The New Blog

Congratulations to Barack Obama. We wish him well and hope he does well during the nest four years. Bur, now as the election is over and John McCain will not be President, we must take a new approach. Our blog will now seek to watch over all the actions the far-left loons in Washington will try to take. We will also include new polling and predictions for the 2010 Congressional elections and 2012 Presidential elections. Here are some possible candidates for 2012:

*Sarah Palin (AK Governor)
*Bobby Jindal (LA Governor)
*Charlie Crist (FL Governor)
*Mitt Romney (Former MA Governor)
*Eric Cantor (VA Representative)
*Newt Gingrich (Former Speaker of House)
*Mike Huckabee (Former AR Governor)
*Paul Ryan (WI Representative)
*Tim Pawlenty (MN Governor)
*John Ensign (NV Senator)

Nancy Pelosi: What's she talking about

This is in response to Nancy Pelosi calling the Bush Administration corrupt. More of the hypocrisy of her far left-wing agenda.

Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco ,
Pelosi's home district.

Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major
contributor to Pelosi.

Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa
employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.

Paul Pelosi, Nancy 's husband, owns $17 million
dollars of Star-Kist stock.

In January 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from
$5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the
increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage.
This would make Del Monte products less expensive than
their competition's.

When the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi
added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million
dollars for an "economic development credit in American
Samoa ".

And Pelosi thinks the Bush Administration is corrupt.

She should know.

The Case for School Choice

Initially proposed by Milton Friedman, school vouchers and charter schools, would be a great success. School Vouchers are basically government funded scholarships and privatization of education versus the bureaucracy we have today. Some major cities and Canada currently use vouchers. Overall, vouchers reduce the cost of education and improve quality.




General Overview



The basic idea of vouchers is to allow underprivileged children the same opportunities that everyone else has. For example, a poor kid currently goes to an under performing public school. However, there is a really good private school that he could get in to, but he cannot afford it. What vouchers would do is allow that child to be able to go to that school or whatever school the parents of that kid choose. Vouchers, if they were implemented with pay for performance and accountability for teachers would really be the best scenario. That way the teachers and schools that are doing a good job would meet their payroll and the bad ones wouldn't therefore education quality would increase. Now that sounds pretty good, although it is a very simple version, however one group consistently opposes it.





Democrats on Vouchers




The one party that consistently opposes vouchers are the Democrats. This is for several reasons. One, a major group within the Democratic Party is the Teachers Union and groups like them. Because of this, and those groups fierce opposition to vouchers, the Democrats have to pander to them and oppose vouchers. But just how tied are the Democrats to these groups? Lets take a look. The National Education Association represented 1/10 of delegates at the 2004 DNC. In local levels the Teachers Unions consistently fight vouchers. It just so happens though, that the same liberal elitists that oppose vouchers, a majority of them send their kids to private schools. The problem is that they won't allow people less fortunate then them to have that same opportunity. To the people though they are on the wrong side of the issue. 70% of people agree that under performing teachers should be fired. 75% of African-Americans under 35 support vouchers.





Where Vouchers Have Worked



Most everywhere where they have been tried, vouchers have been a success. Cities include Washington D.C, Cleveland, and Milwaukee. A major country, Canada, has also implemented vouchers. Now, about 92% of people in Canada have school choice. The reason is that vouchers create competition. With that quality almost always improve. Today in public schools there is no accountability. That was the goal of NCLB, although many who once supported are now against it (Democrats). Think about it, if you are paying for something, like a private school, and the school does not perform well or up to your standards, you leave and find a better one. The problem is for many they cannot afford or do not have the option of changing schools. In cities where they have implemented vouchers, a majority of the time kids greatly improve on tests and the dropout rate declines. Also, money was saved and they were able to spend that money on educational programs.



Who Vouchers are meant to Help



School Vouchers are intended solely to help the poor and middle class. Minorities specifically, benefit the most from vouchers. Vouchers also help create diversity in schools. Back to a previous point Liberal elitists have no problem. In Milwaukee 1/3 of the disadvantaged students now go to private schools. Without vouchers, it is very unlikely any of them would have had that opportunity. Also, amongst African-Americans who make less than $15,000, 70% of them support school choice.

Reasons People Oppose Vouchers

One major argument against vouchers is because 0f the separation of church and state issue. Many liberals fear that giving taxpayer money, or public money, to private schools, many of which have religious affiliations, is unconstitutional. However, parents have a choice as to which school they would send their child to. With vouchers, nothing would change. If a parent decided they did not want their child going to a Catholic school they wouldn't have to. Today, it is really the same way. If you think about it vouchers are the best way to have democracy in education as it puts the people fully in control, not the bureaucracies. Another reason against vouchers is that they are meant to aid the rich. As I just mentioned, that is the complete opposite from the truth.

More Money isn't the Answer

Many feel that by just increasing money for education, we will solve all our problems. For one, money is not the answer. If you look at all major nations, we spend the most on education, but we are at the bottom of the list for actual results. Under George Bush, spending has increased 40% yet reading proficiency and other areas have declined. We are spending more and seeing less results. From 1991 to 2002, money spent increased greatly but graduation rates also went down. This another plus of vouchers. On average the cost of vouchers to educate a single child is about half of what it currently costs in the public system.

Spread the Wealth?

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept.. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside.

The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

The Pledge of Allegiance

John McCain's remarks about the Pledge of Allegiance
In light of the recent appeals court ruling in California, with respect to the Pledge of Allegiance, the following recollection from Senator John McCain is very appropriate: "The Pledge of Allegiance" - by Senator John McCain


As you may know, I spent five and one half years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. In the early years of our imprisonment, the NVA kept us in solitary confinement
or two or three to a cell. In 1971 the NVA moved us from these conditions of isolation into large rooms with as many as 30 to 40 men to a room.

This was, as you can imagine, a wonderful change and was a direct result of the efforts of millions of Americans onbehalf of a few hundred POWs 10,000 miles from home.

