Sons of Liberty

Ben Affleck is a...

2011-01-03T08:38:00.000-08:00

This guy sort of goes a little overboard, showing his need for some serious anger management therapy...but I like it.

This is The Fight

2010-06-03T22:57:00.001-07:00

Here's a quick video showcasing the clear and powerful message of Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. It was taken from the final moments of a Townhall in Robbinsville. Where's Robbinsville you ask? I don't know. But this video is so good. Take a gander:

Bring it!

The Cartel

2010-05-14T07:20:00.000-07:00

Cory and I attended the same junior high and high schools, and while we did not have many of the same teachers, we shared very similar experiences. Unfortunately the majority of these "formative" educational experiences left me feeling as if I was being babysat and not taught.

Why were we babysat? Why were expectations so low? Well, the truth of the matter is that in order to pass the students from one grade to the next, the teachers and school systems dumbed down the curriculum and lowered expectations. You see this is a win-win situation when it comes to working with adolescents and entrenched teachers. Let's look at the mindset of each of the actors in this "play." The kids are like cows searching the pasture fence for any opening, any area of escape, and any way to get by with the least amount of work. The teachers including administrators are afraid of risk and have to justify their existence through the "success" of their students. You put these two mentalities together and it is a perfect storm for a teaching system that makes the failing tail of the normal curve passing, while giving the majority of the students who are the middle and overachieving tail of the curve little incentive to do anything other than passively witness the crazy daily events of school-like some skinhead kid getting his head stomped by three "large" LVL girls, etc.

Cory's videos point out that the teachers, and more their unions call for increased funding to raise the level of teaching and positively change student outcomes. What this infers is that the teachers are either purposefully holding back their best instruction for more money, or that magically an additional 20 or 50 dollar bill in their back pocket will change them into master-teachers. Either way these justifications really support the ouster of these self-serving molders-of-young-minds. (Think of that, these are the people that are influencing our kids on school days!) Additionally, if all it takes is a larger salary, why not pull toothless-Joe, or Colt-45 Smith off of the streets, put the money in their pockets and "bling" magically they are master-teachers raising the level of education leading to better educated young people.

Of course we aren't going to put toothless-Joe or Mr. Malt Liquor into the classroom, but why do we allow those who teach at the level that Joe and Malt would teach at to remain? The answer is because the teacher's union is a cartel that works for the teachers best interests irrespective of the needs of the students. Watch the trailer to the new documentary so appropriately named "The Cartel."

While we have to be pragmatic-we can't fire all teachers, nor would we need to, but we should fire between 10-25% of all teachers (those that we can realistically expect to be failing) (pragmatism tells us that it's not possible for 100% of teachers to be successful). Fire the bad, give raises to those who are exceptional, and develop those who are good. And as for the teachers unions...shame on you! You rob the taxpayer while delivering a poor product! What should they get for their deceit? Let Willy Wonka tell-ya!

(An aside, the teachers union and teachers in general supported the public option of healthcare reform, and why not, they are the ultimate public option-a failing and inept public option. The only option for too many students).

The decision is ours, the course is before us, and the votes that will make a difference are upcoming. We must support and elect true leaders who will support school reform (not leaders who send their daughters to private schools while supporting the removal of the voucher program for kids in the same DC area-but what do you expect from Mr. O). Leaders like NJ gov. Chris Chistie who is kicking butt and taking names in battling the teachers union for the NJ kids and families. (Check out this link for Teacers Unions Exposed)

In the words of world famous artists, we need to fight for our right, to "education."

The Lottery

2010-05-14T01:19:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since I've posted anything here...been busy. Here's something I thought was interesting though, and I thought it was worth putting up.

Also, an old favorite of mine:

You have to appreciate what big government, heavy bureaucracy can do to us. God bless America. May we rid ourselves of this sort of crap very soon.

Healthcare Reform for a Heterogeneous Society

2010-02-23T09:13:00.000-08:00

Remember when you were young, and your parents gave you your first puzzle game? You know, that wooden box with different shapes cut out of the top, and similarly shaped wooden pieces that could only fit into a corresponding hole. Remember how you kept trying to put the triangle or square piece into the circle hole, over-and-over again. You would put it on its side and try to pass the piece through...nope. You would try twisting it in an attempt to squeeze it through...nope. Then you would try to ram the piece through the hole by placing both of your little carny-like hands over the piece while delivering as much force as your tiny body and over-sized head could deliver...but nope. Then, just when you were about to give up, you noticed another hole, just to the right of the one you just learned to hate...and you tried again. Maybe that was the right hole...maybe it wasn't, but eventually you learned that you have to put each piece into its corresponding hole, and that it doesn't work out well if you try to force a square through a circle hole, or a triangle through a star shaped hole.

Most adults can claim that they learned that principle when they were young, however, there remain those who don't understand that the block fitting game is not just a lesson impacting how we treat circle, square, or triangle pieces of wood, but that it is a metaphor for how we should approach our interactions with one another. I speak specifically regarding how specific political leaders have proposed, and are bent on enacting legislation, in this current case, healthcare reforms, that move the federal government and the provision of healthcare in the direction of treating each American as if he or she were a circle-piece. This mistaken outlook on governance and warped view of America stems in large part due to the hubris and elitist mentality of some of our elected leaders( cough-cough Reid, Pelosi, cough Obama) .

These elitists truly believe that it is their right to construct legislation that protects us from ourselves...because the truth is that we are a very stupid populace, that had sufficient mental capabilities to mark next to a name or two on a ballot, yet cannot make any additional decisions for the remainder of our lives. You see, this small group of men and women are so much smarter than us that they can, with one awkward lefty swoop of the president's pen, enact legislation that will create a utopian society for you and me, where the vibrant colors of every union will mark our new national flag. Of course this is their imperative duty, which if omitted, will lead to the destruction of our society due to the mismanaged actions of the common folk (eww wash your hands, you just touched one of the common).

In essence, these elitists see us as 300 million Homer Simpsons, whose only purpose in life is to drink Duff Beer (OH YEAH!) and eat donuts. And somehow, these elitists, are immune to the cause of our homeritis, and have some type of royal line of blood, which enables them to be omniscient.

Well, Mr. and Ms. Elite...since you know all, you must know what I think about you? No, not that you are the messiah...but that you think you are king and queen...able to dictate what should occur in your kingdom while you sit on your throne. Well, the only king I'm ok with at this point, is the only king who gets it because he serves me, and knows I want to have it "my way." I'm glad that the colonists weren't down with King George III, and that the majority of the population is demonstrating that they are not down with king Barack. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like he is getting the message, as he is still trying to build upon the work of other king-types such as FDR and LBJ, both of whom dreamed of a utopia while their legislation in reality leads to government-sanctioned mediocrity.

So why shouldn't Obama be impeded in his pursuit of a "more fair and just" healthcare safety net? Doesn't this safety net fit along-side the social security and medicare safety nets? The answer to the later question will help answer the first. The problem with the Obama healthcare reform proposal is that it aims to establish the federal government as the responsible party in protecting the dumb masses from themselves...just like we cannot be expected to save for of our retirement nor for our medical bills once we are older adults...we really can't be expected to make healthcare decisions for ourselves currently. Unfortunately, when we concede our right to provide for ourselves, including for our future, to the federal government, we also concede a great deal of our individual freedoms, and as postulated previously we will be treated as if we are homogeneous blocks and forced to both buy into a system that the government regulates (a circle hole), which will never meet our individual needs.

It is important that the structure you position yourself to "fall" into is really a safety net and not a spiders web because the architects of the two have very different outcomes in mind for those who fall into their nets or should I say, webs. While these safety nets are proposed as keeping individuals and families from hitting "rock bottom," as well intended as they might have been, they in many cases act as webs entrapping more people than actually helped.

We must tell the elitists that we don't want them to try to smash us through the same hole! We must tell them that we want freedom to choose! And, if they continue to not listen, or even worse, hear us but obstinately move forward in "ruling" us, we will be forced to get them the hell out of office, and elect leaders who respect the American people and their individual right to freedom!

In regards to healthcare reform, it is true that we do need reform-just not reform that harms more Americans than it helps. We need to allow competition across state lines (allowing individuals to purchase insurance from states that don't have as many cost-increasing unnecessary regulations), by allowing individuals and families to have the same tax breaks as companies when it comes to purchasing healthcare/insurance (currently a company can purchase health insurance on your behalf using pre-tax dollars-money that is figured into your total compensation-while you must use post-tax dollars if you buy health insurance on your own), and reforming malpractice law so that practitioners don't have to practice as much defensive medicine and start dedicating themselves to aggressive and efficient medicine (about 1 out of every 4 dollars goes towards defensive med). Of course there will still be individuals and families that cannot afford insurance even though they work hard and want to purchase it. Appropriate reforms would allow these individuals to use as much of their own funds as possible, with assistance from the community, to buy into the same policies as you and me. Otherwise, they are stuck in a government run system that leads to poorer quality care and less access to care. These are reforms that protect the ability of the individual to choose what works best for him or her and his or her family. Since we aren't all circles, we must allow each to find and choose what works best for his or her own needs and wants.

Balance the budget the easy way

2010-02-01T13:14:00.000-08:00

Last week I got back from a trip. Like always, I enjoy flying. It is a great way to travel. How can you beat it? You get to sit there, watch a few mindless movies and they bring you food and drink. You don't have to think about anything or do anything. Great right? Well it used to be better.

Back before 9/11 was the good days of flying. You could show up to the airport 30 minutes before your flight and still be able to board the plane. They were days that we didn't worry about the terrorists or if we had to much liquid in our carry on. There was not fear about someone using the cutlery to kill you or if you had bombs that wouldn't blow up even if you tried. They were days when you didn't have to take your coat off to go through the metal detector and didn't have to take your laptop out of your bag. They were great days without loads of mindless rules that even a small child could circumvent.

Then 9/11 happened. I remember it well. I was in shock as I am sure you were. As a result we all willingly gave up some of our freedom. Along with it went the joy of easily catching a flight. All in the interest of "safety."

Are we any safer today than we were then? I propose that we are not. In the news we find regular examples of bad guys getting through our airport security only to be caught by the last line of defense, no not the air marshals, they are caught by the other passengers. (The Christmas day bomber)

So what do we get from having the Department of Homeland Security? More security? No, fear mongering. What do the colors they use really tell us? They tell us that we should be even more paranoid about a threat that they repeatedly demonstrate they know absolutely nothing about and know even less about how to stop. Aside from the peddling of paranoia, what do we get? More bureaucracy. I don't like to use buzz words like bureaucracy but that is exactly what it is. Just a piece of history, we took the very same government agency in place who was charged with our airport security pre 9/11, and yet was not able to stop it, and make them the single largest US government agency. I am sure that whoever thought up the idea sits around late and night chuckling to themselves thinking "haha all we had to do was give them a new name and different color shirts and people are thanking us instead of blaming us. "

Mr President- Lets cut the least productive parts of government out. When agencies repeatedly demonstrate that they do not preform the job they are established to provide we should remove them. We need to get rid of the department of Homeland Security. Aside from creating lots of high paid and high pensioned government jobs we all have to pay for now and well into the future, do they benefit America? NO! Any value they add is undone by all of the unintended negative consequences they create.

Lets free these workers. Let them into the work force of America and ask them to provide value to others by providing a service that adds value.

I propose that we get rid of the entire Homeland Security group and allow the people with the record for making our flights safer take charge -the regular passengers. Lets start balancing the budget the easy way.

One more rant before I go. Why cant the TSA (a part of the Homeland Security umbrella) manage to get your bag on the plane after they dig through it? I understand it is their right to invade our privacy when we fly, but it is not their right to invade your privacy, delay your bag to dig through it then force you and the airline to fill the gap. But don't worry they will make up for it by sticking a little note in your bag that lets you know they dug through your underwear. Next time I should leave a well soiled set of underwear inside my suitcase as a surprise. :)

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this or on other ways we can eliminate government waste by eliminating the agencies that add no value.

I have a dream...

2010-01-28T10:45:00.000-08:00

It is not news that the US National debt is burgeoning out of control and there is no end in site. As of Sunday January 25, 2010 the national debt is 14.3 Trillion dollars. According to the 2007 US census there are 111,162,259 million American households. Dividing 14.3 by 111 thousand give us the grand total owed by each and every US household, $110,790 US dollars from the national debt alone. More info here

Think about this: the US national median household income is $48,200. That means on average each household would need to have each income earner work for over two years just to pay off their current portion of the US national debt!

