1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Overtaxed and Underpaid

Thomas3336 Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 6:27 PM
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the U.S. government to create regulatory agencies. In fact, their supporters admit that the whole idea of them is to not only get around the limits to government placed by the Constitution, but also the whole concept of representative government. If any rules are needed at the national level, they should be in the form of laws passed by Congress, and enforced by the Justice or Treasury Departments. If states want to have their own Departments of Commerce, their own Departments of Housing and Urban Development, their own Environmental Protection Agencies, their own Securities and Exchange Commissions, or their own Departments of Agriculture, that is strictly that state's business.
In response to:

Overtaxed and Underpaid

Thomas3336 Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 6:23 PM
Rather than two tax rates, I would urge repealing the income tax altogether and substituting it with the Fair Tax. While the 16th Amendment does permit a tax on incomes, without apportionment, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the current Marxist GRADUATED tax. If a tax is not subject to the rule of apportionment, it must be uniform. This is in keeping with the Constitution's requirement that the government treat all citizens equally, and the concept of equality before the law for all citizens. Then, too, the income tax is based on the false notion that what we earn by the sweat of our brows really belongs to the government, not to us.
In response to:

Ukraine's Crisis, Not Ours

Thomas3336 Wrote: Feb 21, 2014 2:35 PM
Mr. Buchanan asks, "What kind of democracy is it, when the legitimately-elected head of state can be forced out by mobs?" Unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what democracy is: unlimited majority rule, and ultimately rule by mob. That is why our Founding Fathers explicitly rejected democracy, and created for us a constitutional republic (rule of law).
In response to:

Lessons for Shove Guv Andrew Cuomo

Thomas3336 Wrote: Jan 22, 2014 10:17 AM
If I might be so bold as to make a suggestion to Mrs. Malkin: the next time some liberal refers to "extreme" conservatives, she might ask that person, "What are you using as your reference point? It's certainly not the Constitution of the United States."
Congress might show some spine if the public was in favor of reigning the president in. However, most of the electorate seem to fall in the category of low-information voters, and the establishment press does not appear inclined to inform them. This is the same establishment press that used to warn us of the dangers of the imperial presidency under Richard Nixon. Barak Obama today practices usurpations and abuses of power that probably never even entered into Richard Nixon's mind, and the establishment press is silent.
In response to:

Our Clueless President

Thomas3336 Wrote: Jan 16, 2014 8:50 PM
I'm not completely sure I agree with Mr. Reagan. If the president's real objective is to destroy the Constitution and individual liberty in this country, and to "fundamentally transform" us into a totalitarian Third World country, he may well know exactly what he is doing.
In response to:

Obama Bullying Nuns (Part 1)

Thomas3336 Wrote: Jan 07, 2014 7:56 PM
I certainly agree with all the observations of Mr. Norris and the commenters who have supported him. However, I believe there is another aspect to this, that no one seems to be noticing. I think this assault on faith-based organizations is part of a much broader plot by the Obama Regime to destroy any alternative to government-provided health care in this country.
In response to:

Obama Bullying Nuns (Part 1)

Thomas3336 Wrote: Jan 07, 2014 7:50 PM
I once heard that each year, about 1.5 million pre-born babies are aborted. During the same time period, 1.6 million couples who would like to adopt a child cannot, because none are available. Why do you not consider this option? As to the cliché, "every child ought to be a wanted child," apparently no one wants homeless people. By the same logic, you could call for all of the homeless to be killed.
In response to:

Why Neo-Isolationism Is Soaring

Thomas3336 Wrote: Dec 20, 2013 10:06 PM
We had no real reason to enter World War I. When we declared war, in October 1917, the war in Europe had actually been at a stalemate for a number of months, and was on the verge of ending in a negotiated settlement. Then we came in, and threw everything out of kilter. We made possible the Treaty of Versailles, which made World War II inevitable. In 1938, Winston Churchill publicly stated that if we had not entered the war, it would have ended a year sooner and up to a million lives would have been spared, because peace would have been made with Germany. If that had happened, Churchill continued, Russia would never have fallen to the Bolsheviks, the Italians would never have turned to fascism, and Hitler would never have risen to power in Germany.
In response to:

Why Neo-Isolationism Is Soaring

Thomas3336 Wrote: Dec 20, 2013 9:59 PM
I have to disagree with the term "isolationism." An isolationist country closes in on itself, and tries to pretend the rest of the world does not exist. Prior to World War I, our policy was not isolationism, it was NON-INTERVENTIONSM. We actively sought good relations with all nations, but when hostilities broke out, we minded our own business and did not get involved unless our own interests were directly threatened.
1 - 10 Next