About Me

Name: Brandon O'Neal...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 
Rush Limbaugh
Citizens Against Government Waste
Glenn Beck

Did we really expect anything different?

By now I am sure that you have heard or read about the outrage that AIG has caused over their 165 million dollars worth of bonuses to company executives. The outrage is real and warranted, but a fundamental look at the situation will take you to an all too common conclusion. AIG, the world's leading international insurance agency, is stationed and operable in over 130 countries and jurisdictions. The federal government, currently led by Barack Obama and the Pelosi Democrats, decided that a failing AIG needed 85 billion dollars of taxpayer money to ensure the insurance giant did not go under. The only problem, aside from the government intervening in the private sector, was that AIG was not required to explain how the money would be spent or how they planned to make their company more competitive and profitable. Because of this lack of foresight, the federal government is not mighty angry over all of the bonus money that AIG is shelling out to its "top" employees. Examples like this are precisely why the federal government should stay out of the private sector. If a company is mismanaged or fails to meet customers needs and desires, they should be allowed to fail, no matter how big they are. Some lessons in life are learned the hard way and some never seem to be learned at all. Failing businesses learn the hard way when they fail. The must either reorganize and plan for success or go under. Unfortunately, the American people have failed to learn that just about everything the federal government puts their hands on turns into incompetence. Just look at the line at the DMV, the mess that social security is in, and now how they have misunderstood and are now mismanaging the private sector. The American people will someday learn that the federal government does not deserve a seat at the table which is the private sector. Unfortunately, by the time we do, there may not be any food left on the table.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

must check this conservative site out!!

   www.voicewithavote.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

very good conservative site

I stumbled across this site and thought that people may enjoy it as well
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Business as usual

All of the promises sounded great! Health care for all, lower taxes for most and a change in the way that we do business in Washington. It sounded too good to be true. There is an old adage that I was reminded of often during the presidential campaign of Barack Obama and it goes something like, if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. Unfortunately, not enough people had heard this saying before they stepped into that voting booth. Anyway, about that change in the way we do business promise that Barack often repeated on the campaign trail, the one that was supposed to eliminate the practice of jamming unnecessary spending into bills that are passing through congress on the way to the President's desk, I wonder what happened to that one? Oh, yeah, the 410 BILLION DOLLAR spending bill, that's what happened to it. The bill that was jammed full of 9,000 earmarks. Earmark, you ask? That is when a member of congress inserts spending proposals into bills in which the money will be sent to their home states to be spent on unnecessary objects or ideas. It's a way to look like a hero to your home state constituents. Barack promised us that he would eliminate the problem if he were chosen as the President. However, a close look at this spending bill, heck even a far away look will reveal 9,000 earmarks, many of which were inserted by the very people that now reside in the Obama administration. The current administration is responsible for 155.9 million dollars worth of spending on projects that will "help" their home states. Here are Obama's 6 administration members that wasted your tax dollars without you even knowing it!

Vice President Joe Biden, as Senator from Delaware, inserted 56 earmarks into this bill that total 52.1 million dollars. Pocket change, right?

Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, as a House member from Illinois, inserted 16 earmarks that totaled 8.3 million.

As a Democratic Senator from Colorado, Ken Salazar, now the Interior Secretary, inserted 44.6 million dollars worth of earmarks.

Transportation Secretary, Ray, LaHood, as a Republican congressman from Illinois, inserted 26.5 million dollars worth of earmarks.

Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, inserted 15.5 million dollars worth as a Democratic House member from California.

Hillary Clinton, former New York Senator and now the Secretary of State, inserted 6.7 million dollars worth of unnecessary spending into this massive bill.

And then, as if the signing of this bill was not nauseating enough in its hypocrisy, President Obama had this to say during his signing statement,

"Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability."

