Additional Titles









"Men in Black" The Cult of The Judges






By Jon Christian Ryter

January 10, 2004

Fifty percent of the American people pay 95% of the taxes with roughly 35% of them carrying 84% of the tax load. The myth of the taxation rhetoric is not in who is actually paying all those taxes since we, the taxpayers, know all too well when we look at our pay stubs who is footing the bill. What galls me is that the politicians want us to believe that when they write new tax bills they are stiffing the wealthy class (those earning high six or seven digit incomes), the ultra rich (those making over $2 million a year) or the invisible rich (those whose wealth is so immense it can't be calculated) who pay little or no taxes because their wealth is shielded in tax-exempt trusts and foundations. When you hear a politician talk about taxing the rich, he's talking about you and me if your household (combined) income is $52,000 or more. Keep that thought in mind as you contemplate plastering that "Dump Bush" bumper sticker on the back of your car.

Every Democratic candidate has advocated eliminating the Bush tax cuts (which are temporary anyway) in order to restore welfare programs that were cut after the GOP tidal wave swamped the Democratic ship-of-state in 1994 and took over both the House and Senate for the first time in almost a century. With there being 2 million fewer jobs available in America today than there was in 1993 when Bill and Hillary Clinton pushed NAFTA through Congress, and fewer wage earners as well, working class families can ill afford to donate 38% of their paychecks to those who don't want to work bad enough that they would take the jobs that President George Bush now proposes to surrender to illegal aliens because our own poverty class and emerging class of workers are too good to accept them because they can "earn" more money and secure better benefits on welfare.

Leading the pack in repealing the Bush tax cuts has been former Vermont governor and advocate-general of the legalization of homosexual marriages, Dr. Howard Dean. Dean, with all of the political savvy of Mr. Magoo, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and George McGovern rolled into one, announced at the onset of his campaign that, if elected, he would repeal the Bush tax cuts that this nation can't afford. And, as it was when similar promises came from the lips of Mondale, Dukakis and McGovern, the liberal media praised Dean's frank honesty. And the American socialists who spend their entire existence with their hands outstretched to the mecca of entitlements in Washington, DC--and who flourish only when they have their hands stuck in our back pockets--jumped on the Dean bandwagon and heralded him as the greatest world leader since Porky Pig--even though Dean has proven that he knows very little about national politics and absolutely nothing about world politics.

If Dean had been a Republican candidate, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the LA Times would have crucified him for his gaffes ten times over by this time and Dean would have retired from politics and went back to performing abortions for a living (even though Dr. Dean insists that all of the time he worked in the abortion-on-demand industry that he never performed an abortion. Instead, his gaffes, rather than being construed as political naivety or just plain stupidity, were described as the honest statements of a man of integrity. (Dr. Dean used the power of the Executive Order to seal all of the records of his activity as governor of Vermont for ten years so that none of his actions as governor could be used against him in his bid for higher office.) But Dean has made so many gaffes that his handlers have now prohibited the former governor from speaking out in public before his words are spit-shined by his spinmeisters. Further, because Dean is now slipping in the polls in the real world (i.e., States other than New Hampshire and Iowa), he is now being forced by his handlers to recant his earlier views on repealing the Bush tax cut as well.

Now, don't misunderstand what I just said. Dean, if elected, would do precisely what he said he would do--if he had a Democratically-controlled Congress at his beck and call. He would immediately rescind the Bush tax cut and, like Dick Gephart, initiate new taxes on the middle class just as Bill Clinton did in 1993 after Slick Willy and Evil Hilly campaigned on a promise to cut taxes on the middle class. In Clinton's case, his tax cut translated into the largest tax increase in the history of the modern world. In fact, Clinton became the first president in history to tax the people under the administration of another president. Clinton taxed the 1992 incomes of the American people--on money earned a year before he assumed office. But, Democrats are good at that. They have largely convinced the American people that when they enact tax increases those tax increases are levied only against the rich. But "rich" to a Democrat is an elastic word. It starts at around $45 to $50 thousand dollars and goes upward to infinity. (Infinity, to a Democrat for taxing purposes, ends at around $500,000 per year.) The majority of the taxes in America are paid by the upper working class, the middle class, the upper class and the low end of what is construed as the wealthy class. Those families represent 50% of the potential tax base in America.

Dean's advisers said they had the candidate back off his plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts because Dean's critics have accused him of supporting what amounts to a $2,000 tax increase on families earning from $73,000 to $145,000.

(Notice that Dean's advisors phrased their statement to imply that Dean would no longer do what he wants to do when, in fact, all they are doing is prohibiting him from talking about what he really plans to do if elected. And, notice also that Dean's spinmeisters have made it appear that Dean's plan would only affect the top tiers of the middle class and the upper class (since Dean knows his support comes from the poverty class, the emerging class and the lower spectrum of the working class). In reality, the Bush tax cut offers tax relief for the working class, middle class and upper class--that portion of America that buys most of the consumable products that create jobs and expand the tax base by providing more incomes to more people.

