page13news

An Open Letter to Those Hating Leftists

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:06:00 -0500

The following is an example of how you can take the prose of a devote leftist and turn it around on them without much effort. Why? Because nothing they believe is rooted in truth or evidence - just feelings, emotions, and assumptions.

My inspiration, this article found on the Daily Kos website - A open letter to people who hate Obama more than the love America.

My response...

I don't meet you all the time, because you exist on the extreme fringes of society. You say you are a part of the 99%, but you're not. You are a part of the 1% who hate just about everything that made America great, except the right to write such hate-filled 'letters'.

You hate Christians. I'd say you hate religious people but, based on your letter, you love Muslim-based Sharia law which does more to control women than taking away their 'right' to kill the unborn ever could. Nevermind the Judeo-Christian based society of America where people of all faiths worship freely (that pesky 2nd half of the Church-State phrase from the Constitution the left forgets), or not, if they choose.

You love gays, though only publicly. Privately you hate them, or at least find their lifestyle incompatible with your own. You joke about them behind their backs yet pretentiously embrace them (no pun intended) when they are near. And if you think Christians hate gays, have you ever asked a middle-eastern radical Muslim what they think?

You hate blacks. Yes, I said it, and it's very, very, true. See, you believe blacks can't succeed; they need an all-controlling government to support them because somehow capitalism has held them down. I say nonsense. People are exactly where they want to be. If you truly want to be financially successful, nothing will keep you from achieving your dreams, except you.

Ask Herman Cain how he became so successful. Wait, nope, you won't. You assume he's some sort of an outlier. He's someone who must have achieved his success by accident. So ask Clarence Thomas. Wait, nope, you won't. You assume he's just an Uncle Tom. He's simply going along with the white man and giving him what he wants.

The fact is you hate anyone, like Thomas and Cain, who espouse conservative thinking over a socialistic nirvana. It doesn't matter if other lesser known African-Americans like Thomas Sowell or Walter E. Williams have completely different views about race, capitalism, and conservatism in America, you won't listen to them because you hate them.

Conservatives, on the other hand, know success can be achieved regardless as to one's pigmentation. We don't buy governmental redistribution of wealth for African-Americans to succeed and we have tons of evidence to support this. While you claim compassion is found when the government gives stuff away, we believe true compassion is measured by the number of people who no longer need socialistic handouts.

You act like you hate war, but you don't. You simply hate when America wins them with a conservative at the helm. You probably supported Obama's actions to continue the hated George W. Bush's policies (and interrogation techniques) in the middle east and didn't object when President Obama sorta got involved in Lybia and almost helped the "freedom-fighting" Egyptians.

You hate bigots you say, while showing that you are in fact, by definition, a bigot yourself. After all, anyone (!) who is intolerantly devoted to their opinion is, by definition, a bigot. This includes refusing to see, understand or listen to conservative views, not simply following the narrow dogma of the left.

You hate capitalism because it doesn't allow your lazy rear end to remain as such - otherwise you die. It forces you to put down the joint and get to work. It rewards hard-work and sacrifice and has little patience for emotional responses to problems.

You hate Wall Street, mostly because you haven't the education to understand how capitalism works. You can thank your compassionate education system for your lack of knowledge. You won't, because your leftist-teachers made you feel good about your ignorance.

Now my liberal friends, no matter what you have convinced yourself of, I don't hate you. There are very real reasons, full of true compassion, why I believe what I do. None of those reasons have you taken more than two seconds to understand fully, because if Bill Maher and George Carlin hated it, you were probably foolish enough to hate it too.

Open your mind, young skulls full of mush (a Rush-ism), to all thinking. If you are truly the open-minded liberals you profess to be, then open it to understand the conservative perspective.

You won't of course, because the ignorant don't know what they are missing. And ignorance, is bliss.

How Santorum Can Win

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Tue, 3 Jan 2012 06:45:00 -0500

Courtesy RickSantorum.com

Nothing would tweak the left more than a true social conservative, the hated Rick Santorum, becoming the GOP's choice for President in 2012. I know, I'm going way out on a limb here.

No individual is more consistently against the agenda the radical-left holds most dear - abortion on demand with no conditions, sexual exhibition free and preach-able, destruction of the traditional family unit, weakening of US military policy - than Santorum.

The left's attack on him will be relentless, but predictable. Nevermind the state of the US economy, the massive accumulated debt under Obama's guidance, relationships between the White House and those who've sworn to destroy our economic system, or Iran's apparent new-found comfort with saber-rattling.

No, those issues won't matter. To the radical left, forcing acceptance of alternative lifestyles, protecting the 'right' to kill innocence, and the horror of a religious man in the Oval Office will be the problem. Record money will be spent attempting to scare people - women mainly - about a Santorum presidency and a religious state. Claims - oh by the way - made against every GOP candidate since Roe v Wade.

Some in the DC media loop will insist such a conservative can not win.  Really? Let's examine the theory.

