http://theamericancritic.com/popular_rss.phpLatest Popular Articles Posted on The American CriticLatest Popular Articles Posted on The American Critic
]]>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:12:38 PST1196370758Fri, 22 May 2009 12:53:02 PDT1243021982
When our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution they did not have a large federal government in mind. Instead they wanted a limited federal government to produce limited restrictions to each state, which would then do most of the governing and have the most control over the state and its residents. Thomas Jefferson wrote the most well known phrase of all time, "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness." Clearly our founding fathers did not intend for our liberties and rights as citizens to be compromised for a false sense of security and the artificial betterment of a nation. The nation was not top priority for the original framers of the Constitution, the main priority was the people-the citizens.

It wasn't until the 12th grade that I was introduced to the book "1984". A book written in 1984 by George Orwell, a British writer and critic. The book nearly depicts current trends in America and worldwide perfectly. The book is a Story of citizens suppressed by their country who has joined forces with other nations to develop three superpowers, Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. The book focuses on Oceania, which coincidentally includes the United States. The trend in Oceania is on of a Marxist-styled Socialist setting. The citizens are suppressed and brainwashed in order for the nation to claim dominance over the other nations and to create what the leaders feel is a Utopia, where the needs of the people are generalized and suppressed, as citizens are closely monitored by the government.

It isn't until you do some digging that you find we are heading towards such a situation. Recently there have been secretive talks between leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico to unionize and create the North American Union, or NAU. The NAU would then begin to act as a singular nation, rather than three individual nations. May I remind you the needs of the people in America are far different than those of the people in Mexico and Canada. The new-to-be NAU government would also create the Amero, a form of currency to compete with the European Union's Euro. Being a ally of America and Canada, it is common sense that England would become part of the NAU. Mexico having several ties with South American countries would solidify the NAU as the new Oceania. It is a feasible possibility that you and I may soon no longer be citizens of the United States of American, but rather citizens of the NAU.

Aside from talks between the three countries in North America, there is the surreal Patriot Act that was passed in 2001 by Congress and President George Bush, basically allowing the government free reign in collecting data of American citizens and limiting a citizens actions in order to fight terrorism. However, the very principle of the Patriot Act is terrorism in itself, striking terror in the hearts of citizens around the country. This act gives free will to the government to search your most intricate functions to determine if you are a terrorist or not. One function given to Law Enforcement is commonly called the "Sneak and Peek" search, allowing law enforcement officers to search a home or business without the owner's or the occupant's permission or knowledge. This in itself would be enough to make the Patriot Act, unpatriotic and unconstitutional, as it obliterates the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment calls for probable cause and a warrant to allow searches and seizures. However this act allows law enforcement officers, or LEOs, to enter a private home or business without a warrant, and without the knowledge of the owner. The Patriot Act also allows LEOs to search your private emails, phone conversations and financial records without a court order. Again, this falls back the the 4th amendment of irrational searches and seizures, because these are unreasonable and unlawful. There are several more keys to the puzzle we call the Patriot Act. Fortunately for the citizens, several legal challenges have been brought up against the Patriot Act, and often times, the Federal courts have ruled in favor of the Patriot Act being unjust and unconstitutional. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled that the use to gain access to e-mails and telephone records from private companies and private homes for what the government called "counter-terrorism investigations" was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."

Amnesty is a very controversial topic that needs to be dealt with in order to regain control of our government. For years now, Congress has been fretting over illegal immigrants and how to deal with them. Currently, there is a bill called the Dream Act, which will grant over 12 million illegal immigrants citizenship. Voting for this bill is a few weeks away, fortunately. If you polled the nation, two out of every three people would disagree with this act and would not support amnesty. The Act was named the "Dream Amnesty Act" a cute name to throw off the common American. The purpose of the act is to grant the illegal aliens with their dream of amnesty and becoming official citizens; which is unconstitutional and unpatriotic, a la; The Patriot Act.

I can not call an unpatriotic and unconstitutional government anything but deplorable. How can one of the superpowers of the world, be so naive towards its own Constitution? Several current acts, bills, laws, and movements within our government go against the principle of the constitution. This is an unjust Marxist Socialism styled government takeover. It is a slap in the face to our nation's founding fathers and needs to be dealt with. ]]>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:50:24 PST1196718624
First, people were kidnapped at Senator Clinton's campaign headquarters. For a significant amount of time as this story was breaking, the public was left to wonder what exactly was happening: Was Clinton kidnapped? Was this some type of retaliation?

Second, after the hostages were released and the suspect taken into custody, Clinton was able to meet the victims and offer her condolences. Her doing that is representative of her potential behavior as president and very similar to what votes expect a president to do. I think that the event at large will result in Clinton gaining more public support that if it had not happened.

Essentially, she was given the opportunity to respond to a crisis and comment on it. If another candidate attempted to jump into to the affair for attention, it would be awkward since it was Clinton's office that was involved and the details of the event don't specifically involve a 2008 campaign issue. So, in terms of positive media exposure, it would be very difficult for another candidate to top this random act of... well, I'm not exactly sure what to call it.
]]>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:26:28 PST1196609188
Copyright 2008 Neal Boortz

This is long; very long. Hey, I'm a pretty entertaining writer ... so give it a go. If you're an undecided voter in this presidential election the least you owe your country is to try to base your final choice on some substantive facts. No, I don't have all the facts here ... but I have enough of them to perhaps convince you that voting one particular way on November 4th might not be the most brilliant move you've ever made.

This election is my 10th. My 10th presidential election since I became a radio talk show host. My 10th election since I began spending more time than the average American thinking about, researching, reading about and talking about the choices voters face. Look; I mean no arrogance here. It's just that the average American doesn't spend from 15 (then) to 22.5 (now) hours a week over the period of a presidential race talking about the candidates, the issues, the non-issues and the consequences of voter choice.

