Saturday, August 18(7:30-9:00): GOP Breakfast at Dixie Diner – no RSVP required
Saturday, August 25 (10a – 4p): Community Outreach for the children and families of our county at: JH Sullivan Park Ashe Street Hendersonville, NC 28792. (Need Volunteers – Contact Haydin Fink if interested (email@example.com>)
Wednesday, August 22 (7:30-9:00) Henderson County Republican Men’s club breakfast at Dixie Diner – no RSVP required
Tuesday, August 28 (11:30 – 1:30): Henderson County Republican Women’s luncheon with NC Sen. Chuck Edwards guest speaker (Cedars – RSVP Doris Hawkins firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri-Sun, August 31 – September 2: (9a-6:30p) Apple Festival (Need Volunteers)
Monday, September 3 (time TBD): Apple Festival Parade (Need Volunteers)
Saturday, September 15 (12:00-3:00): Constitution Day at Bill Moore Community Park (formerly called Fletcher Town Park) (Need Volunteers)
Saturday, September 25 (TBD): Candidate Forum sponsored by League of Women Voters. City Operations Center (NEED ALL REPUBLICANS THERE – STANDING ROOM ONLY!!)
Saturday, October 6 (10-4): Farm City Day (Need Volunteers)
If you do not live in Western NC and can not use the Asheville Bus there will be other Buses across the state going – submit your information and we will see if we can match you with one of the other buses going – Thanks.
FEE – Just curious, but if a Washington, D.C. resident buys a pack of cigarettes in Arlington, VA, should this person pay a sales tax to the District of Columbia? Figure that cigarettes cost roughly $5.25/pack in Virginia versus $7.99 in D.C. Arlington retailers have a significant tax advantage over merchants in the District, so to “level the playing field” shouldn’t D.C. residents hand over the difference in taxes? The tax will ensure that Washington residents don’t cross the bridge in order to get a better deal, and in the process imperil Capitol-based businesses.
It all sounds right, doesn’t it? If businesses in low-tax areas exploit the tax difference, Washington’s retailers could be in a world of hurt, as will be its tax base.
Absent our ability to take our consumption elsewhere, what’s the incentive for local and state legislators to keep taxes low?
Except that tax competition among cities and states serves a very real purpose: it forces local taxing authorities to think long and hard before helping themselves to more of what we earn. Absent our ability to take our consumption elsewhere, what’s the incentive for local and state legislators to keep taxes low? Also, we seem to forget that local businesses, precisely because they’re local, have the ultimate sales advantage in that they’re nearby, sometimes walking distance, plus they enjoy name recognition that declines the farther the business is away from the consumer.
Supreme Court Rules That States Can Force Online Retailers to Charge Sales Tax
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1 – The Legislative Branch, Section 9 – Limits on Congress states: No tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any state. Export means articles or items shipped over state lines to any other state or country. (See Federalist Papers 42 (11 and 12) Supervision of Interstate Commerce). *Some feel this applies only to the Federal Government and not the states. Q: How do you feel about it after reading the “Federalist Papers 42 (11 and 12) Supervision of Interstate Commerce”? The following is from “Federalist Papers: In Modern Language”: #11 An important objective of this power was to give relief to the states that import and export through other States and are forced to pay improper contributions levied on them. #12 In Switzerland, where the union is very slight, each canton(state) must allow merchandise passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without additional tolls. Note: To the best of my knowledge before 1992, States were not allowed to charge sales tax on purchases being shipped over state lines. Why was that if not for unencumbered trade in a UNITED nation? This so-called law is nothing more but a way for the poorly run state governments trying to bail themselves out on the backs of sovereign of citizens of other states.
Article 1, Section 10 states: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or exports,…….
For those that think that an online Sales Tax is not a duty on an import think again it is a tax on items being imported into a state. THEREFORE IT IS AN IMPORT TAX. What happens, to the economy, if the States start changing their States sales tax on an items leaving (export duty) their State and the State the item is being shipped to also collects their States Sales Tax (import tax)?
Did you know there are as of 2014 9,998 different sales tax jurisdictions in the United States. Wonder how many there are now in 2018?
In Amendment 14 it is stated: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND the State wherein they reside. (No state you do not physically live in or physically do business in should be able to tax you as you are not a citizen of that State. – Fremont’s opinion)
As, you know: U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 1 – All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. NOT ONE word about the Executive or Judaical Branches having any power to make law. So, it is QUITE clear the U.S. Executive and Judaical Branches have NO LAW MAKING POWER!
Washington, D.C. – Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) released the following statement:
“When I arrived in Congress, Jim Jordan was one of the first colleagues I got to know—and in the time since, I can honestly say Jim is one of the most honorable, thoughtful, and principled men I’ve met in Washington. Jim is a fighter, a leader, and a true conservative in every way. He never backs down from a fight when his values are on the line. He listens to and cares about his colleagues. Most importantly, he remembers the most critical voice—the voice of the voters—in every single decision he makes. If the people entrust Republicans with the House this November, Jim Jordan would be a Speaker who would fight for real changes in Congress that would allow the people’s House to truly work for Main Street Americans. I fully support his candidacy.”
Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, the House passed an amendment authored by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) to prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to administer Obamacare’s ‘Multi-State Plan Program.’ The amendment passed with a bipartisan majority by a vote of 223-192.
Section 1334 of the Affordable Care Act requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract with at least two national health plans, one of which must be a non-profit plan, to compete directly with private plans in every state. These plans are called multi-state plans, or MSP’s. The law requires they be available in all 50 states as of 2017.
Multi-state plans were intended to drive competition on the health care exchanges. However, the program has failed to meet the Obama administration’s 750,000 enrollment projection or the 50-state statutory requirement. The program has been so unsuccessful that in 2018, there is only one participating state (Arkansas).
Elimination of the program is supported by the OPM and the National Active Retired Federal Employees Association, among other groups. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have also conceded that eliminating funding for the plans will not affect the level of competition or premiums in the insurance market place, nor would it affect any Obamacare subsidies.
Rep. Meadows released the following statement on the amendment:
“The Multi-State Plan program amounts to a textbook waste of taxpayer dollars and needs to be eliminated. It makes no sense for the OPM to dedicate funds to a program that does nothing other than spend money and stifle competition in the marketplace. Bottom line: the program was a poorly conceived provision of an even more poorly conceived bill in Obamacare, and repealing it is a positive step in the right direction of improving America’s healthcare markets. I appreciate the support of my colleagues.”
To watch Rep. Meadows floor speech on the amendment, click here.
Carolina Journal – It would be easy to dismiss the recurring political battles between Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and the Republican-led General Assembly as pure partisan posturing.
Easy. And wrong.
A dissent from a case decided earlier this year in the N.C. Supreme Court offers a clue about why leaders of the executive and legislative branches have pushed their feud to the foreground of Tar Heel politics.
Sure, Democrats and Republicans are gearing up for another election in November. Much of what they’re saying and doing now is designed to win support for their respective “teams” this fall. (Why else would the governor launch a publicity tour touting a statewide school bond more than a week after lawmakers left Raleigh — shutting down any possibility of placing that bond on the November ballot?)
But regardless of partisan calculations, much of what divides the governor and his legislative foes stems from a fundamental disagreement. Cooper and state House and Senate leaders disagree about their respective roles in running state government. These differences could divide legislative leaders from either major party from a governor of either party.
FEE – Aristotle’s arguments on property are still relevant today. Many free-marketeers have forgotten that there are more benefits of private property than mere economic efficiency.
In “The Communist Manifesto,” Karl Marx aptly summarized the implications of a communist society, stating that “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” As an institution, private property has been a crucial factor in the flourishing of Western society and its political thought. However, its defense rarely extends beyond a calculation of its economic benefits. Many defenders of private property simply state that there is no viable alternative system and that private property is simply the best option of a bad bunch. This argument, with its pessimistic tone, hardly inspires much love for the concept of private ownership.
Thankfully, there have been numerous thinkers throughout history who have robustly defended and justified the institution of private property. Such figures are Cicero of Ancient Rome, Thomas Aquinas of medieval Europe, and John Locke of the early modern period.
Who Was Aristotle?
The first extensive defense of private property comes from Aristotle, writing in the 4th century B.C. in response to the idea of communal ownership as espoused by his teacher Plato. Aristotle was a polymath who wrote extensively on ethics, logic, metaphysics, biology, astronomy, and rhetoric, to name a few of his interests. To this day, he is considered one of the most influential philosophers to ever live. In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas referred to Aristotle as “The Philosopher,” demonstrating the immense level of respect Aristotle commanded.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
As anyone can read there are no rules, regulations, guide lines, etc. on how to run a Constitutional Convention.
The New American – “The tide has turned. The Convention of States did not win a single state this year,” Janine Hansen, national Constitutional Issues Chairman for Eagle Forum, told The New American Monday night after the latest defeat of the Article V Convention of States (COS) in North Carolina. “That is 18 states.”
And the person Hansen credits above all others in North Carolina for defeating the COS is Wynne Coleman, a tireless leader in the fight against the proposal in the Tarheel State. Coleman is the daughter of the late General Andrew Gatsis, who served for years on the National Council of The John Birch Society, the parent organization for The New American. This author personally heard General Gatsis speak in the 1980s on a national speaking tour for the JBS on the topic of the dangers of the feminist movement on the American military. Wynne’s mother, Alice, was also an activist, heavily involved in the fight against the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and 1980s.
Not surprisingly, Wynne Coleman has followed in her parents’ footsteps, and is also a proud member of The John Birch Society. Coleman formed and led a grass-roots committee, No Convention of States North Carolina, dedicated to the defeat of any attempt to call a Constitutional Convention, by whatever name, that she and others fear could lead to a re-writing of the U.S. Constitution.