I don't know about you, but that sounds very similar to the drug addict that tells his family that he has just snorted his last line of cocaine, like the alcoholic that just finished his last beer or like the politician that promises us all that things are finally going to change. Yeah, right Mr. President. As I said in the title to this article, the store that we call our government is open, and it is business as usual in Washington.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

www.voicewithavote.com

Found this very good conservative website at www.voicewithavote.com.
It includes a forum page, a listing of all united states senators with their contact info, interesting news stories and much much more! I highly reccomend you checking it out!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thank you Rush, you speak for many of us!!

God I love Rush Limbaugh! Now there is a man that should run for President of the United States. I was watching a video clip of Rush Limbaugh addressing the CPAC convention the other day and he really did a great job of pointing a few things out. He was quick to defend his stance that he hopes President Obama fails. While the liberal media, or drive by media as Rush would put it, would like you to believe that Limbaugh's wishes of an Obama failure are unpatriotic and treasonous, the thinking man comes up with a completely different viewpoint. To me, an Obama failure means that TRILLIONS, yes I used the T word, of wasteful spending will not get the country on the path to recovery and success. It would mean that the Democratic Party had failed to silence the voice of the right, which they will try to accomplish via the "Fairness Doctrine. An Obama failure would be a failure of socialism in the United States and would therefore be a victory for the long- term stability and viability of the country. Now, when it comes to protecting our country from terrorist organizations, I hope to God that Obama can take a page from the George W. Bush playbook and prevent another attack like the one that was orchestrated on 9-11. However, when it comes to Obama's economic plan, I am willing to suffer through four more years of pinching pennies if it means that the quasi- socialist Democratic Party that is running this country has to tuck its tail between its legs and walk into the sunset. One needs only to look back to the Great Depression for signs of hope and encouragement. During the Depression, the United States government did not pump trillions of dollars into the economy and we came out just fine. A little patience and self- control will get us out of this economic funk that we find ourselves in. Remember that kid you went to high school with who always drove a brand new vehicle that their mom and dad bought them? They always wore designer clothes that their rich parents paid for while you were stuck wearing your older sibling's hand me downs? Our nation has become that spoiled teenager. Our parents, the government, want to make sure that they give their children (the poor) everything they want without making them earn it. I, personally, am embarrassed that our country has come to this. That kid in high school will be dependent on his parents for his whole life. He will grow up having no idea how to function on his own after high school. The people that are going to receive all of these Obama handouts will be no different. The government will rob them of their dignity, self- respect and ability to take care of themselves and their family. And, according to Obama, it will all be done in the name of fairness! Some lessons in life are learned the hard way. For those who have had to foreclose on their homes, I feel bad for you. That said, next time do not commit to something that you cannot fulfill. For the hard working person who has paid every payment on time and will be taxed at a higher rate because of their personal success, I feel bad for you too. You have done everything you had to do to make sure that you fulfilled your commitments but will still have to deal with the trillions of dollars that your country will be in debt after our attempt at socialism. The lesson for the person who bought the house they could not afford is to spend only what you can afford to. To the person who is responsible with their money, the lesson is to make sure you do your part to educate your friends and family on the issues to ensure we do not elect another socialist to run this country. So, in the end, a failure on Obama's part would be a long- term victory for the great nation in which we live. Thank you Rush for saying what so many of us are thinking!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Just keep your mouth shut!

