RUSS J. ALAN

2012 Iowa Caucuses: History tells us who the next president will be

2012-01-04T20:15:00.005-06:00

With the votes all counted, Governor Mitt Romney was announced the winner of the Iowa Republican Caucus, with 24.6% of the vote, winning by only eight votes, over Rick Santorum who came in second place with 24.5% of the Iowa Republican vote.

Governor Rick Perry came in fifth place in the Iowa Republican Caucus and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann came in--sixth? She realized it was all over and gave a wonderful goodbye speech. Governor Perry went back to Texas to re-assess, to pray, and God told him to stay in the race and "go forth" to South Carolina.

Sources did not disclose whether or not God told Governor Perry that he would be the first candidate ever in history to come in fifth place in the Iowa Caucuses and still get his party's nomination for President of the United States.

Although some believed that the "Era of [Newt Gingrich]" was over, Former Speaker Newt Gingrich came in fourth place. Isn't it possible for Newt to win the Republican nomination? Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, in 1992, won 4th place in the Iowa democrat caucus with only 3% of the Iowa democrat vote (that's right 3 (three) (III) percent), went on to win the democrat party nomination and eventually won the general election for the President of the United States. Newt can't do it with 13.3% of the Iowa Republican vote?

Texas Congressman Ron Paul came in 3rd place. Ron Paul can't become president? Vice President George H. W. Bush, in 1988, came in 3rd place with only 19% of the vote, went on to win the Republican Party nomination and eventually won the general election for the President of the United States. Why can't Ron Paul be successful after winning 21.4% of the Iowa Republican vote?

Rick Santorum came in 2nd place with 24.5% of the Iowa Republican vote. He could also be the next president. In 1976, Jimmy Carter came in second place in the Iowa democrat caucus with 28% of the Iowa democrat vote, went on to win the democrat party nomination, and won the general election for the President of the United States. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 30% of the Iowa Republican vote, came in second place in the Iowa Republican Caucus, went on to win the Republican Party nomination and eventually became the greatest president of the 20th Century.

No Newt, Roosevelt wasn't the greatest president of the 20th century.

So it's all decided. It's all over folks. Stick a fork in it. It's done. Surely, Governor Mitt Romney, first place winner in the 2012 Iowa Republican Caucus will be the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! No? and don't call you Shirley? Well, consider the following facts:

In 1992, George H. W. Bush came in 1st place and--what?...he was the incumbent president? Oh...
OK OK in 1996 Bill Clinton won first place in the Iowa Cauc...wait he was the incumbent president too.
Wait wait wait... George W. Bush--no darn it --he was also an incumbent-- but NOT THE FIRST TIME!
GEORGE W. BUSH won first place in 2000 and went on to get the nomination and became president! and so did
BARACK OBAMA IN 2008!

Small problem. When George W. Bush and Barack Obama were candidates in 2000 and 2008, the incumbent presidents did not run, since both incumbent presidents were serving their second terms. With the exception of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, history shows that if an incumbent president is running, he's gonna be re-elected. Had President Bill Clinton and President Bush respectively, not been serving their second terms, Candidate Bush and Barack Obama probably wouldn't have have become presidents, history shows.

In 1996, incumbent President Bill Clinton won the Iowa democrat caucus with 98% of the Iowa democrat vote, ahead of Undecided, who came in second place with 1%. Ralph Nader came in third place, also with 1% -- or was that Pat Paulsen?

Obama is the incumbent president. He ran in the 2012 Iowa democrat caucus, unopposed, and like incumbent Bill Clinton, he also won 98% of the Iowa democrat vote, coming in first place ahead of Undecided, who came in second place with 2% of the Iowa democrat vote.

Who do you think--will be--the next President of these fifty-seven United States of America? Hmm?

2012 Iowa Republican Caucus winner won't become president, history shows

2012-01-03T07:53:00.003-06:00

1976: Iowa Caucus second place winner becomes president

Incumbent President Gerald Ford won the Iowa Republican Caucus but didn't become president.
Jimmy Carter came in second place in the Iowa democrat caucus, but went on to become president.

