Friday, February 29, 2008

What does Senator Barack Obama Stand For?

There is a groundswell of support for Senator Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination for President. Some have called it a "movement". I've heard the question asked in other places and never heard an answer. What does Barack Obama stand for? If you're going to vote for him, please state why and be specific. If you're going to say he's for "change" please give some specifics about those changes.

If you're going to vote for Obama, why? What does Senator Barack Hussein Obama stand for?

Brett

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Are Democrats Concerned about The Safety of the United States?

The recent debate over the FISA extension bill has created several questions. Recently, the FISA bill was about to expire. Congress passed some extensions while they debated or didn’t get around to debating the merits of the bill. This bill will allow the Government to monitor communications coming into this country from foreign countries and to monitor communications going to other countries from this country.

On February 22, 2008, the final extension given to this act, expired. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, decided not to allow it on the floor for debate and a vote but instead sent the House packing for it’s vacation.

On February 28, 2008 President Bush held a press conference. His main concern for this was the passing of the act. His claim is that this bill not being passed puts Americans at risk. What did the House do on February 28? They passed a tax increase on Oil Companies and sent it to the Senate.

The sticking point to the leadership of the House on the FISA bill is that they don’t want to give immunity to communication companies if they are sued for sharing information with the Federal government on communications. Notice, I said the “leadership of the House”. If this were allowed to the floor of the House, the compromise bill from the Senate would pass. Nancy Pelosi seems to think that it is more important to tax oil companies than to protect the safety of the American people. This tax would increase the cost of gasoline at the pump for Americans, while the Democrats go on television complaining of the high cost of gas.

I believe that just in the reasoning of the House leadership you can see that the safety of the American people is not high on their list. What other evidence is out there that might indicate the Democrats have no concern for the American people’s safety?

I looked back at the most recent democrat Presidency. That of William Jefferson Clinton. There is quite a list of terrorist acts perpetrated on this country from 1993 through 2000. Clinton took office on January 20, 1993 and left office on January 20, 2001. Following is a list of terrorist attacks on this country during that time.


January 25 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others

February 26 1993: World Trade Center bombing kills six and injures over 1000 people, by coalition of five groups:

March 1: In the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting, Rashid Baz kills a Hasidic seminary student and wounds four on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City

April 19 : Oklahoma City bombing kills 168 people, 19 of them children; the most deadly act of domestic terrorism in the United States to date.

June 25: Khobar Towers bombing – In all, 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded, by Hizballah Al-Hijaz (Saudi Hizballah) with Iranian support,

February 24: Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda,

October 12 2000: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port of Aden, by al-Qaeda;

What did Bill Clinton do during those years? In February of 1993, barely a month after taking over the Presidency, he went on National television and said that he’d worked very hard, but just couldn’t find a way to give the middle class the tax break that he promised during his campaign.

In 1993 he started the siege at Waco and ended up killing Americans. Granted, David Koresh played games. However, one day prior to the siege, Koresh was watched as he ate an ice cream in town. They let him go and instead decided to serve him with their warrant the next day. On April 19, they decided to push tanks into the citizens at Waco killing many including David Koresh.

There were the numerous scandals during his administration. The health care debacle run by his wife, Hillary Clinton and who can forget the ATF breaking into a home and taking Elian Gonzalez, and 8 year old boy, and shipping him back to Cuba.

There were no less than two chances to kill Osama bin Laden that he passed on, once because he couldn’t be bothered due to watching a golf tournament on television.

There were three opportunities for President Clinton to be given Osama bin Laden that President Clinton passed on saying later that he had no crimes with which to charge bin Laden.

President Clinton sent our military to Kosovo, Haiti and Serbia. He left Rangers without the necessary backup and ammunition to protect themselves and fifteen of our best were dragged through the streets.

While the blowing up of TWA Flight 800 wasn’t and isn’t listed as a terrorist attack, it is my belief (without any proof) that it was an attack and it was covered up by the Clinton administration. There is quite a bit of Jamie Gorelick’s hand in that event.

His reign ended with the attack on the USS Cole. Again, he did nothing. During his years, Clinton took the intelligence of this country and removed the emphasis off of the human element and moved it towards technology. This removed intelligence on the ground. Human intelligence. In addition, we all know that he cut the military.

