Senate passes legislation that paves the
way for States to charge sales tax on goods
bought over the Internet—in other States.
The US Congress will likely successfully enact a law that will allow the States to tax businesses in other States if their residents purchase anything from them over the Internet (and transmit those funds via the Internet to that foreign State)—whether or not the entity they buy from has a legal "storefront" in their State. States, who have mismanaged taxpayer funds everywhere in the nation—primarily by kowtowing to labor unions like the AFL-CIO and SEIU which represents, or at least, participates in every civil servant employee contract negotiation in every State in the nation. Over the years, big labor has negotiated some sweetheart pension deals that are now becoming virtual nightmares which threaten to bankrupt several States as civil servant employees retire with pension packages worth as much, or more, than the pay they received as civil servants.

On February 14, 2013 Congress gave the American people a Valentine called the Marketplace Fairness Act under S.336 in the US Senate and as HR 684 in the House. The Senate version was proffered by two Republicans and one Democrat—Senators Michael Enzi [R-WY], Lamar Alexander [R-TN] and leftwing socialist Democrat Richard Durbin [D-IL]. Interestingly, all three of those political weasels escape the reelection bullet until 2016. By then you will forget their theft of money that belongs to the people of the United States from whose pockets that money was taken.

Also co-sponsoring the Senate bill were Roy Blunt [R-MO] (who also escapes voter wrath until 2016), John Boozman [R-AR] who, you guessed it, escapes retribution until 2016, Susan Collins [R-ME] (2014), Lindsay Graham [R-SC] (who we can get rid of 2014), and Bob Corker [R-TN] who skips the bullet until 2016; and the typical tax-and-spend liberals: Ben Cardin [D-MD], Richard Durbin [D-IL], Dianne Feinstein [D-CA], Al Franken [D-MN], Tom Harkin [D-IA], Tim Johnson [D-SD], Amy Klobucher [D-MN], Mark Pryor [D-AR], Harry Reed [D-NV], Jay Rockefeller [D-WV]. Mark Udall D-CO], Mark Warner [D-VA]. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA], and Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]. To avoid constitutional issues over the Origination Clause (since the Senate may not originate any tax bill, they may, constitutionally, only offer amendments to House appropriations bills, or bills authorizing the creation of tax bills that will dip into the pockets of the taxpayers), they reintroduced thei Senate bill on April 17, 2013—a safe month after HR 684, since the left fully expects this bill to end up before the Supreme Court, and they don't want to have to perjure themselves by lying to Chief Justice John Roberts twice in the same year.

There are 66 co-sponsors in the House bill, so let me just point out a few Republicans you need to remember on Election Day unless you don't mind paying State taxes in your home State on goods you bought in another State: Spencer Bachus [R-AR], Charlie Dent [R-PA]. Renee Ellmers, Rick Crawford [R-AR] and so forth. Either Don Young [R-AK[, the second longest serving Republican in the House, or CW "Bill" Young, the longest serving Republican in the House also co-sponsored the House version of the Marketplace Fairness Act. (The bill did not identify which "Young" it was—as it usually does when there are two Congressmen with the same last name.) Actually, both of them need to be retired. Keep in mind this bill isn't technically a tax bill since all it does is authorize the States to exercise taxing authority. States do not constitutionally possess interstate taxation rights. But, this is a bill that will allow the States to engage in reverse form of interstate taxation by authorizing them to tell another State to assess (if one of their citizens buys across State lines) the business in the other State, who is then obligated to collect a foreign State tax and remit it to the State where the purchaser lives.

The bill, the Marketplace Fairness Act is actually a "desperation tax bill" because almost every State in the nation has mismanaged its financial house by throwing away the tax dollars it has received by allowing communists (under the benevolent name of "social progressive") to not only get elected, but for many of them to steal their office through rigged electronic ballot boxes and then use taxpayer dollars to fund their socialist agenda. Which, of course, is very quickly bankrupting not only the United States government, the State governments and, o coure, the taxpayers themselves who must now work two, three or more jobs to make ends meet as the fiat money printing presses work overtime to create the paper currency that devalues what passes as money in America, raising the prices of every commodity we buy until meatless Friday becomes a daily ritual so that, in many homes, the only "meat" enjoyed at dinner are the frankfurters in the pot of beans.

The Senate passed S.743, the Marketplace Fairness Act on Monday, May 6 by a vote of 69 to 27. The Senate looks at the legislation like they are closing a "tax loophole." In reality, States have taxing power only on their own turf. Since States are sovereign, they lack the power to extend their reach into businesses which operate solely outside their sovereign domain. Which is the fear of the politicians who tried hard to make sure they did not violate the Origination Clause by resubmitting their version of the Marketplace Fairness Act on April 17, 2013 to make sure there was no mistake which came first: the "House chicken" or the "Senate egg" when the bill ends up in the Supreme Court.

When Sen. Mike Enzi attempted to justify the legislation on his website, he said, "Under the current tax loophole, while brick-and-mortar retailers collect sales taxes from customers who physically make purchases at their stores, many online and catalog retailers do not collect the same taxes. Under the Marketplace Fairness Act, States would have the option to collect sales and use revenues from out-of-state sellers through a new simplified tax system.

"For over a decade, Congress has been debating how to best allow States to collect sales taxes from online retailers in a way that puts Main Street businesses on a level playing field with online retailers. The bill empowers States to make the decision themselves. If they choose to collect already existing sales taxes on all purchases (and what State isn't chomping at the bit to do just that?), regardless of whether the sale was online or in-store, they can. If they want to keep things they way they are, it's a State's choice."