When he was campaigning in Iowa, Dean indicated he was kowtowing to the will of his advisors to provide some form of middle class tax relief. But, in the same breath he took it away when he said, "Ultimately, we will have a program of tax fairness for middle class people..." Tax fairness, to a Democrat, means soak the middle class and give their discretionary income to the poverty class and the emerging class since it is only fair that those who don't want to work should have the same luxuries as those who bust their humps 24/7.

Gen. Wesley Clark, whose advisors seem to be even more stupid than Howard Dean, took a page from Dean's old playbook (since Dean is no longer using it). Clark is advocating a tax "reform" program that amounts to the promised Clinton-style "middle class tax cut" that will actually translate into another Clinton-style tax increase on the already over-burdened working class and middle class. Clark said wants to target the rich and forget about everyone else. What that means, in elastic terminology, is that Clark wants the 35% who pay 84% of the taxes to pay them all.

Congressman Dick Gephart [D-MO] who wants to enact Hillary Clinton's Canadian-style socialized healthcare system that will nationalize one-seventh of the American economy, has opted for a tax increase that would dwarf Clinton's largest tax increase in history. On top of that, Gephart's government-funded healthcare system would create a monumental medical crisis for the Canadian people. What crisis is that, you ask? And who cares? You do. Here's why.

Most Canadians come to the United States for "elective" medical treatment (surgeries refused by the Canadian plan because the patients are too old to gain much additional life from the procedures or because they have chronic illnesses that cannot be cured with the surgery). The government system in Canada is frightening BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES WHEN IT IS POINTLESS TO WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY TO TREAT YOUR ILLNESSES. Those denied medical treatment would have no place to go when the Canadian government tells them that it Is either pointless or too costly to treat them, and that they should simply resign themselves to the fact that they are going to die. Given that fact, Americans who will likewise be denied treatment in our own bureaucratic, socialized system based on the same inane logic, could not go to Canada for treatment either since the Canadians created the concept of "pain relief only" for those who are viewed by the medical community as transitional patients--those who cannot get better and/or those who do not contribute, as human capital, to the economic cycle--that any American socialized medical scheme must necessarily adopt or face bankruptcy.

The real tragedy of socialized medicine is that, when the medical community come under the mandated control of the government, the government can then determine who can be treated and who cannot be treated--even those with the money to pay for what will be construed as "elective" treatment. The system will dictate at what point your medical ailments and infirmities are deemed to be not worth treating simply because the government will be in a position to deny the payment of "authorized" medical claims to doctors who treat patients deemed to be, by the State, not worth treating because they have become a burden on society.

It appears that the smartest Democrats running for president right now are those who keep their mouths shut about socialized medicine, about taxes, about George Bush, about the War in Iraq, and about the dead men walking towards the nomination that none of them will likely win. The smartest Democrat of all, Hillary Clinton, is the only Democrat who will arrive at the Democratic National Convention unscathed and ready to steal the nomination if Dean, Clark, Gephart, Kerry or Lieberman weren't able to seal it before the convention.

If she does, expect a recalcitrant Wesley Clark to bolt from the Democratic Party and assume the mantle of presidential candidate for the Reform Party (or whatever it will be called this year). Clark will then run as the spoiler to assure that Hillary Clinton and her running mate, John Edwards, win with 42% of the vote, over George W. Bush.

Just remember, as the farce of the year nears the Democratic National Convention, half of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination were hand picked by Hillary Clinton to assure that there will be an open convention. When the stable of candidates consisted only of Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and Dick Gephart, Hillary convinced both Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun to enter the race specifically to pull the African-American support away from Gephart and Kerry. When Kerry and Lieberman became too strong, Hillary persuaded Howard Dean to throw his hat in the ring. When Dean became too strong, Hillary talked Wesley Clark (who, according to his own words, would rather be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs instead of President of the United States) into driving his war wagon into the fray. It's unclear how many more candidates Bill and Hillary will talk into joining the race before the convention. It will depend entirely on how strong the tutorial candidates become and how many delegates they win along the way. Hillary cannot afford for any candidate to win the nomination on the first ballot.

If there is an open convention, Hillary will take the nomination on the third ballot, and Wesley Clark will bolt from the Democratic Party before Bill and Hillary finish congratulating each other. At that point, George W. Bush will be facing another historic race for the White House.

� 2004 Jon Christian Ryter - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website. E-Mail: [email protected]










"Leading the pack in repealing the Bush tax cuts has been former Vermont governor and advocate-general of the legalization of homosexual marriages, Dr. Howard Dean. Dean, with all of the political savvy of Mr. Magoo, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and George McGovern rolled into one, announced at the onset of his campaign that, if elected, he would repeal the Bush tax cuts that this nation can't afford."