Back to Basics

Un-American? Really?

2009-08-11T11:45:00.002-05:00

So Nancy Pelosi has come right out and said that if you oppose Obama's health care plan, and voice those views you are unamerican: “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”

But this is exactly what the left does. In fact, one of Obama's biggest supporters not only tries to drown out opposing viewpoints but has tried to literally stomp them out.

The sentiments of Pelosi and Hoyer and the like seem to be diametrically opposed to the sentiments of another prominent democrat who one said this:

“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

So which is it? Is it un-American to voice disagreement with those in power or to tell those that voice their disagreement that they are un-American? We know which side the SEIU comes down on.

Not your Daddy's United States of America any More

2009-08-06T20:24:00.003-05:00

It’s been a long time since I posted anything and I’m sure all of my readers have been waiting with bated breath to read more of my brilliant works. I’ve actually been busy trying to advance my career and in this climate of Obamanomics, that is not easy. Anyway, we have much to discuss so let’s get to it.

First, I want to talk about the Cambridge Police/Henry Gates debacle. I know I’m late to the party on this but I just wanted to add my take on the whole situation and move on. There is a large group of people that think that just because the charges were dropped that that means that the cop did something wrong and the whole thing was motivated by race. How can I put this…..that’s BULLSHIT. Gates acted like an ass inside his house and as soon as he brought that outside and a crowd started to gather, that constituted disorderly conduct. MGL 272 section 53 mentions disorderly acts and being a disorderly person as an offense that you can be arrested for. Here is the definition of a disorderly person:

Anyone who with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk thereof, engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

By all accounts and the recorded police transmissions, Gates fits the definition and therefore his arrest was legit. Anyone who thinks that Crowley is a racist and the Cambridge PD is targeted him or has a policy based on race, I point to the fact that the Mayor of Cambridge is black and Sergeant Crowley taught sensitivity courses in the Police Academy. Some people believe that there were ‘forces at work’ in this situation and have compared it to the Jim Crow era of the old south. Yeah, I know, ridiculous right? Of course it is when you consider that the Mayor is black and Gates is a scholar at the most prestigious school in the country if not the world. Like Jim Crow would have stood for that!

Next I have to address this issue of turning in people who offer ‘fishy’ healthcare information. By fishy they mean information that shows just how ridiculous this healthcare plan is. I’m not going to get into why the plan is disastrous for the country because if you’ve been paying attention at all, you’re already aware of a lot of the issues that people have with it. What I will address is the tactic that the white house has chosen to employ of gathering information about people who vociferously oppose this plan. On a new blog posted by the white house, people are encouraged to report anything that “seems fishy”:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Now supporters of this communist regime will tell you that they only want the information so they can refute the claims. Riiiiight. Clear thinking people know that Obama is trying to fashion a dictatorship along the lines of his good buddy Hugo Chavez. That’s a story for another time but the point here is that this request is in direct violation of US Code Title 5 section 552a (5 U.S.C. § 552a) which reads in part that US agencies including the Office of the President shall “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.” There is no ambiguity there. What he is doing is illegal. Add to that the fact that this list will not be subject to the freedom of information act and what we have is the makings of fledgling dictatorship as I stated earlier is his goal. One only has to look at his record – such as it is – in the Senate and what has transpired in Washington since he has taken office to know that this analysis is correct.

Freedom of speech and expression are some of the rights guaranteed to us in the bill of rights. The President of the United States is in effect compiling a dissidents list and we now have other elected officials like Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid saying that people who exercise those rights are undermining democracy. ARE THEY INSANE? I don’t even know what else anyone can say about that. They are demonizing the very process that got them to where they are. I hope everyone is paying attention and remembers them when they come up for reelection. Oh, feel free to submit this blog and my email address to flag@whitehouse.gov. I already did.