In November of 2000 the election took place between George Bush and Al Gore. It lasted 35 days before it was decided who the President would be.

George Bush took over as President in January 2001. The spring and summer was spent putting cabinet officials in place and getting their confirmations over. It was spent replacing the W’s on the keyboards in the White House when the former administration left behind petty vandalism.

Less than 7 months after taking office.....

September 11: Attacks kill 2,997 immediately, and many more later from exposure to toxic dust in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane, originally intended to hit the United States Capitol Building, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after an apparent revolt against the hijackers by the plane's passengers; by Al-Qaeda, being the most catastrophic terrorist event ever known.

On October 7, 2001 President Bush announced the beginning of the war on terror by sending the military to Afghanistan. There have been no attacks since. There have been attempts, but they’ve been thwarted. The ones we know about; the attempt to have ten planes coming from Britain blown up over US cities is the best known, have been stopped.

In the past year, the Democrats have said over and over that it’s time to get out of Iraq. The Bush strategy was not working and we need to leave Iraq. When Bush changed the strategy and sent in the surge, nearly immediately it had an affect. Bombings are down, attacks are down, military deaths are down, civilian deaths are down. The Iraqi’s are taking over more and more of their own security. The government is beginning to take steps to take over their own country. The Democrats say we need to come out.

Even now, the Democrat Congress is passing measures to try to stop funding for the war. They are determined to end the war before it’s won despite the fact that we’re winning.

So what happens in the future? I’ve always believed that after the next election, when we have a new President, regardless of which party that President comes from, that the terrorists would step up their attempts to attack us. Whether this is a test to see if the new President would be tough on them as was Bush or just to see how far they can take the next President.

I believe this is more likely with a Democrat President than it is with a Republican President, but I still believe that the attempt will be made even if McCain is the next President.

The question is how will it be handled. When the attack on September 11, 2001 happened, there were comments made by former Clinton people that it’s too bad it didn’t happen during Clinton’s administration. He could have become the President that the nation rallied around rather than President Bush. It would have eliminated the stories of impeachment, his constant affairs and accusations of sexual harassment, rape and lawsuits and the myriad of scandals. It would have eliminated the talk of all of those that were imprisoned from his administration.

In other words, it would have been about President Clinton instead of the attacks on the American people.

Given all of these stories, and petty acts of President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton and his people that left their jobs when President Bush took over, I can only believe that Democrats are more interested in how they look, rather than what’s best for the United States of America.

Given the eagerness of the Democrats to surrender in Iraq and to go on vacation rather than do the work that is necessary to protect this country from attack, I have no choice but to believe that the Democrats are more interested in their own personal agenda rather than the protection of the United States.

It’s been reported that during the attack on September 11, 2001, there were two planes that didn’t hit their mark. One didn’t get off the ground in Boston and the other was taken down by the passengers in Pennsylvania. One of those planes were meant for the Capitol and the other was meant for the Capitol building. I find it interesting that the people of the United States (those on Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania) made the ultimate sacrifice and quite possibly saved the lives of the members of both Houses of Congress, yet the Democrats in Congress aren’t interested in saving lives of Americans across this country and the world by doing something simple, like passing the protection act.

Are Democrats concerned about the safety of the United States? My answer is no. They are concerned about how they are perceived. They don’t want to win the war unless they can take credit for it. After 8 years of one Democrat doing nothing, and a Republican attacking the problem within 8 months of taking office and NO ATTACKS SINCE I find it impossible to believe that Democrats care at all about the American people.

With the Democrats ignoring the FISA law, yet passing tax increases on the American people through the oil companies, it seems to speak volumes about their priorities. They want to take more of your hard earned money, but they aren’t interested in extending a law that has worked.
The Republicans were wrong for spending like Democrats and lost their majority over it. Bush was wrong for not vetoing all of the spending the Republicans did and paid the price by losing his back-up in the House and Senate. Unfortunately, the price will be paid by the American people in higher taxes and less security if the Democrats are put in power in the White House and even worse if they are given the majority in the House and Senate as well.

There will be one change that will take place, however. When we are attacked again, we will see over and over the pictures of the attack. Something that we haven’t been permitted to see after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Brett

Monday, February 25, 2008

Who Really Pays the Taxes in this Country?