Never in those ten elections can I remember choices so stark and possible outcomes so perilous. For the record, over those 10 elections I voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Libertarian four. Never have I voted for a Democrat for president. I see no need to vote for a Democrat since I have no plans or desires to become a ward of the government. Somehow I don't think 2008 is going to be the first time.

I've noted that some other "pundits" out there are starting to post, in columns and in their blogs, the reasons they are going to vote the way they are going to vote. I'll make no attempt to refute their (oh-so refutable) arguments here. Instead, I'm just going to put my thoughts and reasoning in writing just to cleanse my mind. If you can make some use of them; whether it is for laughter, talking points or intellectual consideration, have at it. Me? I'm just pulling the handle.

The Race Factor

Are many black voters going to vote for Barack Obama primarily because of race? Of course, many will. Surveys and polling have shown that the figure may reach 20%. I think it's well more than that. Is race a sound reason to cast a vote? Probably not. Is it understandable? Absolutely. I cannot fault a black American for voting for Obama. It may turn out to be a negative vote insofar as their dreams and goals are concerned. It may not work out all that well for their children, especially if they're ambitions and talented. But I don't think many of us can absolutely say that we wouldn't be casting the same vote were we in their shoes.

If you are a white American there is no way in the world you can look at this election through the same eyes as a third or fourth generation black American citizen. Several months ago a caller to my show suggested that Barack Obama's ascendency in the presidential sweepstakes was Black America's biggest accomplishment. I disagreed. Though I can't remember the exact words, I said that, in a general sense, the shining moment for Black America may have been the show of patience and restraint shown by black men when they returned from putting their lives on the line in World War II and in Korea to a country with segregated schools, colored waiting rooms, whites only water fountains, beatings, lynchings, water hoses, police dogs and systematic discrimination pretty much every where they looked. The restraint showed by black Americans during the civil rights struggles of the 50's and 60's, though not universal, was something to behold.

Now .. try, though you won't succeed, to put yourself into the mind of a black American. How can you experience or understand the legacy of segregation, violence and second-class citizenry your ancestors went through and not take pride in a black American on the verge of winning the presidency? How many black American voters do you think are uttering to themselves: "If my grandfather had only lived to see this." It takes a great deal of maturity and a clear understanding of the possible future consequences for someone to put their racial pride aside and swim against the tide on this one. So, there will be no name-calling, at least not here, for people who cast their vote on the basis of race in this election. As I said, It's understandable.

And Then There's the Race Card

This really isn't really a reason to vote for or against Barack Obama, but you do need to know what the next four years are going to be like with an Obama presidency.

During the campaign there have been some rather amazing charges of racism. Let's see if we can remember a few:

Using the word "skinny" to refer to Obama is racist.
"Community organizer" is a racist term.
Any reference to a connection between Obama and Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae is racist ... that would be because Raines is black.
All references to Jeremiah Wright are racist; that being due to Wright being black.
Referring to Obama as "eloquent" is racist because it infers that other blacks are not eloquent.
For goodness' sake, don't say that Obama is "clean."
This just in from The Kansas City Star: Calling Obama a "socialist" is also racist because "socialist" is just another code word for black.
And so it goes. We've also had several pundits, columnists and opinion-makers flat-out state that if you are white and you don't vote for Barack Obama it can only be because he's black. There is simply no other legitimate reason to deny this wonderful man your vote. Vote for McCain, you're a racist. Simple as that.

Now let's consider the next four years under President Obama. He is certainly going to introduce ideas and pursue policies that are pure poison to many Americans; especially achievement-oriented self-sufficient citizens. Whenever anyone dares to utter a word in opposition to any Obama position or initiative you can be sure that there is going to be someone waiting close by to start screaming "racist!" By the end of Obama's first year in the White House virtually every white American will have been called a racist for one reason or another. So, what else is new?

The Republicans

One thing for sure ... the Republicans deserve exactly what is happening to them in this election. It's just too bad the rest of the country has to suffer the lion's share of the punishment the Republicans so richly deserve. In 1994 the voters were fed up with Clinton and the Republicans swept to control of both houses of congress, largely on the strength of Newt's Contract with America. Do you remember some of the promises? One that sticks in my mind is their promise to dismantle the Department of Education. Republicans - in 1994 - recognized that the quality of American education had been going steadily downhill since this government behemoth was formed. Well, that was then ... this is now. The size of the Education Department, as well as the cost, has doubled. Republicans did this, not Democrats.

As a matter of fact, it's not just the Department of Education; it's our entire federal government. Spending has doubled. Size has doubled. All under the Republican watch inside the beltway. Pork barrel spending is completely out of control, and Republicans are behind the wheel. Education and pork spending aside, we have the Medicare prescription benefit, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, a tepid response to Kelo vs. New London ... all elements of a well-deserved Republican drubbing. The problem here is that the cure, that being Barack Obama, might well be much worse of than the disease.

The Republicans don't deserve power in Washington just as you don't deserve a boil in the center of your forehead. There are worse things, however. Complete Democrat control or, in the case of your forehead, a nice big melanoma. Pretty much the same things, actually.

It's not that the Republicans did everything wrong. They got the tax cut thing right, and they responded correctly, for the most part, to the radical Islamic attack on our country. They just did so much wrong at the same time. They got drunk with power, and the hangover affects all of us.

Obama's Friends

By "Obama's Friends" we mean the likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko and other assorted miscreants. I could spend a lot of time here detailing the crimes of Obama's friends --- and make no mistake, they were his friends. At this point I don't think that any votes are going to be changed one way or another by detailing the corruption of Rezko, the America-hating of Wright or the unrepentant terrorism of Ayers. Suffice it to say that Obama was close to all of these people ... and these were associations born of mutual interests and philosophies. If you think that it is fair to judge the character of a person by observing the people they surround themselves with, then the judgment of Barack Obama would be a harsh one.