Voter's remorse? If not, we're doomed

2009-04-24T19:22:00.003-05:00

I've asked people if they are still behind our current president or if they are experiencing any voter's remorse. My liberal friends are still saying no. I get into discussions with them about the current administration and the direction it is taking the country. They get upset with me because I have nicknames for Barack Obama and the rest of his cronies, but they tell me that I should have respect for the president. I tell them I have the same respect for him that they had for President Bush. Most of them and the media called him everything but late for dinner. Hypocritical? I think so.
They always ask me why I am so opposed to Obama being in power and whenever I start laying it out there they never let me finish. I am going to outline my reasons here and let them think what they wish.
First, I believe that he is a Marxist or communist in the vernacular. His mother was reported to be a communist sympathizer. The circles in which she traveled back when she was married to Obama’s father also suggest communist leanings. Back then communists were stirring up the black community and to see a white woman marry a black man back then, the influence of communist politics was very often present. After his father left, one of Obama’s mentors and father figures was one Frank Marshall Davis who is an avowed communist and card carrying member of the communist party. Obama’s views of collectivism and spreading the wealth are clearly Marxist in origin. I believe that that is the completely wrong directions for this country. Part of what made the country great was the free market and the entrepreneurial spirit. He is going to crush that by punishing those who do well with high taxes and disincentives to continue to succeed. I’ll come back to that later.
I also believe that our current president is a Muslim. Now before you get all indignant and call me a bigot, his faith in and of itself is of no consequence. When you look at it in terms of his lying about it and how it affects his decision making, it takes on a whole different meaning. He mentioned his “Muslim faith” in a nationally televised interview in which the interviewer had to correct him. Obama pressured the people at Georgetown University cover up the symbol of Jesus Christ during one of his speeches there. What kind of Christian would do that? He bowed down to the King of Saudi Arabia which is an act of submission. The POTUS is the equal of any other head of state and has no business subjugating himself - and by proxy this country to any other leader. The rest of the world took note of that I assure you. He has stated that the Muslim call to prayer is one of the most beautiful sounds he has ever heard. It may be a beautiful sound but what it symbolizes to many people is the call to arms for the extremists that want to kill us. He’s even gone so far as to intimate that it is our fault that extremists want to wipe the United States off the map. He has shown a propensity toward tolerance of the Muslim extremists that want to wipe Israel off the map and destroy our way of life here in the west. His father was a Muslim, the man that his mother married after his father died was a Muslim and He was educated in a Muslim school in Indonesia. Individually, each of these acts may not mean much, but collectively, they paint a telling picture. I don’t see how any reasonable person can’t see that there may be something to the assertion that he is in fact a Muslim. The only proof the liberals can offer that he is a Christian is that he publicly says that he is. If we weren’t talking about the chosen one, Barack Obama, and I laid out those facts, I don’t think that anyone with an IQ above their shoe size would believe that he is a Christian because he says so. The church that he was a member of for 17 years was pastored by a man who supports the racist, anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan; and was ‘once’ a member of the NOI himself. The sermons he preached often sounded as if they should have been preached in a mosque rather than a Christian pulpit.
Another reason that I and other people with conservative leanings don’t like our current president is his pattern of choices in the people he has surrounded himself with. The people that he has selected to cabinet positions and other white house positions are troubling to say the least. Let’s talk about Van Jones for a second. He is the white house special advisor on green jobs. (I haven’t fully investigated what the job actually entails yet but I’m sure that it is a very important position.) Van Jones was the founder and leader of a communist organization called STORM - Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, as well as the Bay Area Police Watch, which basically just a cop hating outfit that cries racism whenever a cop arrests a minority. Rahm Emanuel likes to send dead fish to people he regards as enemies. David Ogden, the deputy Attorney General who has argued in court that libraries shouldn’t have filters on their internet access to prohibit children from accessing porn sites as well arguing to overturn a conviction of a man who was in possession of child porn. Janet Napolitano believes that veterans returning from war should be put on right wing extremist watch lists and investigated as such. She thinks those brave men and women are more of a threat to national security than the terrorists they released from Guantanamo Bay or the terrorist cells in this country that the Patriot Act was adopted to help monitor. The brave men and women that serve their country with honor get no respect from this administration. Nothing brings that point home more than the proposal to have those men and women pay for their own healthcare should they be wounded in battle. In effect, this administration says, “we don’t like this ‘overseas contingency operation’ and since you were dumb enough to join the military, it’s on you if you get wounded”. That is the most repugnant thing to come out of this administration so far. He is going to have to sink pretty low to beat that but I’m confident that he will get it done.
The last thing I’m going to talk about it the economy. His economic plan is disastrous for this country and the principles on which it was founded. The free market economy is the greatest in the world and his economic plan is a plan that will destroy it. Raising taxes has never worked to turn around the economy but this guy is arrogant enough to believe that he can make it work. He can’t. Just from a common sense perspective it can’t be done. Even if he cuts taxes on the middle class, the wealthy people are the ones that provide the jobs and businesses that drive the economy. If you raise their taxes, they will simply cut salaries, lay off workers or close down altogether. Then there’s the ‘stimulus’ plan. The congressional budget office published a report that said that the stimulus plan, if adopted, would be far worse for the economy than doing nothing.
Let me ask you this: If you made 5,000 dollars a month and your expenses were 7,500 dollars a month, does it make sense to set up your budget to spend 10,000 dollars a month? Obviously you will have to borrow money to cover that spending so does that sound like a good plan to get yourself out of a budget deficit? No? Well that exactly what Obama and his ilk are doing. He said the other day that the things he has done are starting to work and there is a ‘glimmer of hope’ on the economic horizon. Good for him. That means that he owns this economy now and he can’t logically blame Bush for the deficit – the deficit that his budget will triple – or the economic slowdown anymore. (I know logic never enters the equation for the liberals but I’m sure all of the liberals have stopped reading by now.)
Barack Obama and the rest of the democrat leadership are not interested in anything but solidifying their power base and creating an atmosphere of government dependency. They already have minorities and the lower income people dependent on them and this economic plan is designed to make the lower to upper middle class dependent as well. Once that takes hold, we can kiss life as we know it in this country goodbye. It will be no different than living in Europe or Canada so to all those people that say if you don’t like it, get out, I say, I won’t have to because anyplace I go will be exactly the same. Nearly 1500 words and there is still plenty more to talk about. No wonder they wouldn’t let me finish.