1980: Iowa Caucus second place winner becomes president

Incumbent President Jimmy Carter won the Iowa democrat caucus but was not re-elected.
Ronald Reagan came in second place in the Iowa Republican Caucus and went on to become president.

1984: Incumbent president is re-elected

Walter Mondale won the Iowa democrat caucus
incumbent President Ronald Reagan was re-elected.

1988: Iowa Caucus third place winners go on to win their party's nominations.

Bob Dole and Dick Gephardt were the first place winners in the Iowa Caucuses
the third place winners, George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis went on to win their party's nominations.
George H.W. Bush became president.

1992: Iowa Caucus forth place winner became president

Incumbant George W. Bush was serving his second term.
Tom Harkin won the Iowa democrat caucus and
Bill Clinton was the fourth place winner, and went on to become president.

1996: Incumbant president was re-elected.

Incumbent President Bill Clinton was unopposed.
Bob Dole won the Iowa Republican Caucus.
President Clinton was re-elected.

2000: Incumbent president was serving second term. Iowa Caucus winner became president.

President Bill Clinton was serving his second term.
George W. Bush and Al Gore were the Iowa Caucus winners.
George W.Bush was the first candidate since 1976 to win the Iowa Caucus and go on to be president.

2004: Incumbant president was re-elected.

Incumbant President George W. Bush and John Kerry were the Iowa Caucus winners.
President George W. Bush was re-elected.

2008: Incumbent president was serving second term. Iowa Caucus winner became president.

President George W. Bush was serving his second term.
Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama were the Iowa Caucus winners.
Barack Obama was the second of the only two candidates since 1976 to win the Iowa Caucus and go on to be president.

Barack Obama is not serving his second term YET, and history shows that unless the incumbent President is serving his second term, the opposing party winner of the Iowa Caucus for his party will not go on to win the general election for the President of the United States.

The candidate who wins the Iowa Republican Caucus probably will not win the Republican Party nomination, whether it be Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman or whomever else you can think of, and will not will not become the President of the United States, history shows.

Conclusion:

Got a favorite in the Republican Primary that you'd like to see in the White House? Pray that she or he loses the Iowa Republican Caucus. Then she or he will have a shot at winning the general election for the President of the United States — history shows.

© Russ J. Alan

2012 Iowa Republican Caucus Winner Won't Become President, History Shows

2012-01-01T21:53:00.013-06:00

H istory since 1976 has shown us that if the candidate is not the incumbent president, unless the incumbent President is serving his second term, if the said candidate wins the Iowa Caucus for his party, he usually does not eventually win his party's nomination and never becomes President of the United States.

Since 1976, only two candidates who won the Iowa Caucus for their parties ever became the President of the United States. They were George W. Bush in 2000, and Barack Obama in 2008; however, had either of the incumbent presidents, Bill Clinton or President Bush, respectively, not been serving their second terms, neither Candidate Bush nor Barack Obama would have won their general elections for the President of the United States, history shows.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter came in second place with 28% of the vote, behind the winner, "Uncommitted", who received 37% of the vote, and he went on to win the democrat party nomination, and the general election for the President of the United States, against the incumbent president, Gerald Ford, who, because he was the incumbent president, won the 1976 Iowa Republican Caucus.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter, the incumbent President, won the Iowa democrat caucus, but lost the general election for the President of the United States, to Ronald Reagan, who did not win the Iowa Republican Caucus, but rather came in second place. Had Ronald Reagan won the 1980 Iowa Republican Caucus, he would not have won the Republican Party nomination, nor therefore, the general election for the President of the United States, history shows.

In 1984, Walter Mondale won the Iowa democrat caucus that year, and went on to win the democrat party nomination. Ronald Reagan, the incumbent President, was unopposed and therefore won the Iowa Republican Caucus, and later won his second term in the general election for the President of the United States.

1988, Bob Dole won the Iowa Republican Caucus, but did not go on to win the Republican Party nomination. George H.W. Bush, who came in third, went on to win the Republican nomination, and later, the general election for the President of the United States.

In 1992, the incumbent president, George H. W. Bush won the Iowa Republican Caucus unopposed. Bill Clinton, did not win the Iowa democrat caucus, but rather, won third place. He went on to win the democrat party nomination, and the general election for the President of the United States.