Don’t worry, it gets worse - Since 2007 our debt has increased by 3.88B a day. At the end of 2005 our national debt was barely over 8 Trillion. In less than 5 years we have almost doubled our debt burden! Yet no one seems to worry. If anything the politicians continue to pander legislation that will requires the government to spend more money on new pet projects without even attempting to propose how they would be paid for. (Taxes or cuts)

The Senate race in Massachusetts last week sent a message to politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike. Suddenly those seeking reelection in the next round are all talking about being fiscally responsible. Great right? No, because talk is not enough and that is all they are doing, talking. We as the American people must hold our elected officials to their campaign buzz words. If they don’t do as they promise and have promised in the past it is time for a new group of elected officials. Here is a good article on the shift in the campaign rhetoric but not in actions.

I have a dream that politicians will worry about the future of America more than being reelected. I have a dream that the people and the politicians alike will worry more about how to solve our problems rather than what party they belong to. I have a dream that we will elect people that actually do what they promise rather than what gets them more money. I have a dream that we will be willing to make hard decisions today that will provide the foundation for a great future.

Every day there are more people who begin to live this dream. They do so one letter and phone call to elected officials at a time. They do so by talking to their friends and neighbors and making them aware of the problem. They do so by blogging on the Sons of Liberty. They do so by not accepting the fiscal recklessness that is rampant is unchangeable.

When we unite we will force a change to fiscal responsibility.

Precious Moments from Days Gone By...

2010-01-24T14:28:00.000-08:00

This past week marked the one year anniversary of George W. Bush leaving office. I remember that day well. The way he and his wife remained dignified and polite, even though there were harsh insults being thrown at them from the first several rows of the inauguration attendees (stay classy people). I must admit, I miss President Bush. I admit, I wasn't a fan of his 2nd term fiscal policies, nor of his first term "No Child Left Behind" act, but overall, I did appreciate his unwavering fight for our safety and freedom.

Today, I had a lull in my busy schedule and ventured onto You tube to see what funny videos there were of George W. Bush. There were some funny ones, but this one I found was the funniest of all. This video isn't even of President Bush, it's of Kanye West. It was some sort of telethon for New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Take a gander - watch especially Mike Meyers' face at the end.

Just beautiful, isn't it?

Now, I'm not trying to bring up any race arguments, or bring to light any commentary on our society now vs. 2005. What I am trying to say though, is that Kanye West is an utter moron - yet there are sure enough tens of thousands of people, if not more, who actually listen to what he has to say about politics. Granted, most of those people can't vote...because they're either 15, or in jail, or both...so I guess K. West isn't the worst purveyor of retarded liberal tripe, he's just the worst at it.

For a look at another moron - here's Brian Williams on the Today show talking about his interview with President George W. Bush.

I miss W.

Represent or Replace

2009-12-24T10:41:00.000-08:00

The US government has three groups of elected officials that are representatives of the people who elect them. By definition a representative is: "somebody who speaks, acts, or votes on behalf of others". When we vote for individuals we expect them to
embody the hopes and desires of those that elect them. Abraham Lincoln said this best in the Gettysburg address "Government of the people, by the people and for the people". This is the premise of America. It is what has unified America and what has held it together through good times and bad times. It is the mortar that allows America to be great.

Do you feel like the government represents you? If you don't, it is no surprise. Most Americans feel that they are poorly represented by those in elected office. This was not always the case but the last time so many Americans felt this way was at the initiation of the Civil war. It is uncertain at what point in recent history that the majority of Americans began to feel this way but it is certain that as time goes by there are more and more that believe a change is needed.

Many felt that they were electing change when they voted for President Obama. Was it the change they expected? Look at the polls less than one year into his elected term and you will find a startling answer. It is not the change they were looking for. When he took office he had around 80 percent approval and in less than one year is about 40 approval. In fact more and more Americans that voted for the change are wishing that they had voted differently. The two main parties no longer represent their stated values nor their constituencies. This is indisputable in the view of the American people in the wake of the House and Senate passed health care bills. Americans are standing up in record numbers against the new Health Care policies but those elected march forward as if propelled by some sub-verse motivation.

We must hold our elected officials responsible for their actions. If they will not represent the people that elect them we must stand up and replace them. If neither party is capable of representing the people we should form a new party. Not a party that is almost entire purpose is self preservation rather a party that truly represents america. Why does our budget get bigger and bigger every year? Why do we consistently spend more money that we bring in? This same behavior breaks individuals, marriages, small companies, large corporations and yes will even break governments.

Either our elected officials begin to represent the people or we must replace them with people that will. The American Revolution was fueled by a cry of Taxation without representation. Look at the situation today. True we do have elected officials but do they represent us? In effect are we being taxed with out representation? Thomas Jefferson wrote "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I am not calling for a revolution with guns but rather a revolution of ideas and expectations. Write your Senators and Representatives. Let them know how you feel about the Health Care bill that was passed today. Tell them that if they push it forward and it is signed into law that you will hold them responsible and will do everything in your power so they will not be elected again. If it is the case that they still pass the Health Care bill or additional spending bills and continue to spit in the face of the american people that we will replace them.

Read my lips

2009-12-14T05:05:00.000-08:00

Friday, December 11, 2009 one of the largest banks in America, Citigroup, announced that it would pay back the remaining 20 Billion dollars it borrowed from the TARP fund. The reason: Too many government restrictions. It is uncertain if they plan to pay any interest on the money that they borrowed. Interest at 10%, which is very low for the riskiness of the investment, would be about 4B for the 18 month loan term.

On top of the 20B that Citigroup plans to repay, the US government now owns a 34% stake in the banking giant. They plan to sell their stake over the next 6-12 months. That brings the total borrowed by Citigroup to about 45B and the US government estimates a net gain of 6.7B.

Most other large banks that took TARP money have repaid the government as well. JP Morgan Chase & Wells Fargo are a few of the banks that have already paid back the government. Turns out that they didn’t like all of the extra government imposed rules either. Kudos to the banks for paying back the money that they never should have needed, but at least they paid it back.

Now that the banks, the main target group for TARP, has or is in the process of paying the money back a few questions are raised. If banks are viable enough now to pay back the money, are other companies that received money paying it back? Does the government count the money paid back as more money available to pay out or are they being fiscally responsible and holding on to the money that no one had to lend in the first place? And finally, if the banks and other critical parts of the economy are functioning again, is it time to stop handing out the money even though there are billions that still haven’t been handed out?

Ask your friends and family and you will find that America is pleading and hoping that the government will STOP distributing the TARP and Stimulus. They also want everyone who received money to have the moral courage to step up and pay it back with interest. It really comes down to the average American who will end up paying for the continued lack of fiscal responsibility. The choices we make today as a country will determine in large part, who and what kind of country we will become. The choice is clear.

READ my lips, Stop TARP and Stimulus. We must stop them or we will face huge tax increases or wild inflation. We can't afford to raise taxes. People are still losing houses and jobs at an alarming rate and handing out more TARP and Stimulus money will just increase the burden of paying the money back. Taxes are bad and inflation is probably worse. If you don’t believe me do a quick Google search on inflation in post WWII Germany. Both are bad. Bad for America, bad for our future. Let’s make hard decisions today so we don’t have to deal with either.

I love America. I love what it stands for. I want its future to be even better than our amazing past. I want a future I can believe in, not a promise of bigger or complete government. That is not America, it is not what we represent nor is it where our brightest future lays.

Write your elected officials today and ask them to stand up and stop the bleeding in American politics. Ask them to make the right decisions for America even if it means that they won’t get elected. Ask them be fiscally responsible and repeal the TARP and stimulus bills so no more money we don’t have gets handed out.

We can still save our future but we have to act now. With your help and the help of people all across America we can make America the place we continue to be proud to be a part of.

Nobody's lookin'...

2009-11-14T08:34:00.000-08:00

Life gets pretty busy, but everyone once in a while, you just have to stop and think about what's going on. When I sat down this morning to look at the news, I saw our Commander in Chief chillin' with the Emperor of Japan. He's bowing...a lot. Take a gander below.

Now, I don't really condemn the man for trying to strengthen relationships abroad, but I have to wonder if this is the right way to go about it. Will he earn the respect of other nations when he shows them in the first instant that he recognizes their superiority? Will other nations look to us as an authority?

I don't think he's earning the Emperor's respect there, but rather his approval. Maybe that's all the President is seeking. Maybe he's not gotten over the High School mentality of trying to be popular and fit in with the cool crowd. And maybe he thinks Japan is extra cool because they have Sony and Toyota.

At any rate, I'd love to hear what he says about his meeting in Japan. I recall another meeting with foreign royalty. When President Obama arrived at is first G-20 summit, he met with the leaders of the world one by one for a photo op. When he came to King Abdullah of Saudi, he gave us this precious Gem:

What was the President's description of this? Well, an aide of his told everyone he was stooping down to hear Abdullah better because he's so tall.

Maybe that's what he'll say about Japan...and maybe we should all pitch in for a Presidential Hearing Aide. The card can say:

Merry Christmas Mr. President, stop making an arse of yourself, and every one of us, abroad.

Love, U.S.A.

UPDATE: Here's an interesting article from HOT AIR that sites a journalist from the NYT back in 1994 about President Bill Clinton "almost" bowing to the same Japanese Emperor. Interesting.

“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

2009-09-27T23:44:00.000-07:00

Really? How is that going to work under the current Senate bill? Let's take a look at this flowchart brought to us by the Republicans on the Joint Economics Committee.

Does this give you a headache? It will...

The Tax Man Cometh...

2009-09-19T00:00:00.000-07:00

I was reading some articles and blogs earlier tonight, and I found an interesting link to this video.

Taxes are truly an encroachment on our liberty. This is why so many decent Americans are taking the time out of their busy schedules to peaceably organize and protest - to show the Government that Americans know Freedom, and they're not going to relinquish any more of it without a fight.

It really bothers me there are so many on the left, especially in leadership positions, like Nancy Pelosi...and even the big O himself, that are discounting the worries and concerns of these citizens. They have called them racists, and have proclaimed on National television that "special interests" are behind the "Astroturfing" (Astroturfing is a way for the left to say that, rather than this movement being a grassroots movement, it's manufactured by the Right-Wing Special Interests). The funniest thing is that they say that, and they they get the SCIU and ACORN to recruit protesters (thugs) to go to town hall meetings and protests and intimidate, and in some cases even physically violate, the good, decent, and hard-working Americans that are fed up with the rampant and out-of-control liberal agenda that Obama and the Democratic leadership have embarked on.

Here a few videos that show footage from different protests. I think my favorite is the first one here - it's just a surveillance camera that took image captures as the crowds that ran through the streets of Washington D.C. last week steadily grew larger - it's quite amazing to me. If you're reading this and agree with me, you're not alone. If you disagree, I wonder why you're not alone either.

And here's one that shows how things got started back in February of 2009, not even a month into Obama's presidency.

Just a side note, after the inauguration Ceremony for President Obama, there was hoards of trash left on the ground everywhere. This behavior from the environment-loving liberals?

After the Washington Tea Party on the 11th, things were pretty clean. See for yourself...

This is from the Inauguration in January of this year.

This is from the Tea Party last week. I see a small difference.
I just think it's interesting that people who want the Government to leave Americans alone to be responsible for themselves are, in large measure, responsible for themselves!

Breakdown on Entitlement Spending

2009-09-12T23:36:00.000-07:00

Here's a nice little video that shows us what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do from a slightly different perspective. It's always nice to see things broken down to a basic level.

"It Was Electric"

2009-09-12T10:51:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the Nation remembered September 11, 2001; both the horror, and the bravery. I can't help but think about how the Nation banded together to help one another, and to unite. This video here reminds me of that feeling. It's the feeling I get when I think about the American Spirit; United and Strong. Let Freedom Ring.

Yet Another Video...

2009-09-11T00:16:00.000-07:00

This is just too good. If you've been acquainted this past 24 hours with the coverage from last night's "big speech", you'll like this one.

Last night during Obama's speech, Congressman Joe Wilson belted out a "You Lie!!!" Now, he apologized to the White House, but I think it was hilarious!