Socialism or Conservatism?

2008-11-23T11:56:00.003-06:00

There are two basic philosophies that dominate our political system right now, conservatism and socialism. Let’s briefly examine each one and try to determine which idea makes the most sense.

The conservative would have us believe that less government intrusion in our lives is better for everyone, while socialists believe that it is the government’s responsibility to take care of everyone from the cradle to the grave. The gold standard of conservative thought these days is personified through the presidency of Ronald Reagan and quantified in the contrast between the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Reagan. Reagan and most conservatives believe that lower taxes, minimal government regulation, personal responsibility, energy independence and peace through strength are the underpinnings of a strong society in terms of both economics and foreign policy.

Conversely, it was Jimmy Carter’s socialist economic policies that led to the economy that Ronald Reagan inherited. This economy was described in terms of stagflation and the ‘Misery Index’. When Carter left office in 1981, there was double digit unemployment, the interest rate was 21 percent and inflation was at an all time high. The top tax rate was 70% and the auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Reagan lowered that tax rate to 35% and eliminated a lot of tax shelters that were being used to avoid paying taxes. By 1989 when Reagan left office, revenues to the government had doubled and the country was in the midst of the longest period of peacetime economic growth that it had ever experienced. More jobs and wealth were created during that time than any before or since. This is the period that the socialists like to refer to as the “decade of greed” and the worst economic period of the last 50 years.

The socialist philosophy states that ‘spreading the wealth is a good thing’. Socialists in this country believe that the government should force wealthy people to give up some of that wealth so that it can be redistributed to those who are less fortunate or less ambitious. (Hence, a 70% tax rate!) What they fail to realize for some reason is that the wealthy people are the ones that create the jobs that lead to increased labor productivity. If you take away their ability to create those jobs, that inevitably leads to higher unemployment and a generally slow growth or stagnant economy. If 70% of your income was forcibly taken from you with no recourse, you would have to make severe cutbacks in the way you conduct your family’s business, wouldn’t you? Another point that socialists fail to acknowledge is that under Ronald Reagan, charitable donations increased by more than 5% annually. Nevertheless, they would have us believe that conservatives are selfish, greedy capitalists with no regard for anyone but themselves.

I don’t know about you, but it seems pretty obvious to me that conservatives, while far from perfect, definitely have the right idea when it comes to the direction this country needs to take economically. However, Obama is demonstrably socialist in his view of the world and this country's role in it. That suggests to me that we are headed for a period of economic misery much like that of the late 1970s.

What Do We Do Now?