One of the men who moved into my room was a young man named Mike Christian.

Mike came from a small town near Selma , Alabama . He didn't wear a pair of shoes until he was 13 years old. At 17, he enlisted in the US Navy. He later earned a commission by going to Officer Training School Then he became a Naval Flight Officer and was shot down and captured in 1967. Mike had a keen and deep appreciation of the opportunities this country and our military provide for people who want to work and want to succeed.

As part
of the change in treatment, the Vietnamese allowed some prisoners to receive packages from home. In some of these packages were handkerchiefs, scarves and other items of clothing.

Mike got himself a bamboo needle. Over a period of a couple of months, he created an American flag and sewed on the inside of his shirt.

Every afternoon, before we had a bowl of soup, we would hang Mike's shirt on the wall of the cell and say the Pledge of Allegiance.

I know the Pledge of Allegiance may not seem the most important part of our day now, but I can assure you that in that stark cell it was indeed the most important and meaningful event.

One day the Vietnamese searched our cell, as they did periodically, and discovered Mike's shirt with the flag sewn inside, and removed it.

That evening they returned, opened the door of the cell, and for the benefit of all of us, beat Mike Christian severely for the next couple of hours. Then, they opened the door of the cell and threw him in. We cleaned him up as well as we could.

The cell in which we lived had a concrete slab in the middle on which we slept Four naked light bulbs hung in each corner of the room.As I said, we tried to clean up Mike as well as we could.

After the excitement died down, I looked in the corner of the room, and sitting there beneath that dim light bulb with a piece of red cloth, another shirt and his bamboo needle, was my friend, Mike Christian. He was sitting there with his eyes almost shut from the beating he had received, making another American flag. He was not making the flag because it made Mike Christian feel better. He was making that flag because he knew how important it was to us to be able to Pledge our allegiance to our flag and country.

So the next time you say the Pledge of Allegiance, you must never forget the sacrifice and courage that thousands of Americans have made to build our nation and promote freedom around the world.

You must remember our duty, our honor, and our country.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Tax Analogy

Since it is tax season let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill forall ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go > something like this: * The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. * The fifth would pay $1. * The sixth would pay $3. * The seventh would pay $7. * The eighth would pay $12. * The ninth would pay $18. * The tenth man…would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve: 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost ofyour daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The first four were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, thenthe fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill byroughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). * The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). * The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). * The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). * The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). * The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before.

And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. * 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' * 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' * 'That's true!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

* 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all ofthem for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy,and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might either (1) stop drinking or (2) start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

The Real Palin

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjEyMzk3MWU4Yzk1NGQyMWYwZjk0OTcyNmEzYTM5N2E=#more


THE PALIN PIPELINET he top issue of the 2006 Alaska governor’s race was whether, and how, to build a pipeline to bring the estimated 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under Alaska’s North Slope to market. Palin’s Republican predecessor, Frank Murkowski — a man who had spent nearly 22 years in the U.S. Senate before becoming governor — wanted to make a deal with three big oil companies, Exxon Mobil, BP, and Conoco Phillips. A lot of critics, including Palin, thought Murkowski’s proposed deal gave too much to the companies. For one thing, it called for Alaska to relinquish its right to tax the pipeline, and instead agree to a series of payments from the oil companies — payments that would be locked in for as long as 45 years. In addition, the deal would have rewritten leases and other regulatory devices that the state normally controls. It was an unprecedented proposal, representing sweeping changes from the traditional way of doing business — and not to the state’s advantage.Palin defeated Murkowski in the primary, and went on to win the governorship, on a platform of throwing out the old deal and starting fresh. Once in office, she was deeply involved in making that happen. “She had four principles she wanted to bring to the process,” says Joe Balash, who served as Palin’s special assistant for energy issues. “One, to have competition. Two, to have clear and objective measures of progress, because with a massive project like that it’s going to be years before any dirt turns. Three, there had to be a commitment to expansion [the pipeline would have to be big enough to handle more gas in the future]. And four, it had to be done without surrendering the state’s sovereignty.”It was a big, and extraordinarily complex, task. There was no consensus on how it should be done. But Palin, by all accounts, assembled a first-rate group of people to come up with what eventually became a proposal to grant a license to the company TransCanada to build the pipeline. “I give her credit for hiring good people,” says Beth Kerttula, the Democratic minority leader in the Alaska house of representatives who worked with Palin on oil and gas issues and has lately emerged as one of Palin’s leading critics. “She had a strong team.”There were times during the negotiations when it appeared Palin’s proposal would fall through, perhaps not even getting to a vote in the legislature. Associates say she was determined to prevent that. “She went literally from office to office asking that, regardless of how people intended to vote, that they permit a vote to take place,” Balash recalls. “If she hadn’t made those visits, it in all likelihood would never have come to a vote.”And when she made those visits, she scored points with legislators of both parties. “On the issues where I worked with her, she listened, and in the long run, she even overrode her own team on things that House Democrats thought were important,” Kerttula recalls. Last summer, Palin’s strategy led to victory, when Alaska’s house and senate approved the TransCanada proposal.Noting that Palin had also, in 2007, won a fight to raise taxes on the energy companies, the Anchorage Daily News reported that the pipeline deal “sealed the popular Republican governor’s second major victory in two years against not only her opponents in the Legislature but also major oil companies Palin sometimes has poked publicly.” Her approval rating soared.