The most awesome part of it? Pelosi. She's actually evil, and now we have the proof.

Thank you Joe Wilson - we'll mourn your loss after Pelosi has you whacked!

Voices From the Past...

2009-09-10T23:30:00.000-07:00

Here's something I thought we could all enjoy. I remember seeing the Dragnet movie when I was a kid, with Dan Aykroyd playing Joe Friday, but this video is from the original - and it's a true gem - thank goodness it's (almost) Friday.

This is Where They Want Us to Go!

2009-09-08T22:26:00.000-07:00

I was reading through some articles today, and I found something truly horrific.

It's an article from the Daily Mail, and it documents an incident that happened some time ago where a baby was born at 21 Weeks and 5 days into the pregnancy. This happened in Norfolk, England. What allegedly took place after the baby was born is heartbreaking.

A word of warning; the article contains pictures of a small premature child, and I would caution anyone to use their discretion in viewing them.

Sarah Capewell, the mother of the premature baby from the article, alleges that when the baby was born, the doctors and medics refused to treat him because it was against the State's guidelines to treat a baby born before 22 weeks. So, Miss Capewell's baby was just two days shy of being allowed to live...two days. I've included some quotes below.

"Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit."

The article goes on...

"She said: 'When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over. A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a "little fighter".

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, "They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him".'

She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth."

I encourage you to read the full article, if for nothing else, to help hit home what President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have in mind for us in America.

When the President backed down from the "Public Option" last week, I thought we might be onto something, but then I read this earlier, and I realize that these thugs will stop at nothing to force their ideology on to all of us.

From Jake Tapper's blog at ABC news (not a typically conservative gentleman):

"Both leaders told the president that despite the difficult rough and tumble of the legislative process in the last few weeks, they are optimistic that both the House and Senate can pass health care reform legislation.

What will be in the bill remains an open question, though after the meeting, Reid told reporters that 'we're going to do our very best to have a public option or something like a public option before we finish this work.'”

I've signed the petition at freeourhealthcarenow, and I've urged all of you to do so as well. Also, calling your representatives in Congress might help, unless you have someone like Harry Mitchel of AZ - who is totally useless.

Beyond that, get the word out - talk to people you meet, or to people you already know. A few weeks ago, I started a conversation with a Russian immigrant whom I worked with, and her and a coworker and I discussed both the U.S.S.R. and the current state of affairs in this nation. The lady from Russia was very serious when she said that she "smells Communism coming" and that she "doesn't ever want to go back to a State-run Insurance". If we open our mouths and shed as much light on what is happening as possible, I think we'll win the hearts of those good and decent people in this, our beloved country.

There are good people out there that just don't pay as much attention as they should, but given the truth, they'll see the light, and want to fight what's going down on Capital Hill.

I certainly hope that we can have some effect in setting this country back on the right track, or as close to it as possible.

Carry on.

Some Fun

2009-09-03T21:36:00.000-07:00

Here's a clip from a Town hall in California. It's a very good summary of the Free Market:

And here's a great clip that I was sent in an email earlier today:

Just as entertaining as having Cable!

Will We Believe?

2009-08-11T23:13:00.000-07:00

Take a look at this video from a Town Hall that President Obama held today:

Now this one from 2003:

Seriously, when will anyone call him out for this sort of garbage?

A friend and I were talking today, and he mentioned that back when Bush was in office, the media and the far-left would accuse him of lying almost by default. I wonder why there's a scarce few that are calling Obama out on what is clearly serial lying.

Let's not get sucked up into the rhetoric machine that is Obama.

Socialized Health Care..."Bring Out Your Dead!"

2009-08-07T23:16:00.000-07:00

These past few days has been exciting to watch. There has been a true organic movement across the country of ordinary citizens confronting their representatives at town hall meetings.

One of the more awesome of these confrontation was actually at a town hall "Listening Session" for a group of retirees and their AARP representative.

Just a bit of background on AARP, or the American Association of Retired Persons. This group has held some serious lobbying power in Washington for some time now, and has always backed very left-leaning legislation coming out of Washington.

So, during this "Listening Session", something pretty interesting happened. Here's the video, it's a little long, but watch until at least to the 4:00 mark:

From what I was hearing all over the radio today, these "Volunteers" are being trained to spew their talking points out, and then shut down any counter points. That may be hearsay, but after seeing this video and others like it, I think I believe it.

So what do these retirees have to look forward to if Obamacare passes?

...(please mute the video at exactly 1:53)

Well, now that we've seen the future, we can get on with our lives.

Let freedom ring!

The White House - Defenders of Truth!

2009-08-04T22:28:00.000-07:00

Last week, there was a video circulating the web that shows an interview that President Obama gave in 2007, as he was beginning his bid for the White House, as well as clips of him from 2003, and clips of other liberals touting a Single Payer Health Plan, which is government language for socialized medicine. These interviews show that what the President really wants is to eliminate the private insurance industry. Here's the video:

Now...this is pretty clear cut to me. It's no surprise to anyone who paid attention during the election, but it's nice to reminisce.

After the video above made its way around for a few days, the White House released this stunning rebuttal:

Are you serious? Taking someone out of context is one thing, but these interviews are clearly Obama speaking to an audience about his "plan".

Come on lady...those clips that you showed to refute other clips of Obama are from the last two months. What do you think he's going to be saying? What, is there some sort of limit on when things aren't valid anymore? Let's be reasonable, I could understand if he said he wanted to eliminate private insurance when he was in college, but a year and a half ago?

This happened a lot during the election. People, myself included, would point out to colleagues or friends that Obama's record was pretty left-wing and radical, and the response was always, "you have to take him on his word now, last week he said ."

Listen, I think it's time we all were intellectually honest - Obama is not telling the truth now about...well...anything really, but especially Health Care.

I'm disgusted by people like Linda Douglas. They know exactly what the President is trying to do, and they're lying to cover it up. It's despicable.

Bob, I hate to tell you this, but you are very stupid. :)

2009-08-04T10:01:00.000-07:00

There is a dude named Bob somewhere in the US who in my opinion is very mistaken in his philosophies regarding taxes and who should pay them. I ran into Bob, actually his comments, after reading a blog detailing how President Obama will break his pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class (the corruptionless-class, unlike those filthy rich who wipe their corpulent behinds with thousand dollar bills while starving children shovel coal into their basement furnaces).

So, Bobby Marx makes the following quote to demonstrate his disagreement with, catch this, not the premise that Obama is going to raise taxes when he said he wouldn't (liar), but his disagreement is with the notion that the "rich" shouldn't be burdened with high rates of taxation.

The following is Bob's eloquent comment:

Does anyone out there really believe that $250,000/year is middle class? It’s less than 4% of the population!

Make the richies pay more taxes! They live in a country that enabled them to earn that much- time to pay for the privilege.

Bob

Wow!! Let me say that one more time-WOW!!! Are you kidding me!?

But wait, Bob's friend Mike chimes in with a supporting comment:

i agree with BOB. are the top 5% paying enough back to the system they are so good at profiting from?

Mike

What!? Paying back the system that they are profiting from! Are you kidding me!!!? Excuse me for not drinking the Kool Aid and thinking that the government provides me with the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. According to the Declaration of Independence, you know that document we sent to the Brits and all other nations throwing off the tyrannical rule of a King, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Now let me be clear (but not clearly lying like you know who), the government does not bestow those rights upon all men. Those are unalienable rights that we are endowed with by our Creator. Neither Bob nor Mike provided any other person with the right to pursue their own way in life, including making a living (whether that living is greater than or less than that of those two tools). To state that the government should confiscate the earnings of one group over another based on the so-called right bestowed on that person to make that living by those around them is fallacious and fueled by ignorance at best, and the greenest of covetousness at worst. If Mike and Bob really believe that they system (of which they are a part) can control who "wins" the "rich lottery", then why don't they lobby for their own success?

Why not? Because they know deep down that each individually controls his destiny, and that it is not the system that discrimately determines the winners and losers, but the choices of individuals. The fallacious concept of systematic control is a malicious justification to set up a "system" that confiscates the "unjust" winnings of another in order to satisfy the envy and covetousness of the so called "have-nots", who more often than not have sufficient but will never have enough (especially if the Jones family just bought a boat).

Additionally, profit comes from providing a service to others. If Bob stopped worrying about taking from those he feels unjustly received their "allowance" and developed a service that was innovative enough to create its own niche in the market, he might end up a "richie." If he provided a service that many needed/wanted and were willing to pay him for, he just might find himself "rich." Then how would he feel? Would he still be drinking the Kool Aid, or would he have spewn it out of his mouth as he came to the realization that he developed that service, and that he earned all that he has? My guess is that the later would be true...at least I hope it would be.

I have an idea. Let's find Mike and Bob and send them out to "rich" areas of town, and have them go door to door explaining to the families living in those areas why they deserve to pay higher taxes. As they do so, M&B, lets just call them BM, can start collecting from those families. Would they do it? Would BM get out and try this little experiment? No, because they wouldn't have the guts to do something like that...I mean they wouldn't have the brains...I mean, they wouldn't dare do anything like a home invasion robbery. And why not? Because they would either get beat down or thrown in jail...preferably both, and because the IRS already does the job of invading homes and confiscating money coersively for them.

Thank you for indulging me and taking the time to read my thoughts regarding Bob and Mike, the Stalin brothers. I hope you more easily see the illogical nature of the "tax the rich" stance.

A Little Humor

2009-08-03T21:29:00.000-07:00

There's this senator, her name is Maxine. Maxine is a liberal...and an idiot. I don't think that the two are corollary, but when you see Maxine in action, you'd think so.

I found this video tonight. It is brilliant!

Of course, this is an old clip, but it's poignant still today.

What We Can Do...

2009-08-02T01:48:00.000-07:00

I often wonder what I can do to affect a change to the direction I feel this country is headed in. I found a petition online that is being advertized by several of the leading talk radio hosts in America. The website is called "Free Our Health Care Now"

Here's a video to introduce the petition, and to give a little background as to why it's important.

Please sign it when you have a chance - I think that this might be a step in the right direction.

$1 Trillion: An Illustration

2009-07-31T20:54:00.001-07:00

How much is $1 Trillion? I found a video that helps to illustrate the answer in a very compelling, yet absolutely terrifying way.

Some Interesting Clips

2009-07-29T23:10:00.001-07:00

I came across these clips tonight. They're from the Glenn Beck program on FoxNews. I don't usually watch this, because of the cable thing I've noted before, but sometimes I like to catch these.

"The One Thing" from 7/28/09

"The One Thing" from 7/29/09

It's a little scary - people like to bash Beck for being extreme. Granted, he does rattle off quite a bit, but he's got some pretty thoughtful commentary, and he's backing it all up. We should all work to know the issues so that we can speak clearly and intelligently about what we believe.

A Few Precious Gems...

2009-07-29T22:30:00.000-07:00

I thought these two blog posts were great, I found them on www.townhall.com earlier today.

The first is a clip from Obama's Townhall, the kind where he plants people to ask softball questions about his agenda. This is a very interesting clip, watch this video:

This is what Greg Hengler, the author of the post, had to say about it.

"I've heard him state these 'facts' before. Hate to do it, but can you imagine how quick the media would have pounced on Bush if he was this much of a liar? Can you imagine how often this clip would be played next to fact after fact after fact proving how much he was lying? After this, SNL would spend a whole season mocking our liar of a president."

The next post is just a video featuring one Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). I just like how well he handles the question and introduces some great facts. Here's the video:

In both videos, we see a very important trend, which is lying, and masking what's going on by wrapping it up in pretty, and decidedly moderate rhetoric for the masses. This is getting pretty disgusting.

Socialized Health Care - Exposed!

2009-07-16T09:11:00.000-07:00

Here's something I ran across this morning. This video is 20 minutes long, but it's very worth watching.

Health Care: Go with the Flow

2009-07-15T07:49:00.000-07:00

Flowcharts are wonderful. They enable you to map out complex processes on paper so that you can make tweaks and present your ideas to a large variety of groups of people. The more complex the idea or process, the crazier looking the flowchart will be. Here's a really good example of an complex flowchart (click here to view):

This is insane. Seriously. Does anyone really think that this convoluted mess will be in any way good for America? Also, barring the hard-left crazies, can anyone who voted for Obama, and who is intellectually honest, truly say that they are still proud of their decision made back on election day?