Assumption: Moderates will be scared off by Santorum's conservative views
The problem with this thinking is reality. People vote with their pocketbook first. When people can't afford groceries, gas, and the mortgage, someone or something has to change. Further, Reagan and George W. Bush were both cast as extreme conservatives. Yet they both won, twice.

Assumption: Santorum is a one-issue candidate
With eight (8) years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, no one can make that claim with a straight face. Santorum has proven, with his record and in each of the debates so far, he has a firm grasp on Middle East policy and our critical relationship with Israel.

This thinking also assumes that Obama can duck his one issue - the failing US economy. Add cozy relationships with the growing list of Obama's supporters who received stimulus funds, only to mysteriously go belly-up, and Santorum has a lot to discuss beyond one issue.

Assumption: Santorum lost Pennsylvania in 2006, he can't win now
Problem is, this isn't 2006. Bush is not the face of the party anymore, and the Specter/Toomey debacle that convinced many Pennsylvania republicans to stay home in 2006, is long over. The issue was played out and won't be held against him again. He will win Pennsylvania, if he is the nominee. (side note - Lincoln also lost his Senate seat before going on to win the Presidency)

So okay, he can overcome some of the obstacles the DC crowd says he has against him. But how can he defeat the Obama war chest, the unions, and assistance from the big-four media?

Santorum is less-likely to make a major verbal policy gaff. He may upset the left with his views on social issues, but he is who he is and he is consistent. There will be few times when he says something unexpected or shocking. He is solid on every issue and well-educated about their historical significance.

Besides, the media will bash whoever the GOP candidate is, just ask the 'moderate' John McCain. Romney, the GOP-elite's choice, will be attacked exactly the way Santorum will.  Mitt's moderate views won't buy him any less critique.

Unlike Romney, Santorum doesn't come off as plastic or pre-programmed. Unlike Newt, he doesn't try to be everything to everyone. Unlike Paul, he's not a foreign policy flake. Unlike Bachmann and Perry, he is solid with his views and can convey them convincingly. Unlike Huntsman, he has presence and strong resolve. Unlike McCain and Bush, you won't be holding your breath every time he speaks.

Sure, Santorum is not the perfect candidate. He's not the orator Reagan was, inspiring a movement toward the shining city on the hill. His cockiness needs to become more tempered; less know-it-all, more charmed and optimistic.

Santorum has flaws (debt-ceiling to begin with), but he is the best choice for socially and fiscally conservative voters. Ultimately the House and Senate is where debt-ceiling control can be best attained.

Santorum has worked this Iowa caucus the way it should be - by keeping it real, keeping it local. If it pays off with a top three finish on Tuesday, as the pundits predict, it will be well deserved.

Huntsman is the only one of those remaining we know will be around for New Hampshire. Which leaves Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry supporters with a choice. If their candidate bags the campaign trail where do they throw their support? Romney? I doubt it. Mitt has 22-25% and can't seem to break that number no matter how hard he tries. Paul? C'mon Man! Ron Paul's support will not sustain long-term. Even the Congressman admits he's a long-shot.

Newt and Michele's support will go to Santorum, Perry's may go to Romney. Santorum will continue to rise as Paul's supporters look for a home and the race should ultimately boil down to him and Romney.

As we hit the heart of primary season, Santorum will have shown an ability to effectively attack Romney, especially on Romneycare. He has depth on virtually every issue, and Santorum gives the anyone-but-Romney crowd someone they can feel confident in. Head to head, Rick beats Mitt.

If the GOP elites start to attack Santorum, he could stand to benefit.  And here's where the Tea Party could make a huge difference - uniting behind one candidate the inept, ineffective, and to-date spineless GOP leadership hasn't chosen.

In November, Santorum will have the religious right (duh!); he will have the Tea Party; he will have the independents (it's the economy stupid); he will have the 'moderate' Republicans (as much as they will hate it); and he will have average voters who have seen 'Hope and Change' and don't like the view.

Can Santorum win? I certainly think so.

Sadly, Shapiro Hasn't Learned a Thing

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:44:00 -0400

A new television ad by the Josh Shapiro/Leslie Richards campaign is taking an old yet familiar tone and, sadly, indicates a pattern of sophomoric behavior by the Montgomery County Democrats which they feel will score points with voters marginally paying attention.

In their latest ad, the Democratic Party duo falsely claim one of the GOP candidates met with the Tea Party. False not because it didn't happen, it did. But rather because they claim she was the only one to do so.

Problem - Shapiro met with the Tea Party too, at his request, last Fall when he was a candidate for State Representative. I know this because I facilitated the forum and invited both candidates (Shapiro and Tom Bogar) to attend. And both of them did.

Perhaps more disturbing however, is the tone the Shapiro/Richards ad takes toward those of us related to the Tea Party. It suggests there is something wrong with citizens standing up to the ruling class of both parties or any one candidate listening to the concerns of regular folks.

This isn't the first time...