I just cannot believe that this is what we have become. When I was growing up, my Dad got up early, went to work, worked all day, came home, ate dinner, went to bed and then got up again the next morning to do it all again. My Mom woke up, served us kids breakfast, sent us off to school, cleaned the house, paid the bills, took us to ball practice, served us dinner, sent us to bed, relaxed for a few hours before going to bed herself so that she could wake up and do it all again in the morning. We were the typical family. My parents knew what they had to do to provide for their children and that is exactly what they did. Did they enjoy every second of it? Probably not, but they knew that they had RESPONSIBILITIES! Did my parents wine when they had to pinch pennies in order to make the house payment? I never heard them if they did. Did my Dad complain that he was getting screwed by the system? Not that I can remember. Did my Mom complain that she wasn't afforded a life of luxury? Nope. Our family operated like a family is supposed to operate. Take on as much as you can personally afford to take on, work hard to make sure that you can afford what you have decided to take on, keep your mouth shut and do not, I repeat do not rely on someone else to pay your way. There is a word that describes the way that my parents raised their family. A word that should be re-taught to every American who thinks that the government should be a form of income to finance their lifestyle that they all of a sudden cannot afford. The word is pride. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as if many people have it anymore. I was lucky enough to receive a very important piece of advice from my high school baseball coach that has stuck with me for my entire life. He once told me to keep my mouth shut, my eyes and ears open and hustle all of the time. It seems like a very simple -minded piece of advice, but taken in the correct context, is a piece of advice that would do our country some good right now! The only thing that most kids hustle for these days is the couch or the video game controller. The only time they keep their eyes shut is during church service and their ears are incapable of hearing any logical ideas because they are usually so full of piercings that occasionally they have to be peeled off of the refrigerator door. It is a sad road that our country is traveling right now and is a road that seems to be getting longer the more we travel it instead of shorter.  By merging the advice I gained from watching my parents live their lives and raise their family with the advice that was spoken to me on a baseball field, I am able to come to a pretty logical conclusion. What will get us down this road in one piece? One simple word........PRIDE! If you have it, hustle all of the time so that we can get down this road a little faster. If you don't, then just keep your mouth shut!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gotta go get the popcorn!

It is coming, fellow Americans, it is coming. We are fast approaching a time in which the federal government will control nearly every aspect of our lives. They will continue to take more of our money to "help" those in need as we are left to rearrange the lifestyle for which we work so hard. They will continue to ignore the wishes of their constituents while they line their pockets with our tax dollars as well as the millions of dollars in lobbying favors. And, alas, they will try to control what we have the options of listening to on our very own radios! Yes, you read that last one correctly. The Democrats within our government are soon going to try to revive the "Fairness Doctrine." Yet another misleading title among the liberal socialist bills that we will be forced to live with for generations. What this bill attempts to do is ridiculous. At it's core, the Fairness Doctrine makes sure that there is equal representation of liberal talk shows amongst all of the conservative talk shows on the radio. Our Democrats Socialists that are sitting in Congress do not care that liberal talk radio has failed every time it has been tried. Don't believe me? Ever heard of the program Air America? If not, that is probably because it was a liberal talk radio program, hosted by Al Franken, that failed miserably. Did it fail because they were not given the chance to succeed? No, they failed because nobody listened to it! Current law does not prohibit stations from starting liberal talk shows. It does not mandate that radio stations host only conservative talk shows. No, the stations host conservative talk shows because they succeed, and they succeed because people CHOOSE to listen to them. This word CHOOSE confuses liberals socialist because they could not imagine people CHOOSING to relate to their political beliefs. They are used to forcing us into a liberal socialist way of life. Any liberal Socialist could start a radio show, as long as they had the means necessary. For that show to survive, it would have to act like any other business within our free market. They would have to attract and keep customers or, in this case, listeners. The problem with that is the fact that most people who listen to talk radio are generally well educated and informed citizens, which as we have all learned by now, is  not a description that fits most of  the democrats socialists clientele. All liberal talk radio shows have to do under the current rules to succeed is attract listeners and keep listeners. However, since they have failed to do so in the past, the federal government has decided to make them succeed, by reinstating the fairness doctrine. Our liberal socialist government knows that most people will not voluntarily choose to listen to liberal socialist radio shows, so they will make us do so! How American! As the old adage goes, give them an inch and they will take a mile! The problem is we have already given them miles and they are looking to take even more. Please write or call your elected officials and tell them how ridiculous you think the fairness doctrine is! It is not a matter of Democrat Socialist or Republican! It is a matter of common sense and the interest of the American people! Well, I gotta go, my favorite radio show is coming on, Fireside Chat with Barack Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Talking Through Our Problems. Gotta go get the popcorn!! 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tactical, partisan ambush!

