Sunday, December 9, 2018

Representation Without Taxation


I believe the Founders realized the downfall of a pure democracy is allowing voters to elect politicians that promise benefits from the public treasury. The safeguard against this was allowing only property owners and heads of households to vote. Of course, this long ago went by the wayside, but nothing short of restricting voting rights to taxpayers will stop the runaway spending, because voters with no skin in the game always find it easy to spend other people's money.

A Republic demands equality under the law, respects the property rights of the individual and derives its just powers from those who work to support it. A Democracy demands equal suffrage under the government, expects the distribution of wealth and is destroyed by those who contribute nothing. Our Founders rebelled at “taxation without representation,” but neither did they desire representation without taxation. The voter ID America needs is a paid tax receipt.

Jim

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

HISTORY AND OUR SOUTHERN BORDER



      Throughout medieval and modern history, nations have sought to reclaim lands they or their allies were forced to cede. There are many examples. A few of them are: Crusades were fought to reclaim “The Holy Land” for Christendom; Hitler began his rampage by invading countries that had taken German lands following WW1; Argentina fought the British, attempting to reclaim the Falklands; Iraq sought to reclaim Kuwait, claiming Kuwait was a natural part of Iraq, lost in the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913; Today, the longest running example, in modern history, of armed conflict to regain territory, is along the borders of Israel.
      In a treaty, signed in 1848 between Mexico and the United States, ending the Mexican-American War, Mexico lost claim to all lands north of the Rio Grande, meaning Texas, and all lands in states now known as: Arizona; California; Colorado; New Mexico; Nevada; Utah and Nevada.
      Given the history of nations seeking to reclaim ceded territories, it is not surprising or unusual to think that Mexico would desire the same. In fact, it flies in the face of history to think otherwise. However, it would be sheer foolishness, for Mexico to attempt a military invasion of the the world’s greatest super-power. But it is possible they learned a lesson from their own history.
      Following Mexico’s War of Independence, settlers from countries other than Mexico and Spain were invited to Texas. It took less than ten years for the Mexican government to realize their error and prohibit immigration from the United States. However, by this time, residents of Mexican descent were outnumbered by more than 4 to 1 and the fires of independence were burning.
      Allowing unchecked immigration led to Mexico’s loss of Texas and the same is happening today across Europe. Muslims there have increased in numbers allowing them to control large geographic areas, both physically and politically. London has a Muslim mayor and Sharia Law is being recognized in their legal systems. Without firing a shot, Muslims are changing the religious and political economies across Europe because of unchecked immigration and their refusal to assimilate. Like it or not, Muslims are doing the same in the U. S.
      The lessons of history are not lost by people that pay attention, they are only lost by people that think they are above history. Mexico seems to be paying attention. Why would they allow a seemingly endless stream of people, from south of their border, to trek across the full depth of their country, while aiding and abetting them?
      Perhaps, Mexico desires to see these Spanish-speaking people enter the U. S. because they know a common language binds people together; They know from their own history that it is possible to take control of a country through immigration; They know that supplying the required numbers of immigrants from their own people would disrupt their own society and economy; They know that facilitating sufficient numbers of Spanish-speaking people from outside their own country, to invade the U. S. will allow them to re-take lost territories without firing a shot or supplying the manpower.
     Mexico probably has little interest in regaining sovereign control of its lost territories. They do not want to build a fence between the Southwest and the rest of the U. S.  They are happy to leave government and the expenses thereof to the U. S., while they receive the windfall that comes when they control the economy.

Jim
www.jim-mac.com


Wednesday, September 19, 2018

It is Time to Rethink Using The Number


Today, Annie called AAA in Bartlesville for a quotation on an insurance policy to cover a property in Grove, OK. She was told that no insurance company would give us a quotation without our first giving them our Social Security numbers. We refused. Interestingly, our Social Security cards have the following on the face: “For Social Security Purposes Only Not For Identification.” Additionally, our Medicare cards were recently replaced with cards that do not have our Social Security number on them. Apparently, in the midst of fraud using stolen Social Security numbers, the SSA is returning to its original policy. Perhaps, it is time for legislation to prevent the use of Social Security numbers for any reason other than Social Security business.

Jim

www.jim-mac.com

Friday, August 17, 2018


Amendment I


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Beginning with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which declared religious tolerance for Christianity in the Roman empire, The Roman Catholic Church began some Fifteen Hundred years of political power and influence in Europe. Though papal authority was rejected by England’s monarchy and supplanted by The Church of England, the political power of religion continued. Even today, “Defender of the Faith” is a title belonging to the sovereign of England. The problem existing during these periods when religion and government were intertwined was that anyone who opposed the ruling class or their religion was branded a heretic, and punished to the satisfaction of the government and religious leaders.