- Last spring, at the annual Abington Rockledge Democratic Committee luncheon, current Montgomery County Commissioner and former Gubernatorial Candidate, Joe Hoeffel, called those of us in the movement "lunatics, wackos". (Video here: 2:40 mark)

- Earlier this year, ARDC Chairman Michael Barbiero referred to me, on this website, as "leader of the local teabaggers", a vulgar reference Mr. Barbiero has yet to back away from or apologize for.

In Hoeffel's case it was no slip of the tongue. His speech was specifically geared at how the Democrat left can defeat the Tea Party. He stated clearly, to beat the Tea Party you must call them names, you must ridicule and mock them.

So, it's no accident Shapiro is taking the same path - it's very intentional.

The group I represent, Philadelphia Tea Party Patriots - Eastern Montco, will not endorse or officially support any one candidate. However, individual members are free to support whomever they choose.

So you won't see our group openly supporting Shapiro's opposition. Still, he seems perfectly comfortable taking pot shots at us, falsely, to win a few votes.

Sadly, Shapiro and the Democrats just can't seem to learn the lesson from of the 2010 election. We are not astroturf, not to be taken lightly, and refuse to allow the ruling class to get away with their attempts to paint us - not them - as the problem.

Continue to name-call and mock if you must. You only strengthen our resolve.

'Cause I'm The Tax Man

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:51:00 -0400

The following is from an email I received. If you think, like the President, we're not paying our fair share of taxes, then let's examine the claim...

Tax his land, tax his bed, tax the table at which he's fed.

Tax his tractor, tax his mule, teach him taxes are the rule.

Tax his work, tax his pay, He works for peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow, tax his goat, tax his pants, tax his coat.

Tax his ties, tax his shirt, tax his work, tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco, tax his drink, tax him if he tries to think.

Tax his cigars, tax his beers, if he cries tax his tears.

Tax his car, tax his gas, find other ways to tax his ass.

Tax all he has, then let him know, that you won't be done 'till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers, then tax him some more, tax him 'till He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin, tax his grave, tax the sod in which he's laid...

Put these words upon his tomb, 'Taxes drove me to my doom...'

When he's gone, do not relax,its time to apply the inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom could afford to stay home and raise the kids.

Tea Party's Next Battle - Philadelphia

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 04:30:00 -0400

...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... - The Declaration of Independence

Philadelphia - In the city where Liberty was given birth, a new movement is underway intended to shake the foundation of a corrupt government machine and, if successful, could become one of Philadelphia's most significant political moments in its history.

Courtesy WeThePeoplePhila.com

Over the past several months a previously little-known public employee retirement perk called DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) has been getting a bit of media attention and the politicians who support it - stalwart Philadelphia names like Rizzo, Meehan, and Tartaglione - are fighting for their political lives, and losing badly in the sphere of public opinion.

Now, voter anger has boiled over, and a bi-partisan effort is underway to establish a government study commission - the vehicle by which Pennsylvania Law allows citizens to regain control of their muncipality - by getting the concept on November's ballot.

The commission would comprise of ordinary citizens (no current or former elected officials) and their anticipated goal is to audit the City's operations and eventually rewrite the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. To do this, supporters of this concept are canvassing neighborhoods throughout the City gathering signatures for petitions, required for such a measure to take place.

Leading the way are a handful of activist groups - Philadelphia Tea Party Patriots, Philadelphia's Loyal Opposition, Reform Democrats, and members of the Black Clergy.

Combined, the group calls itself We the People of Philadelphia Committee and their website is full of evidence detailing where the City's leaders have failed those they are elected to serve, solutions and recommendations for the new Home Rule Charter, and legal justification for the movement.

The last time Philadelphia modified its Charter (think constitutional convention) was in 1951, and was intended at the time to rid the City of corruption by a then Republican-led dynasty who had controlled Philly for 70 years. Since then, the Democratic Party has ruled and the existing charter has done little to stem the tide of corruption running rampant through City Hall and beyond.

I anticipate great resistance from the Philadelphia ruling class, the media elite, and union leadership on this one - shocking, I know. They'll mock, organize against the effort, and do whatever it takes to keep what, they feel, is theirs.

It's no surprise to hear a bold, daring, and aggressive fight against the powerful and corrupt ruling class would take place in Philadelphia and it's the Tea Party leading the way, again.

This should get real interesting - it is Philly after all.

Compromising Debt-Ceiling Facts

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:35:00 -0400

Big Lie Number Two was the 2nd of a Tea Party Patriots 4-part series of debt-ceiling-related statements. It shows, before President Obama made such a claim, the fallacy of statements about the US defaulting on debts if Congress doesn't raise the ceiling.

Fact: not raising the debt-ceiling will NOT cause the US to default on its promises. The IRS collects 10 times the amount it owes to service its debt - specifically US Treasury bonds - every month.

Refusal to do so (paying off cashed-in bonds) would in fact cause a financial crisis the globe has yet to see. But insisting to twist facts for political gain, Mr. President and those who blindly re-chirp your claims, is irresponsible at best.

Refusing the raise the debt-ceiling is like a parent informing their child the credit card they've been privileged to use is being capped to a limit or in this case, being revoked. It does NOT mean they will no longer be able to pay the mortgage.

The President decides which bills get paid and when revenue streams are anemic, something has to give. Defaulting on promises to pay certain bills (bonds) have a different impact than paying others - like, I dunno, let's say Obamacare.

So yes, if the President stopped paying our debt, we'd be in a heap of trouble. But that would be his choice, not Republicans. And if Obama chose not to pay Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid, or any other entitlement program, that would also be his choice, not the Tea Party.

We are in this financial crisis because Democrats DID NOT pass a budget in 2010 (they knew the political impact) and yet they still promised, with the Nation's credit card (stimulus, et al) the adults are taking away, much more than they could afford.

The adults in the room realize government has over-promised goodies for their political special interests. Meanwhile, the children are jumping up and down, whining about a lack of "compromise" from the Tea-Party-led-by-their-nose-hairs-GOP and their false claims of defaulting on our debt are a clear indication of their desperation.

Oooooo, sorry, wrong answer. The kids will not get what they want. There is no more room for compromise.

'On the Origins' of Civil Society

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:57:00 -0400

Evolution, it's the left's favorite progressive concept.

You've seen the cute little car emblems, like the one I've captioned in this post. It's a not-so-subtle tip of the hat to the left's great prophet, Charles Darwin. Darwin's "On the Origins of Man" is their Bible.

They assume it identifies them as enlightened; smarter than the rest of us because they have science on their side. It solidifies there disdain for anything related to religion.

The emblem says it all; man evolved from fish, not created magically by a God (you stupid religious neanderthal, an inferred reference).

But when societal evolution takes place, when tried and true methods of a civil society are proven to be the ideal, the left turns its head on natural progression and advancement.

Fact - the United States is the most successful advancement of Humankind in history.

Fact - the United States was the first country to have its Constitutional core based on the ability of man to determine his (or her) own destiny by acknowledging Rights come from Nature's God, not government, not from a King.

Fact - societal evolution has proven the ideal family unit is, and has always been, comprised of one Man and one Woman, united in marriage.

The final fact is where the left's natural evolutionist tendencies take a vacation.

While they know most people still, and will always, see alternative lifestyles as an unacceptable norm to a strong society, they insist on mandating we honor same-sex partnerships the same way we do traditional marriage.

But why? Who cares? Perhaps I missed the wave of people being taken to the gallows because of their affection for a person with the same sexual appetite as them. Right, there haven't been. So what's their real agenda here? If it's just about two people loving each other, who cares if society accepts the relationship, right?

Simple, it's all about money and respect. It's about tax breaks. It's about acceptance; they and their sympathizers demand respect (you religious neanderthal)!

But I've learned in my years, respect is not something one can demand; it's something one must command. Without pressure, or childish ranting/protesting, respect comes naturally.

Evolution can't change the natural order of things here. Neither can those who want the government to force rights on us that God, and a civil society, haven't already given.

Rest in Peace, Mr. Columbo, Sir

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:32:00 -0400

According to CNN, actor Peter Falk has died. To honor his career, page13news would like to re-publish a post from our archives, originally posted during the 2008 Hope and Change campaign.

Let's see how many of these items Mr. Columbo received an answer for.

from an emailer...

Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean Senator Obama,
Sir. Um . . . I know you're busy,
and important and stuff.
I mean running for president is very important
and -- ah -- I hate to bother you Sir.
I will only take a minute. Ok Sir?

See, I have these missing pieces that are
holding me up, and I was wondering
Sir, if you could take time out of your
busy schedule and help me out.
You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things.

Hey, you have a nice place here!
The wife sees houses like this on TV
all the time and says boy she wishes
she had digs like this you know?
Is that painting real? Really? Wow.
I saw something like that in a museum once!

Oh, sorry Sir. I didn't mean to get off the track.
So if you could just help me out a minute
and give me some details, I will get right out of your way.
I want to close this case
and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something.
Ever been to Coney Island Sir? No?
I didn't think so.

Well, listen, anyway, I can't seem to get
some information I need to wrap this up.
These things seem to either be
"Not released" or "Not available."
I'm sure it's just an oversight
or glitch or something, so if you
could you tell me where these
things are -- I -- I have them written
down here somewhere -- oh wait.
Sorry about the smears. It was raining out.
I'll just read it to you.

Could you please help me
find these things Sir?

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available

Oh and one more thing Senator,
I can't seem to find any articles you
published as editor of the Harvard Law Review,
or as a Professor at the University of Chicago.
Can you explain that to me Sir?

Oh but, hey -- listen! I know you're busy!
If this is too much for you right now
-- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow.
Give you some time to get these things together,
You know? I mean, I know you're busy.
I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow.
And the day after. . .

What's that Senator?
Who wants to know these things?