RUFFLING A TON OF FEATHERS Once in office, Palin asked a prominent former legislator, Ethan Berkowitz, and a former U.S. attorney, Wev Shea, to write a position paper on ethics. The move did not endear her to Republicans in the legislature, because Berkowitz was a Democrat, and Shea was a vocal critic of Republicans (though a Republican himself). “She ruffled a ton of feathers,” says Paulette Simpson, a Palin ally who is president of the Alaska Federation of Republican Women. “That didn’t get her off on a good footing with Republicans.”Her proposals included the electronic filing of campaign-finance reports, tougher conflict-of-interest laws, more restrictions on gifts from lobbyists, a more extensive ban on lobbying by just-departed officials, a ban on lobbying by spouses of legislators, and several other measures. Her plan was just one of several competing proposals in the legislature, and, according to Bitney, she showed a pragmatic desire to get the reforms done even if her bill was not the one that passed.As it turned out, Palin’s bill did win approval, and the new ethics rules were signed into law, with bipartisan support, in July 2007. Democrats attributed some of her success to luck — “She came in at a time when basically the timing was right,” says Beth Kerttula — but the fact is the new, inexperienced governor had won another major victory.Palin’s other top priority was an overhaul of the state’s ethics laws. It became something of a signature issue for her. In 2003, after she served as mayor of Wasilla and had run unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor, she was appointed to chair the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. While there, she became convinced that fellow commissioner Randy Ruedrich, the head of the Alaska Republican party, was conducting party business on the commission’s time. Palin filed an ethics complaint against Ruedrich, leading to a long and contentious investigation. In 2004, Ruedrich admitted guilt and agreed to pay a $12,000 fine, which was the largest such punishment ever in Alaska.

Ryan's Comment

The following is in response to something I heard said on the train by Ryan on Monday. Not only was it dumb but I was just amazed he seriously believed in what he said.




Exact quote: "I think we need an elitist as president, so that we get someone actually smart"


-Ryan 4:29 P.M Union Station



Hold on a minute. Once you catch your breath here lets examine that. First, since you are an Obama supporter and you think he is what we need I assume you concede that Obama is an elitist. Second, Liberal elitists, democrats, could not be more out of touch with people in America. Lastly, people that aren't elitists are dumb? Are these the thoughts you wanted to get across?



Elitistism



To fully understand that comment you must understand what a liberal elitist is. Elitists think they're smarter and better than everyone else. For example, Joe Biden feels he is the smartest guy in the room, just ask him. Elitists are so far from mainstream America its sad. Here is a funny quote describing them: godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts. Elitists see anyone not in their social/economic class as inferior and since they tend to be fairly wealthy, that pretty much includes 95% of the country.

Examples

Michael Moore, Joe Biden, Barack Obama (according to Ryan), Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Kerry. Some popular professions include trial lawyers, academics, people whose families are considered to have "old money", and hollywood celebrities. Now, of course not all elitists have these professions, and not all people with these professions are elitists.

Elitists aren't smart

Sure George Bush may have got into Harvard because of his dad although his SAT was in the top 10%. While there though, he had a 3.6 GPA. Al Gore on the other hand was similar to Bush as he got into Harvard due to his fathers connections. But he didn't do so well. He got mostly D's and C's and his highest grade was a B-. He also failed out of Vanderbilt Law School. At Yale, John Kerry got 5 D's and had an average of 76. So I don't buy the arguement that because Obama went to Harvard or anyone for that matter automatically makes them smart or qualified. Elitists disagree. Going to Harvard is like making millions of dollars to conservatives. Bush has one of the worst approval ratings in history, and where did he go Harvard and Yale and using your arguement he's worked out really well. One of our best presiednts, Ronald Reagan, went where? Oh yeah Eureka College, that small school out in Illinois. On election night Kerry himself called Bush an idiot.

You went to Harvard, so what?

So Ryan, good for him Obama went to Harvard. That doesn't make him qualified or necessarilly smart. I'm sure he's book-smart but thats not everything. Frankly, as president I'd rather have someone street smart than book smart as president. Eltists would for sure disagree. To be honest when your president there not asking you to prove what x equals or how to prove 2 triangles are congurent. What you may have to do though is balance a budget or manage tons of employees. I'd take the businessman over the professor anyday. Whether you like them or not Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush are smart. First of all they are all worth tens of millions of dollars, and in Rumsfelds case hundreds of millions. Mitt Romney was worth about $275 million. Sarah Palin, probably not a scholastic, is smart. She probably couldn't get into Harvard, but is smart. To take on the good ol boys network that happen to be in her party takes someone smart. Going to a top school is great, but it doesn't give you instant qualifications as many believe, and just because you don't get into Yale doesn't make you an idiot.

The following is from Michael Richards. But to become more fair as some have indicated I thought we should see the other side of an arguement. This needs to be clear though. I do not hold any racist feelings and I am not trying to create any. I just think this angle needs to be heard along with its contrasting view.


Michael Richards makes his point...

Michael Richards better known as Kramer
from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.

This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments
in his comedy act. He makes some very interesting points...

Someone finally said it... How many are actually paying attention
to this? There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian
Americans, Arab Americans, etc. And then there are just Ameri-
cans. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call
me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman' .... and
that's OK.

But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel
Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink ... You call me a racist. You say that
whites commit a lot of violence against you... so why are the ghettos
the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther
King Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez
Day. You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi. You have
the NAACP. You have BET... If we had WET (White Entertainment
Television), we'd be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would
call us racists. If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.

If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance'
OUR, lives we'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of
Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.

Wonder who pays for that??

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant,
but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships
...You know we'd be racists.

There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US .

Yet if there were 'White colleges' That would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching
for your race and rights.

If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange,
and you're not afraid to announce it.

But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police
officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-
dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you
call him a racist.

I am proud... But you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists??

There is nothing improper about this e-mail. Let's see which of you
are proud enough to send it on. I sadly don't think many will. That's
why we have lost most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't
stand up for ourselves!

BE PROUD TO BE WHITE!

It's not a crime yet .... but getting real close!

Not to Bother you but...

I'm not suggesting anything in saying this. I simply am curious as to why Barack Obama will not release these things. It just seems a little coincidental that with all the allegations going around about him not being born in the U.S, lawsuits have been filed, that these things will not be released. Maybe someone can inform me.