Now that we’re in the waning months of the George Bush Presidency, one of the larger topics that comes up is the taxes. Both Senators Obama and Clinton are saying flat out that they will eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich. That they will increase the taxes on the rich and the corporations.

Four years ago, in the campaign leading up to the 2004 elections, this was also a topic. It was discovered at that time that John Kerry, the Democrat Presidential nominee who was in favor of eliminating the Bush tax cuts, paid 12% on his taxes. He and his wife are millionaire’s, yet they paid 12% in taxes. Through choices that they’ve made in their investing, they were able to pay less taxes.

In Michigan, the median income is $42,000 per year. Which means that the citizens of Michigan pay more, percentage wise, than John Kerry and his wife (the ketchup queen).

So if you’re making $40,000 per year, you’re paying your taxes, usually deducted from your paycheck. At the end of the year, you figure out your taxes and find that you are getting money back from the government for your taxes. It’s not that you’re not paying taxes, you just overpaid your taxes and they are returning the excess amount that you paid. They do not give you interest for the use of your money. They just return your overpayment.

So who’s paying the majority of taxes in this country? People that earn the most money are paying more than their share of the taxes. Those earning the top 50% in this country are paying 96.03% of the taxes. These figures are from the latest information available which was 2001. I have placed the chart from the US Treasury on the side.

Let’s forget about that portion for a moment and look at income. If you’re making $40,000 per year and you’re paying 28% in taxes, your tax bill is $11,200. If you’re making $140,000 per year, paying a 33% tax rate, your tax bill is $46,200 per year.

So what does everyone get for their tax money? What benefit are the richer getting that the middle class is not getting? Even if we went to a flat tax, and everyone paid 17% income tax on what they earned in a year as was proposed by Steve Forbes years ago when he ran for President. Again, using the same numbers. If you earned $40,000 per year your tax bill is $6,800 per year. If you’re earning $140,000 per year, your tax bill is $23,800 per year.

Again, I ask. What extra do the rich get for their taxes paid? Bigger house? They earned it, they made more money. More expensive car? They earned it, they made more money.

The rich don’t get their own lane in traffic. They have to deal with the same lanes as the rest of us when they drive somewhere. The gas they buy isn’t better than the gas we buy. They use the same gas. If I’m wrong on this, someone please point out where the gas stations are that say “Rich people here, poor people over there.”

Another fact is that corporations do not pay taxes. They write the checks for the taxes, but they don’t pay them. Corporations offer a product. The price of that product is determined by the cost to the Corporation to produce that product. First you need a building to produce the product. That has expenses built into it, such as heating, electricity, water. Then there is the worker to make the product. He/she must be paid and included in that cost is the expense of their health care provided by the company.

The company must also pay into social security for that worker in addition to the amount that the worker pays from his pay.

The company must also come up with their profit level. After all, they are in business to make money. There are costs involved with improving their product and adding other products on that enhance the first product. Then they are taxed for their business. That too is built into the price of the product.

By the time the product gets to the store shelf, the cost of creating the product are all figured into it to come up with a price to charge the consumer. That price includes the taxes the corporation must pay as well as the profit that they earn.

Corporations don’t pay the taxes, they build them into the cost of the product. When it arrives at the store, the store then adds their markup. After all, it costs them to provide space to put the product so that you’ll see it and buy it. They too have many of the same expenses that the corporation has. Utilities, store space, workers, their social security, their health care, and so on.

Once you pick up that product to buy it, you take it to the clerk to make your purchase, then another tax is added. Sales tax. The store doesn’t cover that for you. The corporation doesn’t cover that for you. You pay it. Now the liberal candidates are telling us that they will increase the taxes on corporations. The corporations aren’t going to pay this out of the goodness of their hearts. They will increase the price of their product.
What about personal taxes?

As you go through your personal taxes this year, look at your W-2 form. See how much in taxes was withheld. Then look at your tax form and see how much of that you’re getting back. Subtract how much you’re getting back from how much you’ve paid. Then just for fun, add $100,000 to your income and figure out what you’d have paid and the question that everyone should have is why are they paying so much more? Shouldn’t they be paying the same amount? What added benefit do they get from their taxes paid that I don’t get?