We the People of the United States of America!
You know, the ones that vote.

So if we're counting, just two of twelve. One of them, not until Donald Trump made some hay over the issue earlier this year.

Uh, Mr. President, Sir, if you're not too busy...

This is Montco Democrats Priority?

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:33:00 -0400

Abington ADD Rally
photo courtesy of Abington.Patch.com

Unemployment is at 9.1%, food and gas prices are through the roof, and a double dip in the housing market is looming. So much for the "Summer of Recovery II".

Never mind that silly stuff, State Representative and Montgomery County Commissioner Candidate, Josh Shapiro (D-Abington), let's everyone know what his priority is: protecting a narrow fringe segment of society and political bedfellows, NOT jobs. **(VIDEO - 2:09 mark)**

They call themselves Abington ADD (Against Discrimination and Defamation) and today's rally was to shame, I suppose, Abington Commissioners into voting for an ordinance the public doesn't want nor need. This Abington.Patch story provides background on the vote.

Also in attendance was Abington Democrat Chairman, Michael Barbiero, who knows a thing or two about hate and name-calling defamation. This Tea Party Patriot (not Teabagger) wants an apology; I won't hold my breath.

Mr. Chairman...HATE, swings both ways as well.

Big Lie Number Four

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Thu, 9 Jun 2011 18:46:00 -0400

Tea Party Patriots is releasing a four-part series of statements regarding the U.S. debt ceiling which explain the organization's opinion the topic. Here is part 4:

Big Lie Number Four

"The intricate financial details of running the entire United States Government are so complicated that the average American just isn't capable of understanding how it works. It involves thousands upon thousands of byzantine and interwoven variables that are so delicately balanced they can be easily disrupted by one false move, setting off a cataclysmic chain reaction of economic disasters that will cripple the world's monetary system. Handcuffing congress by not allowing us to raise the debt ceiling just shows how simplistic, unsophisticated, ill informed, and child-like you Tea Party Patriots are. Those of us in congress are far better equipped to make these kinds of decisions. So just go back to your daily lives and let us run the country."

When you're standing face-to-face with a member of congress and they tell you how great they are at running the economy, it's difficult not to laugh so hard that you temporarily lose consciousness. But many of them manage to say it with a straight face. It's almost as if they honestly think they know what they're doing.

To a Congressman, the thought of taking budgetary advice from average Americans who balance checkbooks, run businesses, live within the limits of their financial means, and stop spending before they run out of money is outrageous and insulting.

They are the rulers after all. Who are we to question them?

But deep within the subconscious mind of every Congressman is the truth. They are horribly insecure because they are in way over their heads, they have very little idea what they're doing, and they are scared to death that someone (especially their other buddies in congress) will discover that they secretly don't understand the convoluted logic. So they all pretend.

It's time to snap them out of it.

Ockham's Razor is an old, widely used axiom that says when you have two competing ideas
the simplest idea is usually the best. This is especially true when there's no evidence to support the more complicated idea.

Let's look at how Ockham's Razor applies to the debt ceiling issue.

IDEA 1 (from congress):

It's so complicated that we can't explain it to you, but trust us we should raise the debt ceiling.

IDEA 2 (from Americans):

It's incredibly simple. There's no more money. So do not raise the debt ceiling.

Congress has a really, really, really bad track record when it comes to managing money. There are no examples of real life situations in which congress was prudent, frugal, and efficient. There's also no proof that congress learns from past mistakes and doesn't repeat them. Their complicated solutions haven't worked, ever. But they keep trying them.

There simply is no evidence to prove that congress is qualified to make unsupervised decisions about how to handle our money.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that millions of Americans (the ones congressmen think are unsophisticated) successfully operate households and businesses every day and have done so for over 200 years using a very simple financial principle.

When you run out of money,
stop buying stuff.

Ockham's Razor

Idea 1 = complicated + no proof

Idea 2 = simple + lots of proof

Idea 2 Wins!!

Congress, you're out of money.
Stop buying stuff.
And don't raise the debt ceiling.
PERIOD.

Big Lie Number Three

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:45:00 -0400

Tea Party Patriots is releasing a four-part series of statements regarding the U.S. debt ceiling which explain the organization's opinion the topic. Here is part 3:

Big Lie Number Three

Members of the republican "leadership" will tell you this lie.
"Raising the debt ceiling is inevitable; and the democrats want it so badly they're willing to give us some really great deals in order to get it. We can take advantage of it and get some cool stuff in exchange for our votes. It'll be great!"

Frighteningly, many of the republicans in congress trust the promises made to them by their fellow members. They haven't learned that there always turns out to be a loophole, or an "unforeseen" circumstance, or just an outright betrayal that ends up benefiting socialism and thwarting conservatism.

When is the last time anyone can remember the republicans making a "deal" with the democrats that didn't result in the American people getting shafted?

