Wednesday, February 29, 2012

IS ENOUGH ENOUGH OR NOT? much is enough federal income tax to pay?

Should we pay 2% (the original guarantee from the federal government as to the limit for income tax)?

Maybe 11% is enough.

From your point of view, maybe 25% or 30% or 40% would be enough.

Maybe 100% should be the level of income taxes paid and then the federal government should decide who gets what portion of that amount.

Who should pay income taxes?

All working Americans?

Most working Americans?

From your point of view, maybe only 51% of eligible Americans should pay federal income taxes.

As a matter of fact, according to our own federal government, only 51% of eligible Americans pay any income taxes at all!

Does that surprise you?

Well, where have you been hiding, in a cave in Wyoming?

Are there any caves in Wyoming?

The fact that only 51% of eligible Americans pay any tax at all has been all over the MainStream media, hasn't it?

Haven't CBS News, MSNBC, ABC News, NBC News and CNN all been screaming about how unfair it is  for only 51% of eligible Americans to pay any income tax at all?

Oh...that's right. They've not mentioned it at all.

The MSN has mostly complained that "rich" Americans don't "pay their fair share."

I wonder why that is.

It's a lie, of course.

The rich pay far more than their fair share.

But that doesn't matter.

To the liberal mind set, no matter how much the "rich" pay, it will not be enough. much IS enough?

Should steps be taken to see that the 49% of eligible Americans who pay no income taxes at all start paying them?

And if so, how much should they pay?

What would happen if we set a basic "poverty" level and then set a flat tax on every earned dollar above that amount...say about 11%?

Since WWII, regardless of the income tax rate, Americans have paid about 18% of their income to federal income taxes, but that was with the more and more convoluted system we have developed that has resulted in 49% paying none at all.

Why is that fair?

How much is enough?

Is enough enough?

Tuesday, February 28, 2012


I cannot vouch for its veracity, but I CAN vouch for it's principle.

The government has decided that eventually it can take everything we earn and divide it up among all citizens (except the political elites, who will receive their just worth, that is: a larger amount than anyone else). That way we will all be equal.

Starving, but equal starving.

Monday, February 27, 2012


Honest historians regard the year 1811 as the year that the United States matured from fledgling former colony into global industrial and moral power.

Do you know why?

In 1811 tensions were building between the U.S. and British. We were on the run‐up to the War of 1812.

While this was going on, the First Bank of the United States, founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1791, was liquidated because its original 20‐year charter expired.

Many of the bondholders of this bank were . . . British.

There was enormous political pressure, given the hostility and tensions with the British, to give the British bondholders the shaft and pocket that money to help finance the coming war.

The leaders of First Bank refused to go along with the desires of the politicians and repaid every penny of their debt, including their British creditors.

Why did they do this? Because it was the LAW. The Rule of Law came first to these men.

This one act of integrity had a cascading effect that essentially set the course of this nation and its economy for the next 198 years. Word quickly spread throughout the business districts of Europe that the words "Backed By The Full Faith And Credit Of The United States Government" meant something, and meant something real. European investment dollars came pouring in to the "fledgling former colony", the industrial revolution was born, and The United States of America that we all know and love was born.

We are literally the children of integrity, the children of "full faith".

That era ended the week of May 28, AD 2009, which is the date GM bondholders were "MF Globaled".

Without the rule of law, the words "full faith and credit of the government of the United States" are meaningless words.

And, just as money came flowing in 198 years ago, money will now go flowing out.

Our government is now fascist and is run by gangsters who would not know integrity if they were being beaten over the head with it.

God help us.

Adapted from an article by Ann Barnhardt.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Saturday, February 25, 2012



Friday, February 24, 2012


President BO (the child president) just unashamedly defies logic.

Speaking to students at the University of Miami, Florida, a so-called swing state, where gas averages $3.69 a gallon, Mr. Obama said: "Just like last year, gas prices are climbing across the country; this time, it’s happening even earlier. And when gas prices go up, it hurts everybody."

President BO (the child president) ridiculed his opponents for recycling a "three-point plan for $2 gas. Step one is to drill, and step two is to drill, and then step three is to keep drilling,"

So, where to YOU think the gasoline for your car comes from?

Do YOU think it comes from the fuel fairy?

Have I got news for you.

Gasoline for your car comes from the refining of oil which comes from underground.

To get at the oil underground, you have to drill down to it and then pump it up from the ground (The other method is to "frack" it...which is also a good idea).

I'll bet President BO (the child president) knows that.

If he does know that, then why on earth does he continue to defy the laws of supply and demand by resisting new drilling and refining in the United States of America?

Why does he continue to support the drilling by other countries, such as Brazil and Mexico (to the tune of billions of dollars, by the way), but not in the U. S. ?

Why this bent on continuing our dependence on foreign oil when we have such vast reserves in our own county?

"Well, we export a lot of oil, yadda, yadda, yadda." say the liberals.

That has nothing to do with anything.

We need to increase the supply of oil, which is currently being decreased artificially by those very nations where we are supporting drilling, and we need to increase the number and output of our refineries.

That will dramatically bring the price of oil down, while providing thousands of well paying jobs right here in our country.

Oh, I forgot. The creation of jobs is a campaign slogan, not an actual desire of this administration.

It turns out that "...drill, drill, drill..." is EXACTLY what we need to do, and I don't care whether it is being expoused by a Republican or a Democrat. It is the ONLY answer to lowering gas prices and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.

The truth is, President BO (the child president) is so intent on so-called "green" energy (which has always resulted in negative net income), that he is willing to sacrifice the needs of the country to force it into existance.

Never mind that it just does not work. That's not important. What's important is that we pretend that it does work, so that we can increase our dependency on the federal government.

And that's the bottom political line for President BO (the child president).

His answer is much worse than the Republicans' answer of "drill, drill, drill." His answer is POWER, POWER POWER.

Power for him, his cronies and his minions.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012


Unless you're talking about the legal system, a sentence is a group of words that form one complete thought.

The rule of thumb in English is: One sentence, one thought.

Nowadays, sentences are punctuated with strange, unrelated words such as "like."

"Like" is the introduction to a simile, but in todays conversations it has come to mean someone has not though his/her sentence through well enough to complete it and must buy some time to think of his/her next word.

The framers of the Constitution of the United States of Americ knew full well how to construct intelligible sentences in such a way as to complete their thought accurately.  They also knew how to write and speak coherently, something sorely lacking in today's conversation and writning.

Let us consider an example one of their wonderfully complete and inspiring sentences.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

That is one sentence and expresses one complete thought. It puts forth a principle that demonstrates that the government is not and must not be all powerful.

The sentence begins with the word, "Congress."

Congress is the law making body of the federal government. It is the second branch of government and is charged with the responsibility of writing laws and verifying or rejecting laws proposed by the executive branch, that is, the president. Their law-making is supposed to affect all Americans throughout the country.

This obligation to law making is found in the words "shall make," which constitutes the verb of the sentence.

Congress is divided into two parts: the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Before a law can be enacted, these two parts, called "houses" must come to an agreement as to how the law should be written and what it should say.

"Congress" is the subject of the sentence that comprises the First Amendment. The subject is restricted to the federal government and has no bearing on the laws that can or cannot be made by other entities, such the head of a household in his/her own house.

There are certain laws the congress cannot write, and those are enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Those laws are prohibited by the word "no" in the sentence.

The word "respecting" is used to indicate "having anything to do with."

The next words, "an establishment," have caused controversy over the years because people do not know how the English language is constructed and have twisted it to mean "the establishment."

"An establishment" is a place.

For instance, I own an establishment that provides legal services to people (I don't, really. That is only an example).

"The establishment" is what I did to bring my legal practice into existance.

"An establishment" is a noun (with its adjective/article, "an").

"The establishment" is a verb (with its adjective/article, "the").

The whole sentence that comprises the First Amendment, without its definitive phrases and/or objects, is: "Congress shall make no law respecting, prohibiting or abridging."

Thus, Congress cannot make a law that affects a place (an establishment) where religion is practiced (whether Christian, Muslim, Baptist, Catholic or whatever) or prohibiting the free exercise of that religion.

Neither can Congress pass a law that "abridges" (which means to change or to shorten or curtail) freedom of speech or peaceful assembly for the purpose of expressing greviences against the federal government.

The Supreme Court (charged with the responsibility of ensuring that laws passed by Congress do not violate the rest of the Constitution and with seeing to it that decisions of the lower courts conform to the Constitution) has made several rulings about the meaning of the First Amendment.

Moreover, they have inserted themselves into areas that are not their responsibility, such as abortion, the subject of which is not found anywhere in the Constitution.

"Roe vs Wade" needs to be overturned, not because of its moral stance, or lack thereof, but because it is unconstitutional.

Since the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, it must be right to proclaim abortion to be legal. We know that the Supreme Court is always right...right?

Yeah, and they were right on Dred/Scott, too.

The importance of the First Amendment cannot be overstated. It is the recognition that religion, speech, the press and assembly are "sacred" rights of the people and they cannot be trampled on by the federal government.

But trample they do.

And almost all liberals love it!

Liberals love the free speech part, as long as it means they can swear and curse and be vulgar in their speech. But when it comes to the speech of prayer, suddenly they don't like it so much.

They love the freedom of the press, so long as it does not comprise blogs that disagree with their warpped point of vies.

They also love the freedom of assembly part, so long as it is not the Tea Party doing the assemblying.

Typically, most liberals cannot see far enough into the future or anticipate the unintended consequences of certain decisions and actions.

The future does not matter to them because they are self-centered and do not care what happens to their posterity.

They willingly engage in decisions and actions that financially bind future generations in hopeless debt.

That attitude found its beginning in the twisting and revising of the First Amendment to mean what they want it to mean instead of what it actually means.

Isn't it time to return to one of the most important sentences in American history?

Monday, February 20, 2012


Way back when President BO (the child president) was first elected, I wrote that he had the style, the look and the body language of a despot.

I am not the only one who sees that vision eminating from his eyes.

Ebben Raves, writing for the American Thinker has this to say:

Images can be powerful. We have all seen films of the Nuremburg rallies. The torchlight processions, the banners, the chanting crowds: all purposely staged to elevate one man to a status as something more than human, a benevolent leader who promised fairness and payback against the evil enemies of the people. All things were possible through him. The trains would run on time, the capitalists and bankers would pay for taking advantage of the people. Social justice would finally be achieved if only the people would pledge themselves to him.

Juxtapose those images with a 2008 party rally in a Denver stadium. The Greek columns, the giant television screens, the laser light show: all dedicated to elevate a man who promised the wars would end, the earth would heal, and the oceans would halt their rise. Peace and justice at last. He was the one we were waiting for. Goebbels would have been proud.

Il Duce's portrait was ubiquitous in 1930's Italy. The stolid face with the up thrust chin, looking down over the nose became symbolic of Mussolini's fascism. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." "State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management." Does any of this look or sound familiar?

Some images are meant to be powerful. From the works of master painters, to stained glass, to the inexpensive, gilded frame picture in many homes, Christ is frequently depicted with a halo. From background lighting, to a campaign symbol, to the presidential seal, a certain public servant is also frequently depicted with the appearance of a halo. Can we guess what image the latter's halo is meant to convey?

Words can be powerful, too, either spoken or written on paper. "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Some words are even carved in stone. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." What were the Jesuits at Georgetown thinking?

Fascists, communists and other dictators discredited, if not outlawed, religion. The state was the ultimate authority, moral or otherwise. The state in many cases was personified by an individual from whom all things flowed. What did Christians do to keep them from power? The same as today, not enough. From the "feel good, rock and roll, light show" mega churches to the original Bride of Christ, only token, unorganized resistance has come forth. In fact, past devout Christians were better organized and more numerous than today and were still unsuccessful.

What happened to the Christians that faced lions for their faith? Real lions, not the talking cartoon characters. Were they co-opted by promises of government social welfare? Or were they cowed by the threat of the loss of their 501(c)3 status? Judging from the watered down socialism coming from today's pulpit, either is possible. Protest church funded abortion via the Affordable Health Care Act? Contact your congressman. Lobby for the government to provide forced charity? Sure. Deny Communion, let alone excommunicate those who promulgate mortal sin? Nah, too controversial. Pathetic. Don't think this administration doesn't know it, either. They think this a fight they can win.

Government is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless. The mistake that Christians, or any other religion for that matter, make when they accept and encourage government social justice is that all modern government is eventually at the point of a gun. Look at other formerly Christian countries. Preach what is in the Bible, go to jail for hate speech. Resist hard enough, meet the point of a gun. Remember, we're no longer a Christian country. The state said so. Oh, something else to think about. Refuse to pay taxes of which part go to the government charity programs that your church lobbied for and approved of? Meet the same end. That blood is on somebody's hands.

"But the Constitution protects our freedom of religion!" Really? We haven't seen the Constitution jump up out of its glass case and do anything. It's just a piece of paper. Its only power comes from citizens acting on its behalf. Don't think the administration doesn't know this, either.

Many have argued that the left is fighting for freedom from religion. No, there will always be religion. Fundamental change was promised; change from God given rights to state granted rights are being delivered. When the state eliminates God, the state becomes god. And the state is a jealous god, especially when it takes guidance from a book dedicated to Lucifer

Just look at President BO (the child president)'s latest attempts to make rules with respect to the Catholic church's stand on abortion and contraception.

Any questions?

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Friday, February 17, 2012


President Obama has ordered ( emphasis mine) the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as low as 300 deployed warheads—below the number believed to be in China’s arsenal and far fewer than current Russian strategic warhead stocks.

Pentagon and military planners were asked to develop three force levels for the U.S. arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear warheads: a force of 1,100 to 1,000 warheads; a second scenario of between 700 and 800 warheads; and the lowest level of between 300 and 400 warheads.

A congressional official said no president in the past ever told the Pentagon to conduct a review based on specific numbers of warheads.

“In the past, the way it worked was, ‘tell me what the world is like and then tell me what the force should be,’” the official said. “That is not happening in this review.”

Personally, I think the U.S should be the third or fourth most powerful nation on earth, don't you?

What? You think there might be some danger in that?

For more on the story, check this out.

Thursday, February 16, 2012


Give-'em a power inch and they'll take a power mile.

Posted on February 14, 2012:  State Inspectors Searching Children’s Lunch Boxes: “This Isn’t China, Is It?” by Matt Willoughby in Education

A mother in Hoke County complains her daughter was forced to eat a school lunch because a government inspector determined her home-made lunch did not meet nutrition requirements.

The mother... says she made her daughter a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her. While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch.

I have this to say about that:


Wednesday, February 15, 2012

The Manchurian President Part 1

Jeffrey H. Anderson writes the following.

According to the White House’s own figures, the actual or projected deficit tallies for the four years in which Obama has submitted budgets are as follows: $1.293 trillion in 2010, $1.300 trillion in 2011, $1.327 trillion in 2012, and $901 billion in 2013. In addition, Obama is responsible for the estimated $200 billion (the Congressional Budget Office’s figure) that his economic “stimulus” added to the deficit in 2009. Moreover, he shouldn’t get credit for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year — loans that count against President Bush’s 2009 deficit tally.

To help put that colossal sum of money into perspective, if you take our deficit spending under Obama and divide it evenly among the roughly 300 million American citizens, that works out to just over $17,000 per person — or about $70,000 for a family of four.

What a guy!

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Monday, February 13, 2012


Thanks to Government Gone Wild.

So...exactly how much should our government indebt our children and grandchildren to provide all of this?

Is there a line?

Where is it?

Who gets to draw it?


Over my dead body.