Compare the chart on the side of this blog and ask yourself why richer people are paying so much more proportionately than we are. What added benefit do they get that I don’t get? I’d really like to know the answer to that question.

Brett

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Big Brother is coming for our DNA

On Wednesday, February 13, 2008 the House Judiciary Committee has voted to bring to the House floor legislation that requires that DNA will be collected at the time of arrest.

If this bill passes, and is signed into law, you can be arrested and your DNA taken and placed into a database. Apparently, they’ve added something to the original bill that was proposed. If you’re found not guilty, your DNA information will then be destroyed.

Proponents of the law, which is dubbed Katie’s law for a graduate student that died a violent death, say that it will save lives. If you’re arrested and you’ve committed a crime in the past where they have some DNA from that previous crime, but they don’t have your DNA, they will then be able to run you through a national database in the hopes that you’ll be caught from that DNA sample and they can charge with that crime. It’s difficult to argue against it using that logic.

Does the good that this laws advocates state outweigh the possibilities of abuse and infringe on people’s rights? Let’s examine that. First, the day the law is enacted, the law enforcement community will need to start building their database. Remember, this is a government function. We already know how imperfect they are at nearly everything. Social security is failed government program. Medicare is a failed government program. On the state level, we just went through a couple of tax increases because the state was supposedly broke, but then after the law was passed, they miraculously found millions of dollars. Notice they didn’t correct their “mistake” by returning the money to the taxpayer. Can we trust the government at any level to operate this successfully?

Assume for moment that you’re driving down the road. You reach over to adjust the radio and you drift across the line into the next lane. You notice it and move back where you belong. Unfortunately for you, the officer sitting in the speed trap also noticed you cross the line. The lights come on, and before you know it, he’s behind you expecting you to pull over. You pull over and he implies that you’ve been drinking. He orders you out of the car, puts you against the car and searches you, puts the handcuffs on and tells you that you’re being arrested for possible drunk driving. You’ve now been arrested and you’re going to be required to give your DNA. Whatever else happens, your DNA is now collected.

If they find that you’re not guilty, according to the law, they are supposed to destroy your DNA. However, before they release you, your DNA is released around the country to all of the other law enforcement agencies. Are they also required to destroy the results of the DNA test?

Let’s try one more example. Your 13 year old son is throwing a baseball outside. One gets away from him and goes through the neighbors window. The neighbor is very upset and he comes out using foul language. You come out to find out what the commotion is about and you start yelling at your neighbor for using the foul language. Your wife is nervous about the yelling so she calls the police who come right out and witness you and your neighbor arguing. They decide to arrest you and your neighbor for disturbing the peace. They also arrest your son for destruction of property. They handcuff the three of you and haul you in. They take DNA from the three of you. You and your neighbor are charged with disturbing the peace. The police run the DNA through the database and you, your neighbor and your son all are clear from any history of criminality where DNA was found.

Since disturbing the peace is not a felony, yours and your neighbors DNA is supposed to be destroyed. Did the rest of the nation destroy the reports too? Alas ,there is a problem for your son. He’s charged with destruction of property. He’s found guilty. Unfortunately for him, the window he broke was a picture window worth $2,000. Is that amount enough to classify it as a felony? If so, your 13 year old son, now not only has a record, but he also has his DNA kept in the database for the rest of his life. You have a 13 year old felon living under your roof and his DNA is on file with the law enforcement community. All because your neighbor lost his temper and you went out to defend and protect your son.

Normally, in this situation the two neighbors would get it settled and if it were my dad when I was 13, he’d have paid for the neighbors window to be replaced and I’d have had to work off the cost of the window and repay my dad. Or, if the neighbors were arguing like that and the police showed up, they’d just calm everyone down and there would be no arrests. Now, with the opportunity to collect DNA the incentive for them to settle it without arrests is gone.

Some would say, so what? Even if they collect your DNA, if you haven’t done anything wrong you’ll have nothing to worry about. Or, if you never do anything wrong, it won’t matter if they have your DNA. Others might say I’m being paranoid and that the police wouldn’t just go out and start collecting DNA because they can.