Your Occidental College records
. Your Columbia College records
. Your Columbia Thesis paper
. Your Harvard College records
. Your Selective Service Registration
. Your medical records
. Your Illinois State Senate records
. Your Illinois State Senate schedule
. Your Law practice client list
. A Certified Copy of your original Birth certificate
. Your embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth
. Your Harvard Law Review articles that were published
. Your University of Chicago scholarly articles
. Your Record of baptism


A little strange?

Truthful?

Obama often talks about how he will clean up and reform Washington. Great, but can he actually do it? Let the facts speak for me and take a look below:

The Leadership In Illinois :
Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin,
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.,
Gov. Rod Blagojevich,
Speaker of the House Mike Madigan,
Senate President Emil Jones,
Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike),
Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of former Mayor Richard J. Daley) .....all Democrats.

Chicago is a combat zone. Of course they're all blaming each other.
Can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country (worse than what San Diego is going through).
Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country.
(Look 'em up if you want).

Chicago school system one of the worst in country.
This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois.


Obama can clearly talk the talk, but hasn't walked the walk. He certainly has not reformed Illinois. Living in Illinois, everyone knows how corrupt this state, Chicago, and Cook County are. What has Obama done to fix things here. If he was such a "change agent", why couldn't he do anything in Illinois? Illinois is no better reformed after Obama. But if you listen to him he'll tell you things will be reformed. A little hard to believe isn't it?

P.S If you want to compare Obama's reforms to Sarah Palin's (The lefts new most popular target) I would be thrilled to

Funny

Little Mary Pat had a box of very small kittens that she was trying to give away, so she had them out on the street corner with a sign 'FREE KITTENS' next to them.

Suddenly a big line of big black cars came up with a policeman on a motorcycle in front. The cars all stopped and a tall man stepped out from the biggest car.

It's Senator Obama. 'Hi, little girl, what do you have there in the box?' he asked.
'Kittens' Little Mary Pat says. 'They're so small, their eyes are not even open yet.' 'What kind of kittens are they?' he asked.

'Democrats' says Little Mary Pat. The tall man smiled, returned to his car and they drove away. Sensing a good photo opportunity, Sen. Obama called his campaign manager and told him about the little girl and the kittens.

It was planned that they would return the next day, have all the media there an d tell everyone about these great kittens. The next day, Little Mary Pat is standing out on the corner with her box of kittens with the 'FREE KITTENS' sign and the big motorcade of black cars pulled up with all the vans and trucks from ABC, NBC, CBS, BET and CNN but no FOX for some reason..

Everyone had their cameras ready and then, Sen. Obama got out of his limo and walked up to Little Mary Pat. 'Now, don't be frightened,' he said, 'I just want you to tell all these nice news people just what kind of kittens you're giving away today.' '

Yes sir,' Mary Pat said, 'The are all REPUBLICAN kittens.' Taken by surprise, Sen. Obama said, 'But yesterday, you told me that they were DEMOCRATS.'

Little Mary Pat says, 'Yes, I know. But today, they have their eyes open.'

Quote of the Day 10/13-10/17

10/16 Looking at the line-up of speakers at the (Democratic National) Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them. -- Ann Coulter

10/15 "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."-Ronald Reagan

10/14 You can make an argument that Bill O'Reilly is a conservative or a Republican. Bill's kind of unpredictable. Somebody might say that he would have been comfortable in the Democratic Party of Scoop Jackson. -Brit Hume, Fox News

10/13 Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. -- Author unknown

Why we should be able to own guns

One of liberals most important arguments is for gun-control. Many even advocate the banning of guns altogether. Here is the case for gun ownership.



It's a fundamental RIGHT as an American



The constituiton specifically states the following: "the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Our constituiton clearly states that as an American citizen you have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't know what drives the left thinking they can take that right away, but if in fact it is for "practical purposes" we will get there later. The supreme court has even ruled against gun bans. Back to TV bias studies show stories promoting gun control surpass those that don't by a 10-1 margin. Americans also happen to share the same view. In a poll it was found that 85% believe people should be able to use a gun to defend themselves in their homes. Still some on the left do not see it as a right.





Gun Control Doesn't Actually Reduce Crime



Since 1991, the number of guns in the U.S has increased by the millions. However, robbery, murder, and violent crime has decreased. Guns are there to protect people, and in fact they do. 99.6% of handguns are not used to commit crimes. It is a fact that everywhere that guns have been banned in some way, crime has gone up. That is because people are left with nothing to protect themselves with. What idealist liberals don't understand is that criminals aren't going to actually follow the laws and give up their guns. Law abiding citozens will. So the whole thing is backwards. Criminals will have them but nobody else will. Major studies showed that if all states excepted right t0 carry policies, nearly 60,000 assaults could have been saved.





Obama's View of Guns



Obama like many issues happened to flip-flop on gun control. In 1996 he filled out a questionaire stating he favored the ban, sale, and possesion of hanguns. He also supported the DC handgun ban. Now, that he is running for president and calculated the number of people with guns, he says he supports the right to bear arms. A bit confusing? Obama also thinks people cling to their guns.





Examples of Gun Control



To further back up my case of why gun control is not practical, let me share some examples. In DC when guns were banned in 1987, the murder rate tripled. Countries like England who have strict gun control have a much higher violence ratings than countries that don't. In Chicago when handguns were banned, murders using handguns increased. The main point here is that gun control does the opposite of its intention.





Solutions



The real solution here is not take guns away from everybody. What needs to be done is stricter enforcement and laws against those who commit gun crimes. A law in Virginia that the NRA supports, would make mandatory sentances for criminals who illegaly purchased firearms and allowed for people to keep guns at their homes. The democrats opposed this! Following this they have seen a decrease in violence!



Gun Safety

The fact is that the number of kids killed by guns is not that high compared to those killed by cars or drowning. We do need background checks to make sure criminals or mentally ill do not obtain weapons, and if they do they need severe punishment. Firearms also are responsible for only about 1% of deadly incidents against kids. A study shows that guns are used to protect people over 2 million times a year. The media however focuses on the times they are misused therefore distorting the facts.