Sunday, February 12, 2012


The Bible is God's revelation of His character, His love for
His creation and His plan for its redemption. It's not about me, it's not about you. It's all about Him.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Monday, February 6, 2012


One of my regular commenters wrote the following:

"Joe, politicians have been bandying about the unemployment number an the jobs created number for some time. They are often deceptive.

"Better to use the workforce participation percentage. It's readily available at the Labor Dept. site."

Yes, it is.

Most people have never heard of the Workforce Participation Percentage, mostly because it is embarrassing to the MainStream Media and liberals.

Common comparisons occasionally include the number of Americans who stopped looking for work.

In their January jobs report, the Labor Department simply erased these Americans from the figures.

If we add them in, the real unemployment number at the end of January of 2012 was 9.9% (CBO figures, by the way)!

In January of 2009, 11.6 million Americans were out of work.

In January of 2012, that number is 12.8 million.

When President BO (the child president) took office, 23% of unemployed had been looking for work more than six months.

In January of 2012, that percentage was 43%.

But since statistics can be manipulated and interpreted in many different ways, lets look at the aforementioned Workforce Participation Percentage, because that number is very difficult to mess with. It looks at ALL Americans as a percentage of them who had jobs.

In the 1990s, 66% of all Americans had a job.

At the end of George W. Bush's presidency the percentage was 65%.

Since President BO (the child president) took office, the number has steadily dropped to 63.7%.

That's the lowest percentage since Jimmy Carter.

So I ask you: What is the truth about jobs in this economy?

One thing is indisputable. The job scene is NOT better than it was at the end of Bush's presidency when President BO (the child president) took office.

His three years are up, and he has NOT decreased unemployment or increased employment.

And he knows it.

Do you?

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Saturday, February 4, 2012


Statistics are funny things. You can more or less use them to prove what you want to prove.

Example: I can prove that cancer is caused by oxygen. In a study by me I found that 100% of those deprived of oxygen for more than 20 minutes did not die of cancer.

The cure for cancer is simple, too.

Simply place a plastic bag over the patient's head, tie it securely around his neck and he will not die of cancer.

That's the kind of magic the administration of President BO (the child president) uses to prove what it wants you to believe.

The latest "statistics" show unemployment at 8.3%.


Well, not really.

A much larger number of people last month simply quit looking for jobs than the month before, therefore the base on which the statistics were based shrank. Those people were simply thrown out of the data.

In his SOU speech, President BO (the child president) said, "We are starting to see some signs that the economy is picking up. We’ve created 22 million jobs over the last — er, three million jobs over the last 22 months."

Turns out, we  haven’t created 3 million net jobs over the last 22 months.

Writing for Hot Air, Ed Morrissey observed:

Twenty-two months ago, employment was at 129,438,000, according to the BLS, and in December (the last month for which we have data until about 8:30 am today), the number stood at 131,900,000. The difference between the two is 2.462 million, not 3 million, and it won’t be unless we created 538,000 net jobs in January … which seems unlikely.

But why 22 months? Obama began his term in January 2009, and the recession ended in June 2009. What’s so special about March 2010? Well, not so surprisingly, that’s almost the nadir of employment during Obama’s presidency, which actually took place in February 2010, two years ago this month. Even if he’d picked the right month, it would still only have been 2.654 million, not 3 million.

Calculating from the end of the recession, the net job creation from those 31 months is only 1.407 million, a wan 45,390 net jobs a month, far below the pace needed to keep up with population growth. Calculating for the entirety of his presidency, we’re actually in the hole 937,000 jobs. Obama tried to cherry-pick the worst month in order to claim the most credit he could possible for job growth, and managed to get both the month and the math wrong anyway.

The point is, this administration plays fast and loose with statistics, bending and twisting them in a way that would make those little tube guys in front of stores envious.

Your president is either ignorant of the proper use of statistics or he is deliberately misusing them to mislead you into thinking things are improving in the economy more than they are. It has to be one or the other, as there are no other options.

Thursday, February 2, 2012