This is The Fight

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 Tax Man Cometh...

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!

Blame Game

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 Freedom to Choose

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

This is ridiculous

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 shield 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.