April 05, 2009

The Flat Tax Is Not Flat and the FairTax Is Not Fair (Wrong!)

see comment below article

The Flat Tax Is Not Flat and the FairTax Is Not Fair

[This talk was given at the 2009 Austrian Scholars Conference at the Mises Institute. It is available as an MP3 audio download.]

Our current income tax system, inaugurated in 1913 with the adoption of the 16th Amendment, began with a 1 percent tax on taxable income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples). A series of surcharges of up to 6 percent were applied to higher incomes, with the maximum rate being 7 percent on taxable income over $500,000. Less than 0.5 percent of the population ended up paying income tax.

From these humble beginnings, the income tax soon blossomed, thanks to World War I, into a tax with a minimum rate that doubled and a maximum rate that reached 77 percent on income of over $1 million. The rates did not fall significantly until 1925. In the middle of the Great Depression, the top rate rose to 79 percent. During World War II, the tax rate for those in the highest income bracket reached an astounding 94 percent. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 resulted in 24 brackets with rates ranging from 20 to 91 percent. The top rate remained at 91 percent until 1964. Under the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the top marginal tax rates were lowered to 50 and 28 percent respectively. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 established the current tax brackets of 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent.

There is no question that the federal tax code is too long, too complex, too intrusive, too confusing, and too inequitable. The members of Congress responsible for the tax code would not even disagree. As a consequence, cries for tax reform can always be heard from every quarter — and especially around election time. There are even organizations dedicated solely to tax reform, such as Americans for Tax Reform, Reform AMT, Citizens for Tax Justice, and Americans for Fair Taxation. Since the federal government is always looking to increase its revenue while at the same time making Americans feel better about paying their taxes, it has also climbed aboard the tax-reform bus, most recently in 2005 when President Bush formed the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform.

I am sorry to say that principled libertarians who welcome gradualism toward the goal of substantially reducing or abolishing the income tax while at the same time shunning any compromise of the principle that taxation is theft — like those friends and supporters of the Mises Institute — are in the minority.

Left-liberals, who want to use the tax code for their social engineering and income redistribution schemes, are not opposed to taxes on principle. Barack Obama ran campaign commercials openly boasting that no taxes would be raised on any American making under $250,000. This, of course, means that he intends to fleece any American making over this amount.

Conservatives are not generally opposed to taxes on principle either. They have no problem taxing the American people to fund bloated defense budgets, US military adventures around the world, the CIA, FBI, and anything related to law enforcement or homeland security, faith-based welfare programs, educational vouchers, abstinence-education programs, the war on drugs, and various conservative pork projects.

But what's up with libertarians?

Brink Lindsey, of the Cato Institute, supposedly a libertarian think tank, wrote in an online article for the New Republic that also appeared on the Cato website:

Tax reform also offers the possibility of win-win bargains. The basic idea is simple: Shift taxes away from things we want more of and onto things we want less of. Specifically, cut taxes on savings and investment, cut payroll taxes on labor, and make up the shortfall with increased taxation of consumption. Go ahead, tax the rich, but don't do it when they're being productive. Tax them instead when they're splurging — by capping the deductibility of home-mortgage interest and tax incentives for purchasing health insurance. And tax everybody's energy consumption. All taxes impose costs on the economy, but at least energy taxes carry the silver lining of encouraging conservation — plus, because such taxes exert downward pressure on world oil prices, foreign oil monopolies would wind up getting stuck with part of the bill.

Shift taxes? Increase taxes? Tax the rich? Impose new taxes? Use the tax code to influence public policy? What kind of libertarian tax reform plan is this? How about reduce, cut, eliminate, and abolish taxes? Not deductions, not exemptions, not credits, not shelters, not loopholes — taxes.

Two specific tax reform plans that some libertarians have fallen for are the Flat Tax and the FairTax. Both plans promise to invigorate the economy, increase employment, and raise everyone's standard of living. Neither one is true to its name; neither one is an incremental step toward overall lower taxes. Both are fraught with problems and contradictions; both are revenue-neutral plans that would fund the federal government at the same obscene level that it is now.

The Flat Tax is an income tax. It is the tax-reform idea that has been around the longest. First proposed by economist Milton Friedman in 1962, the flat tax entered the mainstream through a 1981 Wall Street Journal article by Hoover Institution economists Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka called "A Proposal to Simplify Our Tax System." This article grew into a 1985 book published by the Hoover Institution Press called The Flat Tax. A second edition was published in 1995, and an "updated revised edition" in 2007 that can hardly be called either. Aside from this book, the Flat Tax gained national prominence when House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) pushed the idea of a Flat Tax after the Republicans gained control of Congress during the Clinton administration. A few bills based on the Hall-Rabushka plan were then introduced in Congress, but came to nothing. Other incarnations of the Flat Tax were pushed by both Democrats and Republicans. Another incarnation of the Flat Tax is that of former Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes. His 2005 book is called Flat Tax Revolution.

