Thursday, August 02, 2007
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Please check for viruses
I have spent most of yesterday and all night getting Spybot Search and Destroy (just hit next when the Wizard tells you to go back because something is not complete--for the free version) and Ad Aware (also free), because Norton did not catch the viruses that infected my computer. I am so sorry to put you through this, but it is better that I tell you now than to have you infecting others. That is, if you are infected.
I became suspicious when I went to sign in at one of the private sites where I write. I typed the first letter of my ID, and there was my whole address book! I got into a heated arguement with the administrator of that site for stealing my info, and he gently pointed me to the possibility that I may be infected. I was sure I was not, because I have Norton. YEAH, RIGHT.
It will take about an hour each for them to scan your computer (if this is your first time), but it is worth it. I do recommend that you read the tutorial for Spybot. Again, I am so very sorry. I hope you find it in your heart to forgive me. Have a day. (I know I left out the 'nice' this time. I do not think this is nice.)
Saturday, June 23, 2007
I'm so angry, I can't even comment
Friday, June 22, 2007
I have just found out that a couple of days ago a very good friend of mine was hospitalized and had triple by-pass surgery on his heart. I am begging for everyone who reads this to please pray for John Darby's speedy recovery. This means I expect him to recover.
Dear Heavenly Father,
You are the Supreme Doctor. You can hear our prayers, and You can Heal anyone of anything. Please hear my petition for John Darby. God, I know I've been away far too long, but please do not punish John for my sins. Please Heal him, Lord. Hear our prayers. I love you, Lord. In Jesus' Name I pray. Amen.
Monday, June 04, 2007
PORKER OF THE WEEK: OEA LOBBYIST MELISSA CLARKCOLUMBUS - Eye on the Statehouse has named Ohio Education Association (OEA) lobbyist Melissa Clark as its Porker of the Week. Last week, Ms. Clark asked the Senate Finance and Financial Institutions Committee to severely reduce charter schools and eliminate the popular EdChoice voucher program.
“By placing a premium on choice and competition at the expense of academic excellence, these programs are contrary to the interest of the state, parents and students,” Ms. Clark told the Senate committee.
Ms. Clark did not promise increased efficiency by education bureaucrats in exchange for the reduction or elimination of these programs. She also neglected to mention Ohio’s charter school and EdChoice voucher programs were developed because many public schools underperformed. In fact, over 115,550 students in Ohio’s eight largest cities are attending 251 schools that do not meet the state’s minimal education standards.
Further, charter schools and EdChoice vouchers are only available in school districts on academic watch or academic emergency. An increasing number of parents with children in underperforming public schools have opted for these education choice programs. The Ohio Department of Education recently reported applications to the EdChoice voucher program increased by 117 percent from last year.
The OEA’s principal concern is the pay and benefits of its members. Educating kids comes at a distant second. Ms. Clark presented herself as an advocate of children’s education. However, she is simply a union lobbyist seeking more benefits and less accountability for her members. Ms. Clark is the Porker of the Week.
The full text of the Porker of the Week is available at eyeonthestatehouse.org.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald: RIP
She died of cancer, as did Rep. Norwood earlier this year. I suppose I should mention that Juanita was a Democrat, and Charles Norwood was a Republican. We do not know what type of cancer, and I was not even aware she was ill.
Ya see, she was my Congresswoman. While we were on different sides of the aisle, she was always courteous and active. For a Democrat, she was a great lady. May you rest in peace, and may God comfort all of those who have been left to carry on. God bless you all.
Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-Calif. meets reporters on Capitol Hill, in this Nov. 29, 2005 file photo. Millender-McDonald, D-Calif., died early Sunday, April 22, 2007 of cancer, an aide said. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)
Source: Peter Prengaman of AP.
Friday, April 13, 2007
How the tax system works today; Tomorrow, try my way
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does make you think!!Do you understand now? Do you see any logic in this? If not, may I suggest to you a FAIR tax? It consists of complete removal of the IRS forever (savings in that alone!) to be replaced with a federal sales tax that applies to everyone. This way the people who spends more pay more in taxes. This would be fine, since they are now given the choice on what to buy according to price.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!
Do not cringe, please! I know that the price and availability are so important to those of us who sit at a desk and crunch numbers, but trust me on this. This is a good theory. Here is why. There would be no taxation on anything not to be considered a final product. A final product would be designated as "A product available for retail."
