Thursday, May 24, 2012


Where did it go?  Equal protection, I mean.  I think about this subject often.  Mainly I see instances daily that prove to me this Constitutional protection has disappeared.  I think this issue is the crux of the entire matter of our out of control government.  We can discuss social issues, military and foreign war issues, economic issues, all sorts of issues, but equal protection is THE issue.  It's gone.  But why?  What happened?  Looking back over the primary debates, Michelle Bachmann was the only candidate who adamantly proposed "equal taxation" across all sectors of society.  I believe Gingrich concurred, but it was Bachmann who insisted on it.  She was marginalized and dropped out of the race.  Romney never took a stand on this...not really.  I fully expect he intends to pursue tax policies for his favored campaign donors and constituency.  And that is what everyone on the left dreads.  It is the same from both sides, just different special interests and constituencies.

The "progressive" income tax was the end of equal protection under the law.  Once in place, this tax policy nullified all of the other "equal protections," precedent being set. The first instance of the "progressive" income tax was during the Civil War, but was repealed in 1872.   Then, we can thank Woodrow Wilson for bringing it back in 1913.  It has been downhill ever since.

Here is something from Freeman Online

"America’s founders rejected the income tax entirely, but when they spoke of taxes they recognized the need for uniformity and equal protection to all citizens. “[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” reads the U.S. Constitution. And 80 years later, in the same spirit, the Fourteenth Amendment promised “equal protection of the laws” to all citizens."

Notice the Obama - Marxist regime doesn't  ever talk about Equal Justice, "equal protection of the laws."  They are talking up "Social Justice," "Environmental Justice," "Economic Justice," and the like.  What those terms mean is subsidizing a favored group, not equally, but taking from and giving to certain chosen sectors of society.  Marxism, yet Obama was voted into the Presidency.  None of that is Constitutional, but how many politicians over a century have been completely ignoring the Constitution by handing out tax policies for the benefit of special interests? We could not begin to count.  And every one of them has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  How does that work?  (Now you know why Nancy Pelosi haughtily smirked out the question, "Are you kidding," when asked about the Constitution with regard to Obamacare.  It's all a joke by now.)  

This is hardly news to my conservative blog-o-sphere friends.  I wonder though, why this is not at the top of every political discussion.  It is the crux of the matter.  It is what everyone is fighting about, i.e. unequal taxation under the law.  Laws restricting freedom begin with shutting down economic freedom.   Once able to get away with that, all bets are off. 

From the same article at Freeman Online

In Federalist No. 10, Madison asked, “[W]hat are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine?” He went on to say, “The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.”

Temptation won out?  A century later we are so far down the pike on this, I wonder what it would take to go to the starting line again and get this right.  Prosecutions?  Never happen.  Nullification? The Feds won't respect that.  

Both parties are so engaged in unequal taxation that we are faced with no good options going forward.  The only answer to this is a FLAT TAX and eliminating all subsidies and tax incentive programs, but what are the chances of that being passed when most all politicians are on the take?  Money money money....

(As an aside, I heard the infamous Ezekiel Emanuel this morning on Morning Joe stating he would not be against taxing soda drinks.  Really?  Yes, really.  No surprise, but this just emphasizes the case that Marxists will tax you out of any possible choices you might make for yourself.  The preferred political tool of control freaks is taxation.  If you don't like it, tax it.) 


  1. "The preferred political tool of control freaks is taxation."

    California is the proof of what you say. Governor Moonbeam is promoting a tax increase on everyone earning more than $250,000 to close his state's $16 billion deficit. I am sure the Hollywooders will approve of this. When it fails to produce the income he needs, he will call on the othe 56 states to bailout the Golden State.

  2. Hey Jim...I was away for a few days and am just now catching your comments. Quite right...California is an example of just how off the planet the statists are. I am betting, like you are, that Moonbeam will ask for a bailout. If that happens, we have arrived in the same soup as the EU with the PIIGS.

    Too funny....I just caught your 57 states redux...LOL!!!