Under a Flat Tax, everyone's income is taxed at the same rate (Forbes says 17 percent; Hall and Rabushka say 19 percent). And not only are there no tax brackets, there are generally no tax deductions other than personal and dependent allowances. Social Security and Medicare taxes would remain as they are now. The appeal of the Flat Tax is simplicity. You can do your taxes on a postcard-sized form says Forbes. Goodbye compliance costs.

The problem with the Flat Tax is a simple one: the Flat Tax is not flat. And furthermore, no one actually pays 17 or 19 percent. In fact, taxpayers don't even pay the same percentage. The Flat Tax is actually a highly progressive tax. It is more progressive than our current system, and effectively has more tax brackets. Who said progressivity requires graduated tax rates? Under the Forbes plan, a family of four would pay no federal income tax on its first $46,165 of income; a family of six would owe nothing until its income exceeded $65,930. And those figures are sure to have increased since they were first proposed back in 2005. But not only would many families pay no income tax, they still might get a refund anyway because the Forbes plan includes a refundable child credit and earned-income credit.

If you want an example of a real flat tax, look no further than the 2.9 percent Medicare tax. Everyone pays 2.9 percent (split between employer and employee), on every dollar earned, no matter one's marital status, number of dependents, or income level. I am in favor of neither the tax nor Medicare, but if you are looking for a genuine flat tax, then the Medicare tax is your tax.

The Fairtax is a consumption tax. It is the most radical tax reform plan, bar none. It also has the most vocal and intolerant proponents. The FairTax is the brainchild of three businessmen concerned about the crippling effects on the economy of the current federal tax code. After adopting the name "FairTax" for their tax-reform plan, they formed Americans for Fair Taxation in 1997 and enlisted Representative John Linder (R-GA) to introduce FairTax legislation in Congress. Linder first sponsored the "Fair Tax Act" in the House in July of 1999, and has reintroduced a FairTax bill at the beginning of every term of Congress since then, including the current one.

Although Linder's FairTax bill languishes in the House Committee on Ways and Means each time it is introduced, it has always had a number of cosponsors, including Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter — but not Ron Paul, the acknowledged taxpayers' best friend. It also has its share of supporters outside of Congress, including Mike Huckabee and Neal Boortz. The latter is the author, with Congressman Linder, of The FairTax Book, published in 2005. A paperback version of The FairTax Book was issued in 2006 with some notable changes to correct false statements made in the original hardcover release of the book. Boortz and Linder also published a sequel, FairTax: The Truth, Answering the Critics, just last year.

I am getting weary of writing about the FairTax. Every time I think I've written my last article on the subject, some new opportunity presents itself and I take the bait, as I am doing right now. I don't consider myself to be an expert on the FairTax. Although the idea of the FairTax has been around since 1997, I had never even heard of the FairTax until I wrote an article for the Mises Institute in 2005 on the evils of the withholding tax. It was only after my inbox was bombarded with mail from FairTaxers trying to sell me on the FairTax that I looked into it. If you have read any of my articles on the subject you know that I didn't like what I saw.

"Why is it that people who rightly criticize the income tax are so quick to accept a national sales tax on consumption?"

The FairTax is a national retail sales tax of 30 percent on the final sale of all new goods and services. All new goods — from cars and houses to prescription drugs and food; and all services — from operations and funerals to rent and haircuts. Because it would replace the personal income tax, there would also no longer be withholding tax, capital-gains tax, the alternative-minimum tax, or taxes on interest and dividends. Even your gambling winnings would no longer be taxed. Of course, there would be no tax deductions either. The FairTax would likewise eliminate corporate income tax, estate tax, gift tax, unemployment tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax. The appeal is obvious: no more complex tax code, no more taxes withheld from paychecks, no more 1040 forms, no more record keeping, no more compliance costs, no more IRS audits. And if that weren't enough, the FairTax also includes a monthly rebate to offset the taxes paid on basic necessities.

But for a plan that promises such a utopia, the problems with the FairTax are legion. The stated rate of the FairTax is too low to achieve the promised revenue neutrality. The amount by which it is claimed that prices would fall under a FairTax system has been grossly exaggerated. There is nothing to prevent an income tax from being reinstituted, giving us a two-headed hydra of an income tax and a consumption tax. And not only would state and local governments have to pay a national sales tax to the federal government, the federal government would have to pay sales taxes to itself on all its new purchases. Since I have already written extensively about the problems with the FairTax, I will stop with its problems here and focus on why the FairTax, like the Flat Tax, is not true to its name.

So why is the FairTax not fair? Well, first of all, what's fair about a consumption tax? Why is it that people who rightly criticize the income tax are so quick to accept a national sales tax on consumption? The FairTax perpetuates the fallacy that the government has a right to confiscate a percentage of the value of each new good sold and every service rendered. This is no different than claiming that the government has a right to the portion of each American's income. As Murray Rothbard explained,

The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.