This way we are not taxed for the flour, sugar, eggs, transportation, etc. which go into the bread we buy. If flour is not taxed, that cost is not passed on to the consumer. Also, the bakery pays less for his product, so our cost is less. This only one of millions of examples.
This is being explained by someone who only took two courses in Economics, but it is also common sense. For each product we buy, every single solitary ingredient is taxed on its way to every place it stops on its way to market. Is that fair? NO! It should be a final product tax, and everyone should pay the same amount.
If you don't want to be on the bottom rung of society, stop sitting there! Get an education, then get a better job. Better yet! Create your own job. This is America. Land of the *taxed to death* free!
By the way, are you aware that the Boston Tea Party was caused by an outcry over a 2% tax?
Hat tip: The Chicken Coop linked to Syringe.Net.Nz.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
President Pat Toomey Interviewed
Growing The ClubQ & A: Pat Toomey
Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007
The Club for Growth has waged some high-stakes, high-publicity campaigns the past two election cycles. In 2004, the Club fueled Rep. Pat Toomey's challenge against Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Republican primary; and two years later, it tried to take out Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. In both cases, the Club lost, but it also cemented its reputation as a group that would aggressively try to enforce the ideals of "economic freedom" within the Republican ranks.
Moderate Republicans and GOP campaign committees have called the Club an obstacle to retaining seats. Democrats seem to expect attacks as well, although the Club surprised many political observers by supporting a candidate in a Democratic primary in Texas in 2006. What's clear is that in its eight year existence the Club has become a major player in promoting right-of-center economic principles.
In a recent interview with NationalJournal.com's Patrick Ottenhoff, Toomey, now the Club's president, discussed the Club's campaign philosophy, President Bush's economic record and more.
Q: You wrote a 2006 Wall Street Journal column in which you said that the Republican Party needs to return to the principles of Reagan. Yet one of Reagan's core principles was the so-called Eleventh Commandment, "Thou shall not speak ill of fellow Republicans." How do you square the Club for Growth's recent primary challenges against Republicans with Reagan's Eleventh Commandment?
Toomey: You may recall in 1976, Ronald Reagan challenged an incumbent Republican president, in a Republican primary -- the kind of thing that gets a lot of feathers ruffled. But he understood that that was necessary to recapture the purpose and commitment of limited government that had to be at the core of the Republican Party.
I think that that example of Ronald Reagan's leadership in 1976 -- his willingness to run against Gerald Ford in a Republican primary, setting the stage for what became his stunning victory in 1980 and two enormously successful terms -- I think that's the legacy that I look to, and that I think that people who believe in Reagan's message should look to.
That speaks to the way Republicans who are committed to conservative principles need to react when Republicans in office abandoned those principles.
Q: Gerald Ford went on to win the nomination. Is the Club's goal to win races or to just shake things up?
Toomey: Let me back up for a second, because you asked -- you said, is it the Club's goal to do "a" or "b." So, let me tell you what the Club's goal is,[because] it's neither "a" nor "b."
What we're all about is advocating policy that's going to lead to maximum economic growth. What we want to see is the kind of policies from the federal government that can produce the strongest sustainable economic growth, create the most opportunity and raise wages and standards of living as much as possible.
We don't have those kinds of policies in Washington now. Our economic growth, while strong, is far less than it could be. Our vision is to see the day come when Congress is so committed to powerful economic growth and elevating the quality of life for American citizens by enabling that powerful economic growth. That's what we strive to do.
So we do it through a variety of means and tactics. We try to persuade members of Congress of what the right policy is, both directly and indirectly through the media. We hold members of Congress accountable. We have scorecards, and we keep track of who's voting to encourage greater prosperity and who's voting against that prosperity.
And then of course we have a political arm, so to speak -- we have a [political action committee]. The PAC helps to elect candidates who believe in limited government and economic growth through economic freedom.
And so we use all of those tools to advance the policies that we know will lead to greater prosperity.
Q: When you engage in campaigns, is it a "play to win" mentality, or can there be victory in defeat where you're at least sending a message?
Toomey: When our PAC gets involved in a race, it is with absolutely every intention of winning the race.
And furthermore, we won't endorse a candidate if we don't think the candidate has a very real chance of winning. The candidate doesn't have to be a front-runner. In fact, most of the candidates we support are underdogs, but we won't endorse a candidate if we don't think the candidate has a very good chance of winning the primary and the general.
