Do you think it is more important to have a tax policy that raises the most revenue at the least cost, in order to maximize job growth and economic opportunity -  or to have a tax policy like the Buffett rule, which falsely claims it would make all millionaires pay a higher tax rate than their secretaries? 

President Obama released his tax return last week, showing he had an effective rate of a little more than 20 percent of his income, even though he is rich by his own definition. One of major ways the Obamas were able to reduce their tax rate was by giving away 22 percent of their income to charity, which I applaud. But their actions raise several interesting points.

When we donate money to a charity, church or some other worthy cause, we are allowed a tax deduction, which means the government gets less of our money. The president and many in his party keep telling us that the government needs more money, but if they believe this, why are they taking charitable deductions? Why didn't they give it to the IRS which they say needs it so much?

The most personally frustrating aspect of the Abu Ghraib folies is that over a year ago I submitted an interrogation method to the Pentagon that was foolproof, immediate, effective, and humane.

It’s called TFM Interrogation, utilizing a nutritionally-engineered diet of Tryptophan-Free Meals. A TTP article discussing the method is now posted in the Classics section.

I've known Peggy Noonan for 27 years (when she came on board the Reagan White House in 1985), and for my money this is the funniest thing she's ever written:

"It is good that Joe Biden is going to the Republican National Convention next week to hold high the flag of his party. People make fun of his gaffes, of his embarrassing verbal forays, but he's no fool and he knows how to take it to the other guy. The speech he is working on, to be given in the heart of downtown, just across from the convention site, will be stirring and stentorian: ‘All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Tampa, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, ‘Ich bin ein Tampon'."

Americans, now 236 years removed from the Declaration of Independence, have acquiesced to far more tax tyranny -- and I do not use that word lightly -- than the British tax tyranny that ignited our revolt.

Modern-day apologists for the progressive income tax argue that it is just - because it is imposed by the "consent of the governed" -- and that is merely their first lie.

America was established as a constitutional republic to protect despised minorities from the tyranny of the democratically elected majority. Democracy and consent of the governed are distinctly different concepts. Once it becomes acceptable to divide a population into classes, majorities can easily take the right of consent from a minority.

A progressive income tax only meets the test of "consent of the governed" when a majority of each class of taxpayers consents to its tax rate. Otherwise, it is tax tyranny of a low-tax-rate majority against a vote-poor, high-tax-rate minority.

The apologists for the progressive income tax claim it is only "fair," ignoring the fact there is nothing at all "fair" about taxing at a higher tax rate those who work longer and harder and/or spend more time acquiring an education and work skills. It is destructive and tyrannical for a society to tax the most productive, innovative and job-creating people at a higher rate than others.

One problem our troops in Iraq have is the guerrillas using mosques as weapons store rooms and armed sanctuaries from which they can attack us with impunity. This is a favorite tactic of Muqtada al-Sadr and his “Mahdi” rebels, who have shamed and insulted the world’s Shia community by turning its most sacred shrine, the golden-domed Imam Ali Mosque into an armory.

The fat little bearded thug thinks he is safe in the mosque, for were we to storm the mosque risking its destruction, it could cause the Shia uprising he dreams of. What he doesn’t know is that we could quickly cleanse the mosque of him and his murderous riffraff without firing a shot.

The Supreme Court last week ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a unanimous decision. The EPA had charged a couple with violating the Clean Water Act. It claimed their property was a "wetland" and said it would fine them up to $75,000 per day - but there was no water on the property and there had been no judicial review of the charge.

Where are the members of Congress whose funding enables the EPA to engage in this tyranny?

Republicans whine that they cannot control spending because they only control one half of Congress. But the plain fact is that the Constitution is very specific. Any spending bill must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the president.

Thus, there is nothing - nothing - to prevent the House Republicans from refusing to fund the EPA's desired budget until the agency puts procedures in place to guarantee the basic constitutional rights of all Americans.  Yet they are all whine and no guts.

The argument for taking out the government of Syria is growing by the day. The only things holding back the Marines from seizing downtown Damascus and imprisoning Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad as a war criminal are (a) the lack of manpower to prevent the place from collapsing into anarchic chaos before a transition government can be set up, and (b) the literally hysterical objections of the State Department.