The FairTax is also not fair because of the rate. What is fair about the government taking a 30 percent cut on every transaction? I know the FairTaxers claim that the rate is only 23 percent, but when I buy an item for $1.00 and end up paying $1.30, the basic math I learned in elementary school tells me that I paid a tax rate of 30 percent. But regardless of whether the rate is 23 or 30 percent, why should the bloated, pork-laden leviathan we call the US government get anywhere near this much of our income?

And finally, maintaining that the FairTax is a "fair" tax system, or one that is "fairer" than our current system, is highly subjective. Boortz himself even acknowledges this in his newest book on the FairTax: "Whether a tax system is 'fair' is a complicated economic and philosophical question, one that inevitably involves oversimplification and subjective judgment."

If you want an example of a real fair tax, then consider the equal tax. I first saw this proposed by Joe Sobran. Let every American pay the same amount — no deductions, no exemptions, and no exceptions. Sobran reasons,

The billionaire doesn't use the police or the streets any more than the pauper. Maybe less, since he presumably hires private guards to protect him and has less need of the police, and he is less likely to drive long distances than to fly.

Now, I wouldn't like paying this tax any more than I like paying income tax, but it is certainly a fair tax.

But not only is the Flat Tax not flat and the FairTax not fair, the Flat Tax is not fair and the FairTax is not flat. Let me repeat that: not only is the Flat Tax not flat and the FairTax not fair, the Flat Tax is not fair and the FairTax is not flat.

According to Hall and Rabushka, the flat-tax system they propose is both "fair and progressive — the poor pay no tax, and the amount that a family pays rises with income." They say their Flat Tax is fair because it is based on the principle that "income should be taxed exactly once, as close as possible to its source."

But how can a system that punishes success and fosters class envy be considered "fair"? And why should it be considered "fair" that income is taxed "exactly once, as close as possible to its source"? Just because every American would pay the same rate under the Flat Tax doesn't necessarily make it a fair tax. Making the tax code less progressive is not enough. As Rothbard again explains,

The flat-tax movement is part of a process by which the government and its allies have been able to split and deflect the tax protest movement from trying to lower the taxes of everyone, into trying to force everyone into paying some arbitrarily defined "fair share."

It is no consolation to a wealthy person who is stripped of his money by the federal government that a poorer person is likewise relieved of his money by the same percentage.

One of the reasons FairTax supporters claim that their tax is fair is that it has a flat rate that everyone would pay. But the FairTax is about as flat as it is fair. I already mentioned that the FairTax includes a monthly rebate to offset the taxes paid on basic necessities. This "prebate" is based on the government poverty level and family size. Thus, although everyone would pay the same rate under the FairTax, the end result would be that some Americans would pay no taxes at all, some would have most of their taxes offset, and some would get more money back than they paid in taxes. This makes the FairTax an income redistribution scheme under the guise of tax reform.

"We need radical tax reform that reduces, cuts, eliminates, and abolishes taxes without replacing them with other taxes."

Neither the Flat Tax nor the FairTax is a step toward the libertarian goal of substantially reducing or abolishing the income tax; neither tax-reform plan is an incremental step toward lower overall taxes. They could be, however, if their promoters recognized that the problem is taxation itself, not the tax code. All they have done is shift the debate from how much of the wealth of the American people the federal government confiscates to the manner in which the wealth is confiscated.

We don't need compassionate tax reform that makes people feel better about paying their taxes; we need radical tax reform that reduces, cuts, eliminates, and abolishes taxes without replacing them with other taxes. As I have quoted Congressman Ron Paul on many occasions, "The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform."

With the federal budget fast approaching $4 trillion, I can't think of anything that is more of a waste of time than quibbling about how the government can make the tax rates flatter or fairer while it robs us of trillions of dollars. The only fair tax is a tax low enough to flatten skyrocketing congressional spending. Like educational vouchers and the privatization of Social Security, the Flat Tax and the FairTax are gimmicks that libertarians should avoid.


My comment:

Great article.  However, on the Fair Tax, his use of the 30% is not accurate.  It has been debated endlessly and here goes.  If the cost of a new car is reduced by the removal of the 22% hidden federal tax in the production, that would move the price of a car from say $30,000 down to $23,400.  Now being as the consumption tax is calculated to be 23%, that would raise the cost of the new car(used are exempt) purchase to $28,782.00.  This clearly states that being there is such a savings in switching to the Fair Tax, there are a lot of people earning wage under the table or are protected by off shore and by congress laws(unconstitutional).  And don't forget that the purchaser has had a pay raise of 22% on average by receiving gross pay.
The cost of the American manufactured vehicle will drop to the purchaser but the foreign made vehicle will need to roll in the equal level of consumption tax on it.  All this will vary depending on the amount of foreign parts in the so called American Made Car, but the math tells us that jobs will come back and so will the buying power of Americans, thus lowering the consumption tax in the future. 
No this is not a vehicle for reducing spending in Washington, which is unconstitutionally unconscionable.  But to turn this huge Ship the USA on a dime is not very likely and so the need for incrementalism is unfortunate but can't be avoided.
Now with the built in progressive that is not a welfare but is equally distributed to every legal American, a lot of the consumption tax is a wash for the low income and middle income.
As to under estimating, the tax % needed, inflation will counter this, unfortunately for all of us, all this stealing of American wealth Washington is doing by these bailouts and stimulus.  As to the income tax on individual income coming back, the Fair Tax Plan proposed has a stipulation in it, that the 16th Amendment that is being unconstitutionally used to collected such tax will be repealed or the Fair Tax plan will die.  And don't let them say the VAT plan from  overseas is good as it would be a tax through all means. 
As to the flat tax, it changes nothing.  It will continue the current lobbyist game in Washington and thus will stay flat about one year.  And it does not help in removing the excise tax in our domestic manufacturing.
Yes, reducing the Federal Government down to it's Constitutional power enumerated would be our greatest achievement.  But until then and even after, the consumption tax is the way to go.  It is indirect, in that the tax is not mandatory.  One can be self sustaining and not be required to pay it or if so desired, can protest the government action by boycotting the tax by not spending.  Currently under our voluntary tax(HAH!) we don't even see our money as it is taken without choice.  We need to get our tax system back to the proper level of Freedom and Liberty to maintain our control over the Government which is suppose to serve us, not some tyrannical fantasy.  "A heavy or progressive or graduated income tax is necessary for the proper development of Communism." - Karl Marx
R. George Dunn
Northern Light 

Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

R. George Dunn
6:09am Apr 5th
Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com
The use of Government agencies to promote a political agenda by use of threat or force is the most diabolical crime there is in a free country. This is an impeachable offense. And this refusal to accept payment smacks of fiscal treason.

R. George has shared a link with you. To view it or to reply to the message, follow this link:

Are your friends bothering you? You can opt out of emails from friends on Facebook.

Michigan Tea Parties & in Lansing * parking instructions

 Lansing, Michigan Taxpayer Tea Party
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 – High Noon
Where: Capitol Steps, Capitol Avenue, Lansing, Michigan
Why: Protest out-of-control politicians who are borrowing against your great grandchildren's yet-to-be earned income, oppressive taxation and encroaching socialism!

Saturday, April 4, 2009


For Printable Map of Downtown Lansing CLICK HERE:

There is a Public Parking Ramp located one block south of the Capitol Building on Capitol Ave.

Also, some suggestions for parking from Ted, a "veteran" of downtown Lansing parking

The CATA bus system is very good and there are several lots outside the downtown Capitol area available.

The lot that comes to my mind first is a Church lot located at St.Joe & Martin Luther King Drive. The State employees used to use this lot (approx. 8 blocks southwest of the Capitol) & parking is also available at the State Library ( History & Arts Library)located on Butler at Kalamazoo (approx. 7 blocks to Capitol).
RSVP for Tea Party

Joan Fabiano
**State coordinators serve as liaisons between this national effort and local events and not as the organizer for each individual event. If you want to attend or volunteer for a listed event, contact the event coordinator. If you want to organize a new event, contact the state coordinator AND email teapartyinfo@gmail.com. Thanks!**

The following is a list of CONFIRMED Tea Party Tax Revolts planned within the state of Michigan. Please note that we ONLY list events happening on April 15th.


Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Joe the Plumber to Speak at the Lansing, MI April 15 Tea Party

Americans for Prosperity-Michigan has arranged for Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, Joe "the Plumber" to speak at our rally.

This is your opportunity to meet an ordinary man who took on a politician and won!

Friday, March 20, 2009

Must See Video!


March 2008= A tea Party is Here

Here is a call for a tea party back in March of 08. 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 11:11 PM
Subject: A tea Party is Here

With all the attempts by the media and the secularists this election to shut up the Christians and the Churches and the Religious affiliations all too scared to actually make a huge difference due to the imposition put on We the People by causing a penalty of Taxation on our free speech, it is time to Challenge such IRS Law legislated by Congress on We the People. 
It is also time for the Christians to stop bowing to these money changers who have taken over the Church in silencing it all for Money?  Sounds like a great Tea Party Here!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: charles
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [mikehuckabee-7] Obama's Preacher

I have tryed to get an answer on this for weeks
"Do churches have to file for the 501tax exempt  stasus if they would rather have the freedom of speech? in every area? and do the "Hate speach laws" meant to shut up and stop the ruth of the bible by homosexuals and others  have any teeth with out the 501?
c shanks
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [mikehuckabee-7] Obama's Preacher

Great message, Edward.  I agree that churches should not be bound by some law that says they can't speak freely.  I hope that's not what you thought I meant.  I was just talking about the double standard that exists.  Why do the laws always work against Christians?  Christians truly try to do everything to obey the laws, even if they don't agree with them; others simply distort it for their own good (and usually get aways with it).
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:20 AM
Subject: RE: [mikehuckabee-7] Obama's Preacher

First of all if we are true conservatives we believe in the first amendment.  The separation of church and state was created by the communist party of the United States in the twenties and thirties to silence the churches which had fueled and lead the US revolution in 1770's.  Our founders believed in free speech and protected it in the first amendment. It doesn't say except pastors in Christian churches.  Every day in Mosques across this country they are teaching that Muslim law not US law is the authority and in time they will change our laws.  The IRS is doing nothing about that.