Clearly, the intent of the First Amendment was not to stifle religion, but to guarantee religious freedom. This amendment guarantees government neutrality in matters of faith by specifically prohibiting actions that historically were used to prevent free exercise of religion. Government cannot establish a state religion forcing acceptance as did Constantine in Rome; government cannot abridge freedom of speech, silencing those preaching or teaching religion; government cannot prevent the use of the printing press to print Bibles or religious materials; government cannot prevent the people from peaceably assembling to worship or conduct religious affairs; government must receive petitions for redress of grievances in these matters, that is, government must act to stop any intervention of these freedoms.

Interestingly, prior to the Twentieth Century and World War II, the “social architects” made few rulings concerning the intent of the First Amendment to our Constitution. Perhaps, society understood full well that the First Amendment was instituted to protect citizens from oppression in the name of religion, such as existed under the rule of England’s monarchy in particular, and European monarchs in general.

Today, the First Amendment that was ratified to protect freedom of religion is being used to attack religion and religious values. The First Amendment was not written to empower or shield, secular news organizations, or pornographers, or filthy language, or riotous protests, or the banning of religious symbols.

Jim
www.jim-mac.com



Tuesday, October 24, 2017


 
LET TRUTH BE TOLD
 
If the words of the Old English Proverb, “The Pen is Mightier than the Sword” are true, then a population should surely fear the suppression of the written word as much as they fear the restriction of arms.  Many legal and political battles were fought during the Twentieth Century, demonstrating that many Americans hold both “Freedom of the Press” and “The Right to Bear Arms” in high esteem, because both are necessary to freedom.
            However, while the rights to publish everything from daily news to pornography have been defended and protected, there are areas where the rights to publish are totally restricted.  In our judicial system, judges at every level have the authority to ban publication of facts, by the use of non-disclosure agreements, gag orders, sealing of records, closed courtrooms and other restrictions on the publication of facts.  Hardly a day goes by without disclosure that some public figure is hiding behind these barriers to truth.
            So, who benefits from these suppressions of facts; the public or the miscreants?  Is it in the public’s interest to shield a sexual predator, corporate thief, or corrupt politician, by banning publication of their misdeeds?  How can we have free and open elections when politicians’ backgrounds are hidden behind court orders?
          It is time for legislation to restrict the use of judicial fiats that prevent disclosure of truth.
 
Jim
 
 

Monday, September 25, 2017


I AM TIRED OF HEARING IT

          I am a combat veteran that graduated from the Army Infantry School named Tigerland at Ft. Polk, Louisiana and served in Vietnam with the 9th Infantry Division.  I am tired of hearing that I and my brothers in arms from all wars our Nation fought did so to defend someone’s freedom to disrespect our flag.
My generation’s war was not fought to protect our borders from invading armies.  Rather, it was fought to stop the spread of an ideology called “Communism” that rejected most everything we held dear, including personal freedoms, private ownership and rule of law, not men.  “Communism” and the “Cold War” were threats to our way of life that are today unknown, but in 1966 they were real and our Nation’s leaders felt it was better to fight it overseas than within our own borders.  I agree our involvement in Vietnam was long and costly.  Furthermore, I would not trade one of the people listed on “The Wall” for the entire wretched country, much less the more than fifty-thousand that died.  But understand I and my fellows did not go there to capture real-estate. We went there for an ideal; a belief that we lived in the greatest nation on earth and that it was our time to defend it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Today, as then, the “Stars and Stripes” is the iconic symbol of our great nation and from its humble beginnings in 1776, only those that would destroy this nation, seek to dishonor its flag.
I did not slog rice paddies, sleep in the jungle, stay awake all night on a perimeter and see my friends die so that anyone who enjoys living in this great country would kneel like a slave before the greatest symbol of freedom ever known to the world.  I fought so that flag would continue to wave over our country and institutions, and so people could stand tall in its presence with confidence that as long as it waves, it symbolizes the greatest nation on earth.  I am convinced those that fought and died in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and every other war our nation fought did so for the same reasons.
A final thought:  Military deserters and traitors forfeit their honor and are denied the privileges of their rank and the privilege of saluting an officer or our flag.  This old soldier would much rather see our young people identify with those that fought and died for our flag, than to identify with those that betrayed their flag.