To give you some facts that I think illustrate that, if you look at the 2006 election cycle, the Club for Growth PAC endorsed 11 House candidates in their respective primaries. Of the 11 that the Club endorsed, eight won their primaries, and of the eight who won their primaries, seven went on to win their general elections.
I think that's an extremely impressive record, especially in what was a very, very bad Republican year. And it's all the more impressive when you consider that many of the candidates that we supported were underdogs going into the race and were not the first choice of much of the Republican establishment.
So that's a long way of saying it's not about sending a message, it's about winning.
Q: How much do you think President Bush has adhered to the principles of Reaganomics, both on the tax side and the spending side? How happy are you with his record?
Toomey: I would throw another category into it also, which is the trade side, and I would say that the president's record has been mixed.
On tax policy, the president's record has been outstanding. The 2003 tax cut package were a terrific combination of supply-side tax cuts that had exactly the intended effect of tremendously accelerating economic growth, creating the opportunity for Americans to build wealth, actually generating more revenue for the Treasury than was being generated prior to the tax cuts.
So, on any meaningful level, the tax cuts were enormously successful. President Bush deserves all the credit in the world for really the first substantial supply-side tax cuts in 20 years.
On the spending front, we're disappointed. The president clearly throughout his six years so far has not demonstrated a strong commitment to the limited government model that Reagan advocated.
He signed a farm bill into law that moved us away from market-based farm policy and toward the more command-control, bigger government approach. He advocated a huge new entitlement to Medicare. He pushed for an education bill that expanded the government's role in education. He accepted a transportation bill that grew spending enormously and had an enormous number of earmarks.
So in a variety of ways I think it's clear that the president chose not to commit a lot of resources to fighting for less government. So in that respect we've been disappointed.
But the third thing I wanted to mention is the trade policy; and this is very, very important to the well-being of our economy. It's no coincidence that we have the freest global trading environment in 100 years, maybe ever, and we also have the strongest economy in a very, very long time, and have had a very long, sustained economic expansion.
It's in part because of the expansion of trade that's occurred under both Democrat and Republican presidents. But this president in particular has been a very strong advocate for continuing trade, and that will be part of his pro-growth legacy.
Q: Who would you put the most faith in to bring a philosophy of economic freedom to the White House, whether that person has any intention of running or not?
Toomey: I can't say right now. We're still evaluating the candidates who have indicated an interest in running. We're doing our research on all of them and it wouldn't be fair for me to come to a conclusion until we've gotten that process done.
Q: But you seem to have singled out candidates you don't want in the White House, such as Huckabee...
Toomey: We haven't said anything about who we want, or who don't want. What we've done, and what we'll continue to do is, we've begun the process of issuing a series of presidential white papers, where we do a pretty thorough analysis of the candidates' actual records on economic growth issues.
As it happens, Governor [Mike] Huckabee [R-Ark.] is the first candidate for whom we've released a paper. And the fact is, Governor Huckabee on balance, raised taxes quite substantially and increased spending quite substantially while he was governor of Arkansas.
So we laid that out. We present the facts and a bit of analysis of the facts, and the context. But we haven't come out and endorsed anybody and we haven't come out and said we opposed anybody.
Q: Will the fact that there is a Democratic Congress give the Club a greater fundraising potential and more traction because there will be a clear platform to rally against?
Toomey: That's entirely possible. Fundraising is off to a terrific start in 2007, but we also had a great year in 2006 and a great year in 2005. So I think it's not entirely clear yet. We're still a young organization and so we've never been through a period of time when control of Congress has switched hands.
So we're going to have to see but I will have to tell you all indications point to our membership growing in number and remaining very enthusiastic about our mission to help encourage pro-growth policy.
Q: What has been more professionally fulfilling for you, serving as a U.S. congressman or leading the Club for Growth?
Toomey: That's a great question and it's actually a hard one to answer. I thoroughly enjoyed my six years in the U.S. House. There were moments of great frustration but there were also moments of great satisfaction. We had our small victories here and there.
But I'm equally enjoying the Club for Growth. It's just a fantastic organization. We have a terrific team in Washington and just absolutely wonderful members all across the country -- so dedicated to the principles of freedom and stronger prosperity.
So, I've only been at the Club for a little over two years, so I think I have to answer that question maybe a couple years from now when I have a better perspective.
(The current Club for Growth is a new entity operating under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. It purchased the assets and name of the old organization, which operated under section 527. The new Club for Growth expects to be even more effective in promoting pro-growth policies.")