2008-11-06T11:17:00.003-06:00

Well, the election is over and Hussein won. Based on the campaigns that each candidate ran, McCain did not deserve to win. Although Hussein made fewer mistakes, he also faced the least amount of scrutiny of any candidate in recent memory. The media chose him and backed him with all of their considerable might. So now that the election is over, the question is where do we go from here?

A lot of people are saying that the republicans need to reexamine the party and revamp their platform. To a certain extent that is true but the party doesn’t need to be completely retooled but rather return to its roots. Conservatives had once been the party of fiscal and personal responsibility and strong national defense. Bush came along and coined the term “compassionate conservatism”. It sounded good but looking back, what it really meant was big government, out of control spending republicanism. This country is fundamentally conservative but in the face of rising government debt, financial crises and the war footing that this country has been on for nearly the entire Bush administration, people were desperate for change and that is what Hussein has promised. However, the change he has promised is going to be a disaster for this country.

The problem is that people don’t understand what conservatism really means and the Republican Party has forgotten. The republican leadership has failed this country and over the next two years, they need to find a new voice to combat the rhetoric that Hussein has been trotting out for the past two years. This country has been the victim of a brilliant marketing campaign and the conservatives need to fight fire with fire. They need a young dynamic personality to step up and challenge Hussein at his own game. If the republicans can find that person and that person pulls the party back to its conservative roots, then there is a very good chance that we will only have to endure four years socialist rule.

The question then becomes can the republicans find that person? Are the republicans capable of returning to their conservative roots? I have my doubts. Conservatives have been screaming for republicans to return to the base for years and they have ignored the call. Maybe Hussein’s election will pave the way for that dynamic personality to come from a third party like the Independent or Libertarian party. The platforms of these parties are much more in line with what conservatives believe is the direction that this country needs to take. The mid term elections in 2010 will be the test. If the republicans can regain a majority in congress it will go a long way towards ending the radical socialist regime of Mr. Hussein.

The Definition of Insanity

2008-11-01T16:35:00.010-05:00

One accepted definition of insanity is: “continuously doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”

By that definition, we as a nation are insane. Every four years we have the opportunity to change the course of our history and make a bold statement that we will no longer accept the status quo. Every four years we fail miserably. The democrats always complain that the republicans are selfish and don’t look out for the average American. They are only for the rich. They only benefit big business. The republicans complain that the democrats always try to spend their way out of bad economic times. They spend too much money on social programs and entitlements. Since the late Ronald Reagan left office, we go through this cycle every four years and we never end up better off than the last time. Most reasonable people barely see a difference between republicans and democrats. Both parties lean heavily toward socialism. John McCain was a front runner for the democrat VP spot on Kerry’s ticket in the last election! The elites in both parties basically think the average American is too dumb to know how best to spend their own money. So what is the difference between these to candidates and any of the other elected officials we’ve had since 1992? The republicans under GWB have become fiscal socialists and the democrats have always been run of the mill tax and spend, steal from the rich socialists.

The only way to break this cycle is to do something different. We as a nation have become complacent with the status quo. The republicans demonize the democrats as socialists (is it demonizing if it’s true though?) and the democrats try to paint the republicans as fascists. I don’t know how they can make that leap but yet, I read it on a lot of the blogs and message boards that are out there. As long as we keep going along with whatever the lamestream media spoon feeds us, we are destined to continue this ridiculous cycle that gets us nowhere. There are actually people out there that think that if you don’t vote for Obama or McCain then you aren’t going to vote. That’s pretty sad when you think about the fact that there are 4 other candidates that will be on the ballot in enough states to win the election:

Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party (http://baldwin2008.com)
Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root of the Libertarian Party (http://bobbarr2008.com)
Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente of the Green Party (http://votetruth08.com)
Ralph NAder and Matt Gonzalez of the Independent Party (http://votenader.org)

If journalism were alive and well in this country, this would be common knowledge but we all know that the media is decidedly liberal. Nevertheless, we live in a time where information is readily available if you want it. I submit to you that of the four candidates on the above list, one of them will make a far better president that the either of the two that the media has told us we had to choose from. As I stated before, I’m not going to advocate for a particular candidate in this space but you now know the names and party affiliations of the alternatives. If the theme of this election is hope and change or being a maverick or changing the way we do business in Washington, then really change the way we do business and vote for someone other than McCain or Obama. If enough of us do that, regardless of which candidate we vote for, come 2010 and the mid-term elections, there is a great chance that our representatives in congress will get the message. If they do, then changing the way we do business in Washington will me more of a reality than the pie in the sky pipedream that it is now.