In 1996, Bill Clinton, the incumbent President, won the Iowa democrat caucus, unopposed. Bob Dole, won the Iowa Republican Caucus, and went on to win the Republican Party nomination, but. Bill Clinton went on to win the general election for his second term as President of the United States.

In 2000, Bill Clinton was serving his second term while Vice President Al Gore won the Iowa democrat caucus, and went on to win the democrat party nomination. George W. Bush won the Iowa Republican Caucus and went on to win the Republican Party nomination and the general election for the President of the United States.

In 2004, George W. Bush, the incumbent President, won the Iowa Republican Caucus, unopposed. John Kerry, won the Iowa democrat caucus, and went on to win the democrat party nomination. George W. Bush won the general election for his second term as President of the United States.

In 2008, George W. Bush was serving his second term, while Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Republican Caucus, but did not go on to win the Republican Party nomination. Barack Obama, won the Iowa democrat caucus and went on to win the democrat Party nomination, and the general election for the President of the United States.

Barack Obama is not serving his second term YET, and history shows that unless the incumbent President is serving his second term, the opposing party winner of the Iowa Caucus for his party will not go on to win the general election for the President of the United States.

The candidate who wins the Iowa Republican Caucus probably will not win the Republican Party nomination, whether it be Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman or whomever else you can think of, and will not become the President of the United States, history shows.

Conclusion:

Got a favorite in the Republican Primary that you'd like to see in the White House? Pray that she or he loses the Iowa Republican Caucus. Then she or he will have a shot at winning the general election for the President of the United States--history shows.

2037: The democrats' new Social Security lock box

2011-01-28T12:54:00.301-06:00

In American politics, we hold these certain truths to be self-evident: that President George Bush will be blamed for everything done by the democrats before he became president as well as after his administration until such time as the next Republican president is elected and that we as conservatives must accept the miserable fact that we must hear, until the return of Jesus, ad nauseum, that Bill Clinton handed President Bush a budget surplus.

In his 1995 State of the Union Address (see clip), Bill Clinton said, "...now if we balance the budget for next year, it is projected that we will then have a sizable surplus in the years that immediately follow..."

It really depends, doesn't it, on what the real meaning of "if"- is

In his State of the Union Address video, Bill went on to explain to America his proposed earmark for the assumed surplus in "four words": "Fix social security NOW!" The democrat experts in music, pop culture and sports believe he did just that.

In 1995, the Republican majority congress under the leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed a plan to eliminate the deficit in seven years. After five or six heated budget battles with Clinton who constantly fought against them during which he made statements such as that he was not that committed to balancing the budget, congress finally balanced the budget during his last term; but instead of handing President Bush a budget surplus, the failed policies of the Clinton administration such as NAFTA, The Community Reinvestment Act (which caused the housing bubble), his war against Serbia in Bosnia and Kosovo and his missile attacks on aspirin factories in Sudan and Afghanistan, resulted in a 2002 national debt increase of $281 billion.

The Lock box

Vice President Albert Gore, in his August 18, 2000 presidential candidate nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, said, as recorded by The New York Times,

"...Putting both Social Security and Medicare in an ironclad lock box where the politicians can't touch them -- to me, that kind of common sense is a family value."

The democrats keep trying to tell us, we would still have the Social Security Trust Fund in the lock box if it hadn't been for Jeb Bush and that electoral college thing down in Florida; instead, "George Bush and Dick Cheney took every dollar and spent it in Iraq on the war for oil".

Conservatives must also hear to the point of hurling that President Obama inherited our our national debt from the Bush administration. The hope and change electorate will never accept that Obama's addition to the national debt is greater than that of all the other presidents in U.S. history combined. President Bush was in his final year in office when Bill Clinton's housing bubble burst. Near to that time, President Bush signed for $17-18 billion to bail out the automobile manufacturers. In Obama's first nineteen months in office alone, he increased the national debt $2.5 trillion dollars.