I have faith in the American people. I know that, although the majority of us sometimes make uninformed decisions, by and large, Americans are good people. The best the world has to offer.

Let's all be very careful to make sure that this flowchart doesn't become the operating guide for the inevitable bureaucracy that will be "Public Health Care".

Granted, as some readers have pointed out in the past, the health care system we have now isn't perfect. I would absolutely agree with them on that. It's my personal opinion that any ills that have beset the current health care system we have are directly attributed to our Government's interference therein.

Tired of a long wait in the ER? Well, thanks to the Government, the ER has to treat everyone that comes in, regardless of their insurance, lack thereof, or even their citizenship. So what happens when someone that is either uninsured, illegally living in the US, or both, gets sick, or one of their kids gets a cold? Instead of taking them to a pediatrician, they take them to the ER. This is really happening. In fact, there is so much overcrowding that not only are some hospitals shifting toward ER Diversion, where ambulances are redirected to other hospitals mid route, but some hospitals are just plain closing their ERs.

Some will tell me "You're a heartless beast if you think ERs should turn people away!" Well...is it necessary for the ER to treat an 8 year old for the sniffles? Before the Government started mandating treatment to the uninsured, and before the nightmare of medicaid and medicare, health care costs were not only much more negotiable on a broader scale, they were much cheaper. All of the malpractice insurance and administrative costs and fees dealing with government agencies have made health care costs skyrocket. If health care was run by the free market, it wouldn't be all that expensive to just take your child into the pediatrician and have them treated for a cold, that is, if you didn't instead just let your kid sleep it off with some cold medicine.

Imagine if our health care system were treated like our car insurance system. You don't use your car insurance to go get the oil changed, do you? You have insurance so that, heaven forbid something major goes wrong, you have the insurance to kick in. Now granted, if you drop your transmission, there aren't a lot of insurance companies that will cover you, but what I'm trying to illustrate is that there are a lot of other alternatives out there like health savings plans that are a lot more attractive than a pork and Bureaucracy laden, 1,000 page, $1 trillion bill that would be thrust upon us.

Then there's this video:

Hey, the American people aren't on board! It's not time for us to "Buck up!" Forget it Obama - I want no part of this crap - I didn't vote for this, or for you.

I urge anyone that can to contact their representatives and Senators and let them know you're opposed to Health Care reform of this magnitude.

For more on this, here's some great videos on Health Care by John Stossel. Here's a small portion of it (my favorite one):

Sick in America: Part 1
Sick in America: Part 2
Sick in America: Part 3
Sick in America: Part 4
Sick in America: Part 5
Sick in America: Part 6

OBAMACare: Fact Check

2009-07-06T11:24:00.000-07:00

The following is a list of promises made by the President concerning his Health care initiative, followed by links to articles debunking each. The list was emailed to members of the RNC, but posted for all to view on http://townhall.com by Matt Lewis, his post is linked here.

"You can keep your plan. "You can keep your doctor." Busted by the AP.
"Costs won't rise." But will be paid for by plenty of taxes according to the AP.
"The plan will not add to the deficit." But CBO says plans would worsen budget outlook.
"The 'public option' will provide competition." Even the Chicago Tribune editorial board knows better.

This information isn't surprising, given that in every sentence he utters, the President spews forth platitudes so empty and without meaning that they could be equated to a verbal twinkie - tastes good but leaves you even hungrier, and on a complete blood-sugar crash.

You Are Smart Enough To Make It...But Not Smart Enough To Use It For Good.

2009-06-29T05:41:00.000-07:00

There is a perverse ideology afoot in the Republic which is espoused by the self-appointed intellectual elite. This repulsive ideology is that in order to have a "moral and just" society, we must be collectively crammed into the same section of the bell curve. The elite see finances as the way to enforce equality, and thus the idea that government sponsored and enforced redistribution of wealth is the only means to the utopian society that is at the heart of "hope and change and yes we can." Or in other words, I "hope" I win the liberal lottery and receive greater entitlements like healthcare, free education all the way through college, and possibly $5,000 for every baby I bear...and a house would be nice with a Government Motors car. The "change" must mean a change in the rules of the game...that what you earn...what you receive as payment for your productivity really isn't yours, and that past a certain amount you really don't deserve it...in fact you are a greedy mother chucker for having made it, you evil heartless beast! And finally, the "yes we can" is the attitude espoused by the current administration and Congress as they state over and over, "we won, so we can do whatever we want."

If you doubt President Obama's true desires on this subject take a listen to the following audio from a radio interview he gave in 2001. His words are pretty clear to me...if you doubt his true ambition you are either totally ignorant as to the truth or in denial, or deceptive and laying in wait for the right time to enflame class warfare and socialist redistributions policies.

Following the Obama interview are several Milton Friedman interviews to give a little comparison of thoughts.

What is so perverse about the elitist stance is that on one hand the individual or family is competent enough to earn a substantial living, but the elitist not only doubts the morality of those earnings, but the ability of that person or family to use their family finances to good ends. In essence they are saying, "you were smart enough, and prepared yourself sufficiently to make a good living, but you will not use the money you earn for good" (which good only comes from using the money to bring praise to the elite and his/her party of panderers). So, the only thing left for the elitist liberal is to take what is not his/hers under the auspices of moral superiority stating that the ends justify the means. The only way this thought process could become any more ridiculous is if those who believed in it dressed in a distinct fashion...similar to how goths dress in all black, gang members self-identify with different colors and dickies pants, and child abductors drive white vans with no windows in the back, the liberal elite who espouse the idea of redistributing wealth in a bizaro world Robin Hoodesque manner should dress the part. That way their dress would match the absurdity of their ideology. Time to bring out the green tights and elf shoes.

If you think that I am mistaken and that Bush had eliminated taxes among the "rich" and that Rob'n for the Hood AKA Obama, Lil John-Joe Biden, and his band of merry men (thugs from ChiTown) are just helping increase patriotism through taxation among those robbed of that special opportunity by Bush, then you are foolishly mistaken and quite possibly are reading this blog while wearing green tights and elf shoes curled up at the toes. Take a look at the Tax Foundation's figures of how the One's tax increases and overall spending shift has increased the redistribution of wealth.

So, if you are for the government controlling how you spend your income, or in other words, how much of your income is rightfully yours, then you must have a pretty poor view of your own self worth and a severe inferiority complex to think that the gov can use your money better than you could. If on the other hand, you feel that you and your family know how to use the money you make to create wealth for yourself and for those you might hire or pay for goods and services, then you must wake up to the fact that there is a sizable portion of our society that is lurking in the forest, wearing green tights, waiting to pounce on you and take "their share" from your coin purse.

Comparison of Leadership

2009-06-24T00:47:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting video taken from Hannity's America. It's a show on Fox News, the network I can only ever watch while getting a haircut because I can't afford cable. Luckily, because of this amazing invention called "The Internet", we have access to small exerpts from shows on cable - for free...actually, not for free, but cheaper than cable. Let's all take a moment of silence and thank Al Gore for "The Internet", which he invented.

Now, the video linked above shows the comparison between President Obama's response to the chaos in Iran, and President Reagan's response to the Soviet backed Polish Government's crackdown on a Trade Union Federation that was pro-Democracy back in 1981.

For what it's worth, Reagan was better.

Everything is on the Table

2009-06-24T00:40:00.000-07:00

I recently viewed a quality video about Obama's health care plan, and how he's planning on paying for it. The man toward the end of the video is Ed Schultz. He's not a conservative. Just wanted to clear that up. Here's a link, and the video is embedded below.

The biggest concern I have is not about taxation, it's about how this Government health care plan will change America. That's right, I said change. If you like going to the MVD/DMV...if you can't wait to go wait in that awfully long line for the chance to be sneered at by some middle-aged lady with a smoker's cough and some very suspicious hair-loss...you really are probably looking forward to having the Government take your health care over.

Seriously though, President Obama keeps touting that if you like your coverage as it is, then you'll be able to keep it. How long does he intend for this to be possible?

I don't have the access to any specifics, but let's do a gut check. I don't know anyone who's not successfully self-employed who doesn't use the health care coverage provided to them by their employers. This is a very good deal for most workers that qualify for this coverage. Companies of all shapes and sizes spend a large portion of their resources to negotiating, and then facilitating the Health plan that is both cost beneficial to their bottom lines, as well as appealing to as many current and prospective employees as possible.

Enter Government Health coverage. It will seem like a great deal. Many companies will latch on to the fact that they'll save $$ by just allowing their employees to switch to Obamacare. Everything might seem rosy - and then the health insurance companies, divested of their main source of funding, will fold. We'll have no options, the Government's health coverage will be the only coverage available. That's when it will start to suck. We'll get taxed more and more, which will be followed by the inevitable fact that in order to remain solvent, the Health care peeps will have to cut costs, which will lead to Health Care Rationing - like I've mentioned in a previous post.

People might start to pay for their own care in what's left of the Private Sector - but what happened in Canada might happen here too - they passed a law banning such activities. We'll have no choice but to stagnate and slide deeper into European Socialism.

If you read more and more about it, it gets worse. Here's a link to an article about how Kennedy's bill works, and how it favors the Political Elite. That's exactly what we need...right?

I must mention that the current Health Care system in the USA is not perfect, but does what I've written above sound in any way better to anyone? I hope not.

Enjoy the video. If you'd like, here's a website where you can lend your voice to the cause of freeing up our health care.

OBAMA and the "Honest Debate" Deception

2009-06-11T10:10:00.000-07:00

One thing that I always wonder when I hear the President speak is how more people don't catch the fact that he's double speaking. What he says and what he does never lines up completely.

Take, for instance, the following glimpse at what he's planning with his single-payer Health care plan. Please watch this.

The President has said all along that he wants to give the people choice with healthcare plans, but this video shows what the agenda is, and how the words that Obama uses don't quite explain things too clearly.

With a single-payer plan funded by the Federal Government, not only would you have your healthcare managed by the same team that brings you the fabulously efficient Motor Vehicle Divisions across the country, but you would quickly see funding becoming a major source of pain to the taxpayers of this country. Furthermore, what happens when funding is becoming scarce for the Medicare on steroids? What will happen is what has happened in Canada and Britain, just to name a couple of examples, which is healthcare rationing. Healthcare rationing means that not only will there be a pure shortage of services, which will lead to waiting lists and lines for something so simple as a checkup, but also a bureaucratic analysis of what "efficient" concerning costs of care.

So, for example, if you're a financially secure 55 year old white male, and you need some radical surgery to replace your left leg because of a crazy shark attack at Pebble Beach - just hypothetically - you'd be able to get the surgery on a private plan, but when you try and apply for the surgery on the Gov. Health plan, your case would go to a "committee" where they discuss if your surgery is cost effective. Verdict: live without the left leg.

Realistically, people die on Canadian Healthcare waiting lists on a semi-regular basis waiting for things like Chemo-Therapy or Heart Surgery. Here's a little database of some specifics.

Bottom line: The people advocating Government Healthcare in that video, and all over the country, believe that the single-payer Government Health plan will be compassionate, and equitable, but it will more than likely be neither.

Dick Cheney gives a great speech

2009-05-21T23:55:00.000-07:00

Today was a nice day for speeches about National Security. We first had President Obama give a speech in the very home of the original Constitution of the United States, and the original Bill of Rights. His speech was aimed primarily at explaining his actions and pointing out the fact that there's a fine line between Transparency and National Security.

It was a nice speech. It was loaded up heavily with contradictions such as the "Surgical Approach" line that he used in his campaign. What I mean by that is that he promises that he'll be as transparent as possible, and that he'll overhaul the "State's Secrets" policy that has been used for decades by administrations from both parties, but that he'll use a "surgical approach". Translation: "I'm really not going to do what I just said, I'll just pretend...you know...like I'm a surgeon...". Hey Mr. President, surgeons actually work - they go through an inhumane amount of schooling and training to get to where they are - they don't just fall backward into a pile of money the size of Uncle Scrooge's Money Bin and spend all their days golfing - I don't know if you were aware of that - so don't take all of their money by way of over-taxation, and don't destroy their careers through socializing medicine!!

Okay...back to the subject.