So I don't care if the Obama's pastor speaks out in his church or supports Obama.  In fact it is his constitutional right.  This is an IRS rule created by the Gestapo agents of the IRS to silence the church and therefore silence Christians in this country.  Now my pastor and thousands of others are worried about losing their TAX status more then they are about the rights of a citizen to defend his country or support Christian friends from the pulpit. The American people who have been beaten down by the secularist minority over three or four generations believe that it is written into the constitution.  The original intent was to prevent one Christian Denomination from becoming the religion of the land.  They never even pondered that the American people would turn away from Christianity altogether and that it would be possible for Muslims to get elected to office and try to change our laws based on Christian values and the bible turn to Muslim shiha (spelling?) Law. At the time 90% of Americans went to Christian churches every Sunday. George Washington didn't allow cursing amongst his troops.  He ordered them to attend services on Sunday. The first act of the first congress was to hire a minister for the congress and the second act was to purchase bibles to teach our children the Word which our laws were based on.

The congressman from MN used a Koran to get sworn in.  It was Thomas Jefferson's Koran which Jefferson read in order to know his enemy whom we fought along the Barbary Coast.  He didn't believe that Islam was a worthy religion as George Bush says today.  These were the Muslim terrorist who still wants to kill us today.  They were called Pirates then.  We signed a treaty with them and their ancestors attacked us on 911. I believe that Treaty should be torn up as part of the War on Terror.

When we pass the Fair tax these IRS rules will be gone and freedom will be restored in so many ways.  If we remove the IRS we cut out the tumor that has spread throughout our country.  The tool being used to invade the privacy rights of so many individuals. The FBI is investigation tens of thousands of cases of stolen identity and misuse of power from people within the IRS.  The income tax was suppose to pay off War Debt and then eliminated.  Social Security was a form of temporary help now a retirement plan. 

Now to what Jeremiah Wright stated.  He hates white people, he thinks Palestinians are superior to Jews, he said George Bush blew up the world trade center and New Orleans was Bushes fault not the fault of an incompetent state governor and mayor, he pledges allegiance to the home land of Africa, he thinks whites are evil and should be eliminated from the planet, although I am not sure to what degree of white skin you have to be because Barack is from a white atheist mother and black Muslim father.  I personally have a grandchild who is from a white mother and a black father.  He is a beautiful looking boy by the way.  Moses married Sarah and Solomon married the Queen of Sheba and half they say of all decedents of slaves in this country are partially of white descent.  So why is race an issue except to find a way for some who hate them selves to destroy and divide God's people?  But through it all Obama says he is his mentor?  Why is it we have not challenged these so called civil rights leaders long before now from spewing their hate.  They have been given restitution worth billions in property, education, free lunches, business loans, preferred hiring practices, interest free home loans, and affirmative actions measures. When are we going to be all become Americans with equal opportunity base n merit and decency towards each other?

I do believe that in our founder's time the words pastor Wright and other Black leaders like Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson  uses against this country are if not treasonous then as close to it as one can get. 

Again Pastor Wright  how black does one have to be in order to be black enough to be accepted by you? And to what degree of white do we have to be in order to be cut off from you?

Isn't it that it is easier to build a church and get rich in the Chicago area if you find a common theme to bring people together base on hatred instead of what Jesus taught about forgiveness?  The preachers who teach that they are oppressed raise millions in the name of Jesus and drive Rolls Royce's while those in their flock cannot afford a dentist.

This is not a Christian Church but a Cult and anti American political movement and Obama and Opra are their Prime Ministers.

God Bless

Edward C Tracey

2902 Chesterfield way

Conyers, GA  30013



From: mikehuckabee-7@meetup.com [mailto:mikehuckabee-7@meetup.com] On Behalf Of Melissa Darnall
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:00 AM
To: mikehuckabee-7@meetup.com
Subject: Re: [mikehuckabee-7] Obama's Preacher

How in the world can this preacher get away with "endorsing" Obama?  I thought this was "against the law" if you were a tax-exempt organization.  I hope the IRS is going after him like they are some of the pastors/preachers who are/were supporting Huckabee.  Maybe they only go after the real Christians!


----- Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:49 AM

Subject: Re: [mikehuckabee-7] Obama's Preacher

Obama recently announced that homosexuality is approved by Jesus via the Sermon on the Mount.  Being under the leadership and spiritual guidance of a man like Wright for 20 years, it is easy to see how he could interpret the scripture that way.  It may have even been a direct teaching from Wright, who knows?  Obama said his faith guides his professional decisions.  Obama is NOW saying he doesn't agree with everything Wright says, but it has been my personal experience that you do not remain under the leadership of someone you are in disagreement with.  Obama was recently caught up in his political positioning (lying to the voters) concerning NAFTA.  I don't think this is any different.