Now in 2011, such as it happened during Bill Clinton's presidency, the Republicans have gained control of the House of Representatives. Pledges such as to "repeal and replace", cut spending, defund programs, vote against raising the debt ceiling and privatize Social Security have been coming from the new Republican legislators. New directors and staff have been placed in agencies such as the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Within a few weeks of the election, new reports of the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare and other subjects were submitted to Congress.

2037: The New Lock box

On Thursday, January 27, 2011, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director of the CBO testified before the Senate Budget Committee of the insolvency of Social Security and the current projections indicate $600 billion in deficits in the next decade as the economy struggles and millions of baby boomers stand at the brink of retirement. This year alone, Elmendorf said that Social Security is projected to collect $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays in retirement, disability and survivor benefits, and by 2037, using the current information, Social Security funds will be exhausted.

As William Galston said in his January 28, 2011 article on the The New Republic website, "... it’s not as bad as you’ve read; it’s worse... the headlines understate the gravity of our situation. CBO is required to use current law as the basis for its estimates—to assume, for example, that all the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012, that Medicare payments to physicians will be cut sharply, and that the alternative minimum tax will be allowed to affect millions more Americans."

The democrat Senators, up in arms to protect their "sacred cow" in the Senate Defend Social Security Caucus, came running out of the hearing ready to make statements for the press (see video):

Bernie Sanders, D Vermont, said, "Social Security has been the most successful social program in the history of this country. We are getting sick and tired of the Republicans telling us that Social Security is collapsing when the reality is that there is a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus in Social Security and it can pay every benefit to every eligible beneficiary for the next 27 years!"

Perhaps Senator Sanders has forgotten it is 2011. Perhaps he meant 26 years which would be 2037.

Barbara Boxer, D California, said, "We are going to stand up and we are going to be heard. We are going to stand up to those who would destroy Social Security but we are going to call them out on it!"

...and WE ARE GOING to hurl.

Chuck Schumer, D New York, said, "There is a move -- not to preserve Social Security from those on the other side of the aisle -- but to END it. They want to do the same for Medicare. What they've done is create a panic that Social Security is about to end in the next few years, then saying "Let's END it!". They want to privatize Social Security. Privatize equals END!"

What we want to do is privatize Chuck Schumer.

A few minutes later that day, the democrat-controlled, government, left-wing, propagandist media went into damage control mode. Charles Osgood used a sound clip from Andrew Biggs, former deputy Social Security commissioner:

"The Social Security Trust Fund has several trillion dollars' worth of Treasury bonds in it. And even if the system is running deficits through payroll taxes, it can redeem the bonds to pay full benefits."

See? There's no reason to worry. Social Security is safe. The democrats told us "...there is a $2.7 trillion dollar surplus..."-- "...in treasury bonds they can cash in. It will be fine until at least 2037."

The truth is, at the time of this writing, our national debit was $14,067,018,492,708.17 and is presently increasing at the rate of $4.15 billion per day. States such as Illinois, California, New Jersey, Illinois and others can't pay out promises such as trillions of dollars in state government pensions, they can't pay their vendors, and are facing bankruptcy. Since the states are sovereign, they are trying to get that "little" problem worked out so they can come under the control of the federal bankruptcy courts. Those states would lose their sovereignty to the control of the federal government. On a national level, the Republican legislators are faced with a choice of raising the national debt ceiling even higher to pay the federal obligations, or to to cut federal programs and default on others.

2037 is not the reality. 2037 is the new lock box. When Social Security and Medicare collapses much sooner, in a few months, or within a couple of years, in the music, pop culture and sports filled minds of the American electorate, the Republicans will have spent the surplus, and they will be blamed, and George Bush will be blamed, until the next Republican president is elected.

The Republicans take over Congress: Now What?

2010-10-15T17:57:00.014-05:00

In less than three weeks, the Tea Partiers will find out how they did on election day. A polar shift to a Republican majority in Congress is widely expected. While there will be celebrations, parties and much elation, it won't be time to sing "happy days are here again" and then go back to sleep; instead, it will be time to do the HARD work. The big thing is not merely winning the November 2nd elections; instead, winning back our freedoms will be the Tea Partiers' new, completely overhauled role in the Conservative political process beginning January 1st.