Where the blame belongs

What Caused The Loan Crisis?

The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s,
weren't the juggernauts they'd later be.

While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community
Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to
minority communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After
entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's
rules.

In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private,
mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed
cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed
favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led
inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.

Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton
unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in
ways Congress never intended.

Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton
bluntly told the group that "more Americans
should own their own homes." He meant it.

Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other
minorities to enter the middle class.

Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change
hands, from the Democrats to the
Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was
almost sure to reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department
to rewrite the rules in 1995.

The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a
satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical
quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan
portfolios. Getting a
good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with
another.

Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.

"Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data,
broken down by neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on
performance," wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.

But those rules weren't enough.

Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous. (This is Henry
Cisneros time to shine-
former San Antonio mayor who couldn't keep his zipper up.)

Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a
series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the
country's current crisis," the liberal Village
Voice noted. Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and
Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.

Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage,
allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs.
10% for banks.

Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit
government guarantees for their debt, the
government-sponsored enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans into
poor communities, often "no doc" and
"no income" loans that required no money down and
no verification of income.

By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12
trillion U.S. mortgage market - a staggering exposure.

Worse still was the cronyism.
Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly Clinton
Democrats. An informal survey of their top officials shows a roughly
2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans.

Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384
politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.

Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and political
activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions more on think
tanks and radical community groups.

Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people
into homes, the answer would have to be yes.

From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of the
12.5 million new homeowners.

The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and minority
homeownership rates are shrinking fast.

Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios
stuffed with securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime
loans, are a failed legacy of the Clinton era.

By TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, September
24, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Funny but true

This pretty much puts things in their proper perspective!

Subject: John McCain

Barack Obama has put out an ad that simple minded John McCain cannot use a computer.

Well guess what;

Barack cannot land a jet plane on an aircraft carrier at night.

And that's that.

Change?

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine. A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations o'seas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE' all right!.....

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is at or near $4 a gallon
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~<10,000--$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS! YEP , IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE!...AND WE SURE AS HELL GOT IT!!!....NOW the DEM'S CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT--AND THE POLLS SAY HE'S GONNA BE 'THE MAN'--CLAIMS HE'S GONNA REALLY GIVE US CHANGE!!....JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YA THINK YOU CAN STAND???.....

Take a Look

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate
all have in common?


Detroit , MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't
elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo , NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;
Cincinnati , OH (3rd)...since 1984;
Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989;
Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;
El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;
Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;
Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.


Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting different results.'
It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats ---
yet are still disadvantaged.

Why I am Pro-Life

The following is in contrast, not rebuttal to Ryans post on ryansliberals.blogspot.com. Before we get into this, let me first state that while I am writing this, this post has ideas from my conservative friends. First, lets state what we agree on. Abortion is a sensitive issue. Also, this arguement is intended to show the other side of abortion, not to attack others views as many have very strong views on both sides.

How Sick it Really Is

I want to avoid trying to get into really graphic detail here but some of this must be said to grasp it fully. If a baby is to be "aborted" in the first trimester (1-3) months, here is how it works. The one performing the abortion sticks a sharp tube into the uterus which basically tears the baby apart and the remains are pulled out by the tube. If it is to happen within the second trimester (4-6) is basically the same but uses a larger sharp edge to deal with the larger body. This last one (7-9 months) is something that is the worst. In simple terms a salt-like poison is injected into the body. The babies skin will burn and it will struggle sometimes for about an hour. The mother may even have a dead baby in the short period after. Others include partial-birth or even worse live-birth. In these cases surgeons scissors are stuck in the babies head to kill it. For me, just reading that over makes me feel sick.

Obama's Position

Since he is running for president, his position on this issues is very important. Jill Stanek, a nurse, described the following situation to Obama's committee in the Illinois senate. What was happening was babies abortions were being botched and they ended up living. However, they were "unwanted" and because of that they were being left in shelves in the E.R to die. To cope with this, a bill known as BAIPA was created and stated that once a baby is born and comes into this world it has the same rights as any other living human. It must live. Even liberal lions like Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) even supported this. Obama felt differently. He voted against this bill TWICE and was the only senator to speak out against it. He has also voted against banning partial birth abortions.

Abortion doesn't take a burden out of a womans life

Contrary to what has been stated a woman actually is worse off after an abortion. There is evidence that shows woman who do get abortions suffer from low self-esteem and guilt after abortions. This leads to more bad. Since the legalization of abortion child abuse has increased. This is because of womens stress from getting the abortion. The child abuse occurs on already living children.

Adoption

Although it should not be overheard, the argument of women getting the right to abortion for rape is not that common. In fact only about 1% of abortions are for that reason. However, 93% are due to social problems (unwanted child). Planned Parenthood says "Every Child is a Wanted Child". There are also more people that wan't to adopt than children to adopt. The numbers are 200,000 looking to adopt and 25,000 available each year for adoption. These people are then forced to go abroad to adopt to places like Russia or China which can be very costly to do. What is the harm in adoption? It is a good thing.

Others

The cost of an abortion is about $400. I find that sick because what you are doing is putting a price on a life. How can that be? Also, single mothers, receive large amounts of welfare from the government. It is not a financial issues. Whether you support them doing it or not, the government will help you if you are single and poor.

Conclusion

The point about abortion is this. Couples have the right to get pregnant, but not the right to murder. It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. Today, the unborn child has no rights and somebody needs to protect them. The "unwanted" issue is sick in and of itself as it is peoples choice to get pregnant. When people banned prayer in public schools the number of "uwanted"pregnancies has increased and ultimately so has abortion. Fortunately the number of pro-life Americans is increasing. Originally abortion rights had a 2:1 margin. Recent polls show that number of pro-choice to pro-life is 56%-48%. We can argue all we want, but it doesn't take away from the fundamental fact that abortion is murder, and murder is and should be illegal.