Another "change" is about to happen and, unless you educate yourself on the consequences of this change, you will never even notice when it happens. This "change" could drastically influence who holds state and federal positions in the future and could also alter the balance of the Electoral College. Apparently, since it has only been about two months into President Obama's tenure, this "change" ranked pretty high on Obama's to do list. What he wants to do is move the United States census into the White House. He wants to put Rahm Emanuel in charge of overseeing the census. To the uninformed this may seem like no big deal. However, considering what the census is intended to do should make the average citizen very worried. Here is what the United States census is responsible for determining.
   1. The results of the census are used to redraw the congressional districts.
  
   2. The results of the census are also used in awarding states with their electoral votes.
 
   3. The results of the census play a vital role in the allocation of federal funds.
 
You see, the census is simply the counting of the United States population. The more people that reside in certain states, the more electoral votes that state receives. The more electoral votes a state receives plays a major factor in the campaign for the presidency. Why in the world would anyone be in favor of removing the census from the Commerce Department and handing it over to a hard line partisan like Rahm Emanuel? The move would have been just as wrong if President Bush tried to appoint Karl Rove to oversee the census. Taking into consideration that fact that Rahm Emanuel played an integral role in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, how can anyone make the assumption that he would operate the census in a non partisan way? Barack Obama wants us all to believe that he is in favor of bipartisan efforts in the United States government, but awarding census duties to the political party that is in power goes in the exact opposite direction. Although this may be a bit of a stretch, imagine if the American people elected a dishonest, power hungry person to the White House that made the decision he or she would alter the census results to ensure that their party stayed in power for the foreseeable future. Or a politician that wanted to make sure their favorite states were in line to receive more federal funding. The possibility for corruption is there people. And no matter who you voted for in the past election, I hope that you have learned that our politicians are often not the nice and honest people that we think they are when we voted for them. The situation presents a very scary scenerio of possibilities if you ask me. But hey, I'm just a midwestern hick who can't possibly understand the intellektual workins of our kuntry, rite? The great thing about our country is that we can make the decision to punish our political parties by voting for another party of our choosing. However, with the tweaking of a few numbers here and a few numbers there, your president or senator or representative may be chosen before you even step into the voting booth. He promised us change and he is giving us change. The only problem is that our media never made him define "change." I urge you all to write or call your senators and voice your opposition to this "change." Let them know that you see right through this tactical, partisan ambush! Iwill leave you with a relevant quote from Joseph Stalin that says "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Welcome to the our "changed" country fellow Americans. I hope you trust ol' Rahmy!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I hope you know the answer to that

Spreading the wealth became a household phrase during the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. It became a phrase of hope for the lower income families of our country and one of fear for the upper income individuals and families. Joe Biden made it clear that paying taxes should be viewed as a patriotic duty of the American people. Taxes, Biden implied, was a means by which the wealthy members of society could do their part in helping those who need the financial assistance. Although I vehemently disagree with the notion that paying taxes directly correlates to being patriotic, let's assume that Biden was right. That assumption leads to a very scary realization.
   It all started with  Timothy Geithner. Geithner was selected by Obama to head up the treasury department. You know, the department that is responsible for heading up the ever-popular IRS. After the announcement of Obama selecting Geithenr, the American public got to know Geither for the man he really is. The man who failed to pay his fair share of taxes on multiple occasions and when he finally decided to pay the taxes that he had "overlooked," he was not forced to pay late fee charges or penalties that the everyday American would have to pay. This is a scary example of how our "change" in government has led to a double standard in the way that we treat "important" people as compared to the way that we treat "normal" Americans. Summing up Timothy Geithner by using Joe Biden's standards, one would come to the conclusion that Mr. Geithner is unpatriotic.
   Then there was the Health and Human Services Secretary designee Tom Daschle. The result of the vetting process of Mr. Daschle? Why, unpaid taxes, of course. It was revealed that Daschle, not unlike Geithenr, also failed to pay taxes that he owed for limo services, undisclosed consulting fees and charitable donations. The total of Mr. Daschle's unpaid taxes? 146,000 dollars. That is right, according to Joe Biden's benchmark of patriotic behavior, Tom Daschle is considered Un- American!
   The left will say that conservatives are blowing this "tax oversight" way out of proportion. The problem with that assertion is that the Democratic leaders, Joe Biden and Barack Obama, are the ones that implied paying taxes was a way of measuring your patriotism. And, as we all learned during the Presidential campaign, if Biden and Obama say something then it must be true. The Democrats of this country must be very proud of their leaders. The have managed to fill very high level cabinet positions with people who fail to live up to their hype. They say that they want to raise taxes on the rich and spread those taxes to the people of our country that need the help the most. The problem is that they excuse themselves from paying their own taxes. This is hypocritical at best and unpatriotic (according to Joe Biden) as well as ILLEGAL at worst. Timothy Geithner is, according to our tax code, a criminal and he has been entrusted to run our Treasury Department with the highest level of dignity and respect. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are not alone in the blame, however. Every member of congress who voted to confirm Mr. Geithenr should be ashamed of themselves! Man, I am glad that we, as a country, decided to make changes in the way that we ran our country! George W. Bush employed people who paid their taxes and Barack Obama has decided to employ people who do not pay their taxes. Change? Yes, you bet it is! Dishonest, unpatriotic, illegal and immoral? I hope you know the answer to that!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stay tuned