Obama's varied storylines regarding his relationship with Ayers have, to say the least, been interesting. The list is incomplete, but thus far we have:

He was just a guy who lived in my neighborhood.
I was only eight years old when he was throwing bombs.
I didn't know about his history when we started working together
I thought he had been rehabilitated.
Yeah ... I guess it's OK if you form a close relationship with a bomb-throwing terrorist, as long as he threw the bombs when you were a kid. Works for me. Work for you? In a similar vein, It must be OK if your pastor rails against America, as long as you aren't in church on those particular days. Or maybe we should say as long as nobody remembers actually seeing you in church on those days.

One interesting point: If Barack Obama was applying for a security clearance as a government employee, these associations would disqualify him. We are, my friends, about to have a president who doesn't qualify for a security clearance. Pretty pathetic. If Barack Obama becomes president, he would not even qualify to be his own bodyguard.

Obama's Tax Policies

You may consider this to be horribly old fashioned, but I operate on the principle that governments have the power to tax so that governments can collect the money needed to pursue and pay for the legitimate functions of that government. By "legitimate functions" I'm referring to law enforcement, national defense, a system of courts to adjudicate interstate disputes, national infrastructure and the costs associated with running the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government.

Now we can get into quite an argument over what constitutes a "legitimate" function of government, but let's save it for later. Suffice it to say that Barack Obama has a much different picture of our government's taxing authority than many of us do.

Before we go on, let me remind you of a point that I first heard made by former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. Government has one unique power that you don't have, and neither do I. This is a power that is denied all private businesses and individuals in this country. That power .. the power unique to government .. is the power to use deadly force to accomplish its goals. If you have a business; a restaurant, for instance; you have to convince people to come to your establishment for a meal. You can advertise for customers, but they make the decision whether or not to give your restaurant a try. When the customers do come in it is up to you to deliver to them a superior product with exemplary service. This is how you get them to come back. Not through force, but through value and service.

Not so the government. You have no choice as to whether or not you are going to be a customer of government. Your patronage is compelled and your payments are extracted at the point of a gun. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The power to tax in the wrong hands can certainly bring destruction to our economy and even to our country. I submit to you that the power to tax in the hands of Barack Obama is dangerous: Dangerous to you personally, and dangerous to the very fabric of our Republic.

Just take a look at some of the rhetoric Barack Obama uses when he talks of his plans to increase taxes on the evil, hated rich. In a television interview with (I think) Charles Gibson, Obama was asked if he understood that tax increases have often resulted in decreases in government revenue. Obama responded that he was aware of this fact. He was then asked why, then, would he be so eager to raise taxes? Obama responded that, to him, tax increases were simply a matter of "fairness." In other words, Obama didn't wish to use the police power of the state to collect taxes necessary for the legitimate functions of government; he wanted to use his taxing power to promote some vaporous "fairness" in our economy. After all, as Obama put it, the people he wants to tax have more money than they actually need and he wants to give that money to people who really do need it.

Now I ask you, does any of that sound vaguely familiar? Hmmmmm, let's see. I know I've heard something like that somewhere before. Wait! I think I have it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Some character named Marx made slogan quite popular around 1875 in a writing called "Critique of the Gotha Program." This phrase is one of the most well-known principals of communism. You can yell, scream, spin around on your eyebrows and spit wooden nickels all you want, but what Barack Obama is pushing here, at least insofar as his tax policies are concerned, is communism. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering Obama's self-professed affinity for communist student groups and communist professors during his undergraduate years. Oh, you didn't read that? Maybe that's because you read his second book, not the first one. But what the heck. He's eloquent, isn't he? And he has a good narrative.

As I've indicated, I've been doing talk radio for 39 years now. I was on the air when we were fighting communism in Southeast Asia. I was flapping my jaws when Soviet leaders seriously entertained dreams of world communism. Throughout all of those years I was never one to scream "communism" every time someone came up with an oddball idea on governance, and I never once found a communist under my bed. But now, at least when you consider tax policy, we have a candidate for president who seems very comfortable with some basic communist principals. Too comfortable. But none of this should really bother you ... right? A little communism or socialism never really hurt anyone that you can remember. Besides, Europe is telling us that they'll like us again if we vote for Obama. That pretty much overrules everything, doesn't it?

Does this reflect your philosophy?

Come on! Put the celebrity worship aside for a moment. Put skin color aside. Just think about Obama and his "spread the wealth around" tax policy.

Let's talk heartbeats. Sounds weird, but I'm going somewhere here. A bit of Internet research led me to the fact that the average number of heartbeats in a life time for a human being is about one billion. To make this more understandable, the average human heart beats around 70 times a minute. In one eight-hour work day your heart beats around 33,600 times. This is your heart beating .. every beat subtracted from the one billion .. every beat a part of your life gone, never to be recovered. If you are a moderately successful human being Barack Obama is going to take about 13,000 (39%) of those heartbeats away from you every working day. Put your finger on your wrist and feel your pulse. Feel every heartbeat. Just count up to 100. How much of your life went by as you counted? You can't get those beats back. They're gone, for good. Remember, you only have a finite number of those beats of your heart left ... and Obama wants 13,000 of them every working day of your life. Those heartbeats - your life - being expended creating wealth. Your heartbeats, your wealth. Obama wants them. You don't need them. Someone else does. The police power of the state.