To the first, I’d say, how do you know I have nothing to worry about? Suppose they catalogue my DNA wrong? Suppose they don’t destroy it, or some other state doesn’t destroy the reports that come through their computers on me. This is probably worse than the old days when you might have an FBI file created if you protested the war in Ann Arbor and they found out your name.

To the second, about being paranoid and that the police wouldn’t start collecting to build their database, I would have to ask where this trust in officials comes from? Remember, we had a man in the highest office in this land that resigned the Presidency due to his actions that came about from a simple burglary in a hotel. Or another President, that was impeached for lying about his relationship with a girl that was near his daughters age.

Or perhaps we should look at Congress. A Representative from Delaware that drove drunk into a barrier in Washington DC a couple of years ago. Or another Representative that was E-mailing Capitol pages with sexual references in those E-mails. He resigned. We could make it more local by talking about the State government. Those that raised our taxes last year twice. Then after the tax increases were in place, they found $360 million dollars, but didn’t return it to the taxpayers. Let’s move more local. The Mayor of Detroit who lied about an affair in court, then after the case is over, it’s discovered he lied, his Chief of Staff lied, and it comes to light from text messages. Now it’s being reported that it’s tied somehow to a stripper that was murdered.

Let’s get even more local. In Lansing, a man was convicted of a murder at the community college in Lansing. He spent nearly a year in prison before another man confessed to the murder. Now it’s being reported that the prosecutor had knowledge of the first mans innocence but didn’t provide that evidence at the time of trial. They got their conviction and the man was wrongly imprisoned which apparently was known as they were trying to convict him. I’d even argue that those actions cost five other women their lives.

How about the judge that was just reported on today as having manipulated evidence in her court in Lansing. We can even use a local example of a policeman that shot himself, then claimed he was shot by a black man, in Grand Ledge. That turned out to not be true.

The argument that government officials won’t abuse the DNA, during the collecting, during the supposed destruction of the DNA, in prosecuting, in judging and in sentencing is being not just a bit na├»ve, but irresponsible.

We have a presumption of innocence in this country. We should not be opening the doors for arrests for the sake of collecting DNA from citizens just to maintain them in a database. Once someone is convicted of a crime, if they want to put that persons DNA in a database, that would make much more sense. They do have reason to believe that this person would in the future be a possible candidate for another crime.

However, this law is making the assumption that everyone is going to, at some point, commit a crime and this will help them catch them faster. That takes away freedom from the masses for the purpose of catching a few. There are too many avenues in this legislation and the enforcement of it, for mistakes as well as abuse.

In addition to all of the reasons and examples above, this takes health information and gathers it and puts it in the hands of the government. Your privacy with your health will now be infringed on by the State by letting them collect DNA from you. Maybe someday I’ll add to this with talk about the Aryan race and the State of Michigan if this law passes.

This is bad legislation and infringes on the rights of the citizens of this state and smacks of big brother.

Brett

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Joe Schwarz left the Republican Party

Former Representative Joe Schwarz left the Republican party and became an Independent recently. For those that don’t remember, Schwarz was the Representative for the area surrounding Battle Creek, Michigan. In 2006, he lost his primary election to Tim Wahlberg. Tim Wahlberg went on to win the House seat.

Schwarz was a one term Representative. He ran as a conservative, but governed as a liberal. I voted for Schwarz in 2004. During his campaign he called himself conservative, saying that he was for lower taxes and other conservative issues. He talked the talk. Unfortunately, during his two years, he didn’t walk the walk. He voted for tax increases. He voted against the family by choosing on the side of same sex marriage and joined the Democrats in other issues.

In 2006, if he ran unopposed, I was not going to vote for him. I would have voted for the other issues on the ballot but left my vote blank for that seat had he been the nominee. In effect, I was saying ‘you did a poor job and you’re fired’. Luckily, Tim Wahlberg was running for his seat and he too claimed to be a Conservative. This presented a problem. I had already voted for Schwarz based on his words two years earlier and got a wolf in sheeps clothing. My decision came down to, I can’t trust Schwarz, I don’t know if I can trust Wahlberg. Having voted for one that claimed to be conservative, how did I know I’d get a conservative this time? My decision came down to this answer. I couldn’t. However, I knew Schwarz to be a liberal and I couldn’t vote for him. If I made the same mistake with Wahlberg, I could vote against him in two years. I hadn’t lost anything, and hopefully, I’ll actually gain a conservative.