The President tends to contradict himself in many of his speeches. Maybe it's not as much contradicting himself as it is just lying. I don't know if I'm allowed to use the "L" word though. It's amazing to me that he can get away with it so well. He is a great speaker - he really makes those speeches come alive. The text of his full speech is here, so read it if you will. However, when you listen to the speech, rather than just read it, I would venture to say you'd agree with me that he is a gifted man.

All gifts aside, I prefer a little substance. If all our leaders had an honest and sincere position to stand behind, we'd all be better off. That's why I liked Dick Cheney's speech, which almost immediately followed President Obama's speech, that he gave at the American Enterprise Institute.

Former Vice President Cheney is a good man with a very honest approach. This is the line I liked the best:

"Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen, a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek."

Wow, imagine if all political speeches had such promise!

Here's a link to the transcript of Dick Cheney's speech, and here are the links to the video of the speech - part 1, 2, 3, and 4.

I've embedded some little gems for y'all below:

I like the fact that Dick Cheney is out there trying his darnedest to set the record straight. I'm giving him my vote to keep on going.

Oh No...

2009-05-13T09:30:00.000-07:00

Please enjoy this video clip taken before the White House Correspondent Dinner began.

ACORN - pretty scary.

2009-05-11T12:59:00.001-07:00

Please watch This, but before you do, make sure you're sitting down, with a bowl of Ice Cream - preferably Mint 'n' Chip, the Breyer's variety.

Blame Game

2009-05-11T10:00:00.000-07:00

This morning I read the following headline on the Drudge Report:
High U.S. Budget Deficits not Obama's Fault - Orzag.

I thought it was interesting that this is the official tone of the White House, and has been since the beginning of this administration. If there's a problem, or if there's any criticism concerning how President Obama reacts to any situations, the standard defense is "Let's not forget, I inherited this (insert problem)..."

The article above is in related to the Budget deficit, which is now estimated to be $1.8Trillion.

To be fair, Obama didn't blame Bush for the NYC Air force 1 press photo fiasco; for that he blamed his Military Office Director.

That was darn decent of him.

What will be a fun game the next three and a half years is to try and guess which official in the cabinet will next fall on their sword for Obama.

Long live the King.

The American Trinity: A Video Presentation

2009-05-05T13:44:00.000-07:00

I stumbled upon this video today, it was linked from the blog on Townhall. I really enjoyed it, and if you follow the link to Youtube, you can find more related videos.

Here's the link.

God Bless America.

Thuggery

2009-05-03T22:15:00.000-07:00

This past week, a major change crept over the American Auto industry. Chrysler declared bankruptcy. The deal was announced on Thursday by the President and spelled out in detail all over the news. Here's one the articles that I urge you to read.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for the Auto companies declaring bankruptcy, in order to free themselves from the bondage of the UAW, the United Auto Workers' Union; I say bondage because of the handicap that this union imposes on our American auto companies (here's a great Op ed piece by Mitt Romney that expounds on that). However, sometimes I wonder how these decisions are made.

Here's a fun quote from Jake Tapper's blog (Tapper's an ABC News correspondent for the White House Press Corp.): "A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that if it continued to oppose the administration's Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation."

What? When you read further, you'll see the response from the White House: "The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."

Neat huh? Remember in Elementary School? "Teacher, Billy hit me!" Then little Billy pipes up..."Prove it!"

Ah, the White House at its best.

In the blog sited above you'll also read that there were four larger creditors to Chrysler, that were owed 70% of the total debt on Chrysler's books, that the investment firm in question joined in eventually pushing for bankruptcy. The four creditors were JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs. The blog points out that all of these firms and companies are recipients of huge amounts of TARP money. Hmm. I wonder if that had anything to do with their enthusiasm to take 29 cents on the dollar for their loans.

This is where our country is going - God Bless America.

PS - For those of you not familiar with Chrysler here are some cars they make:

The Dodge Challenger - very sweet!

Dodge Caravan - very nice!

Jeep - excellent!

Chrysler Sebring - Crap Sandwitch! There had to be some reason for the bankruptcy, right?

Swine Flu: All Your Fault

2009-04-28T09:19:00.001-07:00

I thought I would share this interesting bit from Michelle Malkin's blog. Apparently the outbreak of the flu is actually the result of House Republicans opposing the $1T pork stimulus, which included $900M of funding for pandemic preparations.

The man who added this money into the Stimulus bill was David Obey, House Appropriations Committee Chairman. He argued that a pandemic breakout in the midst of a steep economic downturn would throw us into a depression. Now he and other key Democrats are saying that, because of the resistance the GOP gave this line item in the package, they're to blame for the Flu Pandemic!!!

More from the article:

"So any natural disaster or bio-catastrophe that comes along, for which fiscal conservatives refused to support funding for in an economic recovery package, will now be all. Our. Fault. And President Obama can once again invoke his time-tested alibi: He "inherited" the problem."

By the way, Here's something that Chuck Schumer said a couple of months ago: “All those little porky things that the House put in, the money for the [National] Mall or the sexually transmitted diseases or the flu pandemic, they’re all out,”

That's right! Senator Chuck Schumer opposed the Pandemic Pork as well - and he's a Democrat! You can read more on that here.

And, just in case you were wondering, back in 2005, when President Bush and then Health and Human Services secretary Mike Leavitt worked to push through their Flu Pandemic plan that cost $7.1BILLION. It was a sweeping plan that opened up several stages of Government, ranging from local to federal, to work together to stockpile vaccines, and also worked with vaccine companies and made it much more easy for them to research, develop, and release vaccines in a speedy time frame to counteract any pandemics. Read more here.

This bill has made it much more easy for President Obama, who's insisted on taking a much more active roll in managing this health scare.

I bet we won't hear much about how Obama "inherited" that, will we?

Here's a bonus item:

Unity and Debate

2009-04-26T21:38:00.000-07:00

Last week, former Vice President Al Gore and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich both testified before a legislative committee concerning their views on Man-Made Global Warming, as they pertain to a new bill that is being debated in committee which will create a Cap and Trade energy plan.

"Cap and Trade" refers to a system in which the Federal Government sets a limit on the amount of pollutants that a company can emit into the environment, but also issues certain credits or permits that can be saved up, sold to, and/or traded with other companies and industries so that the "Cap" can be more flexible. See illustration below for a better idea of how this works.

There are some things about this "plan" that intrigue me, but they are few and far between when I look at the system in theory, and especially when I add into the equation how our beautiful Government is going about implementing it into our society, and the inevitable effect it will have on our Economy.

When I take it all into account, a "Cap and Trade" program sounds an awful lot like a corrupt plan that will push us closer to full scale Economic Planning. "Economic Planning" pretty much describes Communism, some forms of Fascism, and Socialism - all are very similar, one way being that they all take away an individual's freedom to choose for himself what sort of life to lead and how to lead it.

Getting back to the testimonies, I wanted to point out something I found rather interesting. Al Gore was, as always, adamant about the "Fact" that Global Warming is Man-Made. When a handful of lawmakers point out that there are some very real issues that are still up for debate, and that there is no certain consensus in the scientific community, Mr. Gore compares challengers of his theories to those who think the Moon landing was staged on a studio lot in Arizona. I thought you might like to see a video of that encounter here.

Going forward with his arguments, Mr. Gore then calls for the end of division and partisanship in this crisis of Man-Made Global Warming. He pleads for us to let our differences of opinion not get in the way of saving our planet. He pleads for Unity!

Unity? What does that really mean? In this situation, it means nothing. What does Al mean when he pleads with us all to unite? He means that he wants those of us that don't want a Cap and Trade system forced on us, who don't believe that there's a crisis, to just forget all about that and accept the snake oil she's peddling.

Does Mr. Gore really want unity? No, or he'd be willing to change his position.

Is unity even possible when two or more people are at odds with their values or beliefs? It's a question I've heard asked before. I don't really think that unity, in these sort of situations, can really exist. Can Compromise occur? You bet! But unity means so much more than compromise. It's truly when our hearts and minds are on the same page with one another.

My wife and I are united, we don't really have opposing views on things. Al Gore and I...not so much. But we can be united! I mean, I really think it's possible to for Al Gore and I to see eye to eye...but only if he changes his mind and calls for an end to the Cap and Trade program!

Unity!

PS - Here's Newt!

Don't Tread On Me!

2009-04-17T18:53:00.000-07:00

We here at Sons of Liberty United would like to wish you a happy weekend. If you are lacking in motivation this should help you! Remember, don't tread on me. :)

2009-04-15T19:21:00.000-07:00

Scotts march to pipes...freedom loving Americans march to Uncle Ted on guitar (I know you are thinking of buying a guitar now...its natural):

A Letter From the Boss:

2009-04-14T22:26:00.000-07:00

Since this is Tax Day Eve, and seeing as how my colleague Dransfield has written such a great post about taxes, I this would be appropriate to share with you. By way of disclaimers, this is not a real letter.

As the VP of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President, and that our taxes, and government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%. Since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go. So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lot and found six 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change; I gave it to them. I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.

This made me laugh...a lot. Here's some pics that I think do this letter justice:

Happy Tax Day to one and all!

Biden isn't the only Liar

2009-04-11T06:36:00.000-07:00

During the Presidential Election this past Fall, Obama made many promises to the American people. One such promise was directed mainly towards calming the "middle class" and the poor. Curious to what the promise could be? Watch Obama give the promise himself:

So, there you have it! No taxes will be raised on the poor or "middle class." (We will get into

the "middle class" next) But just this last month taxes were raised on Cigarettes. Wait, poor

Americans are more likely to be smokers. Wait, that means that this tax does affect the poor.

That is right... its a regressive tax...and it allows Obama to do what he accused Republicans

of saying he would do during the Presidential campaign, i.e.-that he would be a tax and spend

liberal democrat. Well, yep, that seems spot on!!

I know that if pressed, Obama would probably say that the tax is going to pay for children who

do not have health coverage...but that does not discount the fact that it is a tax that affects the

very group he promised not to tax. Either Obama is naive and mistakenly made too many

promises...or he is a liar. I think that his failure to admit naiveness leaves us with one

conclusion: YOU LIED TO ME!!!!

And how does that make you feel? AAANGRY!!!!!

So, there you have it...Obama makes a promise...breaks his promise under the guise of a higher

end...and gets away with it because the media isn't doing too much fact checking on Obama.

Question: What incentive does this give the federal government to really attack smoking? Well,

now there is a huge disincentive...the government doesn't want smokers to quit...then this

nicotine addicted source of revenue would dry up! Now that is totally ethical.

If Obama really wanted to make a difference in the health of the nation he would repeat what Yule

said:

Maybe Obama doesn't want to do that because he is still smoking himself. Well, saying one

thing and doing another never stopped him before...

Interesting Facts

2009-04-10T22:50:00.000-07:00

Here's a video I came across about taxes. I thought it was particularly important and timely this weekend, as it's the last chance you really have to get those taxes done! So, while you're enjoying Easter, think about this:

Capitalism Vs. Socialism

2009-04-09T08:23:00.000-07:00

Rasmussen Reports has reported the following:

"Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism."

What is happening? What kind of Country are we becoming? Have the near majority of us not ever thought about what freedom is?

Now, granted, the poll doesn't say that 47% of Americans believe that Socialism is better, actually, what is says is "20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better." Yikes!

Although this is just a poll, it's not very heartening. I refuse to believe that the body of the American people, once they really understand what Socialism means in practice to them personally, and to our country collectively, will embrace it, or even tolerate it.

That's just me though.

Barney Frank, Jolly Good Fellow

2009-04-08T22:44:00.000-07:00

Here's something I thought was pretty funny/sad. A student at Harvard attended a forum where Barney Frank was speaking. He went up to the Microphone and asked "How much responsibility, if any, do you have for the financial crisis?"

This is the response:

Note how awesome this is.

After watching this clip, I can't help but think of this:

Capitalism, I hardly knew ye...

2009-04-08T12:24:00.000-07:00

This is stuff from last week, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

These articles, linked here, here, and here.detail a meeting that President Obama held two weeks ago with some of the major CEOs from the companies that received the lion's share of the TARP money. The quick and dirty of the two articles is that the CEOs gathered in the White House, and President Obama and a group of his cabinet members, including Geithner, sat down and discussed salaries of executives as well as CEO compensation. As the CEOs took turns relating how they all have very complicated companies that require very specialized skills, and how they couldn't just cut paychecks because there aren't very many people qualified to replace them that would accept lower pay, the President cut them off, and said, “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

I can't speak for the public, but it would seem to make sense, plus I don't like the idea of the Government limiting the paychecks and all of that.