Taxes are a nasty little reality of life. Nobody wants anarchy. Government is a necessity. Government, though, is not supposed to create winners and losers. Government is not, as Obama intends, to be used as an instrument of plunder. Almost all Americans are perfectly willing to surrender an appropriate percentage of their earned wealth to fund the legitimate functions of government. I, for one, don't want to see my wealth confiscated because some bureaucrat has determined I don't "need" it, and then have to watch as that wealth is used to buy votes from someone who is simply too lazy to generate the income they need by themselves ... or, as Obama puts it, "spread around."

What is Obama going to do? How does he determine "need?" What data does he use to determine "fairness?" Maybe he'll set up some bureaucracy staffed with like-minded leftists who will use data collected in the last census and from those pesky American Community Surveys to establish a basic "need" level for people living in different areas. Once it is determined how much of a person's wealth they really don't "need," it will be a simple matter of confiscation and redistribution to those who do need it. After all, that would be "fair," wouldn't it? Come on, it's not exactly like you worked for that money.

Listen to the rhetoric of the left. Those who are in need are called "the less fortunate." This means that their status as needy was due to nothing but bad luck. It stands to reason, then, that those with more than they need were just lucky. The fortunate and the less fortunate. The lucky and the not so lucky. And here comes Barack Obama riding over the rainbow on his Unicorn to set everything right and make it all fair. Isn't that the world you want to live in?

There's a quote that's been floating around since I began my talk radio career. This quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Others have said the guy's name was Tytler. Let's not argue spelling right now ... let's just get to the quote, because the quote goes to the heart of this presidential election:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Think about this, my friends. Isn't this exactly what we're seeing right now? In fact, hasn't this pretty much been the theme of Democrat Party election politics for nearly as long as you can remember? Here we have Barack Obama promising that he's only going to raise taxes on the evil rich who make over $250,000 a year while 95% of Americans will get tax cuts. Think of this in terms of votes; higher taxes for 5% of the voters, lower taxes for the other 95%. It really doesn't take all that much brainpower to figure out how this is going to work at in an election does it? You take money away from the people whose votes you don't need, and give it to the people whose votes you do need. So very simple. The result is that people have, in fact, discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Who is promising those wonderful goodies? That would be Barack Obama. Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else's money? My guess is that the number would be high enough to constitute the margin of victory for The Great Redistributionist.

Somehow I had this idea when I was growing up that if you wanted something bad enough, you would work hard until you got it. That was then. This is now. Now you vote for it. That's change you can believe in.

Those Amazing Vanishing Jobs

Barack Obama repeatedly tells the American people that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of them. Now that's a pretty nifty trick when more than 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes in the first place. Tell me please ... just how do you cut taxes for someone who doesn't pay taxes?

Here's the fancy narrative (Obama supporters just love that word) that the Obama campaign has come up with. Even if you don't pay income taxes, you still pay payroll taxes. So Obama is going to give these people who only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes an offsetting tax credit. At this point Obama's plan becomes almost impossible to explain. It's convoluted, to say the least, but that's out of necessity. When people started reminding him that about one-half of the people he's going to cut taxes for don't pay taxes he had to come up with something. The bottom line is this. Obama says that he is not going to take the cost of his tax credits from the Social Security Trust Fund. That's nice, considering the fact that this so-called Trust Fund exists only on paper anyway. But if that money isn't subtracted from the Trust Fund ... where does it come from? Obama's people explain that at first the deficit will just have to increase while these checks are written. Later they'll just go out there and get the money from those "rich people."

OK ... so there we are. It's tax the rancid rich time so that money can be transferred to the poor. But just who are these evil rich people destined to be beaten down by Obama's taxes? At first Barack Obama defined them as "people making over $250,000 a year." That definition had to change when it became known that the $250,000 a year figure was only for a married couple filing a joint tax return. In a heartbeat Obama changed his rhetoric to note that the tax increase would nail "families," not "people" earning over 250 grand. If you're single, the figure will be somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000, depending on who you're talking to. We'll try to let you know when Obama settles on a hard figure.

There's your first lie.

So, what does all of this have to do with jobs? Well the very people that Barack Obama wants to nail with these tax increases are the people who create most of the jobs in our economy; America's small business owners.

The Democrats spend no small amount of time excoriating corporations. To listen to a Democrat candidate corporations and lobbyists are the sole sources of evil in our society. Oh ... and right wing talk show hosts. Well, you can forget these evil, nasty corporations for now. Fact is 70% of all jobs in our economy come from America's small business owners. The Small Business Administration recently reported that 80% of all new jobs are being created by these small business owners. These are people who report all of their business income on their personal income tax returns. As such, they are squarely in the crosshairs for The Chosen One's tax increases.

If you are an American concerned about your job with a small business ... and if you vote for Obama ... then you very well could be cutting your own economic throat. Think about it. If the small business owner(s) who employs you has his taxes increased by Barack Obama he is going to look for a way to replace that money. So where does he go to replace his income lost to Barack's tax increases? The best way would be to cut expenses. Well guess what? You're an expense! Will it be your job that is cut to compensate for the increased taxes? Maybe you'll be lucky and just have to forego your next raise. Maybe there would just be a cut in your pay or a reduction in benefits. Cast your vote and take your chances!

In recent days the McCain campaign has finally started to warn people about the possible consequences of Obama's tax increases on America's small businesses. This has forced the Obama campaign to come up with a response. Initially Barack Obama started saying that he was going to give a break on capital gains taxes to small businesses. This worked for a while until people started figuring out that small businesses don't pay capital gains taxes. Back to the drawing board, and this time they came up with a beauty. It's a con, but it works. Barack Obama is now telling the media and anyone else who will listen that 95% of America's small businesses don't make $250,000 a year, and thus won't be affected by Obama's tax increases.

That's the second lie. A lie of omission.

Obama's statistics may be accurate .. or nearly so. But the statement leaves one very important statistic out. Initially when you hear that "95% of all small businesses" line you probably think that this 95% employ about 95% of all of the people working for small businesses. You could think that, but you would be wrong.

The trick here is that the vast majority of America's small businesses are just that ... small. I owned a title abstract business in the 80's that had one employee. My wife owned a travel agency that had two employees. Neither of these small businesses came anywhere near the $250,000 line.

When you think about it you will understand that the important statistic here is the percentage of small business employees who will be affected, not the percentage of small businesses.

The October 21st edition of The Wall Street Journal addressed this issue in an article entitled "Socking It to Small Businesses." The WSJ reports that Obama is right "that most of the 35 million small businesses in America have a net income of less than $250,000, hire only a few workers, and stay in business for less than four years." There's more to the story though: ".. the point is that it is the most successful small and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs.. And they are precisely the businesses that will be slammed by Mr. Obama's tax increase." The Senate Finance Committee reports that of those who file income taxes in the highest two tax brackets; three out of four are the small business owners Obama wants to tax.

The WSJ reports that the National Federation of Independent Business says that only 10% of small businesses with one to nine employees will be hit by Obama's tax increase. However, almost 20% of the small businesses that employ from 10 to 19 people will get nailed, and 50% of small businesses with over 20 employees get punished.

Again ... it is not the percentage of businesses that will have to pay the increased taxes; it's the percentage of the total of small business employees who work for those businesses. The Obama campaign is counting on you not making that distinction; and they know the media won't make it for you; so Obama's "95% of all small businesses don't make $250,000" line will probably rule the day.

Come on folks. These are your jobs we're talking about here. It's time to take your blinders off and see through some of this Obama rhetoric. The Obama campaign has some wonderful people working for them to tell them just how to parse words to hide intent and meaning. Just because they're trying to fool you doesn't mean that you have to be so easily suckered. When Obama talks about change .. he may well mean that you are going to have to change jobs. Now that's change you can believe in, right?

Pandering to the Unions .. at Your Expense.

Now since we're talking about jobs here, you need to be up to speed on The Messiah's "Employee Free Choice Act." Let me step out on a limb here and say that applying the words "free choice" to Obama's plan to eliminate secret ballots in union elections is like applying the words "fun sex" to an act of rape. Freedom has nothing to do with Obama's plan, and fun has nothing to do with rape.

Going in you need to recognize that union membership has been falling for decades. You only see growth in union membership in government employee unions. This, of course, is troubling to union leaders. It is also troubling to Democrats. Unions, you see, almost exclusively support Democrat candidates, both with money and time. Big money and lots of time ... and it's all behind Obama's candidacy.

To know what Obama is up to here, you need to know how union organizing works under the current law. Union organizers circulate a petition among employees. Employees are asked to sign a card saying that they would like to be represented by a union in their workplace. If a majority of the workers sign the cards the employer has the option of immediately recognizing the union and allowing them to organize the workplace. More often the employer will call for an election -- an election using secret ballots. Every employee will be given the opportunity to express their desire to join or not to join a union in secret. Their co-workers will not know how they voted. They can prance around the workplace touting their support of unionization all they want in order to impress or appease their fellow workers, especially those who are trying to organize the union, but then vote "no" on the secret ballot if that's how they truly feel.

How, you might ask, do Democrats feel about the secret ballot in union elections? For a clue let's go to a letter from 16 House Democrats dated August 29, 2001. The letter was written on the letterhead of California Congressman George Miller, a Democrat representing the 7th District of California. That letter reads:


[Letterhead of George Miller, Congress of the United States]


Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla
Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero
7 Norte Numero 1006 Altos
Colonia Centro
Puebla, Mexico C.P. 7200


Dear members of the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje of the state of Puebla.


As members of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.


We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose.


We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballow in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.


Signed:


George Miller

Bernard Sanders

Lane Evans

Marcy Kaptur

William J. Coyne

Bob Filner

Martin Olav Sabo

Joe Baca

Dennis J. Kucinich

Fortney Pete Stark

James P. McGovern

Barney Frank

Zoe Lofgren

Calvin M. Dooley

Barbara Lee

Lloyd Doggett


So there you go. These 16 Democrats are on the record as being solidly in favor of using secret ballots in union recognition elections. So far, so good ... because that, as they point out in their letter, is clearly the right stance.

That brings us to piece of legislation -- a piece of Obama sponsored legislation --designated as H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Would you care to guess just what H.R. 800 does? Well, that's simple. It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. You got it! Obama has decided to really do something nice for the union bosses that are supporting him in this election, and he is determined to do away with secret ballots in union elections. When H.R. 800 gets passed ... and trust me, with Barack Obama in the White House, this thing will become law ... the union organizers will visit all of the workers, perhaps even visiting some of them in their homes, and "urge" them to sign the card calling for a union. I can hear it now: "Mrs. Johnson, wouldn't you and your children want your husband to be represented by our union at his job?" Now put yourself in the worker's place! Are you going to say no? This organizer is sitting in your living room looking at you and your wife and saying "You do want to be represented by our union in your workplace, don't you?" And you're going to tell him no?

Are you getting the big picture here? This is nothing less than Barack Obama and his Democrat pals legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace. If you don't see that, then there is virtually no hope for you when it comes to understanding basic politics. It's payback the unions time .. pay them back for all of that financial support and all of those volunteer hours. Besides ... the more union members there are the more union dues the union bosses have to spread to Democrats as campaign contributions.

But we're saved, right? After all, we have those 16 Democrats who signed that letter to Mexico. What was it they said? Oh yeah: " ... we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose." So these 16 Democrats will certainly put up a spirited defense of secret ballots in union organizing elections, right?

Well ... um ... maybe not. You see, four of these congressmen (Dooley, Sabo, Evans and Coyne) are no longer in the Congress. One of the signers, Bernie Sanders, is now a Senator. That leaves 11 of the 16 signees still in the house to defend the principal of the secret ballot.

I'm afraid we have a small problem though. It seems that every one of the 11 remaining signees is now a sponsor of H.R. 800. In fact, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act was actually introduced by none other than George Miller -- the very California Democrat on whose letterhead that letter to Mexico was written. Bernie Sanders is a sponsor of the same legislation in the Senate along with Barack Obama. No surprise .

On the one hand we have these Democrats writing a letter extolling the virtues of a secret ballot in union organizing elections, and then they sponsor a bill eliminating those very secret ballots! And here's Barack Obama pledging to sign the bill as soon as it comes to his desk! So what changed between 2001 and 2007? What happened that made these 12 Democrats go from believing that a secret ballot in a union election was "absolutely necessary," to introducing a bill eliminating those "absolutely necessary" secret ballots? Control of congress; that's what changed. In 2001 the Republicans ran the show. In 2007 it was the Democrats ... and it was time to return some favors to union bosses. Do you know what you're seeing here? You're seeing just how much power unions have over Barack Obama and the Democrat party. It doesn't matter what kind of letter you wrote, or what stance you took in the past --- when we say "frog" you had better jump.

Let me tell you what is going to happen as soon as Barack Obama is elected. Employers are going to look at the so-called Employee Free Choice Act and they're going to be very afraid. They know what a union can do to their business and their profitability. Just look at our auto industry. So employers are going to immediately start working to minimize the damage. How do you do that? Well, automation is one way. Go ahead and buy that machinery you need to automate much of your workplace. That will allow you to get rid of these employees before they can unionize. You might also want to consider the possibility of moving some of those jobs overseas where union intimidation might not be such a negative factor in your business operations.

When Obama gets his unionization by intimidation thing in place -- and he most certainly will -- jobs are going to be lost and businesses will fail. This is the price Obama is willing to pay to pay back the unions who have supported him.

Just another reason to vote for The Chosen One, right?

The Supreme Court

This is getting to be a bit long. We're over 6,200 words here. So let's end this message to the undecided voter with a few words about the Supreme Court.

It is quite possible that Barack Obama will get to make one, maybe two Supreme Court appointments before he's through in Washington. It is also possible that he will have a filibuster-proof Senate to help him ram those choices through.

I'm a lawyer, and I've always had this strange idea that the U.S. Supreme Court should base its decisions on the supreme law of our land, our Constitution. Many people think differently these days. A recent and rather shocking survey showed that around 80% of people who support Barack Obama believe that the Supreme Court should base its decisions not on the Constitution, but on what's "fair." Egad! On the other hand, the strong majority of McCain voters believe that the Supremes should look to our Constitution as the final authority.

Let's just make this short and sweet, because I know you want to get out of here. If Barack Obama gets those two nominations, and if the Democrat Senate rubber-stamps them, then we are going to have a Supreme Court making decisions based on their liberal definition of "fairness" with some consideration to foreign court decisions tossed in. This is perhaps Obama's greatest opportunity to do permanent damage to our Republic; permanent and irreparable damage. It's one thing when Barack Obama talks about wealth seizure and redistribution in terms of "fairness." It's quite another when that talk is legitimized by a Supreme Court decision.

So, dear undecided voters ... as Og Mandino (a great American) once said: "Use wisely your power of choice." There's a lot hanging in the balance.

There. I'm done.

]]>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:10:32 PDT1224904232 Here's the story, which proposes decreased penalties for marijuana possession under 100 grams and speculates on a "legalized" society:

• Legislators aim to snuff out penalties for pot use
  

And in my humble opinion, which CNN's "Sound Off" commentary feature may never post beneath the referenced article (an advantage TAC has over CNN is that we're not armed with OPINION-MONGERING MODERATORS), here's the bottom line:

• Money will be taken from local enforcement authorities and drug dealers.
  



• New money will be realized by corporations and federal and state taxing authorities.
  



• Metropolitan societies will experience notable changes in night-club life; unemployment; lethargy and dependency on gadgets (e.g. ipods and video games), thus spawning revolutions in advertising; and dating culture, which will be completely redefined. Oh, and their populations will have a shorter height on average.
  

]]>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:28:09 PDT1217446089
I also think back to a time when I was having a conversation about this very same thing with a few close friends and one interjected with the comment “You need to go to school so you can provide for your family in the future and be successful.” That comment shocked me because I hadn’t ever heard her say anything that ignorant in the many years I have known her, but mostly because she was home schooled her whole life. I thought maybe it’s not just the high schools that are supporting this idea of “you need to go to college”, but also many families promoting the same idea in their very own homes. This kind of ideology really makes me understand why now that I am in college why so many of my friends are constantly changing their majors or hating their college experience.

So I wanted to do some research on this issue, so I did what anyone would do and went to Google. I typed the words “why do students go to college” and one of the websites had some interesting points, like “earn more money” and “more job opportunities”. Then they go to list some common reasons why some students say they choose not to go, for example: “I can't afford it”, “Nobody in my family has ever gone.” “I don't know what I want to do with my life.”, etc. If you wonder what the rest are you can look, and see if the comments relate to you at all for yourself, but for me they don’t. Now I understand that the websites creators probably have good intentions, but they’re just adding to this false notion that college means success. I will leave it up to you to visit the website, because I do not want this article to seem even more bias (if that’s even possible). I would like them to post some of the real reasons like “I am to lazy”,or “I just don’t want to”.

In my own personal experiences and conversations with fellow students I have found that the number one reason they are going to college is fear of failing in life, and I hold the schools, and families that promote the idea that “you need to go to college to make it in life” personally responsible. It explains why so many students are struggling to make it in college; most students are not going for personal goals, or self motivation, but out of this fear that they have been brainwashed into believing. Now yes your chances of success will grow with a college degree, and some career goals people have require college or will gurantee your chances by a good amount, like doctors, lawyers, computer technicians for example, but college is not a guarantee for success in life and students need to realize this before they choose where and what to go to school for.


PS: In case you were wondering, I am going to school because the career I want requires schooling I need and want to receive.]]>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:44:45 PST1196919885 -- Thomas Jefferson

Today, America has its own “Wizard of Oz” who resides behind a curtain, out of sight, pulling levers and operating switches. He is Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, and his predecessor was Alan Greenspan. Bernanke is the mover and the shaker. He controls the money supply, or issuance of fiat currency (currency not backed by hard assets such as gold or silver) in the United States. Of course, the Fed Chairman is simply a puppet. He is a powerful and influential puppet, but a puppet never the less. Bernanke’s handlers are a secretive cabal of International Bankers. They are the owners of a central, private bank called the Federal Reserve. That’s right. Our currency is issued by a private bank! This is exactly what Thomas Jefferson had warned of so long ago. In 1967, Alan Greenspan wrote an essay entitled, “Gold and Economic Freedom,” in which he detailed the illegality of the Federal Reserve and its true agenda of “confiscation through inflation.”

"And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government.”

He goes on to state…

“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation...Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.”

Alan Greenspan was a chief opponent of the Federal Reserve before he was appointed the Federal Reserve Chairman. His view of central banking and the threat it posed to American Citizens was virtually identical to that of Thomas Jefferson. Did Alan Greenspan become part of the very thing he tried to expose years earlier?

And the Federal Reserve is not without its muscle, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Through intimidation and force, the IRS imposes an illegal form of taxation, intimately known to us all as the Federal Income Tax. Even if this tax were legally enforced, the Federal Income Tax revenue does not go toward government services people might expect. According to the Grace Commission, a panel appointed by Ronald Regan, all monies collected went toward the Federal Debt; and, that all Income Tax revenues were gone before any was spent on government services for the people. Author, G. Edward Griffin put it well when he stated, “The main purpose of the income tax is not to raise revenue, but to redistribute wealth and control society.”

So why is the Federal Income Tax illegal? Very simply stated, there is no law. The Constitution allows two forms of taxes: direct and indirect. A direct tax must be apportioned, or divided equally amongst the people. An indirect tax would be, for example, excise tax or tax on tobacco. The Federal Income Tax does not apply to either form of taxation. With the illegal passing of the 16th amendment in 1913, Congress created a third form of taxation which it was not authorized to do. In 1894, Congress previously tried to create an income tax which the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional. And when Congress tried again in 1913, the Supreme Court again ruled that the 16th amendment gave no new powers of taxation. So, suffice it to say, the 16th amendment is a fraud! The New York Times better stated the matter on January 25th 1916 when it reported, “In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax.”

And yet, here we are today. We are overtaxed and overregulated by secretly ruling, international, banking elites. Our puppet government surrendered its power to issue “hard” money backed by gold and silver, and empowered the Federal Reserve. Through a form of Fabian Socialist incrementalism, these Banking Elites have convinced an entire nation that “paper” is more valuable than gold or silver. Through gradually increasing the money supply in this country, they’ve driven down the value of the dollar, while orchestrating a controlled crash in the U.S. economy. Enticed by cheap credit, American citizens have been fooled, falling deeply in debt and becoming overextended. And like the orchestrated crash of 1929, now comes yet another period of consolidation, or “confiscation through inflation.” This, as Alan Greenspan had written about, is the true agenda of the Federal Reserve and the banking families of the world.

"Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes her laws"--Mayer Rothschild

Americans, who have been systematically dumb down through a “Prussian model” educational system, have not the critical thinking skills, nor imagination enough to comprehend this Matrix of control…until now. It is time to expose the true nature of America’s “Wizard of Oz” and to recognize that the only power he possesses is that which we ourselves surrender to him. And, with a little courage, and brains, and heart, we can liberate ourselves from his control.

]]>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:20:17 PST1197091217Original article published by FOXNews.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html


According to Al Gore and the mainstream media, global warming is here and will be here for years to come. And unless we do something, it will wipe out the planet.

I do not jive well with Al's theory. His movie An Inconvenient Truth, is full of fallacy's and inaccuracies, which were purposely included in the movie to spread fear about a false claim of Global Warming. Many of the Arctic scenes where the ice sheets are crumbling are actually unused computer generate clips from the movie The Day After Tomorrow.

Al Gore and associates earned an estimated 100+ million dollars in revenue based on his lie of "global warming". Clearly he is in it for the money. Why else would he be keeping the money, and not using it to fund research to an end of global warming? Simple. Because it is a lie.

I felt compelled to clear the air about a lie which is believed as true by millions, if not billions of people.

Back to the article.

According to Professor Chapman, we as a planet, will face a long-overdue ice age. If I am remembering correctly, we are 400,000+ years pastdue for an ice age.

I watched many a series of online videos posted on various websites. Maybe I am biased as I have never believed a single word that Al Gore or the MainStream Media (MSM) has falsely told us about global warming.