Funny Riddle

Riddle for the Day
Hillary, Biden and Obama were on a donkey, at the edge of a cliff. The donkey got spooked and jumped off the cliff. Who was saved? (Scroll down)






































America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why I'm voting Democrat, Not!

I'm voting Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.


I'm voting Democrat because I believe people aren't entitled to at least half of their earnings, as long as we make things "fair".

I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.


I'm voting Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
I'm voting Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my @#% it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

143 days

You couldn't get a job at McDonald's and become District Manager after 143 days of experience. You couldn't become Chief of Surgery after 143 days of experience. You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the Superintendent after 143 days of experience. You couldn't join the military and become a General after 143 days of experience. You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the Nightly News Anchor after 143 days of experience.
BUT....
'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days. We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start, and strangely, a large sector of the American public is OK with this and campaigning for him.We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet many are OK with this for the President of the United States of America?Come on folks, we're not voting for the next American Idol!

Why the Democrats can't deliver "change"

It appears to me that the Democrats are on the wrong side of public opinion on all these major issues. Next time you hear a Democrat chanting "change" keep these numbers in mind.

*81% of Americans support offshore drilling, the Democrats oppose it
*85% see Iran as a serious threat, Obama does not
*61% favor a single income tax rate of 17%
*74% favor a single corporate tax rate of 17%, while Democrats rip John McCain for wanting to cut this rate just as many of Americans do
*54% believe the wealthy should pay the same proportion of their income as everyone else
*79% believe religion is important to our country
*88% support referencing "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance while about 7% disprove
*87% approve of referencing "the Creator" in the Declaration of Independence
*78% approve of courthouses displaying the Ten Commandments
*94% approve of a moment of silence in public schools for kids to pray if they choose
*90% approve of placing a Christmas tree on public property
*68% agree that we don't to raise taxes to help the environment
*77% support building more oil refineries
*65% support the expansion of nuclear power plants

"Real Change" Newt Gingrich

Quote of the Day 10/6-10/10

10/10 "Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15."--Ronald Reagan

10/9 "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge

10/8 I don't know one of my friends who is considered a conservative who has not had to go back and thoroughly think through everything. You do a lot of soul-searching - 'cause we are not going to win any popularity contests.

10/7 The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break. -- John Madden

10/6 Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I'm not ashamed of that, never have been, never will be. -- John Wayne

Liberal Media

This is in response to:http://ryansliberals.blogspot.com/

I almost died laughing when I seriously heard that Ryan thinks there is a massive conservative bias in the media. This is a joke. The media today is so far to left and so Pro-Obama it is really embarrasing. Now lets take a look at who really controls the media.

When you go after Fox News here is what you must realize. They are the only conservative news channel in all of TV. They appear different then NBC, CNN, and ABC etc. So when far the far-left loons on those stations I listed try to take aim at Fox they are doing it out of anger. First, Fox has the highest viewership of all news stations. Second, Fox is closer to fair and balanced then CNN. In a independent poll taken 39% of Fox viewers were Republicans while 33% were Democrats. The same study showed that 51% of CNN viewers were Democrats while only 18% were Republicans! Lets look at some other aspects of the Liberal Media.

One place to start is with universities specifically the professors. A study at Cornell showed that 166 professors were Democrats or Green Party, and only 6 were Republicans or Libertarians. Here are some more Liberal-Conservative Ratios:
*Stanford-151-17
*SDSU-80-11
*UCLA-141-9
*Colorado-116-5

Next is Journalism.

*Only 4% of journalists said they were Republicans
*89% voted for Bill Clinton
*A popular Magazine has 9 liberal commentators versus 2 conservative ones
*Only 7% voted for George H.W Bush
*56% favored Ronald Reagan versus only 30% of journalists
*Democrats (Aka Ed Rendell) have even said that the Medias coverage of Obama has been ridiculous
*Studies even show that they carry him by a 2:1 ratio over Mccain

Next: TV. In an ABC news poll, journalists interviewed and aired soldiers on who they were voting for president. On TV, they showed three that were for Obama and two that were for Hilary. What they did not show you were the full results. The actual survey consisted of 60 people, 54 were for Mccain, 4 for Obama, and 2 for Hilary. They didn't even bother mentioning the 54 for Mccain!

Another prime example happened this summer. Both Mccain and Obama submitted a piece on national security to the New York Times. However, only Obama's was placed in the paper as Mccain's "did not follow the format they were looking for". Readers are even getting upset as now every year their number of readers declines.


If you want to talk about Blogs, the Huffington Post is a joke. Now almost every major newspaper, excluding the Wall Street Journal, is liberal. Some, like the New York Times compromise our national security, and I can go into that of you like. So we are left with talk radio.

In the lefts utopian world they picture a completely liberal media. The only area conservatives control is talk radio and that may not be for long. If Obama is elected there is a real chance that the Fairness Doctrine is imposed. What it would do is make talk radio give 50% air time to conservatives and 50% to liberals. It would also require stations to place liberlas in their upper management. Beside this being unconstituitonal, it is not really "fair". This would completely strip conservatives of any media control, as now they would not have a majority in talk radio. But what the doctrine won't do is fix the bias in journalism, Tv, newspapers, etc.