Apparently the President then told the CEOs that his administration was the only thing between them and the pitchforks. Interesting.

The CEO of JP MorganChase asked the President to work with the banks in streamlining the process of paying back the funds received as soon as possible. The President answered by saying "This is like a patient who’s on antibiotics...maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don’t stop taking the medicine until you’ve finished the bottle.” His main point was that returning the money too early could send a bad signal.

This isn't good. He's telling the banks they can't pay the money back yet? What is this?

Here's a quote from the WSJ article linked above:

Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

So, there you have it. Read the articles, they're really interesting. This sort of reminds me of anything but America.

I guess the only bright spot could be that if this really goes on, this seizure of power, then perhaps it will be a disaster, and we can get someone in to clean up the mess in four years.

That's sort of not comforting though.

The Freedom to Choose

2009-04-04T00:09:00.000-07:00

By Spring

George Washington and John Adams founded this country because they were living under tyranny of England. They were being denied many freedoms, such as the freedom to worship how and where they chose. The current public school system and the push to make public schools the dominating choice takes away similar freedoms to choose, as parents, what’s best for our children. Not everyone in this nation has access to thriving, successful charter or public schools or can afford the tuition of private schools.

Think about how we are handling education and how the same concept applied to any other system in our society would be dictatorial. For example, what if instead of paying for food directly you were taxed and then given a dollar amount by the government to buy groceries. But, you can only buy groceries from a certain store depending on where you live. The food at your store is old, over processed, full of trans fats and sugars, and the store has no produce. The children eating this food are weak and sick. This would be appalling; the government would be oppressing these people and taking away their freedom to choose! This is not how it works in regards to food even when we are talking about government subsidized food stamps. With food stamps a family is given a dollar amount and they can take that money to whichever store they chose and buy the food they want for their family. But this oppressive scenario IS exactly how it works with education. In most cases, if you want your tax dollars to pay for your child’s education, you have no choice but to send her to the school dictated by the government.

There is enormous room for improvement in our educational system. Hardly any system in the United States is more backward. There is no other aspect where people who live in low-income neighborhoods are so disadvantaged as in the kind of schooling they can get for their children.(1)

About 90% of children in the US go to public schools but parents are increasingly seeing schools become an area of governmental control and are concerned about the political agendas that are being taught to their young children. The problem is that, as the system has become more centralized, power has moved from the local community (families) to the school district, to the state, and then to the federal government.

We’ve all seen the dismal result of centralized public schools controlled by bureaucrats: some relatively good government schools in high-income suburbs and communities; very poor government schools in our inner cities with high dropout rates, increasing violence, lower performance and demoralized students and teachers.

Supporters of a public education system focus on the plight of the poor. How is the education, or lack thereof, for those youth in the poorest inner cities going to help them live the “American dream”, when the quality of the education they are receiving is keeping them down.

One of the most promising way to fix this serious problem is school vouchers. A school voucher is a certificate issued by the government by which parents can pay for the education of their children at a school of their choice, rather than the public school to which they are assigned because of their address.(2) Parents take the tax money that is to be spent on their child’s education and use it to pay for the school of their choice. The money follows the child. Every child in America receives a voucher, every child receives an education, and every parent is given the freedom to choose.

What would happen if this sort of system were to be put into place nation wide? It would promote free market competition among schools of all types, which would provide schools incentive to improve. Successful schools would attract students, while bad schools would be forced to reform or close. The goal of this system is to localize accountability as opposed to relying on government standards. You would no longer have to be forced, whether you like it or not, to accept the service of the public schools, functioning as a monopoly; and public schools in many areas of this country are by definition monopolies.

The business community has a major interest in expanding the pool of well-schooled potential employees and in maintaining a free society with open trade and expanding markets around the world. Both objectives would be promoted by the right kind of voucher system.

Finally, as in every other area in which there has been a transfer from government to public control, the privatization of schooling would produce a new, highly active and profitable private industry that would provide a real opportunity for many talented people who are currently deterred from entering the teaching profession by the dreadful state of so many of our schools. This means, in general, better, more qualified teachers.

Just imagine if you had the FREEDOM to choose from several different, well functioning schools that were teaching in a way that you felt your child would thrive. You could choose a school where morals were taught and it would be paid for by your tax dollars.

Vouchers would reduce division of society according to class, they would build competition, and they would restore control to the people most competent to decide on children’s education: their parents!(3)

Among the strongest critics of the voucher program are public school teachers’ unions, most notably the National Education Association (the largest labor union in the USA) which has spent millions litigating and lobbying against vouchers. Simple reasoning tells you these unions are working for teachers—not kids and not YOUR kids. Teachers' unions are bitterly opposed to any reform that lessens their own power, and they have acquired enormous political and financial strength that they are prepared to devote to defeating any attempt to adopt a voucher system. It would result in a loss of their control. Public schools are NOT free and are not paid for by the government! It is paid for with taxpayers money; our money. We are paying for the education our children receive through the public school system and on top of that, subsidizing the education of children whose parents don’t pay taxes. We happily do so to ensure that every child in this great nation receives the blessing of an education. We have the right to choose how OUR money is being spent on the education of OUR children.

There are many places in the US where the voucher system is being used. The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin led the way in 1990 and now has nearly 15,000 students using vouchers. The 2006-2007 school year will mark the first time in Milwaukee that more than $100 million will be paid in vouchers. Twenty-six percent of Milwaukee students will receive public funding to attend schools outside the traditional Milwaukee Public School system.

Utah voted on a state-wide universal school voucher system providing a maximum tuition subsidy of $3000 which was passed in 2007, but voters repealed it in a statewide referendum before it took effect. Education advocacy groups from all over the country poured campaign funds into Utah, where voters were to cast ballots in a referendum to repeal school vouchers. It's sickening to sick to think that Utah was so close to doing something so revolutionary that would lead our nation in a movement that would change so many children’s lives for good and finally brake the poverty cycle: so close. The teachers’ unions fought hard for the referendum; they do not want to lose their power and control. If Utah passed this other states would see its success and want to adopt a similar program. The union also fought hard to shoot down similar attempts in California and Florida as well as many other places. As soon as there is a desire from parents for better education, through school vouchers, like an iron fist, with all its strength, the teachers’ unions pound out any threat to weaken their monopoly.

Every child in this country has a right to receive an education; it is one of the things that makes America the greatest nation on this earth. We don’t have to blindly send our children to public schools as the only option to supporting education for all children. This country was founded on government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We cannot let groups that don’t have any children’s best interest at heart strong arm those who do. We can and must let our voices be heard on this nonpartisan issue and make the education system in America better for all children… our children.

As resourceful parents we can make the most of our educational system. We can volunteer in the schools; we can supplement our children’s public education at home. If you live in places like Utah or Arizona you may have access to good charter and public schools. If you feel like you don’t want your child in the public school you can homeschool. But, what about the truly impoverished families and children in America? They don’t have thriving charter schools in their inner cities, they can’t afford private schools. What about the parents who are working two jobs and can’t volunteer at school or the single mom who is working to make ends meet and doesn’t have any other options? The only choice they have is to send their precious child to a failing school full of drugs, sex, and violence. They are helpless, these children are helpless. What about them? There is a better way. We can stand up for these children and we must. That is the American dream!

Notes:

1. Public Schools: Make Them Private CATO Briefing Paper

2. School Voucher Wikipedia

3. School Vouchers-The Next Great Leap Forward WSJ, July 9 1998

Where's Milton Friedman when you need him?

2009-04-02T23:04:00.000-07:00

The other day, as I was reading through some online articles, I stumbled upon a short clip of Milton Friedman on the Donahue show back in what looked like the early '80s. As I watched Dr. Friedman explain his point to Mr. Donahue, something happened inside of me. I was absolutely fascinated by what I was listening to. I'd never heard a public figure make so much sense. That night, I watched over 2 hours of YouTube videos on Milton Friedman. I know, that's absolutely ridiculous, but what can I say? I've shared this find with a few of my friends, but thought it would serve us all well to place it in this venue. I have embedded the first clip I saw here, and if you are so moved, as I was, you can follow that link to find more Milton goodness.

The subject that they discuss in the video is Greed. It's very timely right now, as the majority of public leaders are discussing the failings of Capitalism and how we must move toward a more "fair" society (see Socialism). I hope that you enjoy this.

I truly wish I could be like this man, so articulate in common sense. I hope we all will try and stand up for our values with a similarly calm and confident manner as Dr. Friedman did.

"GM: Government Motors"

2009-03-30T09:46:00.000-07:00

This morning I saw a nice headline on The Drudge Report that I borrowed, and a link to this article at The Wall Street Journal. Click here to read the article in its entirety. The article addresses yesterday's news that GM CEO Rick Wagoner will be stepping down effective immediately at President Obama's request.

This is sort of scary to me. President Obama didn't go to Congress to intercede, and didn't seek any other legal avenue, but instead, he just called Ricky up and let the axe drop. It's not a good precedent to set, that's for sure! I am still a little confused as to how what Obama did is legal, but I'm no expert so all I can do is just say that it makes me worry when the President of the United States can fire the CEO of a car company, whether they were "loaned" tax-payer's dollars or not. Does anyone else think that this is one step closer to Totalitarianism?

If you have a few minutes, feel free to watch a nice little video spoof of where we're headed.

An Observation

2009-03-28T00:44:00.000-07:00

There are plenty of people out there that rail against the NRA and gun owners in general. It doesn't help any that every now and then there is some sort of shooting rampage in Middle America. I don't want to seem callous, I'm just making an observation. Here's another observation: I think we hear a lot more about the rampages that occur vs. the ones that don't.

For example, you may or may not have read about the shooting spree that occurred in Alabama some weeks ago, it was on every major news station and in all sorts of other forms of media. Heck, it even showed up in the UK! What didn't show up everywhere, however, was this story, or this one, or this one either...

I wonder why these stories of prevented criminal violence weren't nationally heralded like the shooter in Alabama was? Could it be that the stories of how guns save lives and discourage violent criminal activity could have an effect on the national public opinion of gun ownership and the Second Amendment?

It's pretty darn important for all of us that the Second Amendment, the right to bare arms, is protected. These are turbulent times we're living in, and the world is truly in commotion. Would it not be prudent to have some food storage and some sort of meaningful protection against invaders of both our homes and our country?

Critics will disagree with my observation and site the danger of owning guns in the home. Or, they'll bring up that there must be more regulations for buying guns.

Let me address the latter suggestion first - Cars kill more people than guns do each year, domestically. How easy is it to get a driver's license and a car registered? The car basically has to be in good mechanical shape and then you're good. Why do we make honest people that wish to own guns for their own protection/enjoyment go through crazy hoops? Does anyone think that the criminals intent on doing harm have the same hoops to jump through?

Concerning the danger of owning a gun, I've added a quote from "Freakonomics", which is a great book written by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner:

"What's more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.

In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are available), 742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States last year alone. Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75 percent of the total — occurred in residential swimming pools. According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.

About 175 children under the age of 10 died in 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns.

Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is."

Clearly we're fed a line from not only the liberal politicians in Washington, but the mainstream media. Both parties wish, for one reason or another, to slowly take away our right to bare arms, as provisioned in the Second Amendment. We can fight this in a few different ways, that I know of. We can buy a gun. We can support the NRA, which actively lobbies in Washington against the liberals. We can write to our congressmen/congresswomen. And, we can spread the word to everyone we can. Go and tell it on the mountain!

May we all be vigilant in our freedom, for should we fail in this, we won't have it much longer.

To Regulate, or not to Regulate...

2009-03-21T22:54:00.000-07:00

News Flash: "Administration Seeks Increase in Oversight of Executive Pay". This article describes B.O.'s new plan to regulate the Market. What it's saying is that the Administration is seeking to control the salaries of executives from Financial Service companies, Banks, and even other companies in general...whether they've received bail out money or not.

Let's let that last one sink in there...