To some it appears that the democrats repeatedly lure the republicans in with promises of bipartisanship and goodwill. Then when they've gotten everything they want, the democrats whack the republicans over the head with a two by four and break their deal, leaving the republicans bewildered and Americans saying, "we told you so."

To others it appears that both republicans and democrats have neither the desire, the intelligence, nor the will-power to solve the problems with our government. They simply want to stay in office and enjoy life in the ruling class.

In either case, here's the message we want republicans and democrats to hear from the voters in their districts:

You Raising the Debt Ceiling EQUALS...

Me Voting for Your Opponent in the Primary and in the General Election

Raising the debt ceiling is not good for America, no matter what deal you think you're getting in exchange for it.

If you want a balanced budget amendment, pass a balanced budget amendment AND DON'T raise the debt ceiling.

If you want big spending cuts, pass big spending cuts AND DON'T raise the debt ceiling.

If you want the Capitol cafeteria to sell pizza on Friday, just ask the chef AND DON'T raise the debt ceiling.

Do you see the simple beauty of this pattern?

The point is, find another way to get the "deals" that you want without selling your vote on the debt ceiling.

PERIOD.

Big Lie Number Two

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:43:00 -0400

Tea Party Patriots is releasing a four-part series of statements regarding the U.S. debt ceiling which explain the organization's opinion the topic. Here is part 2:

Big Lie Number Two

"There's no way to cut enough spending. So we must raise the debt ceiling. If we don't raise it America will not be able to pay back its creditors and the rest of the world will never trust us with money again. It will be a disaster!!!"

Fact: The problem is not that congress can't cut spending. The problem is that congress doesn't want to cut spending.

There's a big difference.

The United States Government is addicted to spending money. It is a gluttonous, greedy, vulgar addiction that makes drug addicts look stable by comparison.

If you lock a heroin addict in a nice room, provide him with everything he needs to live, but give him no more heroin, what happens? He panics. He will become totally irrational, scream, cry, beg, plead, bargain, lie, steal, and (given the chance) maybe even kill to get more drugs. It would be difficult to watch him go through the painful process of breaking the addiction. But if you care about his future, you know that you cannot trust the words that are coming out of his mouth. It's the addiction talking. You stand strong and cut off his supply until the addiction is broken.

It's time to lock the government in a nice room. We will care for it and give it everything it needs to live. And because we love America, we're going to stand strong and force it to break the addiction.

The truth is that the spending can be cut quickly and in a large enough amount to avoid blowing past the debt ceiling.

At the end of President Clinton's term in office (just 10 years ago) the government was operating with a budget surplus. Some debate the specifics; but no one can debate that spending was far lower than it is now, and the economy was much better than it is now.

During President Bush's term in office federal spending climbed and climbed. Government grew faster and bigger than it should ever be allowed to do.

President Obama has had the credit card for only 28 months. And in that time the government has grown more than it did under all previous Presidents added together!

Common sense dictates that if it can be pumped up that quickly, it can be cut back quickly too.

Many of the things that will have to be reduced are popular government programs that politicians fear cutting. But we cannot continue to survive as a country if we fail to properly manage massive government programs because they're considered "sacred cows".

The "sacred cows" have run off into the wild and are going to starve to death if we don't bring them back into the barn.

We've also got a few diseased "mad cows" (like Obamacare) that just need to be put down in order to save the herd.

Mr. President, Senate, & Congress;

We are not going to let you raise the debt ceiling.

So stop asking.

Now move on and deal with the spending problems.

PERIOD.

Four BIG Lies

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Sun, 5 Jun 2011 10:12:00 -0400

Tea Party Patriots is releasing a four-part series of statements regarding the U.S. debt ceiling which explain the organization's opinion the topic. Here is part 1:

Big Lie Number One:

"Bush created all of these problems. We are trying to solve them but it's much worse than we thought and it will take years for our solutions to have an impact."
There are numerous facts available to disprove this. But two of the biggest and best are:

Fact 1

President Obama increased spending and the size of government more than all previous presidents (from George Washington through George Bush) COMBINED.

President Obama created that problem and he should own it.

Fact 2

The number one, most important job of the House of Representatives every year is to create a federal budget. Under Nancy Pelosi (while Obama was in office) the House did not create a federal budget. They didn't even try. They did, however, write endless blank checks for Obama to use on his wild spending spree.

The liberal congress created that problem and they should own it.

We are hitting the debt ceiling because they went nuts with the country's credit card for the past 28 months. It's not someone else's fault. The problem was created quickly and it can be solved quickly by cutting spending and cutting up the credit card. Raising the debt ceiling will only make it worse. PURE AND SIMPLE. Don't buy it when they tell you it's more complicated than that.

Intolerant, by Definition

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:00:00 -0400

Tolerance is defined by dictionary.com (#3) as, "a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint". Dogma is, of course, a system of principles or tenets.

Since conservatives, especially religious folks, believe in a dogma as the root of a strong society then yes, they will tend to be intolerant of behavior which in their opinion undermines that foundation.