Funny Scenario

ICE FISHING The Presidential election was too close to call. Neither the Republican candidate nor the Democratic candidate had enough votes to win.. There was much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc., but a week-long ice fishing competition seemed the sportsmanlike way to settle things. The candidate that caught the most fish at the end of the week would win the election. Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest between the two candidates to determine the winner. After much of back and forth discussion, it was decided that the contest take place on a remote frozen lake in northern Minnesot a . There were to be no observers present, and both men were to be sent out separately on this isolated lake and return at 5 P.M. with their catch for counting and verification by a team of neutral parties. At the end of the first day, McCain returned to the starting line and he had ten fish. Soon, Obama returned and had no fish. Well, everyone assumed he was just having another 'bad hair' day or something and hopefully, he would catch up the next day. At the end of the 2nd day McCain came in with 20 fish and Obama came in again with none. That evening, Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi got together secretly with Obama and said, 'Obama, I think John McCain is a low-life, cheatin' son-of-a-gun. I want you to go out tomorrow and don't even bother with fishing. Just spy on him and s ee just how he is cheating.' The next night (after McCain returns with 50 fish), Harry said to Obama, 'Well, tell me, how is John Mc. cheating?' Obama replied, 'Harry, you're not going to believe this, but he's cutting holes in the ice.' 'Experience Counts'

Quote of the Day

Quote of the day:

10/3 "In choosing a president, we really don't choose a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or liberal. We choose a leader." Rudy Giuliani

10/2 "Justice will be served And the battle will rage This big dog will fightWhen you rattle his cage And you'll be sorry that you messed with The U.S. of A. 'Cause we'll put a boot in your *ss It's the American way" -- Toby Keith, Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue



10/1 We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. -- Ronald Reagan

Biden's Experience?

Here is a closer look at the so called "foregin policy expert", Joe Biden. It looks to me that on all of these major issues he has been on the wrong side of them.

*Opposed aid to Nicauraguan Contras
*Voted against Gulf War
*Voted for Iraq War
*Wanted a 3 state solution in Iraq
*Voted against the troop surge

Sarah Palin's Foreign Policy Credentials

With Sarah Palin's supposed gaffe of saying "you can see Russia from Alaska" here's what I have to say about her foreign policy credentials (BTW I did not write this myself). Also look for another post will come shortly about Joe Biden's so called foreign policy expertise.


Before you dismiss the fact that Sarah Palin is Commander of the Alaska National Guard, consider this: Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It¢s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units. As governor of Alaska , Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's and certainly by far exceeds Obama's. She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans. Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska 's proximity to Russia , she may have security clearances we don't even know about. According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

Capital Gains Rebuttal

First of all you clearly misinterpreted what I was saying about community organizers. First, I applaud the work that community organizers do. Also, unlike many democrats, not Obama though, I strongly believe in private charities and churches provide services in lieu of government. It is just more efficient. However, my problem with Obama saying he is a community organizer is that he justifies that as experience of becoming president, because I don't think registering people to vote prepares you for making the decisions of president. Obama clearly demonstrates socialist ideas. For example income redistribution. Another example is that he will exapnd government programs. Also, I personally believe that if someone pays more then 50% of their income then that is socialism. If Obama is elected depending on what state you live in your taxes could be as high as 60%. That leads me to my next topic of tax revenues. No matter the tax that is cut, including the capital gains, revenues to the treasury have increased. When your boy JFK cut taxes heres what happened between 1962-68: 1 million jobs were created, economic growth rate increased 2.3%, and receipts to the treasury increased $20 billion. When Reagan cut income taxes in 1981 their revenue to the federal treasury nearly doubled to $1 bilion. Throughout the Reagan years taxe revenue increased 28%. Finally, in 2003 before the Bush tax cuts revenue stood at $1.9 trillion. In 2005 it was $2.5 trillion! So tax cuts do pay for themselves. With the tax rate Obama has been all over the place and we really don't know the rate he will impose. With Dick Morris it wasn't his finest but it doesn't discredit the facts he publishes even if his character is spotty, and it couldn't be worse than the democrat he worked for. Lastly, what I would ask is for you to find me a handful of economists that think the market and economy will benfit from raising taxes as Obama plans to do. On capital gains it's simple. Look I don't see the good the tax does. All it can do is discourage investment and market movement.





Fleeced by Dick Morris

Conservative Comebacks-Gregg Jackson

Biggest Flip-Flop Yet

Can this be true??? If so, this message getting out and about might put a kink in the Obama plan... time will tell. Very interesting possibility.
>
>
> Have you heard anything about this?
>
> .
> On or about October 5th, Biden will excuse himself from the ticket, citing
> health problems, and he will be replaced by Hillary. This is timed to occur
> after the VP debate on 10/2.
>
> There have been talks all weekend about how to proceed with this info.
> Generally, the feeling is that we should all go ahead and get it out there
> to as many blog sites and personal email lists as is possible. I have
> already seen a few short blurbs about this - the 'health problem' cited in
> those articles was aneurysm. Probably many of you have heard the same
> rumblings.
>
> However, at this point, with this inside info from the DNC, it looks like
> this Obama strategy will be a go. Therefore, it seems that the best
> strategy is to get out in front of this Obama maneuver, spell it out in
> detail, and thereby expose it for the grand manipulation that it is.

Capital Gains Tax

When Barack Obama talks taxes clearly does not understand them. Not surprising for community organzier. Heres why. Assuming his goal of raising the capital gains tax is to pay for his socialism he will do the exact opposite of what he wants to. The three times in history that taxes were raised where in 1981, 1997, and 2003. In the years following the revenue from those taxes soared 49%, 49%, and 88% respectively. The only time when the rate was raised, revenues decreased 44%. So how does Obama think raisng the tax from 15% to 28% think that he will get more money. Since 52% of americans own stock 52%, not the top 1% like he says, they will get a tax hike.

"Fleeced" by Dick Morris

Obama's Flip-Flops

Here is a list, not in order, of Obamas' flip-flops in his attempted move to the center. Sources can be provided if you want to contest one, there are just to many to list at once for one. Who is the real Obama? This guy has changed his position on 15 major issues. If you want to know the specifics of each comment or ill probably have them up later in the week.

