.) Do we really have the right to tell others they can't smoke; what about telling them they can't drink alcohol, regardless of age? I don't have the answer, just a feeling of unease.

  • James Green

    When the masses (who can vote) figure out they can vote away the property of those who have it (in a virtual Grand Larceny scheme of progressive taxation), they will do so.

    And when they become a majority, the republic is doomed. We cannot survive long beyond that. And sadly we are almost there right now.
    Also, Tom is right that the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. I would add that the 16th also needs to go as well.
    The federal government must be put back in its proper place, the "Emperor" status of the president being done away with. And the rights of the States must be restored. It's imperative to our survival.