That's right, Obama's now aiming at taking control of how much an executive can be paid, period. This is one step closer to nationalizing businesses, and taking away the freedom of the American worker, tying the hands of the productive in this country and killing the ambition of those that are seeking to make a better way in life.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't make much money, but I'd like to some day. I don't think I'd be evil if I was getting paid a very handsome annual salary; not if I was good at what I did and being compensated according to what the Market dictates.

I've observed in my chosen vocation that there are different tiers of companies when it comes to pay scale, sort of like Baseball. There's the Little Leagues, the fellas that snack on "Big League Chew" because they don't quite have the stomach yet for the real stuff, then there's the Minors, the ones that are pretty big, but have a hard time attracting the top talent, and then there's the Majors, the ones that have no problem getting the best executives, and paying them what they need to.

Granted, sometimes you'll get idiots, like with a good amount of the banks that got in over their heads (Not all of them did, may I add). But I don't put all the blame on them, the legislative branch really did a lot contribute too. It's sort of like this cartoon here:

People are people, and when you pretty much give them an opening and turn a blind eye, some people will jump at the chance to get a quick buck, and some won't.

Now, here's some choice quotes from that article linked up top:

"Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation."

- Nice, so nobody will vote on it...I guess that's one if the things that we "voted" for in November.

"A central aspect of the plan, which has already been announced by the administration, would give the government greater authority to take over and resolve problems at large troubled companies not now regulated by Washington, like insurance companies and hedge funds."

"Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies..."

So, overall, This is bad. I really don't know how far this new regulation stuff will go, but it is troubling nonetheless. When Government steps out of the way, we unleash the drive and ambition of the American people, and there's nothing that can stop us from there...except the Government...

Welcome to the Circus!

2009-03-19T21:56:00.001-07:00

This has been a pretty brutal couple of days for a few choice politicians, as well as the AIG team.

Earlier this week, news broke of the bonuses that AIG was paying to a handful of execs totaling $168M (final amount still in dispute). Now, AIG is the recipient of, to my best estimate, approximately $187B in stimulus money(so the bonuses are .09% of that), which is being funded by us taxpayers. Naturally, because of that last fact, not too many people are excited the aforementioned bonuses. A wave of public outcry ensued, which was followed by strong denunciations from The White House, as well as both branches of Congress.

This is all pretty standard. Whenever there's a public outcry, there's a political one as well. This is most commonly referred to as demagoguery, when a leader or group of leaders makes use of a popular position only to gain power.

I realize this is just a claim, but my reasoning for feeling this way is this: If people like Congressman Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, or Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, were sincere, they'd be stepping down first and offering up an audit trail of all of their indiscretions, but they're not. They're just calling for the firing squad to open up on AIG because it's politically expedient.

How dare they call on anyone to step down from leadership while they themselves enjoy their power, influence, and multitude of perks, all at the taxpayer's expense, while they also spend us into bondage at an unprecedented rate. It's not just those two, it's anyone calling AIG out. This includes almost every politician in Washington, including the President.

Now, I'm not a fan of AIG, I think that giving bonuses out to execs that ruin your company is not only ethically wrong, but really stupid. Add on top of that the fact that they received such a large amount of tax $$ and it's worse. But, strictly speaking, these bonuses were legal, and were made possible by an amendment which was added to the stimulus package that passed in February that not one of the congressmen or senators who voted for it read. It was added to the bill by Chris Dodd, and was approved to go in by a conference between a Senate sub-committee and the White House, according to Nancy Pelosi.

Yes, Nancy placed the blame on the Senate, and the White House, even though she rammed this bill down the throats of every member of her House, making them vote on a 1,000+ page bill within 7 hours of seeing for the first time.

The Dodd amendment gave a loophole to any institution that gave bonuses to its employees or executives as long as the bonuses were planned and contracted out prior to February 2009. So, when pressed on this amendment last week, Chris Dodd lied and said he didn't have anything to do with it, then recanted his lie two days later, but added that the White House told him to lie.

Hmm.

This is a disaster. It's situations like this that make it clear that the leadership in Washington is completely incompetent. These people that couldn't even get their story straight when the media lights are on, are the same people that would love to run our country's Health Care, and that would like to discourage charitable giving so that they, the Government, could take on a more "responsible" role there (see: "Strings attached").

When are we going to stand up to this group of underachievers?

This is ridiculous

2009-03-15T22:24:00.000-07:00

Here is an e-mail from "MoveOn.org" that was forwarded to me...thanks for the great material for the blog. I was trying to decide between blogging about the huge turn-out at the recent Tea Parties or how Obama et al. are using fear to ram "change/generational theft" down our throats. Instead, I will pick apart this truly ridiculous e-mail. Email text is red.

Dear MoveOn member, (I find that it is easier to understand the intentions of the original writer if you read the text in the same voice as the evil Emperor from Star Wars: "Oh, I'm afraid the deflector shie ld will be quite operational when your friends arrive." )

This is ridiculous.

The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%—even asking if that makes him a socialist.¹

Umm (as I scratch my head), the article that is quoted does not state that the media is obsessing about Obama's plan, nor does it state that the media is calling him a socialist. It does state that a member of the media asked him to clarify whether or not he is a socialist because conservatives have called him a socialist in increasing numbers since he tipped his true intentions with his financial policies (call it like it is). This question was part of a telephone conversation between a NY Times reporter and the One...and the One couldn't answer clearly enough the first time (which no doubt was teleprompterless),...thus after analyzing his response and formulating a "blame Bush" stance, the One phoned the reporter a second time to "set the record straight." Which is that um he um was not a um socialist...because he was um just um following after Bush um who um was the real socialist. (Read the article, that is his argument...pretty weak if you ask me, unless you are the One who can do no wrong). That makes me think about what moms often tell their children: "Just because Billy did it doesn't mean you have to," or "two wrongs don't make a right." So if Bush was going all socialist on us...what does that have to do with Obama going all socialist on us? This is his presidency, and he will have to answer for his decisions, and the consequences they lead to in this country.

Oh, and I don't think Obama is a Socialist for raising the taxes on the wealthiest Americans from 35% to 39.6%. I think he is a socialist because he thinks it is morally correct to redistribute wealth through taxing the "wealthy." Setting himself up as the judge of who deserves a certain level of income, and the right to use that income is what makes him a socialist.

Additionally, paying taxes at a rate of 39.6% is pretty much the same as paying 40% of your income in taxes. That is an old tactic to lull individuals into thinking they aren't "forking-over" that much of their income. Pretty sneaky if you ask me.

But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%.

Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%!

Shocking, right?

Yes, that is shocking. Who would want to pay those levels of taxes? Not me...and probably not the author of this propaganda-e-mail. What's the point? "Look how high these taxes were under republicans!" Why doesn't the author say, "Look at how high taxes were raised on the top earners in America during the New Deal?" Could it be that the author doesn't want to point out that the New Deal increased the length and depth of the Great Depression?

Also shocking is that the author of this e-mail "conveniently" forgot to mention that Reagan had lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50% during his first term...and that in 1986 (second term) Reagan lowered the top tax rate again to 28%. (Interestingly, tax revenues received from both groups increased after each tax-burden reduction).

And for all the whining about rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas so that we can invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track.²

There is nothing like pandering for support by creating "class-warfare" and helping the lower "classes" to stick it to the evil rich dude who blows his nose in $20 bills and goes running wearing a jogging suit made of 24k gold thread. Uhhh, aren't the 5% who are having to pay a higher burden of the taxes in America "working Americans" also? Oh, that's right, they are evil and obtained their fortunes through oppression and dishonesty...that's why it is just that the most righteous among us (Obama, Pelosi, et al.) tax the dirty rich and redistribute the wealth to the oppressed.

About those priorities that will get our economy back on track...are you talking about the Stimulus package that is really the Dems dream spending spree? Well, those aren't priorities...in real life we call those wishes...and in the real world those wishes that the Dems wrote into law are payed for by you, and me, and the next three generations. (Maybe the priorities spoken of are which level of our posterity will have the highest priority to pay off the debt we are incurring.)

We saw a great chart in The Washington Monthly³ that shows just how absurd Republican complaints about Obama's budget are. Check it out and pass it on:

They saw a great chart...so they reproduced a chart that looks somewhat like the original chart, but is doctored in such a way to fool the eye. Pay attention to how the MoveOn chart is "3D" and tilted so you are looking at it from a top-down angle. That vantage point makes the increase from the current tax level to the soon-to-be Obama tax level to be smaller than it actually is...and looks on the original chart. Who are these people trying to fool? Oh, wait, they are trying to fool their own supporters. Sounds like an organization I would want to join...NOT!!!

MoveOn Chart:

Original Chart:

Thanks for all you do.

–Daniel, Eli, Laura, Matt and the rest of the team

I'm surprised that the e-mail doesn't ask for MoveOn members to put sickle & hammer symbols on their cars and front doors.

Sources:

1. "A socialist? Obama calls back to insist no," The International Herald Tribune, March 8, 2009

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/08/america/barack.php

2. "Tax Cuts," The New York Times, February 26, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-tax.html

3. "Soaking the Rich (Redux)," The Washington Monthly, March 8, 2009

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51234&id=15734-3783832-q1q6tQx&t=2

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here. (This site brought to you by capitalism)

No corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs...because they are the devil!! Possible reasons for this: You think they are evil and won't accept their financial assistance. Or, they see that your agenda is to demonize them and thus they wouldn't support the organization that attacks them.

Which way the wind will blow...

2009-03-12T00:03:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it's hard to live up to your predecessor, but more often than not, in politics at least, it's even harder to live up to your own rhetoric.

A little history is in order.

All throughout President Obama's campaign, he and John McCain spoke and debated on the need to "curb" the excessive pork barrel spending (pet projects attached to a piece of legislation by any given lawmaker that will directly benefit his/her constituency and/or special interest) that was being added to good bills that was essentially adding billions of dollars each year to our deficit. After his election, and subsequent swearing-in, the President continued his rhetoric of fiscal responsibility, chastising both Washington and Wall Street for reckless spending and greed.

Here's where things get cool. During Obama's tenure in the senate, which was extremely brief, he was #2 in Pork spending. Furthermore, all of the rhetoric coming out against fiscal irresponsibility was spewing forth during his pitch to approve the most intensely huge spending bill in the history of the world - also laden with all sorts of crazy pork, courtesy of the democratic congress of the United States of America.

So, if you're the President, at this point, you're probably asking yourself, "how can I come across as more fiscally responsible here?" The light bulb would then come on and you could do what the President did starting last week, and announce that you will, indeed, curb pork spending.

On Wednesday, Barack Obama signed another spending bill brought before him by Congress to the amount of $410 Billion. This bill is laced with all sorts of crazy stuff - all Democrat pork.

So, what gives?

Oh, wait - in an explanation to reporters, Mr. Obama corrected skeptics by saying that he only said he would "curb" spending, not "eliminate" it. Read here for more.

Okay, that's actually awesome!

So, our President, the fearless and flawless Barack Obama, is actually disingenuous...now who would've known?

Wait, there's more. After criticizing the Bush administration for implementing hundreds of signing statements by declaring them to be unconstitutional, Barack Obama issued one of his own. FYI, a signing statement is basically a way for the President to veto certain line items on any given bill without having to flush the whole thing. It's sort of like me picking the raisins out of my trail mix. Go figure.

So, you can see that it's a tough job to be President. It's even tougher when you have to remember where you stand on certain things, or where you're supposed to stand as dictated by special interests, and what lies you've told.

For more on the nature of political rhetoric, please click here.

The Great American Ponzi Scheme

2009-03-11T07:56:00.000-07:00

Bernard Madoff is expected to plead guilty on Thursday to charges that he defrauded investors in one of the largest ponzi schemes in US history. This scheme is second only to our current Social Security system scheme (or shall we say Social InSecurity). By pleading guilty, Madoff is not required to tell prosecutors where all the money is. So, thousands of investors will both not receive the interest promised them...they won't receive the principle that they invested. Pretty sad...these unfortunate souls are in some cases out their retirement savings.

Luckily they can still count on the retirement promised by the greatest American Ponzi scheme ever: Social InSecurity!

Social InSecurity was part of FDR's New Deal and was implemented "supposedly" to eliminate the rising number of older adults living in

poverty. (It is worth noting that much of the New Deal was tossed out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, but that Social InSecurity was not because FDR stacked the courts with New Deal judges who would support his "policies.") The idea that Social InSecurity would pay for the retirement of all Americans is a farce, since the retirement age at conception of the program was greater than the average life expectancy for Americans.