Who Won the Debate and Other Random Thoughts

2008-09-29T08:32:00.000-05:00

Who won the debate? Well, perception is reality, and Hussein came across as likable and able to express himself clearly, which, given his past blunders, I’m sure he was relieved to get through it without something like this happening:

He was however factually wrong on a number of points, most notably McCains’s position on stem cell research and Rush Limbaughs’s comments on immigration. (Limbaugh is dead on by the way.) Facts have never really mattered to them so that is irrelevant to this discussion. The socialists that want Hussein to win are going to say that he won and the patriots that want McCain to win are going to say that he won. The truth is that people are going to see what they wan to see. I saw it as a draw. Although, because McCain was behind in the polls, he needed to have an exceptional showing at this debate and wipe the dais with Hussein’s carcass. That clearly didn’t happen. Hussein needed to not commit and major gaffes and hope that McCain did. Neither of those things happened. Effectively, it was a draw but one could argue that McCain actually lost by virtue of not clearly and decisively winning.

The fact of the matter is that socialists like Hussein are totally wrong for this country. People are so fed up with Bush that they are looking for change for change’s sake and that is never wise. Adults that work for a living, that want to provide for their own families and have something to leave their families should anything happen to them see the big picture and are not going to vote for Hussein. Children who either are voting for the first time or haven’t yet had the displeasure of looking at a paycheck and seeing significant chunks of it stolen from them obviously haven’t grown up yet are most likely going to vote for the socialist because they believe like every other socialist that it is the collective responsibility of the government to provide for the governed; and it is the responsibility of the governed to accept this and hand over the fruits of their labor so that strangers can benefit from it. That is the fundamental difference between the socialists and the conservatives.

Hussein always talks about the average American and how he’s going to make things easier for them. Note who some of his biggest supporters are: Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, Jennifer Aniston, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. The Hollywood elite. Actually Damon and Affleck don’t count. They’re from the cradle of socialism known Massachusetts so they have been thoroughly brainwashed. Nevertheless, these people make extraordinary amounts of money and have people that manage it for them so they have no idea that half of their money is being stolen from them in the form of taxes. I count them among those who haven’t grown up yet. Just like we did when we were kids, they have someone taking care of their money and paying the bills. All they know is that they can go buy a new car or jet off to Europe at a moments notice. More often than not, someone else is picking up the tab for that travel anyway. What do they know about being average? They have no idea what it is like to have to work every day to make sure that their mortgage gets paid. Did Hussein win the debate? Maybe. But if Hussein wins the election, it’s the American people that will lose. Huge. Jimmy Carter anyone?

Asleep at the Switch - Socialism is Upon Us

2008-09-26T08:47:00.009-05:00

Last night I reread the Communist Manifesto. It’s been obvious to me for that George Bush and his posse while socially more conservative than the democrats are clearly and demonstrably fiscal socialists. There is no other explanation for this massive government ‘bailout’ that is about to take place. Don’t be fooled though, it is less a bailout and more of a takeover. At 700 billion dollars it will be the largest government expansion in the history of this country. John McCain warned us this would happen three years ago and the democrat controlled congress did nothing. Why? Because they are, and have been for the past 30 years or so, socialists. They have always posited that with more government programs, they can cure poverty, homelessness, drug addiction or any other problem facing society.

Personal responsibility is something foreign to the Democrats because they believe that the American people are too stupid to know what is best for themselves. They would have us believe our hard earned money is better spent on the unwed mothers who keep having babies with no means to support them other than the government. They would have us believe our money is better spent on rehabilitating drug addicts who would kill you for their next fix. They would have us believe our money is better spent on ‘bailing out’ failed businesses due to incompetent management or criminal mismanagement. If I have a business and it fails, is the government going to come and rescue me? No, they won’t for two reasons. First, they don’t want people to achieve any success on their own. They want as many people as they can get to be dependent on the government. Second, my business failing doesn’t provide an opportunity for the government to swoop in and socialize an entire industry.

If Hussein gets elected and this ‘bailout’ goes through, we will have socialized medicine, socialized banking and it would be a short drive to a socialized real estate market. Maxine Waters already suggested that the government take over the oil industry. The next step would be to take over of the auto industry to make sure that government regulations regarding fuel economy get put in to place.