You all probably know, by now, the fact that I very regularly disagree with President Obama's thought process and ideas of how to make America a better country. During the campaign, however, I did agree with one statement that Barack Obama regularly made. That statement was that lobbyist "won't find a job in my White House." Lobbyists, you know, the people who spend all day in Washington trying to influence the way our politicians vote. The are very commonly members of an extreme group or a member of a corporation or activist campaign. They do not have the countries best interests in mind, but instead are worried about garnering the necessary votes to ensure that legislation benefiting their group or company is passed. What a great idea that the "chosen one" had. Not allowing any of these lobbyists to occupy a position within the White House. The problem is that the idea was only that, an idea. And then Barack was elected and we got to see the first CHANGE that Obama promised us so many times. Below is a list of several lobbyists that now have a job within Barack's administration.  I obtained this exact list from http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18128 .

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House Chief of Staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

 
Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
 
Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

If you are dumb enough to beleive that saying one thing during a presidential campaign and then doing something totally different once you are elected is a CHANGE, then you probably voted for Obama, and if you voted for Obama the only CHANGE you will be doing is changing your underwear when you see what this guy is really about! How long before Obama sends you shopping for a new pair of undies?  Stay tuned!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Our self induced energy crises

It is a country that has the largest supply of coal in the world. It has three times the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia and is also the world's largest consumer of energy. No, I am not talking about one of those oil rich countries that call the Middle East home. I am talking about the United States of America. The country that buys more foreign oil than any other country in the world yet has the energy resources to never buy another drop of foreign oil. I will break it down into our three biggest opportunities and will explain how we, as a country, could eliminate our need for foreign oil and end our unecessary energy crises right now!
 
Offshore drilling is currently a "bad for the environment" idea. Yeah, whatever! It is estimated, no real numbers are fact because of the reluctance of our government to allow offshore drilling and exploration, that the United States is home to approximately 86 BILLION barrels of oil off of its coasts. Currently, Americans consume roughly seven billion barrels of oil per year. You do the math. If we were only talking about the oil that is off of our coasts, you would be looking at about twelve years worth of oil. Imagine the pain that would be felt in the pocketbooks of rogue nations such as Iran if we actually decided that we were going to drill off of our shores. The impact to their terrorist economies would be substantial and would deal a great blow to their nuclear aspirations. Currently, the federal government allows leases for the development of oil on only three percent of our offshore land. That number is absolutely unacceptable! We must show the world that we are serious about our energy independence and the only way to do that is to open our coastal areas up for drilling!
 