Jim
www.jim-mac.com

Saturday, January 28, 2017


Obamacare Replacement

I am a retired minister, Cherokee Indian and U.S. Army veteran that has received medical care in the private sector, Indian Health Services and the VA.  My personal experience with these services prompts me to write this letter because the healthcare model they present is seemingly being ignored in the debate over how to replace Obamacare.

The healthcare afforded American Indians and veterans, has always provided me with quality care and the added benefit of voluntary participation on my part.  At various times during my working career, I had employer provided healthcare and during those times, I used private sector healthcare.  The point is that when private health insurance was unaffordable or unavailable I could use IHS or VA services, free from the fear of bankruptcy, or unreasonably high insurance rates.  This government provided safety net has allowed me, not an insurance company, to be in control of my health care.

In my opinion, our broken healthcare system is the result of insurance companies controlling healthcare and the way to fix the problems is to put individuals back in control.

Our government has years of experience in IHS and VA healthcare, providing models that could be expanded to the general population with fees for healthcare based on family incomes.  For those that do not wish to use the services, they would be free to purchase insurance and use private sector services. 

Some inherent advantages in this system are:

1.        Insurance companies, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, or anyone involved in healthcare will have to compete for the business of those that choose to use the private sector, resulting in lower costs overall.

2.        The fee based on income for Public Health Service (PHS) care allows all Americans to have healthcare, but as the fee rises for those with higher incomes, it becomes more economical to purchase insurance and use private services.

3.        The other side of the equation in item 2 is that pricing pressures on insurance and healthcare services will always be downward because higher prices will drive private customers back to the PHS.

4.        Unlike a single payer system, this will not force insurance companies or private healthcare providers out of business, by forcing people to use the system.  It is a voluntary system for those that do not have health insurance or the means to pay for private care.

5.        This system can effectively incorporate existing subsidies for low income healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid and other existing programs, thereby providing, along with the fees charged, enough money to fund this new program without further deficits or tax increases.

6.        This system will allow Americans choice and therefore, control of their healthcare by eliminating the strangleholds forced by threat of financial ruin, or lack of healthcare.

 
Jim
www.jim-mac.com

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

The Rule of Law

From its humble and unlikely beginning, the “Founding Fathers” intended that law, not the whims of men, should govern the United States of America.  Their experiences under the rule of a monarch taught them the worth of personal liberty, but they were wise enough to realize that individual rights and freedoms must end where the rights and freedoms of another person begin.  Their solution was a legal code based on the Judeo/Christian ethic that taught, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  This basic biblical principle respects both individual freedom and the rights of other people.
Sadly, law no longer governs these United States.  They have devolved to the point of rule by men, under modern-day monarchs called lawyers and judges, in a system that allows them to impose their wills on other people, through their private interpretations of our legal code.  Many judges have taken for themselves the unconstitutional right to use policing agencies enforcing their own edicts.  Rather than instructing legislatures in the deficiencies of legislation and giving them time to amend, these activists exercise uncontrolled veto power.  Consequently, it is only necessary to find a judge that is sympathetic to your cause to enforce your will on all the people.
Protected first, by a self-governing association that determines who may or may not practice at the Law, followed by lifetime tenure, judges are so accustomed to interpreting the Law at will that they often disagree with each other.  Even the highest court in the Nation must resort to “majority rule” because they cannot agree.  The result being that people with enough money to pursue Appeals regularly ignore lower courts and jury rulings while their lawyer works to strain the gnat and find the camel that “higher” courts will swallow.  Everyone in the system seems to agree that the guaranteed trial by jury is just the first step in the process and not the solution of justice that it should be.
A few well-worn quips that reveal contempt for the system are:  “A jury is twelve people that are too stupid to get out of jury duty.”  “There is a way to legally do anything you want to do.”  “Justice is not for the poor.”  “If you cannot knock your opponent down and then kick him, you have no business practicing law.”  The truth is that even lawyers and judges mock the system.
Perhaps, the failings in the system that was originally intended to follow the Law and not the whims of men can be traced through two principles:  The first is, “Follow the money trail.”  The second is that our legal system is no longer concerned with the absolutes of right or wrong.  It is only concerned with legal or illegal.
Certainly, all butchers do not weigh meat with their thumbs on the scale.  Likewise, all lawyers and judges do not have their thumbs on the scales of justice.  However, even an honest butcher that is forced to use a broken scale will see an erroneous weight. 
Many good men and women are forced to work with the broken scale that is our legal system, but apparently, there are many others that thrive within it and perpetuate the brokenness.  This is evidenced when people such as Judge Moore in Alabama are removed for standing against the system.  We cannot reasonably expect that men and women within the legal system will sacrifice their educations and careers trying to reform a system that holds absolute control over them.  Therefore, if it is to change, “We The People” must change it, if we are to be governed by law, not men.  We need to “follow the money trail” to eliminate its source and redefine justice as “right” or “wrong,” not “legal” or “illegal.”