1. Gun Control
2. Withdrawal from Iraq
3. Cuba Embargo
4. Capital Gains
5. Social Security tax
6. Flag Pin
7. Iran
*Originally said they were not a serious threat, now says they are a grave threat
8. Meeting with Foreign Leaders
9. Wives in campaigns
10. Fisa Bill
11. Illegal Immigration
12. Decriminalizing Marijuana
13. Special Interest Money
14. Military
*In primaries said he would weaken military, and would cut defense spending, now says he believes in strong military
15. Public Financing of campaigns

rebuttal #2

So we don't confuse ourselves, let me state this. I acknowledge the effect of specualtors on the price of oil. I also agree with the point that we must move towards alternative energy for the future as we cannot drill our way out of this. What we need to do is all of the above. When you go after oil companies heres the point. They want to drill. If there was any oil there they would drill for it. However, your arguement contradicts itself, here why. You state that drilling would be enormously profitable for oil companies. So if your logic is true how does it make sense that they have land to drill on but are not drilling? The oil companies are also inveting billions in the land they lease, so it doesn't make any sense that they investing just to sit on lands. Experts can even prove that there is little oil in those fields.

Second, offshore drilling will not take 20 years. The energy department says about five years, but if the governement got out of the way I have no doubt the amount of time would be shortened. Unlike the oil in the 68 million acres the companies have, theres oil offshore, and a lot of it. Estimates show that there is almost 60 billion barrels of crude oil, and 217 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

One area that has not been mentioned in this debate is the MASSIVE amounts of oil in the Rocky Mountain oil shale. Independent research companie say that almost 2 trillion barrels of oil exist their. Compare this to the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and you find that the Rocky Mountain Shale has 8 times as much. With the current demand using just the oil from the Rocky Mountain Shale we would have enough oil for about 124 and a half years. Surely in that time we could find an alternative. Lastly, to put into picture just how much oil we have if we fully engaged all our energy resources at home we would have more then all the countries in the world put together.

Today we get 94% of our domestic energy from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, while the other 6% comes from alternatives like wind and solar. So how does Obama think that taxing coal and natural gas and not using nuclear power will lower prices?

Finally, it is your arguement that "misses the point." Picture this scenario: we drill everywhere, and prices are still not lowered, althought that won't happen. Although the goal of lowering prices may not be solved, one will. That is that we are taking money out of the hands of countries like Russia, Iran, Syria etc by not importing or importing less of their oil. This is a national security issue. If Ahmadinejad loses his his money from oil how will he finance his nuclear ambitions and terror operations?


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33824

ontheissues.org

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

Energy rebuttal

The issue here is in fact supply and demand. When George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on oil on July 14, the price stood at about $145. Although this order ultimately had no effect on drilling, as liberal democrats in congress continue to block offshore drilling, it sent a message to the market, as on Friday oil closed at $101.1. Do the math and you will see that oild dropped almost $45 at the possibility we might drill. Second, the current energy department has stated it would be 7-12 years to get oil from ANWR. Here are some 0ther points:

We could begin drilling in ANWR and the local Alaskan people, the Alaskan natives want the drilling to occur,” she told me, “We could begin drilling in ANWR,, we could begin pumping, and we would have access to over ten billion barrels of oil.”Swell. We’ve heard that before. But the Minnesota Republican then made a point that is rarely made: that the pipelines now “are only about 50% full, and we could be able to increase that production,” but—and this is a big “but”—“there is a very narrow window of opportunity.”

“With the current permitting process that is in place,” Bachmann explained, “it could take between six to nine years to get ANWR actually pumping. Here’s other kicker--if we don’t get more oil fields open for exploration and actually pumping up in Prudhoe Bay, we only have about 10 years for the oil yet to put online, but this easily trans-Alaskan pipelines is in a very difficult place, because if they send less than 300,000 barrels a day down that pipeline, the pipeline won’t work. The pipeline initially sent 2.1 million barrels a day down through the pipeline when the field first opened. We’re now pumping maybe 700,000 barrels a day and that’s because the field is diminishing. Congress has not allowed for an expansion of oil exploration and drilling. We have to expand our oil drilling up there or we could lose the valuable gift of this pipeline, and there’s no reason not to use this. It’s in place, it’s ready to go.”So what to do? Barham pointed out that “all we have to do is build the 74 additional miles of pipeline to get to ANWR to begin the pumping of which we believe is over 10 million barrels, and we’re in business. The American people would see a 50 percent increase in American energy from what we have now. There’s absolutely no reason not to drill in ANWR and begin doing so immediately. The problem, really, is the permitting process has so many artificial delays in it and also there are about 11 different points in that permitting process where lawsuits can be filed to stop production. One thing that I did about a week or so ago was introduce a bill that would fast track the permitting process and now after visiting ANWR I want to introduce another bill that would streamline the litigation process so that we don’t have useless lawsuits that unnecessarily slow down the process of bringing oil online.”-Article from Human Events


Michael Morris, a petroleum markets expert at the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department, said drilling on the 68 million acres already leased would contribute little to the domestic oil supply. If there was much more oil to be found, the oil companies would be drilling for it, he said, since it is in their best interest to obtain more oil. “That’s pretty much tapped out,” he said of the 68 million acres. “And they’ve done seismic surveys of those areas, and they haven’t found much.”-CNS news



http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33824

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/index.html

http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24wtic

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27679

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/methodology.html

Democrats on Energy

If you're tired of paying $4 for a gallon of gas these numbers cannot be ignored. Although we must look beyond oil, for the time being we must drill. Even if in theory prices did not drop, we could at least get the satisfaction of knowing we are not sending billions and billions to leaders of rogue regimes that hate us.

ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid House Republicans: 97 % Supported House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oi l Shale Exploration House Republicans: 90% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration House Republicans: 81% Supported House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity House Republicans: 97% Supported House Democrats: 96% Opposed

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil a and gas.

Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum. Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR. Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida. Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast. Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast. Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast. Democrats have blocked building oil refineries. Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production. Democrats have blocked clean coal production.

Welcome

Welcome to United We Stand. This blog will present fair, and factual opinions. I encourage conservatives, liberals, independents, and moderates to post here. Anything posted along the lines of racism, hate, criminal etc. will not be tolerated. Lets make this work