Democrats are on record as saying that the free market didn’t work and that is why this is necessary. That is completely false, and totally irrelevant to this issue. What failed was the Democrats initiative to give everyone the ability to buy a house regardless of whether or not they could afford it. It was under Jimmy Carter and then Bill Clinton that the sub-prime market was created and allowed to flourish. Now we have banks like Washington Mutual collapsing under the weight of this bad debt.

Socialism is not the answer to the problems facing this country. This country was founded as a constitutional republic and getting back to those ideals is the way to fix this. If you think about it, do you really want the government involved in every aspect of your life? If Hussein and Biden are elected in November, it will be a giant step towards that end. A far cry from the basics.

My Money is My Money

2008-09-21T10:15:00.015-05:00

Contrary to what Senator Biden would have you believe, paying higher taxes is not patriotic. It's not something that we do out of love or loyalty to this country. It's something we do because we have no choice. Money is stolen from us by the government under threat of fine and or imprisonment. When someone takes something away from you by threatening to do you harm, that is called robbery.

The 16th amendment allows the federal government to confiscate from you a significant portion of the wages that you earn before you ever even get to see them. Then there are payroll taxes, state income taxes and in some cases, county and/or city income taxes. You don't even have to say it out loud to realize that there is something terribly wrong with that scenario. There was a time in the not too distant past that a single person who made 60-70k per year was making a pretty decent living. That person could probably afford a small house or at the very least could rent a decent apartment on their own. In places like California and Massachusetts, if you make that kind of money you need a roommate or two in order to survive. If you live in New York, 47.5% of your money is being forcibly confiscated from you by various government entities. Regardless of what Hussein says, that percentage is going to go up under his 'leadership'.

We should only be giving the government enough money to pay for our military, police and firefighters, roads and bridges and emergency aid for individuals or families that find themselves in a situation where they need help. Multi-Million dollar companies on the brink of failure due to incompetent management or criminal behavior on the part of management do not count. That emergency aid should have a time limit and have requirements attendant to it that help make the individual in need of said aid self sufficient. Should the individual need help beyond the time limit of the government aid, then charitable organizations should be the vehicle by which aid is provided.

The cradle to the grave mentality that says that the government can take care of you and solve all of our problems is a fallacy; the government has most often been the cause of our problems. People like Hussein need this in order to justify their belief that they are smarter than everyone else and they know better than you how you should live and spend your money. Yet, they are some of the cheapest people out there that are hiding their money and giving little if any to charity. Common sense dictates that the more of your money that you are allowed to keep, the more you will spend, which helps the economy grow and the more likely you will be to donate to charitable causes and 'help your fellow man' as I so often hear people say. As evidence of this I submit that in the 1980s when the top tax rate was reduced from 70% to 28%, charitable donations rose nearly as sharply. Coincidence? No, simple economics.

So what do we do to fix this problem? Certainly not more confiscatory redistribution of wealth. The two most common proposals for tax reform out there are the Fair Tax and Flat Tax. Either one would be better than the current quagmire we have allowed ourselves to get dragged into. I am not going to use this space to advocate for either one, nevertheless below are links to sites that outline what each one is all about. I encourage you to check them out for yourself.

Flat Tax Info
Fair Tax Info
Fair Tax Wiki
Flat Tax Wiki

The Myth of Global Warming

2008-09-19T10:53:00.002-05:00

Global warming has been a hot button issue for a lot of people these days. Especially since Al Whore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was released. I admit that I paid very little attention to that movie considering that that hypocrite is telling us that the American people need to conserve and decrease our carbon footprint while he’s gallivanting around the country in his G5 and consuming all the energy and water necessary to run his 10,000 square foot mansion. Considering that source, anything he says I dismiss as irrelevant.
That’s not to suggest that conservation and the environment are not important, they are. I would just rather get my information from a more reliable source than a political hack like him.
Back in 1988 the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies stated that he was 99 percent sure that the temperature had increased and there was some greenhouse warming. The environmentalists took that and ran with it.
Despite the fact that back then, before it really became the issue du jour for the left, the scientific community was not in agreement about global warming and whether or not it was really as dangerous as the environmentalists were making it out to be. It didn’t take them long to make it a political issue when in 1989, Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at MIT lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that did not support the theory that there was a net warming over the past century.
There are scientists that have said this year in published reports that there will be little to no global warming for the next ten years. When you combine that with the fact that there hasn’t been any significant warming since 1998, a reasonable person would conclude that the hysteria of the environmentalists is just that, hysteria.
In a letter to the UN last year, 100 scientists basically told the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the attempts to control climate change were useless. They state that the rate of warming is consistent with the rates of warming and cooling over the past 10,000 years. The text of the letter can be found here: http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1521.
I’m not a scientist and don’t claim to be one, but when you consider that the global warming agenda is being pushed more by politicians and other non scientists than a consensus of the scientific community, I think that I’ll take the word of scientists that actually know what they are talking about, rather than hypocritical politicians.