Oil shale is a phrase that many Americans do not understand. Please sit down because these numbers will make you very dizzy!! Oil shale is found in a rock that sits in the Rocky Mountains and can be found in the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. When you heat the rock, it releases a wax like substance that can be refined into oil, which we could use in our cars and trucks as well as refine into gasoline! This is the part that will make you dizzy. The United States, when congress finally decides to lift their ban on the development of this oil shale, will have access to approximately 800 BILLION barrels of oil just from that oil shale. This number does not include our oil off the coasts or in the ANWR area in Alaska. 800 BILLION barrels of oil and it is sitting right there in the Rocky Mountains. That is three times the amount of oil that is controlled by Saudi Arabia. So, you say, why don't we just go in there and get it out of the mountains? Good question. Why don't you write your congressman or woman and ask them? I am sure they would love to hear from you. If we had congressional approval to develop this shale into actual oil, we could supply our country with enough oil to see us through more than 100 years at our current consumption rate! Reading all of this, I hope you are wondering why in the world we are paying so much money for gasoline and why in the world we continue to buy our oil from terrorist minded governments who would love to destroy our way of life!
 
The United States is also the home to the world's largest supply of coal. Coal is responsible for over half of our electric power today. Our government needs to become much more proactive when it comes to funding the research and development of clean coal technology. Could you imagine if we could take coal and convert it into liquid fuel? Sound impossible to you? Consider the fact that South Africa has been doing it for decades and then ask yourself why were are allowing South Africa to beat us in the world of clean coal! Sad, huh? Developing sound clean coal technology could rid ourselves of foreign enrgy altogether and put us on a path to energy independence!
 
The answer to our energy crises seems very simple to me. Start drilling offshore now, start developing our oil shale into actual oil and start funding clean coal technology. The federal government, listening to their "pro environment" buddies, does not see the solution that clearly. They think that the solution to our energy crises is to raise the taxes on energy, thus lowering our use of that energy. Instead of fixing the real problem and becoming energy independent, they want to try and tell you how to live your life! That is both wrong and extremely dangerous. If we continue to buy the majority of oil from foreign countries, we are not only sending our dollars to foreign governments, but we are actually funding their side of our war on terror. Consider the fact that Iran is aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapon that they would gladly sell or use and it is pretty easy to realize that buying oil from them is not such a good idea. To the environmental extremists, I ask you which would be worse for the global environment, drilling off of our coasts or watching helplessly while Iran lights the fuse of a nuclear weapon? The answer is pretty clear to me!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Change to way we look at the three Y's

Welcome to your new office President Obama. It is time to put all of the rhetoric behind us and start to focus in on what this country needs to accomplish in order to continue to defeat terrorists abroad and restore confidence in our economic sector. Winning the election on the back of a catchy slogan like "change" was the easy part. It is now time to begin our journey down the longer, harder road. The most important thing we must do as we travel this second road is to define what changes we will implement. Unfortunately for you, running on the idea of "change" without defining what that "change" would be has created a situation in which everybody had their own idea of what you meant when you said, "yes we can." "Change" means one thing to some and yet has a totally different meaning to others. You and your administration must now decide what type of "change" will placate the majority. In my mind, albeit a pretty conservative one, you will preside over a fairly successful Presidency if you can change the way Washington does business when it comes to three simple values. Let it be known that these three values will not make everybody happy. However, by changing the way Washington interprets these three terms, we can lead this country in the right direction.
 
1. DECENCY: There is a huge lack of this when it comes to Washington. We see it during political campaigns and we see it during the everyday business that takes place in our nations capital. Our country must have the decency to continue our struggle against the terrorists. Many American lives have been taken by these foreign militant groups and we must not waiver in our determination to defeat them. Have a little decency when it comes to the families who have been robbed of loved ones at the hands of terrorists. Our troops have the decency to put their personal lives on hold in order to protect our great nation. You, as the commander in chief of these brave troops, should muster the decency to let them finish their job. Let them come home in victory and not defeat.
 