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one thinking that way. As it turned out, Joe Schwarz was one of only two incumbents that were voted out in the primaries. The other was Cynthia McKinney from Georgia. Do you remember her? She’s the liberal that slapped a DC cop because she didn’t feel she should have to show her ID to get into the Capitol building. Good company for Schwarz to be in.

Now in a Detroit News editorial, they show comments from Schwarz that Republicans are not open to ideas so he’s given up his membership in the Republican party and gone independent.

Former Representative Schwarz apparently doesn’t get it. The people voted him out. Not the Republican party. The PEOPLE IN HIS DISTRICT. He failed the people of his district and they said goodbye to him.

I vote conservative. I’m even more adamant about that now than in the past. I don’t like to settle for second best. Joe Schwarz independence is not independent. He’s liberal. He may be a right wing liberal by Democrat standards, but since the Democrat Party has gone liberal, and he’s chosen to join with the Democrats in nearly all of his positions, that to me, makes him a liberal. I have no more tolerance for liberals with my ballot.
Joe Schwarz is whining that Republicans don’t want him. He’s wrong. Republicans want him. Conservatives however, don’t want him representing them. When a politician loses and says it’s the Republican’s fault I can only play the part of the psychobabblists and say that he’s in denial.

The House and Senate Democrats in Washington say that they need to get rid of President Bush and his policies, that they are all wrong for America. What they are saying is that 52% of the people in this country were wrong in the last election. That they don’t know what they’re doing.

They are completely ignoring the people of this country who elected George Bush to be President. They are in effect saying that the people of this country are stupid. Joe Schwarz is saying that the people of his district are intolerant and not open to new ideas.

Former Representative Joe Schwarz, you’re wrong. I’m open to new ideas and I’m very tolerant. What I am not open to is the same old liberal ideas that have failed over and over for years. What I am intolerant of is, is politicians that think they know what’s best for the American people in spite of those people’s statements of their desires as stated in their votes.

Former Representative Joe Schwarz, you’re wrong. You were voted out because you offered the same old ideas from the left while telling everyone you were conservative. In other words Former Representative Joe Schwarz, you lied to your constituents and paid the price by losing your seat. It’s been a year and a half and your successor has been doing a good job and not disappointing his constituents and not lying to his constituents. I think it’s time you got over yourself.

I do wish you well with your new Independent status. I’m sure that it will get you several appearances on the Tim Skubick show, but as you probably should have learned by now, being popular in the liberal press isn’t the same as serving your constituents.

Brett

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Clinton clean up after Bush?

One of Senator Hillary Clinton’s lines in her campaign is that it took her husband to clean up after the first Bush and that she’s the right one to clean up after another Bush.

In the waning days of the 1992 election campaign between George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, special prosecutor Walsh indicted five from the Bush administration for a second time. Bush had moved within 3 points of Clinton with just a week to go before the election. That’s when Walsh indicted the five for a second time. His first indictment of them was found to have no merit. The second indictment would lead the news and five days was not enough time to get the results of that indictment cleared up.

Another focal point was the Clinton’s “It’s the economy stupid” claiming that Bush’s economy was the worst in 50 years. By the time the truth came out, the election was over. The economy had grown at a 4.6% pace for the fourth quarter of 1992.

Those are just two examples of lies and deceit prior to the election. There are more. Such as the middle class tax cut promised by Clinton. Instead, he went on television in February and said he’d never worked so hard but he just couldn’t justify a middle class tax cut.

Having succeeded at winning the election we then went into 8 years of scandals. Some major, some minor and some just plain silly. For example, there was the travel office scandal. Several members of the travel office were fired, told to pack up what they could carry, whisked into a van and dumped on the streets of Washington D.C. This was reported as a Hillary Operation.

Whitewater filled our news for several years and much money was spent. There was also the $100,000 in cattle futures by Hillary. The 900 FBI files that were improperly taken. Remember the famous question? Who hired Craig Livingston? We never did find out about that. Then there was Arlington-gate, where someone was buried in Arlington Cemetery without the proper credentials (for lack of a better term).