The Utopian Health Care Plan

2008-09-17T17:00:00.004-05:00

Hussein’s plan for universal health care sounds really good to the average person who doesn’t really think about what they are being told by the media. However, upon closer examination of this plan, you realize that it isn’t much of a plan at all. An actual plan, is a detailed program for achieving a goal. Hussein’s plan outlines this Utopian scenario where once again, the government is able to swoop in and take care of everything.

One element of his ‘plan’ is to give the government more control over the health care system to insure that the quality of care improves. (Sounds like another step towards socialism, for those of you that don’t believe that Hussein is a Socialist) In order for the government to exert more control, that requires either creating another agency or expanding an existing agency, all of which are already bloated and inefficient. Ask yourself this question: aside from the delivery of the mail, what has the government ever done well? What government agency runs efficiently?

His plan also calls for a 50 billion dollar federal investment for implementing a standard electronic health information system. Where is this money going to come from? What is going to be the benefit?

His plan also calls for every American to be insured, which on its face sounds great, but the uninsured are uninsured because they can’t afford to be. Someone has to pay for it and that bill will fall to you and me. He is going to force small businesses that can’t afford to provide health care for its employees to contribute to this universal health care fund. This is essentially a tax. (But I thought he was cutting taxes?) Universal health care is already in place in places like England and Canada. When people get seriously ill in those places, they either wait months for tests and treatment or come here. Under Hussein’s Universal Health Care plan, where will we go?

Another socialistic part of his plan calls for another agency to regulate the health insurance industry. This is a quote from his website: “his plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. Hussein’s new National Health Insurance Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.”

Just like every other socialist plan that the democrats advocate, they are going to take money away from those who work hard for it and give it those who sit back and wait for the government to hand them something.

Back to Basics

2008-09-16T09:39:00.000-05:00

We as a country need to get back to basics. we have the means to do it but we let our system of government get hijacked. We've been brainwashed to believe that the government can solve all of our problems when in fact, the government is the cause. We have a blueprint for how our country should be run. It's called the Constitution.

The following is a brief outline of what we believe.

Small government – The government’s primary responsibility to its citizens is to keep them safe. That includes providing a basic infrastructure, military, police, firefighters and emergency first aid.

Lower Taxes – The government spends entirely too much of our money on pork barrel spending, earmarks and entitlement programs. The federal income tax, IRS and any other federal programs not mandated by the constitution should be abolished.

Personal Responsibility – A person’s individual rights are paramount. The government has no right to interfere in a person’s life as long as that person is not infringing on another person’s rights. A person has the right to do, say or ingest anything he or she wishes as long as they are aware of and willing to accept responsibility for those actions should the consequences of those actions cause another person harm.

Secure Borders – It is documented by the US border patrol that large numbers of non Mexicans are apprehended each year at the border. In the three years immediately following the attacks on 9/11, 946 illegals apprehended at the border were from the muslim nations of Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, Sudan and Syria. Not only are we under threat of attack from illegal aliens but they are also a drain on our economy.

National Defense – As was stated earlier, the government’s biggest responsibility is to keep us safe. Among other things, that means doing whatever is necessary to prevent attacks like those that happened on September 11, 2000. Our foreign policy needs to be changed so that all of the money that we spend on military intervention and aid to foreign countries is ended. We do not need to act as international policemen.

We will be expanding on these in the future, as well as commenting on current news items. I’m sure that many of you disagree with our positions and we welcome your dissenting opinions. We will not ban you or delete your comments like our friends over at DailyKos.