2. HONESTY: This has been a sorely missed characteristic when it comes to our elected officials and you have not been spared the embarrassment. You Secretary of the Treasury nominee, Mr. Timothy Geithner, has admitted that he has not paid his taxes as he should have. This, Mr. President, is dishonesty. You actually think that nominating a man, who has not been honest with his taxes,  to a position which entails being head of the IRS is a good idea? That is bad judgement on your part. Your campaign actually belittled "Joe the Plumber" for a smaller offense and he was an everyday citizen. The hypocrisy is ridiculous. Mr. Geithner was dishonest and should be granted no position within your cabinet. This type of nomination is nowhere close to the "change" you promised us!
 
3. TRANSPARENCY: The American people deserve to know what is going on inside of their government. We want to know how our tax dollars are being spent and we deserve to know how our elected officials are spending their time. Aside from information that could put our country at a security risk, the government needs to be much more transparent than they are. As long as our government is following a strict routine of decency and honesty, transparency should not be a problem. We want to know the names of our officials who are wasting our tax dollars, which companies and foreign leaders are lobbying our elected ones and which states are being given the most earmarked dollars. That information is critical to voters who are trying to make informed decisions on Election Day. Anything less than full transparency, when it comes to these issues, would be the same old politics of yesterday.  
 
Three main areas in need of change; Decency, honesty and transparncy. You promised us "change" Mr. President and now it is time to begin. It was easy to get people to buy into their own ideas of change. It will be harder, indeed, to keep your promise. Good luck, and remember that we still vote every four years. That, I am sorry to inform you, has not "changed."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You're smarter than that!

All political parties do it. They all try to convince the American people that their party would best serve the interests of their economic group better than the other parties. They did it in 1913, the year that the sixteenth amendment was ratified, by convincing people that the income tax would only affect the "rich." Sound familiar? It should! This viewpoint of the Democratic Party of 1913 sounds awfully similar to the Democratic Parties viewpoint in 2009. There are a couple of problems with this assumption, however, including a major problem for the lower income families of this country.
 
1. Anytime we allow the federal government to implement a new entitlement or welfare program, we are allowing an irreversible component to be added to our already gigantic bureaucracy. Irreversible, you ask? Let me explain. When we allow our government to give free money to those who have "less," do you really think that those groups will be willing to see their free ride end? The answer to that is obviously NO! This is not necessarily a problem if the groups that are benefiting from this free ride are a minority of our population. The problem is that the Democratic Party understands this concept. That is why they try, every year, to increase the amount of people who "qualify" for  government aid. The list of current "qualifiers" grows every year as our government tries to include a majority of our population.  They are  trying to make sure that as many people as possible fit into one of its defined "qualifying" groups for government aid. As long as those who do not qualify for government assistance remains in the majority, those who work their tails off to provide for their families will still have a say. However, once the groups that receive government aid become the majority, the result will be irreversible dependence on the government. No political party will ever be courageous enough to try and eliminate unnecessary aid when that aid is being given to the majority of the population. It would be political suicide for them to do so. Those who receive the aid would simply show up on Election Day and vote for the guy or girl who promises not to take their aid away. The "poor" families would then have no option but to vote for the person who promised not to take their money away. Other issues would be inconsequential for them, no matter how important. Even if they strongly disagreed with the candidate's view on abortion, war or marriage, they would be stuck voting for that candidate so they could still pay their rent. In the end, even the poor pay a price for their entitlement programs. Sad, sad indeed. 
 
2. Once we have established an irreversible dependence on the federal government, we are at the mercy of that government. That said, once the government knows that we are fully dependent on their money, they will have no fear of political backlash from the American people. We, the people, already have seen a reduction in the weight our voices carry, and this at a time when we are still pretty self sufficient when it comes to our personal financial security. Imagine how insignificant our voices will be when the federal government realizes that a majority of the people residing in the United States are counting on them to pay their bills and send their children to school. Scary, huh?
 