-----Original Message-----
From: George <rgdunn@veionline.com>
To: mikehuckabee-7@meetup.com
Sent: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 6:29 pm
Subject: [mikehuckabee-7] Obama's Preacher

Subject: Obama's Preacher

When Rush Limbaugh spoke on this topic of Senator Obama's Preacher and his past sermons, the ominous of what could be became apparent.  Such a debate can be fruitful, but it could be destructive. 

Should it be discussed?  Without a doubt.  It is not the re-mining of that past of discrimination that is to fear, though it has it's root in this subject.  What is at prominence is the doubt of where the future values will lead to should Senator Obama becomes the President,  thus, an important fact.  What will result hopefully is not a question of Senator Obama's character, but an healing of a scaring past that has hope of finally being made history in the minds of everyone, whether Obama is nominated as the Democrats candidate for the general election, then going on to be President or not.

Living under a cloud of discrimination, even when such is now a past, the struggle in life is still present, the burden of succeeding is still present.  Everyone has the same responsibility of maintaining an existence with a value of betterment over the past generations.  When that struggle comes in a society with handicaps, be they imposed, self imposed and illusioned as a imposed burden from others, that struggle can be defined by using the past to justify the plight and to not do anything about it but insight the pangs of rebellion.

When along comes someone, Obama, who breaks through the imposed or self imposed handicap and demonstrates how such rebellion is now not a justified plight, the future of all who are in such a mindset is freed.  To this, let us not, for the purpose of election defense, destroy this Societal Liberty of setting free a people from centuries of suppression, imposed or self imposed.  Let Freedom ring and get out of the past! 

Is Obama someone who will lead us into being submissive to Islamofacsism?  Is Obama someone who will lead us into pure socialism?  These are legitiment questions, but to question the passion of imposition that has griped past generations as being a negative to the future of this Nation is not!!!

Patrick Henry cried, "give me freedom or give me death!"  I have cried this plea against our current day Federal Government that has walked all over the Constitution.  Would this passion of decent be a labeling to my demise, even if I am wrong and our Nation has started to take steps to correct it? 

In coaching little league baseball, I was at my truck getting the uniforms to pass out to the players as the first spring scrimmage game was going on.  Standing at the fence was a player, Dean,  from the year before now too old for the team and his passion great.  A play at the plate happened and as the runner slide into homeplate, the catcher caught the ball and tagged the runner at the same moment the runner reached the plate. 

"Out!" yelled the umpire in his first game of the year. 

"No, he was safe!:,  yelled Dean.

"Let it go", I said.

"But he was safe?", questioned Dean.

With the crowd tuned into the conversation between myself and Dean, I stopped and turned to him and in a calm sincere voice said, " just let it go."

The entire full bleacher gave a sigh of blessing to the exchange!

Let it go, the past is gone and we have but one thing left, the future.  Let our present be in the future and get out of the past.  Let freedom ring for all!

R. George Dunn
6693 Maple Ridge Rd.
Alger, MI  48610
989-836-2285  home
989-836-2379  Work
989-942-6331  Cell

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (mikehuckabee-7@meetup.com)
This message was sent by George (rgdunn@veionline.com) from National Mike Huckabee for President 2008 Meetup Group.
To learn more about George, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup.com Customer Service: support@meetup.com
632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA

Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (mikehuckabee-7@meetup.com)
This message was sent by Melanie Grayson (lanielou7@aol.com) from National Mike Huckabee for President 2008 Meetup Group.
To learn more about Melanie Grayson, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup.com Customer Service: support@meetup.com
632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (mikehuckabee-7@meetup.com)
This message was sent by Melissa Darnall (b_mdarnall@comcast.net) from National Mike Huckabee for President 2008 Meetup Group.
To learn more about Melissa Darnall, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup.com Customer Service: support@meetup.com
632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (mikehuckabee-7@meetup.com)
This message was sent by Edward Tracey (etracey@comcast.net) from National Mike Huckabee for President 2008 Meetup Group.
To learn more about Edward Tracey, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup.com Customer Service: support@meetup.com
632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (mikehuckabee-7@meetup.com)
This message was sent by Melissa Darnall (b_mdarnall@comcast.net) from National Mike Huckabee for President 2008 Meetup Group.
To learn more about Melissa Darnall, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup.com Customer Service: support@meetup.com
632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (mikehuckabee-7@meetup.com)
This message was sent by charles (cshanks1@woh.rr.com) from National Mike Huckabee for President 2008 Meetup Group.
To learn more about charles, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup.com Customer Service: support@meetup.com
632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1329 - Release Date: 3/14/08 12:33 PM

MORMON TIMES -- Did Romney's religion cost him the presidency? reply by Gary Glenn

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 7:58 PM
Subject: MORMON TIMES -- Did Romney's religion cost him the presidency?

I just read your piece "Did Romney's religion cost him the presidency?" published Saturday in Mormon Times.
Kirk Jowers must have been observing a different presidential election than most Republican primary voters did in 2008.
Mitt Romney didn't lose the Republican nomination because he's Mormon.  Romney lost the nomination, among other things, because his record on family values issues such as abortion, the homosexual agenda, and pornography wasn't Mormon enough. 
Anybody with an Internet connection could watch the YouTube videos in living color of Romney's own lips moving during his 2002 gubernatorial debate as he spoke the words: "I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
In his runs for public office before seeking the presidency, Romney endorsed abortion on demand, Roe v. Wade, Ted Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, same-sex benefits for the homosexual partners of government workers (at taxpayers' expense), gays in the military, various gun control measures, opposed the state Marriage Protection Amendment proposed by traditional marriage groups, and disagreed with the Boy Scout policy banning homosexual Scouts and Scoutmasters.  In his prior campaigns, he was endorsed by both the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans and the pro-abortion Republican Majority for Choice.
On another family values issue, the Deseret News editorially commented on Romney's service as a member of the board of directors of Marriott Hotels, which offers pay-per-view pornography on its in-room movie service:
"Pornography taints everything it touches. Mitt Romney should have understood that. So should the Marriott Corporation and other hotel owners who offer hard-core movies in hotel rooms. Romney caught a bit of flack last week because he spent nearly 10 years on the Marriott board and yet never tried to reverse the company's policy of providing pornography on demand... For a presidential candidate who has railed against pornography, this is not entirely insignificant. Even if the subject never came up at a board meeting, one can argue that at least part of the $25,000 plus stock he was paid annually for his board membership came from the money some hotel guests paid for access to the films."  http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,680197653,00.html
Conservative GOP primary voters were then asked to believe that in the few short years intervening, a man raised from childhood in a politically active and sophisticated family -- who had served in leadership positions in a pro-life, traditional values-based church -- had only at the tender age of 58 suddenly discovered his moral compass and "seen the light" to become a rock-ribbed pro-life, pro-traditional values conservative, just in time, conveniently, to run for president.
However, well after his alleged "Road to Des Moines" conversion to pro-family conservatism, Romney while running for president told Tim Russert in December 2007 that he supports state-level "gay rights" laws, called homosexual couples raising children "fine" and "the American way," publicly scolded Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace for characterizing homosexual behavior as immoral, and to this day -- unless he's changed his views yet again since his campaign's last statement during the primaries -- disagrees with the Boy Scouts' nationwide ban on homosexual Scouts and Scoutmasters, a position certainly at odds with the Church's firm stand in support of that policy. 
And as fellow candidate Fred Thompson accurately pointed out, referring to legislation Romney signed after his alleged pro-life conversion: "Gov. Romney's own health care plan in Massachusetts offers taxpayer funded abortions for a mere $50 co-pay and requires by law that a representative from Planned Parenthood sit on the MassHealth advisory board. Tellingly, Gov. Romney made no such requirement for a representative from the pro-life movement."http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/14/466578.aspx
Also telling in terms of character: in trying to justify his pro-abortion on demand track record, Romney didn't hesitate to throw Church officials and even his own mother under the bus.
He told WHO radio in Des Moines: "There are Mormons in the leadership of my church who are pro-choice.  ...Every Mormon should be pro-life? That's not what my church says."  (Not caring to identify which leaders of a pro-life church he claimed are "pro-choice," Romney self-servingly cast an undeserved cloud of doubt on all of them.)  http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Mitt_unplugged.html
In his debate with Ted Kennedy, he said: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate."
But as the Boston Globe reported: "(Former Michigan Republican Party chairwoman Elly) Peterson is dumbfounded to hear that Mitt Romney has described his mother as having been an abortion rights supporter during (her 1970 U.S. Senate) campaign. 'If it happened, I'd remember it,' she said in a telephone interview. 'It didn't, and I don't.' ...Detroit Free Press archives yielded no (Lenore Romney) campaign references to abortion...'The idea that Lenore would defy her church is hard to believe,' Peterson said."  http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/06/26/evolving_history
And that's only one of the myriad of Romney's public statements that were, to put it kindly, simply not true: his demonstrably false claims about his gun ownership, his hunting prowess, his and/or his father's nonexistent marches with Martin Luther King, and his alleged endorsement by the NRA that never happened.
In the end, Romney's credibility was in such tatters that despite spending $100 million, he was able to win only three Republican primary contests, and only in his three "home" states: Massachusetts, Michigan, and Utah.
Kirk Jowers is wrong to blame Romney's church affiliation for his inability to credibly sell himself to socially conservative GOP primary voters.  Blame instead Romney's record of blatantly disregarding and rejecting the Church's well-known values on life and marriage and pornography before running for president, and his challenges with telling the truth about that record while he was running.
Now, as of three months ago, Romney is once again serving on the Marriott board of directors, and once again -- as the Deseret News observed -- personally profiting from that corporation's annual sale of tens of millions of dollars of in-room pornography, never having uttered a word in protest.  This despite the official Church website's instruction that "members of the Church should avoid pornography in any form and should oppose its production, distribution, and use." http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&index=16&sourceId=31b09daac5d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
Obviously, Romney's record at odds with the values of his own church, and the credibility challenges he faced in 2008 as a result, won't be going away between now and 2012.
Gary Glenn
Midland, Michigan
The Myths of Mitt Romney
"Making it up as he goes along"
MANCHESTER UNION LEADER: "Last week Romney was reduced to debating what the meaning of 'saw' is. It was only the latest in a string of demonstrably false claims -- he'd been a hunter 'pretty much' all his life, he'd had the NRA's endorsement, he marched with Martin Luther King Jr. himself -- that call into question the veracity of his justifications for switching sides on immigration, abortion, taxes and his affection for Ronald Reagan. In this primary, the more Mitt Romney speaks, the less believable he becomes."  http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=The+Romney+backlash%3A+Conservatives+are+coming+home&articleId=bc5bd60b-68a2-4427-93aa-d0fc2548ba3d
BOSTON GLOBE: "(Romney) ended the week trying to explain a discrepancy between assertion and fact... It hurt because it's a reminder of discrepancies between assertion and fact when it comes to Romney's overall conservative credentials." http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/08/guns_trust_and_romney
EYE ON 08.COM: "This is important because it goes to character. Romney struggles to tell the truth and keep his story straight about basic facts about his own life. He also struggles to keep his story straight on issues like abortion, gay rights, taxes, guns... It is clear what Romney is doing. He is just making it up as he goes along. He is makinghimself up as he goes along."
Romney said his father marched
with Martin Luther King.  He didn't.
BOSTON GLOBE: "Mitt Romney acknowledged yesterday that he never saw his father march with Martin Luther King, Jr. as he asserted in a nationally televised speech this month." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/21/romney_never_saw_father_on_king_march
Romney said he marched with
Martin Luther King.  He didn't.
BOSTON GLOBE: "Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about...racial discrimination, he said: 'My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.'  Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true. 'Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King,' he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/21/romney_never_saw_father_on_king_march
Romney said his devoutly religious mother
campaigned for abortion rights.  She didn't.
BOSTON GLOBE: "(Former Michigan Republican Party chairwoman Elly) Peterson is dumbfounded to hear that Mitt Romney has described his mother as having been an abortion rights supporter during (her 1970 U.S. Senate) campaign. 'If it happened, I'd remember it,' she said in a telephone interview. 'It didn't, and I don't.' ...Lenore Romney's campaign stance is relevant only because her son...raised it in 1994 during a debate with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and he has been sending mixed signals on abortion ever since. 'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country,' he said in 1994. 'I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate.' ...Detroit Free Press archives yielded no (Lenore Romney) campaign references to abortion...'The idea that Lenore would defy her church is hard to believe,' Peterson said." http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/06/26/evolving_history
Romney said: "I wasn't pro-choice."
Romney said: "I was pro-choice."
Which is it, Mitt?
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word 'pro-choice,' because I didn't feel I was pro-choice.  I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice."
ASSOCIATED PRESS: "I think I've made it very clear. I was pro-choice, or effectively pro-choice, when I ran in 1994 (and 2002)." http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjo2zpLNAjtxCVkBA1Xn9FYQ5tpQD8TK3G500
Romney said he was endorsed by the
National Rifle Association.  He wasn't.
WASHINGTON POST: "Under Russert's grilling about guns on this morning's 'Meet the Press,' former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney claimed an endorsement he'd never won. ...'I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. ...I told you what my position was, and what I did as governor; the fact that I received the endorsement of the NRA.'  The problem?  He was never endorsed by the NRA ... 'The NRA did not endorse in the 2002 campaign,' said (Romney campaign) spokesman Kevin Madden, when asked about Romney's comments." http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/16/romney_claims_nra_endorsement.html
Romney said: "I have a gun
of my own." He doesn't.
BOSTON GLOBE: "'I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms,' Romney said. Asked by reporters at the gun show Friday whether he personally owned the gun, Romney said he did not."
Romney said he's been a hunter "all
my life."  Twice.  Once every forty years.
BOSTON GLOBE: "This week in Keene, N.H., Romney told a man in an NRA hat that he had 'been a hunter pretty much all of my life,' the Associated Press reported. The Romney campaign later acknowledged that Romney, 60, hunted one summer as a teenager and once in his late 50's."http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/08/guns_trust_and_romney

ASSOCIATED PRESS: "Officials in the four states where Mitt Romney has lived say the Republican presidential contender, who calls himself a lifelong hunter, never took out a license." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/07/romney_defends_lack_of_hunting_license

Romney on abortion (video clips)
2007 interview on abortion flip-flop:
WBUR Radio, Boston, Dec. 2005:

Romney gubernatorial debate
November 2, 2002


Romney senatorial debate
October 1994


(Michael, if you'd like original source documentation on any point for which I didn't provide it above, please advise.)