Hat tip: The Club for Growth.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
News on Government Waste coming from Minnesota
- In case you missed it, you can watch CAGW President Tom Schatz’s appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” this morning online. In the weekly “Pork Watch” segment, Tom and CNBC host Joe Kernen discussed the record $2.3 billion loan the Federal Railroad Administration is considering granting to the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad (DM&E) at the behest of Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), a former lobbyist for DM&E.
As Tom wrote to you last week, this corporate welfare handout is a poor credit risk for taxpayers. DM&E’s current yearly revenue is less than the estimated annual service payment on the loan, and the railroad ranks last in safety among the nation’s 43 largest railroad companies!
If you haven’t already, please take a moment right now to tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to oppose this special-interest giveaway that is so risky it’s being compared to the $1.5 billion Chrysler bailout in 1980!
Tom Schatz can be seen every Wednesday on “Squawk Box” at approximately 7:50 a.m. EST. (Please note all media appearances are subject to change.)
Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation's largest taxpayer watchdog group with over one million members and supporters nationwide. It is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
For more information about CAGW, visit our website at www.cagw.org. Make a tax-deductible contribution today to support CAGW's waste-fighting efforts that have helped save taxpayers $898 billion!
Help spread the word about CAGW and the waste in Washington. Forward this message to a friend.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Operation: Love from Home (Sticky til Nov 30)
She has a special project planned for this Christmas holiday, and it is a very popular and simple one. Please continue reading to find out what you can do. Thank you for all of your help for all of those who deserve our eternal thanks. God bless you all.
Category: (Military) Family.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Why Vote Republican?
I believe you may have seen some of these clippings before. That is, if you were paying attention. The problem is, however, many people do not have the time to bother with politics in the mix of their daily hustle. That is understandable. That is why Wire Werks TV has saved us the time by gathering some of the most famous quotes together in one clip. Take a listen, and you will understand, too. We all must get out and vote Republican!
PS. If you want to complain about the candidates, may I ask you a simple question? Where were you during the primaries? I was voting for the conservatives. That is when we choose our reprentatives. I did not know thee...
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Vote NO on Proposition 87
The people of California pay more for gasoline than any other state in the union. This is partially due to taxes. If this bill passes, you can look forward to higher gasoline prices, less police officers, less fire fighters, less teachers, and the list continues. For these reasons, I am asking everyone in California to vote NO on Proposition 87. Thank you.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Sen. Tom McClintock's Online HQ is open
Step 1.If you have any questions or would like to donate to his campaign, you can reach do so here: www.HelpTom.com!
Download and Print Campaign Literature.
We've provided two campaign handouts and a brochure that you can print on your own printer. This will print on one side of a standard 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper.
Contact 10 Voters in Your Neighborhood.
We've teamed with VictoryTeam2006 to provide lists of registered voters in your neighborhood. When you click the link at the Online Headquarters, you will be taken to a request form. Fill the form out completely and a list of ten voters in your neighborhood will be generated for you.
Come back as often as you like to generate new lists of voters. The more voters you contact for Tom McClintock, the better his chances!
Tell your Friends.
Use the contact form we've set up to email five friends today and tell them how they can help Tom McClintock campaign too.
You may also visit his online headquarters here: Online Headquarters.
If we all get together, we can really make this happen. Are you with us? I hope so! Have a great day.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
SacBee=NO on 87
This is quite unusual, since Sacramento is a socialist town. Kudos are in order to the Sacramento Bee. Thank you.
"Proposition 87 mandates the expenditure of $4 billion and authorizes the new agency to sell bonds to incur this debt, regardless of whether the new tax will generate sufficient revenue to pay the principal and interest on the bonds. As a result, it creates a significant risk for the taxpayers and the programs funded by the State's General Fund."
William Hamm, Ph.D.
Former California State Legislative Analyst
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Her staff is 38 people!
Name, Start Date, End Date, and Amount.Did you notice how many people were paid twice? Did you know your tax dollars were paying for this many people? The total for THIS QUARTER is $208,381.55. Feel free to recalculate that. lol.
Amos, Mary A, 1/03/06-02/28/06, $6,986.43.
Amos, Mary A, 1/01/06-01/02/06, $240.91.
Anfinson, Thomas Elmer, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $3,750.00.
Anfinson, Thomas Elmer, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $83.33.
Brodsky, Jane, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $10,974.92.
Brodsky, Jane, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $233.33.
Cannon, Clifford, 03/02/06-03/02/06, $5,638.89.
Christian, Hassan, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $9,147.11.
Christian, Hassan, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $205.55.
Cooks, Shirley W, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $21,621.30.
Cooks, Shirley W, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $485.87.
Edwards, Mary L, 01/03/06-02/28/06, $5,324.73.
Edwards, Mary L, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $183.61.
Ellington, Richard B, 02/02/06-03/31/06, $8,833.19.
Figueroa-Berrios, Liria S, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $6,798.57.
Figueroa-Berrios, Liria S, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $152.77.
Gaddis, Mary E, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $6,816.61.
Gaddis, Mary E, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $151.31.
Gamboa, David A, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $8,170.65.
Gamboa, David A, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $183.61.
Hudson, Andrew K, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $10,720.43.
Hudson, Andrew K, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $240.91.
Martin, Josephine A, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $6,816.61.
Martin, Josephine A, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $151.31.
Oyinlola, Sylvia M, 01/03/06-03/04/06, $14,979.01.
Patton, Ian S, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $6,848.61.
Patton, Ian S, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $151.38.
Robinson, Francisco, 12/01/05-12/30/05, $1,000.00. (This was supposed to reported Oct.-Dec.!)
Sing, Pechmony L, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $8,170.65.
Sing, Pechmony L, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $183.61.
Sisk, Avril U, 01/11/06-02/28/06, $9,722.22.
Smith, Angela L, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $8,241.59.
Smith, Angela L, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $183.33.
Taylor, Andrea V, 02/22/06-03/31/06, $5,200.00.
Viltz, Stanley C, 01/03/06-01/20/06, $3,250.00.
Viltz, Stanley C, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $361.11.
Young, John N, 01/03/06-03/31/06, $13,837.76.
Young, John N, 01/01/06-01/02/06, $304.74.
If she will spend our money on herself in this manner, how much more will she be willing to spend to stay in power?
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
USA to Rhode Island: You're out of the Union
APEC calls for greater currency flexibility
Sunday, September 10, 2006
PR: We haven't forgotten
Have you ever wondered what happened to the unity we all shared right after that tragic day? Tonight, Gregg and Kevin will take a look back to that awful day. They will examine what happened to us, our political parties, and the facts. The evidence as we all saw with our own eyes. Can we allow the media to deceive us?
At 7pm EST, Pundit Review will be providing sounds from that day. Try to remember where you were, how you felt, what you thought.
At 8pm EST, one of the most influential members of the new media, Scott Johnson of Powerline. He will be discussing what happened that day, what went right, what went wrong. He will also discuss the emergence of the blogosphere.
At 9pm EST, we will turn our attention to Matt from Blackfive. He will bring us his weekly "Someone You Should Know." We will also be discussing Matt's new book (which I already have in my possession!), "The Blog of War."
What is Pundit Review Radio?You may listen to the program by streamlining here. May all of your loved be safely with you. If you are not geographically close, may they be close in your hearts.
Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Hailed as “Groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Leader.
RememberCategory: Radio Shows.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Micco for Congress
Sgt. Micco is an Operation Iraqi Freedom Veteran. He disagrees with Congressman Rothman, who has chosen to follow in Murtha's footsteps. He believes Iraq may one day be a wonderful ally.
There is more information in an e-mail I received from Ronald Kessler. I have rewritten that letter with the information over here. Thank you.
Hidden Tax Cut
Yes, when someone showed this to me, I went directly to FactCheck.org to see if I could get a laugh out of them. To my surprise, they are claiming it is true!
They have sent me an article written Friday, May 26, 2006, by Ken Belson who is working for the New York Times. Yes, I know. Be very careful. lol. It is titled, "Phone Tax Laid to Rest At Age 108.
I don't know about you, but I will take any tax cut I can get. After 108 years, do you think we may have paid this debt many times over? I do.
You may find the article at My Newz 'n Ideas Plus! if you would like to read it. Have a great day.
PS. I pray we don't need to fight this stupid war again. I want my 3%! Also, we need our sovereignty.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Sen. Tom McClintock for Lt. Governor
Protecting Our Property RightsYou know he's right. I know he's right. Haven't we all been asking, "Why isn't the government doing anything?"
California Republican Party Endorses Proposition 90
The California Republican Party endorsed Proposition 90 (known as Save our Homes), the November ballot initiative that will restore our basic property rights. The endorsement came Sunday at the GOP’s state convention in Los Angeles.
“The Republican Party’s endorsement is important, but this issue is neither Republican or Democratic—it is fundamentally American,” said State Senator Tom McClintock. “This is about restoring the original property rights protections of the American Bill of Rights that were ripped out of the Constitution by the Kelo decision of the U.S. Supreme Court a year ago.”
During the convention on Saturday morning, Tom McClintock led a workshop on protecting our property rights. The Protecting our Property Rights workshop was held to raise the awareness of Proposition 90 and build support for the initiative among Republican faithful. Senator McClintock was joined by Assembly member Mimi Walters, Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby, Orange County Register senior editorial writer and columnist Steven Greenhut and Bob Blue, a business owner of a luggage shop in Hollywood who has been a victim of eminent domain abuse. About 100 delegates to the CRP’s convention this weekend attended the workshop in support of the initiative.
McClintock said last year’s Court decision broke the Social Compact that gives government its legitimacy and opened a new era when the rich and powerful can use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain. Government may now literally take the house of a person it doesn’t like and give it to a person that it does like. Stripped of all the sophistries and euphemisms, this is what it comes down to.
“There are 6,000 public agencies in California that now have the power to seize your home, pay you pennies on the dollar for it, and then give it to somebody else for their own personal gain and profit,” McClintock said. “Since this decision in June 2005, California lawmakers have failed to act, failed to ‘fix’ the Kelo decision and restore our property rights. Sadly, it now falls upon the people of California to take action and pass Proposition 90.”
Well, if they did that, they would be giving up their power. We must stop them. Please join us in this fight. It is a worthy one.
To contribute to Tom's campaign for Lt. Governor, please click here. Thank you for all of your help in advance. :)
Technorati Tags: politics, property rights, proposition 90 and Tom McClintock for Lt. Governor.
Category: Politics/Debate and CA.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
A Look Inside Senator Tom McClintock
was Unveiled for GOP’s County Chairs.
When the new DVD highlighting the public life of State Senator Tom McClintock was unveiled this weekend during the California Republican Party’s state convention in Los Angeles, it was the County Chairmen’s Association that saw it first. As the county chairs were meeting Friday afternoon, the lights dimmed and the video story began. Eight minutes later, Tom McClintock, Republican candidate for Lt. Governor, walked through the door and was greeted to a thunderous applause and a standing ovation.
“The venue was significant,” said John Feliz, the campaign’s director and chief strategist. “The County Chairs are critical to the party’s success and are responsible for recruiting and deploying Republican volunteers across the state’s 58 counties. They are committed to the Republican Party and to making sure Tom McClintock is elected Lt. Governor.”
The response by the county chairs was tremendous and created a buzz the rest of the weekend.
Produced by the California Republican Party, the DVD actually runs 7-minutes and 37-seconds and will be used to showcase Tom in both small and large gatherings. The story talks about McClintock growing up in Southern California and his entry into politics at an early age. Several minutes are dedicated to McClintock’s campaign for Governor during the historic Recall race of 2003.
If you are looking to help Tom become your next Lt. Governor, invite your friends over and share the video story. The video is available for viewing on McClintock’s campaign Web site: www.HelpTom.com. Watch “A Public Life – the Tom McClintock Story” today!
By the way, the DVD is also posted to one of the most popular sites on the World Wide Web. Now, people who visit the online video portal YouTube can learn more about Tom McClintock. Tell your friends!
Thursday, August 17, 2006
It could be me...
The first incident I provided was found at bottom of the whole written bill. The others are from the short title. There is absolutely no way to tell what in God's name they have hidden in there.
I would provide a link, but they don't seem to work for me. When you go to the Thomas Guide, enter HR 4. You will then see 3 articles that are a complete match. I chose the 2nd one, which is named above. From there, you're on your own. lol.
I do not know why they need so many pieces of paper to write one bill. Can you imagine it? Where are the environmentalists? I object!
Maybe we need to pass a bill that states if the bill takes more than 3 pieces of paper, it must submitted to the citizens of the United States for consideration. Maybe then we could really see what is going on and stop it before it even gets started. Hey, I can dream, right?
Monday, August 14, 2006
State Sen. Tom McClintock is "The Man"
His 19th District covers a little corner of Los Angeles while the bulk of his constituents are in Santa Barbara and Ventura. There are 846,791 people in his district, while only 496,419 people are registered to vote. 182,802 (36.8%) are registered Democrats, and there are 210,585 (42.4%) registered Republicans.
In his re-election to State Senate seat, he won handily. Deservedly so. He is a man who will answer any question you have without beating around the bush. Illegal aliens? No! Pro-Growth? Yes. Private or public? Private. On down the line.
He can astonish people with his one word answers. One reason being they never expect it from a politician! He is the type of citizen-politician that anyone could love.
This year, Sen. McClintock is running for Lt. Governor. He needs our help. His site is McClintock! For Lt. Governor. If you could help in anyway, the state of California would be eternally grateful. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Fiscal Irresponsibility and the Economic Support Fund
This is Congresswoman MM's amendment for the Economic Support Fund for two million more dollars. This is part of the Foreign operations, export financing, and related programs appropriations bill, 2007, passed on June 5, 2006.
To see the Congresswoman''s amendment, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:H53533. (I have decided to leave the link open to you, because I'm tired of chasing it. lol. I post, I link, it doesn't work. Argghhh!)
My good Lord! Have you ever seen ever seen how many items are in just one of these appropriations? We must attack this problem, so we are able to read each appropriation with ease. No kidding. Now back to the topic. :)
Morally, I believe we have a leg to stand on. Constitutionally? Within our borders, back in the day, I believe that would have the right thing to do. We did not have the type of transportion we have today, so I am not clear. Don't we need a treaty or an amendment to spend this kind of money, even though it is morally the right thing to do?
Next years appropriations bill which includes the Economic Support Fund has grown to the gross amount of $2,650,740,000. That's right, TWO TRILLION DOLLARS. How is it we cannot fix our budget again?
I do not want another politician, from either party, crying about the deficit. Let me do that for you. At least my tears will be sincere. I cannot believe this. And the Republicans are in charge? OF WHAT?
Missing in 2006?
Hey! I wonder, why did I never get paid? Oh, that's right. I volunteered! I was always under the impression that when you Volunteer, you do not get paid. No matter how noble.
If you are to be paid, it is called 'working.' I wonder, did they pay their Social Security tax, disability tax, medicare tax, city tax, state tax, and federal tax? After all, they were working...
Social Security and Personal Retirement Accounts
Well. Isn't that interesting? She lives in a heavily Democrat district! Who knew? (Besides us, that is. lol)
Survey Question: Do you support using Social Security resources to create Private Retirement Accounts?
Yes 5607 61.7
No 3475 38.2
Maybe the message about PRA's isn't dead? Hmm...
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
We Did It! Twice!
"Tim Walberg defeated Representative Joe Schwarz last night in Michigan's seventh district. The final tally was 53% to 47%, a decisive margin of victory." This is awesome! Let me explain why.
It's the first time any Republican has lost his primary this year and the first time in a dozen years a Republican has lost a primary based on ideology.Everyone who helped by donating, take a bow. Now for the second win. Colorado's 5th District was won by Doug Lamborn. We also endorsed him.
Voters sent a clear message to Congress that they are tired of the big-spending, big-government policies that contributed so much to incumbent Joe Schwarz's downfall.
Club members donated over $600,000 to Walberg's campaign and the Club for Growth PAC spent over $500,000 in independent expenditures including hard-hitting TV and radio ads that underscored Joe Schwarz's liberal record on economic issues.
This race showed the power of Club for Growth members acting together.
You beat the entire Republican establishment, which lined up solidly behind Schwarz despite his pork-happy spending. Schwarz had the backing of many left-wingers too. A prominent environmental group poured over $350,000 into the race. A who's who of labor unions kicked in over $130,000 and former Democratic Gov. Jim Blanchard made get-out-the-vote phone calls to Democrats urging them to vote for Schwarz in the primary.
Club members donated over $200,000 to his campaign and the Club for Growth PAC spent nearly $100,000 on independent expenditures, including running TV ads during the closing days of the campaign.This one was funny, however. There was a "Dewey beats Truman" moment when the Rocky Mountain News website stated that big tax-spender Crank had won. Had they waited a few moments, they would have realized the absentee ballots had brought Doug to victory. Yes!
Now I am going to do something for all of you who I know do not want your tax dollars going down the drain. I am going to let you in on a campaign that only has six days left to go. Although our record is 8-2, this is a must win.
"Sharron Angle, a taxpayer superstar from the Nevada Legislature, squares off against two tax hikers in a Republican primary in a strong Republican seat." This is possibly our last opportunity to make our voices heard. Please help her with a donation, and you may also help the Club the Growth with a donation.