My opposition to social programs does not stem from being uncompassionate to those who are in need. Americans are the most generous people in the world. When our fellow citizens need help, we are very loose when it comes to our wallets and purses and I am no different when it comes to wanting to help those in need. My fear, a very real fear, of social programs stems from the fact that once we allow ourselves, as a country, to become dependent on our government for anything more than safety and opportunity, we are putting ourselves in a very bad position. I, for one, do not look forward to the day when the government is telling us what to drive, what to eat and what to watch on the television. That, however, is the direction we are headed in. Do not allow yourself to fall into the trap. Never allow your politicians to try and buy your vote. You're better than that and, I hope you're smarter than that!  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

...............more truths to come

The mainstream media gave him a free pass, the American citizens gave him a free pass and the voters gave him a free pass. That would have been fine if Barack Obama's plans and desires were not so muddy. He said that he was only going to increase the taxes of the rich while eliminating the taxes of anyone living at the poverty level. It sounded too good to be true. And, like mom and dad always said, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is! You cannot eliminate the tax burden of any segment of the population. It is impossible. Let me explain. Federal income taxes are not the only tax burden that the average American faces. Our tax burden is actually much higher than the bottom line of your income tax return. Much higher, indeed. Everytime that you purchase an item, from a pack of cigarettes to a new car, there are embedded "corporate" taxes that you must pay on top of the sales tax that you are hit with. The phrase "corporate taxes" is very misleading. A business or corporation pay no taxes. You pay the taxes for them. The business simply collects the "corporate tax" from the consumer and passes them on the Washington. Dr Dale Jorgenson, the Chairman of the Harvard Economics Department, conducted a study in which he came to the conclusion that the consumer pays an estimated 22 percent embedded tax on everything that they buy. That 22 percent covers the tax burden on every company involved in the manufacture of that product. Lets take a pair of jeans as an example. The company that manufactures the jeans must first purchase their textiles from a textile company. Embedded in the price of the textiles is the tax burden of the textile manufacturer. That company has to pay a tax on their payroll, a portion of every employees social security and medicare taxes and a tax on the products that they buy to manufacture the textile. They then embed these taxes into the price of the textile so that they can mantain their profit margin on the textile. So, when the jean company purchases that textile, they are paying approximately 22 percent more for the textile, in the form of embeded taxes. That said, the jean company is not simply going to pay that 22 percent and not pass it on down the line. That would be bad for business. Instead, they pass that 22 percent right on down the line. Where is that end of the line? The consumer. That 22 percent that started at the textile manufacturer ends up coming out of your wallet. The consumer gets stuck with the bill. You pay more than sales taxes everytime you push a cart through a checkout line. The sad truth of that statement? Most people do not even realize that they do! Now, back to Barack Obama's free ride to the White House. He made the illusion that only the rich and the corporations would pay more in taxes. A few honest questions by the mainstream media would have brought to light the fact that an increase in taxes on corporations means an increase in taxes on the consumer. Unless only rich people buy things in this country, which we know to be a falsehood, every single American will see an increase in their taxes. Rich and poor alike. Since, however, Americans have been trained to view their tax obligations only as the bottom line of their tax returns, most will never realize what the anointed one is doing to them. He may well lower their income tax burden but will raise their taxes in other areas to compensate for their savings! He will lower their taxes while raising their taxes at the same time. Another example of Barack's dishonest lowering of taxes on the poor is the fact that he plans to raise the taxes on cigarettes by 61 cents a pack. Back in the early 1900s, this may well have fit into the "tax the rich" philosophy that Barack was and still is touting. Today, however, the lower income individuals actually smoke more than the higher income folks. The quote that came right out of Barack Obama's mouth concerning this increase in the cigarette tax sums up everything. "Everybody's going to have to give," he siad. Finally, the truth straight out of the anointed one's mouth. Too bad it came after the election. The only change I have noticed so far is a "change" in Barack Obama's rhetoric. Stay tuned everyone, there will surely be more truths and "changes" in rhetoric to come!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »