Dave Champion Show – April 22, 2010

What’s Kal Penn upset about? All he experienced was this own principle of wealth redistribution at the muzzle of the gun!
What are the similarities and differences between armed robbers and Leftists.
Dave shares Michael Lemieux’s well-stated doubts that “Gandhi tactics” will cause the federal government to step back.
What lessons can we learn from an 89 year old woman with a .22 cal revolver?
Why do anti-gun liberty-haters want people to die at the hands of criminals?
A listener suggest his “Top 3″ for the “Meet The Patriots” list.
Why are Americans who know nothing about tax law, the Constitution, or unalienable rights advocating tax schemes?
Dave discusses one reason that the 10th Amendment is crucial in a Republic.
One of Dave’s favorite companies: Comp-Tac.com


Download MP3

4 Responses to “Dave Champion Show – April 22, 2010”

  1. dmzuniga says:

    Mr. Christensen, to answer your questions I would refer you to two articles about the so-called ‘Fair Tax’:

    http://mises.org/daily/2327 (Laurence Vance)

    http://mises.org/daily/1768 (Murray Rothbard)

    As for your cynical retort — that We The People simply cannot monitor or oversee our creature as we were charged to do by the Founding Fathers, I refer you to chapters 2-12 of my new book, “This Bloodless Liberty”, available at Amazon.com.

    Thank you.

    David M. Zuniga, P.E.
    Founder & CEO

  2. shorawitz says:

    Mr. Zuniga,

    I’m not sure I was looking at Dave’s position on a “Fair Tax” from a two position stance and I’m not saying that I’m for the “Fair Tax”. I was merely commenting on what Dave had to say on his radio show for this day regarding “A” “Fair Tax” and/or what sort of tax he would support.

    You can quote Madison until the cows come home, but it’s the Constitution that rules the hand of Government, or at least it’s supposed to. Those are the words the people approved, not one man. Of course, words are alway open to interpretation, and it has been proven time and time again (see the cumulation of tax cases) that different people will read the same thing and draw more than one conclusion.

    Of the 17 powers you speak of that government can exercise, isn’t one of those powers the ability to levy a tax? And you mention something about “carefully monitored”. I don’t read anywhere in the Constitution about monitoring anything. I’m not sure what you mean by this, but I know the people are supposed to be the monitors, but that happening in this (largely) apathetic society is a the proverbial “fat chance in hell”.

    For the record, I don’t believe in “fairy dust.” ;-)

  3. dmzuniga says:

    Mr. Christensen,

    You can’t have your Consitution both ways. James Madison said,

    “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare…everything from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of Congress…. it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

    Madison wrote about 90% of the Constitution; I think his takeon the document is a bit more authoritative than yours, with this particular ‘FairTax’ scheme particularly in mind. Madison made clear that no money can be raised for any federal power, except as enumerated in the Constitution:

    “Whenever therefore, money has been raised by the general authority and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made.”

    Thomas Jefferson agreed; We the People and States were very specific about the powers that we wanted our new federal servant to be able to exercise:

    “[O]ur tenet ever was…that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action…”.

    Our federal government can lawfully only exercise only those 17 powers enumerated in the Constitution, and that only if carefully monitored. The Houston-based ‘FairTax’ scammers have worked at this for over a decade, with little traction, because every constitutionalist economist has seen the FairyTax in the same light: if Congress is now collecting about 555% of the revenues needed for only the enumerated (lawful) functions of federal government, and if the FairyTax proposes to BEGIN at a ‘revenue neutral’ point (with no limit on what it might one day become), then we condoning this Gargantua, and virtually assuring we will never have the Supreme Law honored by our employees.

    The Tax Fairy must die. Do not take her fairy dust, David.

    See http://www.myamericaagain.org for a comprehensive, perennial citizens’ self-government and Constitution-enforcement mechanism.

    Now perhaps Dave Champion will chime in, and we shall have three Davids and a Tax Fairy, all in the same thread. How nice.

    David M Zuniga, P.E.

  4. shorawitz says:

    Dave, while I agree with your stance on the Income Tax and all which that entails, I wonder if your position on the “Fair Tax” (whatever that term really means) is in line with the Constitution? Doesn’t it say that ” Congress shall have ‘power’ to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and ‘excises’,… but all duties, imposts and ‘excises’ shall be uniform throughout the United States”? Doesn’t that say that we could have a National Sales tax (consumption tax) as long as it was “uniform throughout the United States”? I’ve always thought that Congress had the power to tax anything it desired, as long it was either apportioned or uniform (if it is laid as an excise as I think the Supreme Court determined the income tax to be.) Looking at our current income tax, it seems to be neither apportioned nor uniform. So it would seem one could make a very good argument on those grounds based on what the Supreme Court has said. But I wonder what your opinion would be on what Congress could tax and by what means in light of what the Constitution says, and what the Supreme Court has said.

    Thank you and keep up the TREMENDOUS work!

    David Christensen