In a strong society rules are needed; anything goes is not an option. Chaos and anarchy is not a direction we want our society to take.

We all have our own beliefs regarding which rules we should live by and we engage in political debate daily about where the lines are drawn. After all, liberals and progressives have their own dogma (sexual freedom, environmental policy, war), I simply disagree with it, and I'm entitled to that opinion.

However, when disagreement on a social issue is raised, it seems to me the best argument the left can muster is to accuse the right of being intolerant. Well, yeah, we are. It's not an insult, it's a simple definition.

However, where my friends on the left go wrong is to assume I hate those individuals whose behavior I will not tolerate. I will, and have, treat them the same as I would anyone else I encounter. My intolerance does not keep me from befriending or loving anyone, ever.

Where I draw the line is when the left wants to silence anyone who dares to have a set of principles or who, by definition, is intolerant. I also object to tolerance being "taught" in our schools for it is, by definition, subjective; you can't teach it without a personal agenda attached.

Conservatives have often been accused of wanting to censor opposition and, I agree with the left, censorship is not a healthy practice in a free society. Censorship is the type of action a Communist system (i.e. China and the former Soviet Union) utilizes, not the free republic we enjoy.

What humors me however, is the assumed innocence the left wraps itself in by accusing the right of intolerance. They have themselves expressed intolerance and/or dismissive attitudes towards opposing points of views, as if those views shouldn't be allowed or taken seriously; simply put, censored (see Glenn Beck's removal from local radio).

Definition #3 also says, "interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own".

So let me ask a question to my friends on the left...

Exactly how tolerant are you, of conservative ideals?

Justice Served in Crestmont and Willow Grove

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Tue, 17 May 2011 23:22:00 -0400

Abington Township Ward 5 Commissioner Wayne Luker overcame a stiff, well-funded opponent and won his battle for re-election in Tuesday's Democrat primary. Abington Patch has the full story.

Wayne Luker and Greg Holt
photo courtesy Abington Patch

Beyond the eminent domain issue I mentioned in my prior post, Luker had also bucked his own party by voting against a partisan attempt by Abington Democrat Commissioners to enact an anti-discrimination ordinance. Luker's vote did not sit well with one very emotional fellow commisioner and several party leaders.

Luker's opponent, Donna Brewer, at the forefront of the anti-discrimination ordinance, tried to use Luker's opposition to motivate the electorate in a final-weekend attack video produced and distributed on DVD. Tuesday, voters showed Brewer what they thought of her attacks; Luker won handily.

This is good news for my fellow patriots. An independent voice in the Democrat party exists and voters in this very "blue" ward there like that.

Congratulations Commissioner Luker!

Abington Democrats vs Wayne Luker

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Fri, 13 May 2011 22:28:00 -0400

Thursday night, the Abington Township Commissioners ended an over two year effort to seize a commercial property located on Easton Road in Roslyn via a hostile government takeover, better known as eminent domain.

I've written about this saga twice before, here and here.

While it is a clear victory for the Patane family who owns the location, this story is far from over.

Nowhere on the Democratic side of the ticket in Abington for this Tuesday's primary, except for cross-filed contests like school board, is there a single competitive race at any level, with one very clear exception.

Twenty year incumbent Ward 5 (Crestmont/Willow Grove) Democratic Commissioner, Wayne Luker, is facing his first challenge in memory. Luker is being challenged not because he's doing a bad job. In fact, while I disagree with some of his votes, Luker is one of the few Democrats in Abington I admire.

Luker's challenge can be summed up in one shining moment, when he was the lone Democrat to vote against the hostile takeover of the Patane (not Abington) property.

The Abington Democrats' website doesn't mention the candidates in the Ward 5 race. I won't split hairs, it is typical for political parties to stay out of contested races on this level because no party endorsement exists. But failing to mention either candidate keeps voters in the dark about the contest, in an age where Democrats love to cry out for transparency.

Either Montgomery County Commissioner Candidate and current State Representative Josh Shapiro (D), Montgomery County Party Chair Marcel Groen, and Abington Democrat leadership are actively targeting someone for voting against the machine, or lack the persuasive power and will to call off this fight. Sad.

But Commissioner Luker can stand proud. Even if the machine wins, he's the better Patriot for it.

Coward, Dead

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Sun, 1 May 2011 23:12:00 -0400

Fox News is reporting, Usama Bin Laden is dead and the US has his body.

As one local GOP leader reminded me earlier,

"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

~ George W. Bush

A google image search will give you details. **graphic image warning**

Free Mumia and the F.O.P.?

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:34:00 -0500

I wonder if the New Jersey F.O.P., and the police and firemen who rallied in Trenton Thursday, realize who they are allied with now.

The AFL-CIO sponsored the rally, but what else is the nation's largest labor movement up to?

This is just part of Beck's March 3rd broadcast. For the complete video, see here.

A Bad School Choice

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:51:00 -0500

I choose to send my children to Catholic school, yet Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1 does NOT include families like mine in the voucher scheme; apparently, I make too much money to qualify. So how can it truly be a "School Choice" bill?