This means that for every American who actually lived to the age of retirement and started collecting benefits, there were ample workers paying into the system. As we get closer to a 2:1

ratio of workers to retirees, we can expect to see Social InSecurity taxes increase and benefits cut-great fun for the whole family :) (I'd like to send a shout out to FDR for creating unconstitutional programs to treat a temporary ailment, while making that ailment last for over a decade while at the same time creating even worse problems in the future!)

But wait, that is my money that I paid into the system...shouldn't I be able to get the benefit of my investment? Well...no, you shouldn't according to the courts, no one has any legal right to Social InSecurity. This means that you can be denied benefits, or worse yet, if the system were to go belly up and Congress can say, "Oh well, thanks for the years you payed in, see you at your new greeter job at Walmart."

To put this in perspective, if you think that you are going to get a better retirement from investing in Social InSecurity you are like Phyllis Weaver from the greatest 80's movie ever made by Weird Al: UHF.

Phyllis Weaver has just won a Red Snapper on Wheel of Fish...and this is how the rest of the scene goes down:

Kuni (karate instructor and host of Wheel of Fish): Ahhh, a red snapper. Mmmmm, very tasty. Okay, Weaver, listen carefully. You can hold on to your red snapper...[Hiro-San emerges, carrying a table with a box]...or you can go for what's in the box that Hiro-San is bringing down the aisle right now! What's it gonna be?

[Phyllis Weaver has difficulty in choosing as the audience point to the box]

Phyllis Weaver: I'll take the box. The box!

Kuni: You took the box? Let's see what's in the box!

[Hiro-San opens the box; the audience gasps. There is silence]

Kuni: Nothing! Absolutely nothing! STUPID! You're so STU-PIIIIIIID!

We are all so STU-PIIIIIIID for thinking that Social InSecurity will provide a quality retirement for us. Chances are that it will be

defunct, and you will be living in a spare bedroom at your oldest daughter's house. That's because we are following the crowd in giving our very tasty red snapper to the Government for what is inside the box...you know the rest!

Also, we allowed ourselves to be lulled into the entitlement mentality that everyone has the right to idle away the golden years sitting on some beach somewhere...or in some rocking chair in a living room in Sun City, AZ.

So, it looks like we were all duped into believing in a system that's a sham...but wait, messiah was just elected president! He and only he can fix Social InSecurity, provide universal healthcare, magically create universal education from birth through college, and save the world from global warming! On second thought, he has the substance and experience that is found inside Hiro-San's box: NOTHING!!!! He represents the worst of the entitlement movement which would give each American the "right" to claim financial support from every other American.

How did we get to this point? The thought used to be that parents work hard to provide more for their children than they had growing up. Now, in the twisted Bizzaro World, parents are claiming the future earnings of their children so they can sustain their own standard of living. In Bizzaro World we recently passed the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." In the real world, this is known as the "American Robbing from our Kids While Calling it a Reinvestment Act of 2009 Which is Soon to be Followed by a Similar Act of Stealing from our Kids Act of 2010." So, in honor of such acts, I propose that for the next few years at each child's birthday, we give little Johnny or Jane their own Hiro-San's box of nothing, and buy ourselves a new pair of leather shoes or something else "we deserve."

Oh yeah! Let's do something about Social InSecurity too before we get left out in the cold by the greatest ponzi scheme in American history.

Possible solutions: personal retirement savings (although this doesn't look too attractive right now with the way the markets are responding to Obama's financial moves), families taking care of their elders, charitable organizations which assist the elderly, or working till you die (FDR did).

Headlock on Healthcare...

2009-03-04T03:40:00.000-08:00

Oh yeah!!! The Ric Flair of Finance, Cory, just posted the truth about Obama’s tax & tax plan…WOOOOO!!!! Now he has tagged me, the Hulk Hogan of Healthcare to illuminate the current situation in these United States of America! CAN YOU HEAR ME BROTHER?!

Let’s get started by looking at the numbers that are tossed around as the main argument for Universal Healthcare, then we will get into a little history lesson so we can look at where we are at with some contextual understanding.

Proponents of Universal Healthcare are using the argument that 47 Million Americans are currently uninsured. That is a fact, that when that survey was done 47 million people in America did not have health insurance. Now if I just hang onto that number, I can point out that the system is not functioning properly for 47 million people, and obviously that supports a huge change in the way we, as a nation provide health coverage.

On the other hand, if another fact is presented in clarification of the number above, the idea is very different...and obviously so is the conclusion and solution. (Please remember that this survey was a snapshot in history, and that these numbers are not static, just as the lives of those they represent.) Here are the FACTS (WOOOOO!!!):

Actually 45.7 million U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007

12.1 million eligible for current programs (this means they just need to fill out the paperwork but for some reason have yet to do so) National Institutes of Health

20 million are not US Citizens U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007

3.5 million have incomes over $75,000 (These could very well be healthy people who choose not to buy coverage but pay out of pocket, or are in between jobs-these are also the people who will pay more taxes under Obama’s tax & tax plan.) U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007

10.1 million have incomes over $50,000 (Same as those making over 75,000) U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007

Those are the facts. They lead one to have a different idea of the real problem.

History gives us some additional insight as well. Did you know that prior to WW II health care was a private matter, paid either out of pocket or at least purchased privately by families outside of the work place? During WWII there was a freeze placed on salaries. Companies that wanted to attract the best and brightest could not offer higher salaries for workers. They instead had to increase benefits packages. One of the main benefits that companies offered to attract new employees was health insurance coverage. This was a way for the company to give you an increase in salary by freeing up your net income for everything but health care.

Post WWII the tax law was changed to give tax credits to companies giving health benefits to employees. These tax credits were not available for individuals or families who wished to purchase health insurance on their own. This means that your company can purchase the same amount of health coverage that you could on your own for less money-since your take home money is not tax exempt.

What's so wrong with this situation? Well, during the time that these changes were solidified in tax law, people stayed with a job for the life of their career, or changed jobs very infrequently. Today it is much different-with an average of 10 different jobs for the average American from the ages of 18 to 38 (US Dept of Labor). When people change jobs they lose their health benefits unless they are willing to pay for cobra coverage-which is very expensive. Instead most opt to pass the brief time period between jobs uncovered by insurance. They are fee to weigh the costs/benefits and choose to be uninsured. So, this is a large portion of those we consider as the uninsured. They are in between jobs, and don't have portable health coverage because their coverage is married to their job. (Thanks Federal Government! Woooooooo!!!!)

Another issue here is called job-lock. This is when someone wants to get another job, but is afraid to change jobs for fear of losing health benefits. Both job-lock, and the loss of health benefits with the change of jobs are due to the government meddling with the market through tax law. Today we are reaping the results of the government meddling.

Just imagine if our car insurance was linked to our jobs in like manner. Then Walmart employees would all have to take the bus. (I just use Walmart as an example because it is singled out for not offering health benefits to most of its employees. In this case, if it is a benefit used to attract new employees-do they really need to offer that to get people to work for them? Obviously they do not. Wooooooo you Walmart-haters who shop there anyways because they are efficient and have lower prices and have done more to provide affordable food/products to Americans than any other store!!!!!!)

So, this is the main reason we are in the health insurance predicament now. My solution would be to allow individuals and families to either have the same tax credit that companies receive for purchasing their own coverage, or doing away with the job related tax credit altogether, or a combo of the two. I would also set up a health insurance exchange between the states so individuals and families could purchase insurance from states where the premiums are cheaper. And part of the reason one state is cheaper from the others is not because the residents are that much less likely to get sick. The main reason is because of fewer health care regulations in some states. Basic regulations are very good, as they protect providers, patients, and insurance carriers. But in some states, legislators have mandated what "basic" coverage is, and in some cases they add all of the bells and whistles of high-priced packages, the things people would want to choose on their own, so that the basic is too expensive. Thanks for pricing me out!!! Woooooo!!!

So what needs to happen is freeing up Healthcare from the cost increasing meddling of politicians who think they know what all Americans need. Because if we don’t, and Universal Healthcare is established, we will all get the same thing: Mediocre Healthcare!

To Tax, or not to Tax...

2009-03-03T21:52:00.000-08:00

President Obama has proposed a tax increase to all couples, individuals, and small businesses earning $250,000 or more per year. This tax increase isn't just a rate hike on the top, but also lurking within is a reduction on the amount of deduction these folks can take on all of their charitable giving. So, let's just soak that in. One can only assume, from this, that the federal government is now trying to discourage the wealthy from giving to charities.

According to the speech that Obama gave to Congress last week, the tax hikes are to fund a plethora of long-standing Democratic goodies, but none more at the forefront than...UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!! I just heard that Psycho music playing in my head. Did you hear it? The cool thing is, the president is using this tax hike as a "Down Payment" on the health care plan. Guess what the plan is. Oops! There's no plan yet! President Obama is taking money from the top layer of American earners to pay for something that he's all but admitted doesn't exist! Is this reprehensible to anyone else?

So, if you're not one of the people making $250K per year, you're probably thinking...I'm good. Wrong. Something else that President Obama has planned on for some time now is letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire in 2010. This means, of course, that if you pay taxes, you'll be suddenly paying a lot more when they expire. Even though the president knows this, he chooses to not call this a tax increase because it's just a policy change, an expiration of old tax policies.

Don't you see the difference? I sure don't.

To make it clearer, here's a tax rate table I picked up, for a nice average salary of $50K/year. Before you read it, keep in mind, President Bush had two tax cuts, and both will expire this year.

Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000
Tax: Single	$10,581	$9,304	$9,231	$10,581	$1,350
Tax: Married - Filing Joint	$8,293	$6,796	$6,781	$8,293	$1,512
Tax: Married - Filing Separate	$11,143	$9,304	$9,231	$11,143	$1,912
Tax: Head of Household	$9,424	$8,189	$8,094	$9,424	$1,330

So, looks like President Obama is being straight with the American people about wanting to tax the rich, but totally lying about not taxing anyone else.

I understand that Taxation is necessary, to a certain extent, but this is out of hand. The American people are good people, working hard to feed their families and make ends meet. $1,000 would feed a family of 6 for two months. It could fund a couple months of college tuition (undergrad of course) for someone seeking further education. For the President of the United States to so flippantly take this money to further liberal agendas is immoral.

We Are Conservatives!

2009-03-01T21:10:00.000-08:00

What does being a conservative mean? This question is being kicked around a lot lately, particularly by those that would have all of America think that the conservative movement is a thing of the past. We defy those critics, and would like to use this forum to declare that, for us, conservative principles fall under the following general values:

Individual Responsibility - Less Government
Liberty
A deep respect for the Constitution

Individual responsibility is an antonym of Government largess. As the new administration begins this new era of big government, the welfare state will grow along with it, thus creating a culture of dependency. A dependency on nothing less than being "taken care of." Mitt Romney put it best in saying "Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is culture killing. It's a drug. We've got to fight it like the poison it is." As the democrats seek to tax the wealthy, they'll find, as in many times past, that it won't be enough to satisfy the cost of their agenda, and they'll continue to invade our lives with intrusive policies.

Liberty is at the forefront of each and every new policy debate since January. What's being debated, what's being raised as outrageous, is the lack of liberty that we as a country afford to the prisoners we hold in various detentions centers. Prisoners that were taken captive as they were attacking US citizens. What is not outrageous to the Liberals, is their agenda to take our right to bare arms. Liberals don't mind taxing us, taking our money, our guns, our ability to live the American dream on fair terms, our freedom to choose which schools to send our children to, or which news outlet we'd like to listen to/read (yes, those last two are actual agendas that have been debated in Congress) but they wouldn't dream of offending terrorists.

The Preamble to the Constitution sums it up best. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It's all there, isn't it? Why try and change it? There has been a steady barrage of law suits, as well as prospective legislation, that have sought to overturn, distort, and otherwise deface the Constitution of the United States of America. Rather than support judges who seek to rewrite the Constitution, we support Legislators and Executives who will appoint judges who seek to uphold it, by the letter of the law.

We've chosen this topic as our first post in order to clearly state what we believe. We could probably go on and on, but that would spoil the surprise. Thank you for reading this, we hope that it got you thinking!

Sincerely,

Sons of Liberty