At Christmas time, there was the Christmas tree decorated with Condoms and various other X-rated baubles. Don’t forget about Vince Foster and his suicide where he shot twice after walking into Fort Marcy Park and managed to do so without getting his shoes dirty. Then the ensuing stories about how his wife didn’t want Hillary there and the stories that went around about an affair between Foster and Hillary.

There were also all of the dead bodies associated with Bill and Hillary Clinton going back to their days in Arkansas. Add to that Vince Foster, the girl in the Commerce Department found dead after Thanksgiving weekend.

Then the scandals involving their close friends appointed to jobs within the administration. Webb Hubbell, Mike Espy, Henry Cisneros, Ron Brown, and then Ron Brown’s death.
There were stories about Bill’s affairs with various women. Starting with Gennifer Flowers before he was elected, and followed by Paula Jones, Walter Mondale’s daughter, Juanita Broadderick, Kathleen Willey and a host of others.

The things that he lied about that just weren’t necessary to lie about. Smoking marijuana but didn’t inhale. Making a cross out of stones that just happened to be laying there. Picking up a flag that had fallen(?) and placing it back where it belonged. Dancing on the beach where there just happened to be music playing.

How he loathed the military (his words), and the proved it by not giving 15 Rangers what the ammo they needed to stay alive, which led to Osama bin laden to say that that incident and the exit by the U. S. proved to him that the American’s wouldn’t be able to last in a war.

There were the numerous attacks on the United States soil during the 8 years that were treated as criminal acts and not as the acts of war that they were. How he refused to take bin laden when he had the chance and was offered him.

Finally, there was the scandal involving Bill and Monica Lewinsky. The girl that was but a year or two older than his own daughter who was happy to show him her thong. The girl that gave him a cigar. The girl that saved he blue dress with his DNA on it. The lies that he told in testimony to the prosecutor that caused him to be impeached.

At long last his eight years were coming to an end. After a 35 day election process George W. Bush was elected as the 43rd President. He was sworn in and had his inaugural while t he Clinton administration was moving out of the White House. The Clinton’s that took ash trays, silverware, dishware, and anything else they could get their hands on that had any identification of the White House on them. As one final act of vandalism, those working in the Clinton White House, who were about to leave to make room for the Bush administration then vandalized the computer keyboards by removing the “W’s” from them.

I think it’s safe to say that the Clinton’s cleaned up before Bush took office. With petty thievery, vandalism. But they weren’t taking from the Bush’s. They were taking from the American people. Those items were paid for with tax dollars.

I don’t think we need a Clinton to clean up after Bush. Bush had to clean up after Clinton. Now, just as we’re headed into elections there is report that Clinton skipped town in New Hampshire without paying their rent of $500 for a weeks use of a building. In addition, the landlord had to clean up after the Clinton’s. They left trash laying all over and the landlord had to clean that up.

We don’t need Clinton. We can’t afford the bill of the housekeeping for places that they leave. http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080208/NEWS/802080448

Brett

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

The Fifth Option?

The question has been raised. Where do the Conservatives go now that it appears that John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee?

It should be becoming more and more obvious to everyone that John McCain is not a Conservative. If he were truly a Conservative he wouldn’t have to spend more time and money trying to convince the world that he is Conservative. The primaries continue to show that he is not a Conservative. The votes from Conservatives are being distributed between Romney and Huckabee. Everything else goes to McCain. This led to a jump in the lead for delegates for John McCain on Super Tuesday. It will be a minor miracle for Romney or Huckabee to come back and defeat McCain now. So where do the Conservatives go?

There are options. 1. Hold your nose and vote for McCain. 2. Vote for the Democrat, whichever one that turns out to be. 3. Don’t vote at all. 4. Vote for your state and local officials and issues, but leave the Presidential portion blank.

Under option 1, I think McCain can win if the Conservatives just vote their party despite their distaste for McCain. Under option 2, the argument is to give the Democrat your vote and watch them become a one term President. Then we can get our guy in after that term. But what if the Democrat doesn’t hurt the country in the first four years? Then you have another term of the same liberal. Under option 3, by not voting at all, you’ve handed the Presidency to the liberals. Option 4 is one that I sort of like. I believe that if you leave a spot blank on the ballot it is more of a statement than not voting at all. The bad part of that is that we still have the liberal Democrat.