This way, we can make more TV and radio ads. Please donate here. She is incredible, and you will not be sorry. Have a great day everyone, and thank you.
PS. Donations are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Death Tax=$2 Minimum Wage Hike? NO!
Yes, I know the lilly-livered, weak-kneed Republicans tacked on the death tax, but do you understand the long term effect? If not, you have no business voting at all. If you do, then you would vote again this.
It is simple logic, really. No matter what, every presidential election cycle the minimum wage would go up two dollars. Do you want to be the one to break the news to these socialists (at the least) that there are no jobs because most people went out of business due to overhead (labor)?
The poor would suffer the most. No one would be able to hire the people who did not have experience, did not a history, and did not have a skill. Also, no one could afford to hire to someone to flip hamburgers at $19.15/hour?
Allow me a moment to explain this bill. Minimum wage will automatically rise two dollars each presidential cycle, while the death tax would be elimanated. That is the simple version.
It would only take seven cycles (4x7=28 years, and from $5.15 + 2=$7.15 + 2=$9.15 + 2=$11.15 + 2=$13.15 + 2=$15.15 + 2=$17.15 + 2=$19.15) to reach that median. That's only one generation!
Then you have to satisfy the unions. Should I go on, or do you get it? I wrote to them, and warned them against tying a great bill with a terrible bill.
HEY GOVERNMENT, this is NOT Germany's fascism, and we do not live under governmental decree. You not only will not, you can not tell us how to run a business, who to hire, how much to pay them, etc.
All of you people who do not want the big brother watching you, where are you? Oh, I see you have your dirty little hands out. Go figure.
Category: Economics 101 and Congress.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
I'll be right on it
For those of you in different districts, please pick up the mantle for your own district. I do not care if you are a Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Leftist, or Conservative. We need to rein in this spending!
After all, isn't that our job? If we do not watch, if there are no gatekeepers, what is to stop them from all that temtation? They must know they are being watched. Have a great day.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Free Housing Everyone!
They don't really care you, just in case you didn't know. They want to protect their incumbancy, and I am here to take it away!
Now to get to the nitty-gritty of it all. Rep Ney, Robert W. have brought forth a motion that would "modernize and update the National Housing Act and enable the Federal Housing Administration to use risk-based pricing to more effectively reach underserved borrowers, and for other purposes."
It is HR 5121 (in the Senate it is S.3535). It was voted on July 25, 2006, and it needed a 2/3 vote to pass. Quite handily, I'm afraid. [Here are their cosponsors (106)] I'm not quite sure yet what this is, but in case you would like all the information: House Reports: 109-589.
There were only 7 Republicans who voted against this pork-buster. They are Culberson, Duncan, Flake, Hensarling, Inglis (SC), Paul, and Ed Royce of California. (I campaigned for him as a volunteer. Great guy.)
There were 415 people voting, so when you subtract the 7 you end up with many anti-capitalist, anti-capitalists and/or power hungry people who desire to spend more of our money on a failed socialist program. This was a motion to suspend the Rules and pass, as amended.
Why does it bother me that people are receiving the help they desparately need? Do I have a heart of ice, or what? Let me put it to you this way. When I was homeless, I didn't ask for a thing. Maybe a meal, but I went to a Church for that. I wasn't on your welfare programs, and I certainly wasn't in any of your housing projects! This motivated me to get back up off the ground.
These geniuses in Congress have decided that people who do not contribute to society should have a free house. No kidding. Why? When I cannot to pay for a home for myself, please tell me why I should pay for your home for you?
If I am forced to pay for someone else's house, how is that reasonable and just? How can you explain to me why I should pay anything for you? You don't own my money, I do.
If you believe you have a right to put your hand in my pocket, then I have a few rights and rules I'd like to lay down for you! No more abortions. Child support? Oh no! You are getting married if I have to get out ol' Sally! You're to be at Church every week. You are to raise your child with manners so as not to interrupt adults whilst they partake in a conversation, and I could go on, but I'm quite afraid I will lose my audience! lol.
There is much work to do. Yes, Congresswoman MM voted for this amendment. Did I really forget to mention that? Oops. :)
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Thank you, Mr. Roth
Porkers should fear me
Of course, I need to visualize each aspect of this page's abilities, so that I can know when I have gone too far, too little, or just right.Of course, instead of the blockquote, there is also this:
- I would like to test this aspect out to see how much of a margin was given to it. Please hold on. lol