If you're interested, here is a link to a series of videos on the Global Warming subject, which instead of lies and fear mongering, use facts to disprove global warning. Be forewarned, it is a long series, and is addicting, you won't want to stop watching.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/27/best-statistical-scientific-talk-on-global-warming/ ]]>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:19:17 PDT1208981957 Talk radio and the blogosphere are both filled with people who get under my skin, “a raucous chorus of broadcast shock jocks and rightwing loudmouths.” I can admit, on my most gracious days, that some on the right have worthwhile information to discuss. Just the other day Dennis Miller was telling listeners that he believed Newt Gingrich would be the Republican to look for in 2012, not Sarah Palin, and I completely agree. Still, it draws me in like an onlooker to a train wreck. I guess I get some strange, twisted, pleasure out of hearing something completely absurd being passed along as newsworthy information. Whether it’s claiming that Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ or President Clinton is gay, I am always amazed by these types of hate filled messages which are nothing more than conservative spin, beamed directly into the loyal rightwing brains, continuing to divide America. Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and The King, Rush Limbaugh, along with countless others, all do the bidding of the RNC while never actually serving their country. Out of all these figures there is one shrill voice that rises above the cacophony, reaching millions without using the vessel of a show! I am speaking about the Queen of the Right, author and pundit, Ann Coulter.
Ann Hart Coulter was born December 8, 1961, in New York City. She was raised in an upper middle class family and eventually graduated with honors from Cornell University in 1984, receiving her law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. I will be the first to admit that Ms. Coulter seems to be an extremely smart woman as well as a gifted writer. She has made a name for herself as a controversial figure on the far right and this approach seems to fit Ann like a glove, penning six New York Times number one best-selling books accompanied by a very popular, nationally syndicated column. At this point in her career she could write anything and it would sell...BIG.
With all that being said, the hate filled fervor with which Ann writes cannot be overstated. She fans the ever growing fire on the right while making it crystal clear she is not out to make any friends on the left. "They're terrible people, liberals--these are people who believe you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and pronounce that a constitutional right has just been exercised. That really says it all. You don't want such people to like you!" Don’t sugar coat it, Ann…tell us how you really feel!
Aside from stinging remarks and broad shots at the left, I would say my exact distaste for Ms. Coulter would be the feeling I have about her, that she is a genuinely cruel and dishonest person. That being said, I don’t think Ann is anybody’s fool. She is wise enough to know what key ingredient is making her books sell and she knows that it is not her ideas alone. What I mean to say is that Ann Coulter is not ignorant; therefore, in my estimation, she must be incredibly cynical and bitter, and at the end of the day, she is only writing for the money. Ann has figured out the winning formula to increase book sales and popularity: be vicious, be hated, be a bitch. Far above any of her colleagues on the right, Ann has that special talent for cutting down the other side with such tenacity only the shredded remains of the original argument can be found. Anytime she is on television you are guaranteed to see a good ole’ fashioned cat fight. Coulter knows that the generation that loves Ultimate Fighting Championships and Jerry Springer will always stop to watch a fight. The more she does this, the more her books fly off the shelves. The titles of her books alone spark controversy; “Godless, The Church of Liberalism” or “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans”. Even if she believes all of what she writes I think there is a part of her that ramps up the intensity only to add stock to her already popular brand. Is that dishonest? Perhaps she is just a shrewd businesswoman? Either way, it doesn’t sit well with me.
I also take offense to her as a Christian. Ann, a professed Christian herself, has a very strange way of “spreading the word”. She was recently on the show “The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch”. The host, Donny Deutsch, asked her if it would be better if we (Americans) were all Christian. Ann responded: "Yes." Donny went on to ask, "We should all be Christian?" "Yes," Coulter responded, asking Deutsch, who is Jewish, if he would like to "come to church with me?” “After all, that is what Christians consider themselves to be, perfected Jews." This is not only a prime example of what I think Jesus WOULD NOT DO, but also backs up my theory that she plays up her controversial image. Ann knew that Donny Deutsch was Jewish and she knew exactly how it would play out on television. If you think that this is an isolated event with Coulter, think again. On September 13, 2001, she offered up the single most infamous foreign policy suggestion inspired by 9/11. While writing about Muslims, she declared, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." I don’t claim to be an expert on world history but I think that was tried once before. It was called The Crusades. In all seriousness, this type of talk embarrasses me as a Christian and I think it does much more to turn people away from Jesus.
A simple YouTube search with Ann’s name will uncover numerous videos of Ann being caught in a lie or pummeled in a debate. I personally love the video where Al Franken pulls out a paper with an actual source from her book, “Slander” and shows that she quotes something completely out of context. I was even a little embarrassed for Ann…only a little. One video that I found fascinating was an interview she gave to a Canadian Reporter where she was defending comments she made about Canada on Fox News. She was castigating Canada for not going into Iraq and at the same time she was blasting any anti-American sentiment from “ungrateful Canadians,” stating, “They need us! They better hope the United States doesn’t roll over one night and crush them!” When asked by a Canadian reporter what she was implying, Coulter went on to say, “Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?” The Canadian interviewer pointed out that Canada did not send troops to Vietnam. A flustered Coulter did not believe this and said that she’d have to get back to him on that fact. According to the interviewer, she never did get back to him and a quick Google search shows that they in fact did not send troops to fight beside the Americans. (Canada did eventually send 250 peacekeeping troops in 1973) It is moments like these that make me question Coulter’s honesty. I don’t expect her to remember every bit of information on conflicts like these but one should not be spewing “facts” about Canadian history to a Canadian unless you’ve got all your ducks in a row.
Perhaps I am completely wrong about Ann Coulter and she is just a great businesswoman, playing to her base while selling books by the millions. Maybe these aren’t lies but subtle untruths meant to enhance her persona. Maybe she’s just being the best Christian she knows how to be. The only other possibility is that she truly believes what she is saying which would mean that she is extremely narrow minded and unwilling to compromise on issues or to acknowledge reality, which is a bit hard to rationalize since I, as I stated before, believe she is not an ignoramus. Even if I give Ann Coulter the benefit of the doubt I still would not be able to rally behind the venom with which she destroys her opponents. Ann Coulter is as free as anyone in this country to speak her mind and write whatever she thinks, but I don’t feel she does anything to enhance the all too fragile and important discourse in this country. Yet, this week brought an unforeseen event and perhaps the only realistic way to silence Coulter; she broke her jaw and had to have her mouth wired shut.
]]>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:53:56 PST1227743636