I believe there is a fifth option. It means involvement by people and I worry that not enough will take the iniative to do what it takes, however small that involvement. Make the important part of your vote the Representatives and Senators. Not just on the national level, but on the local level as well. Demand this summer that your Representatives and Senators, both state and federal, be Conservative. To do this, we must become very active and very vocal. Inform your local Republican and Democrat parties that if they want your vote, they are going to have to prove they are Conservative. That means, lower taxes, less regulation, less interference from all levels of government. I'm afraid that the local and state affiliates for the Republican party will have to be swayed to our way of thinking. So we must keep in touch with them on a regular basis.

In 1994, we had leaders that led the Conservative movement. They were in Government or in the public eye. Newt Gingrich. Tom DeLay, J.C.Watts, Steve Largent. Remember the Contract with America? They proposed it, promised it and then followed through with what they promised once they were elected. Due to them, Clinton was stopped from many troubling things he tried to do and still got welfare reform through as well as a balanced budget and a few other good things. It wasn't perfect, but it was better.

Who are the leaders today? I don’t see any leaders for Conservatism out there today. We depended on the leaders in government in 94. Now it’s time we took the lead by not just encouraging Conservatives to run, but by INSISTING that those running be Conservative.

Get in touch with your party’s local group and tell them you demand Conservatives. Get in touch with the State Party and tell them you demand Conservatives. They get no time from us unless they put forth Conservatives. Get in touch with your State Representative and State Senator and your Representative and Senator for the Federal Government and tell them you demand that they be Conservative or you’ll vote against them. You won’t donate your hard earned money unless the party puts Conservatives on the ballot.

We can’t sit on our hands and wait for a leader to show up. We have to demand that the Conservatives show up and stand up for Conservative values before they can put a sign in our yard or get a $10 bill from us as a donation.

If we then get Conservatives on the ballots, when a President McCain proposes another amnesty plan, and you know he will, our Representatives will be able to tell him “not on my watch”. That President McCain will then have to negotiate with Conservatives. The people must also be involved when bad legislation comes up. E-mail’s, faxes, phone calls. They work. We proved it last year in the immigration debate.

We can then render McCain’s liberal tendencies impotent. All tax bills start in the House. All bills start in the House or the Senate. By having Conservative representatives in the House and Senate, the Conservatives must finally begin to show a backbone which is the one thing that hasn’t been shown even when Conservatives had the majority.

So the Fifth Option puts the work on us. We can negate McCain’s liberalism by loading up the House and Senate with Conservatives. The real question then is, will we? Are we willing to do what it takes to offset McCain’s liberal tendencies? After all, a President can do nothing to hurt us if we’re in the House and Senate.

Brett

Tax Cuts for the Rich only?

If you listen to the liberals in Washington D.C. and the two liberal candidates running on the Democrat party side, you'll hear how they will repeal the Bush tax cuts to the rich. The liberals have held both houses of Congress for a year now and they have not repealed those cuts. But then they haven't done anything else either other than blow alot of hot air.

Now that we're in the election season, the Democrats are down to their final two liberals vying for their party's nomination and both of them also say they'll roll back the Bush tax cuts.

So what are these tax cuts for the rich that they're talking about? Let's look at a comparison between the Clinton years and the Bush years.

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K - Tax $8,400 Tax-$4,500
Single making 50K - Tax $14,000 Tax-$12,500
Single making 75K - Tax $23,250 Tax-$18,750

Married making 60K Tax-$16,800 Tax -$9,000
Married making 75K Tax-$21,000 Tax-$18,750
Married making 125K Tax-38,750 Tax-$31,250

The source for the above is www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Have you seen this in the media? I haven't.

At each level of income listed above, the taxes under Bush are nearly half what they were during Clinton. So where is the logic behind the liberals comments of rolling back the Bush tax cuts?

By doing so, they are hurting the everyday American family and the everyday American worker. This tells me that Clinton and Obama are both lying. They are going to raise your taxes. If you're still uncertain, let me help you. You should have just recently received your W-2 forms for last year. Find your income level on the chart above and see if you're falling into one of the categories above.

Brett