Jim

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Detroit Is Truly Bankrupted

             While attorneys for Detroit are petitioning the courts to allow city bankruptcy, and black on black crime is rampant, the City Council busies itself with passing a resolution calling for the Justice Department to bring civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.  One has to wonder if this action is based on “content of character” or “skin color” and whose, the Council’s or George Zimmerman’s.  It is not obvious exactly how this resolution will help Detroit avoid financial ruin, but it does suggest that Detroit is bankrupted in more ways than one.

Jim

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

God Gets Upset

Judges 2:12        (NLT)
"They abandoned the LORD, the God of their ancestors, who had brought them out of Egypt. They went after other gods, worshiping the gods of the people around them. And they angered the LORD." 
 
America has angered God.  The story of America is much like the story of the Israelites.  God gave us freedom and liberty and we abandoned Him.  We have forgotten all that God did as He designed a new country and a new people.  As Israel was enslaved in Egypt so we were enslaved to the powers of England.  But God moved on the hearts of men and women and we followed the leadership of God and founded a new order.  It was called the United States.  Our leaders believed in God.  Our people believed in God.  We believed in the Truth of God’s Word.  America’s people had values that were given to us by God in His Holy Word.  It was George Washington who said, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible”.  However, we now have a generation that has forgotten God, His Word, and His promises.
 
America has become tolerant of all religions.  As Christians, God called us to be separate and to be different from the world.  We have done just as the Israelites did.  We have taken the gods of the world and we have forgotten the God who made the world.  We have allowed the few to make decisions for the majority.  We have failed to stand for the Truth that God gave us.  We are worshiping the false gods of the people around us.  Samuel Adams said, “The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament”.  America has forgotten God and His Word.  And we wonder why our Nation is in the shape it’s in!
 
Just as Israel returned to God so can America.  We can once again be the “In God We Trust” land.  We can return to God in confession and repentance.  It begins with the people of God getting back to God.  We have followed the strange gods of the world and now we must return to the One True God.  God was intolerant of false gods and false religions and so must we be.  Believers must no longer tolerate the immoral actions of our leaders.  We must no longer tolerate the immoral actions of our citizens.  We must remember that the wages of sin is death and America is on her death bed.  But sin can be forgiven.  God will forgive our sins and heal our land if we are willing to return to Him with our whole heart.  God is ready to forgive us if we are ready to confess and repent.  America, what will we do?
 
Tom Doty
 
Pastor Tom Doty writes a morning devotional available by email.  You may contact him at: twdoty02@yahoo.com

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Draft Them!

Concerning the Senators that voted for the U.N. treaty to ban weapons; here's a suggestion: They should all be drafted, go through boot camp and advanced infantry training, then shipped to Afghanistan, Korea, Iraq or any of several hotbeds of activity, where they would certainly learn to not fear firearms and come to realize the importance of firearms to survival.

Jim

Monday, April 22, 2013

More On Taxes

             On October 26, 2011 I wrote “The Real Tax Bite” (http://dr-jfm.blogspot.com/2011/10/real-tax-bite.html).  Interestingly, all the talk of tax reform has disappeared like smoke in the wind and it is business as usual in government—tax and spend politics that exempt special interest groups and large blocks of prospective voters, while increasing the burden on Middle America. 
            As described in the above-mentioned blog, the system depends on its ability to “divide and conquer.”  For example, those that do not drive diesel-fueled vehicles don’t care if diesel taxes are raised and people that do not use a particular government service or property are not concerned when fees are raised.  It is the ability of government to levy taxes and fees on small segments of society and earmark those funds that gives government the freedom to use general revenue for unpopular, wasteful or politically profitable causes.  Every dollar Americans pay in fees and taxes for government goods and services is a dollar freed from the accountability inherent in the income tax stream.  Politicians know that if their only source of income is the income tax, they will be accountable to all the voters, without the favor of those they exempt. 
            Much has been written about the benefits of a national sales tax, others suggest a flat-rate tax, and there are other proposals, but the method that is tried and works in our own country is the graduated income tax, where everyone that has income pays something.  When the graduated income tax was abandoned, the door was opened to squeeze the middle and exempt the ends.
            A simple amendment to the U.S. Constitution will fix the problem:  “Government will have no source of revenue other than the income tax.”

Jim