Senator: that logic makes sense only on the yellow brick road which America knows as Pennsylvania Avenue—between the White House and Congress. But the taxpayers of America who are hemorrhaging the green stuff from every pocket know the stuff they fertilize their gardens with when they smell it. Pro-Choice is a term used in politics to identify people with only one view. People who claim to be "pro-choice on matters of human life favor abortion over life—100% of the time. Politicians who are "pro-choice" on whether or not to tax, will tax you 100% of the time. A politician who is dumb enough to use the phrase and thinks we're dumb enough to believe that a politician with an unbridled right to stick his hand in the taxpayers' pocket, won't, doesn't deserve anyone's vote. If the GOP House of Representatives passes HR 684 or anything resembling it, I will make a very safe prediction today: the social progressives will take back the House in 2014—and America will flush itself down the toilet for all times.

While Obama's "red line" is much more
transparent than his Administration, Israel's
"red line" is now drawn with blood.
While the Obama Administration's rhetorical "red line," so adroitly drawn in the continually shifting desert sands of the Muslim Mideast has proven to be as illusionary as Obama's birth certificate, social security card and his selective service card, trust the Israel's to cast their red line in granite. Only the Israeli air strike, its third this year, was not targeting Iranian nuclear weapons facilities. On Friday, May 3 Israel deployed its Iron Dome missile system in anticipation of retaliation from Syria. Aircraft-launched missiles targeted a Syrian weapons facility in al-Saboura, near Damascus. That was the second air strike against Syria this year. The first attack took place in January when Israeli aircraft struck what was reported at the time as being a shipment of Russian SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon. The raid in January, tacitly confirmed by Israel through back channels allegedly targeted surface-to-air missiles and an adjacent complex believed to house chemical agents, a US official admitted at the time.

A third air strike took place early today, Sunday, May 5, 2013 at 3:34 a.m. while Americans slept. The Sunday a.m. missile strike struck Syria's military research center in Jamraya in the Eastern Ghoula region. Jamraya is 15 kilometers from the Lebanese border.

Media reports in the Mideast indicated that explosions were still being heard in Jamraya hours after the missile attack suggesting that the site was a weapons depot. The Syria government's State television said the air strikes were a response to the government's recent military gains. "The new Israeli attack," the report said, "is an attempt to raise the morale of the terrorist groups which have been reeling from strikes by our noble army."

Remember Tupperware parties? Or Sarah
Coventry jewelry? Or Amway? Now, try a Food
Stamp party from the USDA's SNAP program.
And you wondered why 46.7 million American families joined the "Gimme Stuff" crowd by allowing themselves to get addicted to food stamps? Because the USDA made it easy. They made it "okay." And, they made it fun. But what Uncle Sam can't do is make selling your pride for a stipend from the State palatable. If your family ethics is centered on working what you have, then the gratuities of the State that shackle you to Big Brother's feeding trough is more than a discomforting embarrassment. It makes you feel like an indentured servant of the State. But that's only because you become just that. On election day you discover the chain that shackles you to the feeding trough also chains you to the bureaucracy's voting booth as well and, too late, you discover the price you pay for the gratuities of the government is control over how you vote. The "free stuff" has a price tag. The price tag is liberty.

That's why the Obama Administration has engaged in food stamp trickery. It's critical to the agenda of the left. In a press release issued on Sept. 4, 2012, Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the former Democratic governor of Iowa, said there are "...too many middle-class families who have fallen on hard times are still struggling. Our goal is to get these families the temporary assistance they need so they are able to get through these tough times and back on their feet as soon as possible."

Since 2009 the USDA has devoted considerable time dreaming up entire public relations promotional campaigns to entice potentially eligible Americans to participate in SNAP. Obama feels that the more people there are in the program, the less stigma there will be attached to it. You can't look down on your neighbor's using food stamps if you're using them, too.

Posted on the USDA website in September, 2012 was a phamplet (available at local SNAP offices) that encouraged SNAP officials to throw "food stamp parties" as a way to encourage seniors on fixed incomes to enroll in the program. The phamplet read: "Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle. Make it fun by having activities, games, food and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even in a 'true/false' quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way."

The Daily Caller reported in June, 2012 that the USDA began running radio ads in March and continued them through June at a cost to taxpayers of between $2.5 to $3 million. CNN reported that the first time the USDA used that ploy (attempting to attract seniors into applying for food stamps) was in 2004 under President George W. Bush—who oversaw (CNN said, quoting the Obama Administration) a 63% increase in food stamp participation.

However, on Jan. 1, 2005, the highest food stamp usage in any State was 20.5%. While the Bush-43 increase may have been 63% over what the previous levels were, CNN stats implied that where 47% of the eligible population are currently on food stamps today, 63% of the eligible SNAP recipients were on food stamps under Bush-43—which appears to be something of a deliberate gross exaggeration.

If the amount of people on food stamps in 2004 before Bush-43 initiated what CNN implied was his "invitation to welfare" program (if he actually did) was, say, 10% of those potentially eligible, then a 63% increase would raise the number of participants to 16.3% If only 5% of the population was on food stamps, a 63% increase would raise the total percentage of food stamp recipients to about 13.2% CNN's social progressive vegans apparently can't tell the difference between apples and tomatoes, believing since both are red and both are technically fruit, they must both be apples.

.