It's not. Rather, this is simply a way for the State to dictate curriculum to non-public schools and create an all-new, politically connected board, and a shiny new bureaucracy to execute the plan.

Sadly, the Bill may drive a wedge between over 30 grassroots organizations from across the Commonwealth, Governor Corbett, and the PA-GOP. While the politicians may want to pat themselves on the back for giving us choices, the watchdogs realize it may be another 15 years before we get another opportunity to correct this legislative mistake.

Commonwealth Foundation has provided a good breakdown of the Bill with changes they would like to see included. They accurately point out that one important item missing from SB1 is any tax credit for families above the threshold currently written into the bill. Oddly enough, they've also published this convenient little commentary from "Public School Board Members for School Choice" supporting the plan.

Wait a minute! Public School Board Members support choice now?? Anyone else slightly suspicious?

Any school choice bill which falls short of providing relief for ALL families is nothing but a political oxymoron.

Sophmoric Political Rhetoric

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:14:00 -0500

...one reason why I will NOT be voting for any incumbent Montgomery County Commissioners tonight.

I wonder, does Kitchen Table Patriots know their name is being used by political operatives like a cheap political joke? Will the authors come out of the shadows? I doubt it.

Allyson Schwartz's 'Uh-Oh' Moment

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Fri, 8 Oct 2010 21:06:00 -0400

Joe Geraghty from National Review Online has some news about the 13th Congressional District in Pennsylvania sure to shock the Northeast Philadelphia/Northern Montgomery County race.

Short version: Allyson Schwartz is trailing challenger Dee Adcock in what was once considered to be a "safe" Democratic District in an internal poll of likely voters.

Schwartz, co-author of Obamacare, sponsor of the soda fat-tax, and who approved every spending item of the Pelosi-lead Congress since taking the gavel in 2006, is in the first real race for her political life. Though she still enjoys better name recognition than Adcock, when it comes to issues - you know, the stuff that really matters - she trails the successful businessman.

Gulp.

Toomey and Adcock Rally the Troops

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:03:00 -0400

Times Herald photo

Pennsylvania Senatorial candidate Pat Toomey (R) visited a packed GOP Victory call center this evening to thank volunteers gathered in the Blue Bell office. Joining Toomey was Abington's own Dee Adcock who is challenging the East Coast version of Nancy Pelosi, Allyson Schwartz, in Pennsylvania's 13th Congressional District.

The Times Herald has full coverage.

Sanchez Shown the Door at CNN

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:08:00 -0400

Rick Sanchez has been let go by CNN after making a stupid anti-semitic comment on Thursday's Jon Stewart Show. Unconfirmed reports say Sanchez will take advantage of his downsizing to travel to Iceland, to see volcanoes he never thought existed.

Dee Adcock's Star Rises to "Contender"

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:20:00 -0400

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has released a statement elevating Dee Adcock, in Pennsylvania's 13th Congressional District race against the East Coast version of Nancy Pelosi, Allyson Schwartz, to "contender" status.

I wonder if the author of Obamacare, sponsor of the soda "fat tax", and darling of the trail lawyers lobby - over $1.7 million dollars in campagin contributions - ever thought her seat would be targeted?

Abington Schools, No Place for the Constitution

noreply@blogger.com (page13) — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:01:00 -0400

Yesterday I had a face-to-face meeting with the Assistant Superintendent of the Abington School district. The purpose of the meeting was to share a pocket Constitution with the administration so they could determine whether it was worthy of distribution to the students to celebrate today, Constitution Day.

Constitution Day and Citizenship Day were signed into law in 2004 by President Bush. Any school receiving federal funds is required by law to educate students about the importance of our founding document on this day.

Now, technically, it seems as though the Abington School District is following the letter of the law by, according to them, encouraging the individual schools and teachers to include the Constitution in their lesson plans today.

However, there is no district-wide effort to specifically focus the curriculum toward the greatest single document to guarantee liberty in human history.

The meeting was scheduled because I was interested in distributing these pocket Constitutions (with a copy of the Declaration of Independence) outside the High School this morning.

According to the District,

If you have pocket Constitutions that are printed without any affiliation to any political, commercial, or religious organization, we would be happy to review the document. If it conforms with Board policy, we would provide it to the schools for the students.

Problem. The pamphlets I was interested in distributing were produced by the Heritage Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan conservative think tank. As far as I'm aware, they do not contribute to political campaigns, they do not endorse candidates, they simply research policy.

The School District informed me yesterday afternoon, pieces produced by Heritage violate the above-referenced policy.

So, the very school district who (24 hours prior to the event) reversed a long-standing board policy restricting politicking on school property to allow Michele Obama (Spring 2008) and then-candidate Senator Obama (Fall of '08) to hold rallies at Abington High School, do not think those events cross the threshold of allowable political affiliation.

However, a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, produced by the Heritage Foundation, somehow does?