Karl Rove said the role of the new Conservative majority in the House and the Senate will be to "repeal, replace and reform", and that became the Tea Party's mantra. In comparison, beginning in January 2011, instead of the normal routine of complaining in blogs, on talk radio and on Facebook of the democrats' hypocrisy and double standards as conservatives have done for so long, the job of the Tea Partiers will then be to "monitor, motivate and manipulate" their newly elected Republican (and maybe one or two "third party") representatives, "monitoring" them for any sign of weakness or "bipartisanshit", making sure that they are actively blocking ALL democrat legislation and not wasting time and taxes sponsoring legislation (due to the fact it would most assuredly end in veto), keeping their "feet to the fire" and working for the American people.

ALL we can expect to gain from ANY Conservative majority in the House and/or the Senate with President Obama in The White House is "gridlock", i.e., neither party being able to pass legislation. Democrat sponsored bills will be blocked by the Republican majority and Republican passed bills will be vetoed by the president, at least until 2012 when the Obama administration is replaced by the Palin Administration, the Jindal Administration, the Plumber Administration, or whom's ever, even if the Republicans win two-thirds of the seats in the House and the Senate, unless it is a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of bargain deal with the democrats, in which case, the Tea Party will spring into action.

Ordinarily, to achieve a so called, "veto-proof", two-thirds majority, Republicans would need to win 287 seats in the House of Representatives and somewhere between 66 and 67 seats in the Senate, and all want the same things for our Country; however, even with a two-thirds majority vote on a bill to repeal any democrat legislation, Republicans would not be successful because "our forefathers", the "framers" of The Constitution of whom Conservatives speak so highly, gave President Obama a little gift:

"If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law." - US Constitution Article 1, Section 7

Yes, it is the "pocket veto". James Madison was the first president to use the pocket veto in 1812. All President Obama has to do is "ignore" a bill sponsored by the Republicans, until the session of Congress is over.  The vetoed legislation must then be re-proposed during the next legislative session.

A Republican majority's only real power is against democrat sponsored bills -- they simply vote them down. Unfortunately, even though the democrats will no longer hold the majority in the House of Representatives, President Obama will still be able to bypass the legislative process and advance his leftist agenda via "executive order".

Those who elected President Obama do not understand how our government operates. One can hear people calling into liberal talk radio shows all the time saying things like, "...I think Congress should be abolished -- then the president can do whatever he wants!" The problem is, that would make the president a dictator. The Obama voter views the office of the president as that of a dictator. They say things like "...look at what Bush did to this country!", "...Bill Clinton gave us a SURPLUS and then George Bush spent it all!", etc.    President Obama is no different; he sees himself as a dictator. In his first week in office President Obama issued five executive orders, the first one, Executive Order 13489, states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released, for instance, his original birth certificate. Also in his first week he issued an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, another to stop water boarding. In his first month in office he issued sixteen executive orders. In 2009 he issued thirty-nine executive orders and in 2010, so far, he has issued twenty-six executive orders. This president believes he does not need the legislative process to advance his agenda.

Can a Conservative majority in Congress kill a president's executive order? Yes, with a two-thirds majority, but then the matter can and will be put before the Supreme Court. In the history of our nation, the Supreme Court has only overturned TWO (2) executive orders.

Gridlock can have positive effects, such as with the economy. As Rush Limbaugh has so eloquently explained, as well as have many noted economists, the economy doesn't do well when businesses are uncertain of what will come down from the federal government in the form of regulation and taxation. On the other hand, Wall Street and the business world thrives on certainty, and in "gridlock", the certainty is that no legislation, regulation or taxation is expected from the federal government. While it may be good for the economy indirectly, the fact that taxpayers pay the salaries of members of congress and the president, gridlock is an inefficient "Rube Goldberg" method to achieve a strong stock market.

The Internet is "a-twitter" with Conservatives screaming for the impeachment of this president. Several of the Republican congressional candidates have expressed their intentions to move for impeachment. Such impeachment proceedings will need to be against the vice president as well.   A Conservative majority in the House and the Senate can get this done.

The new job of the Tea Partiers is to work their newly elected Republican representatives. Just like President Obama can't legitimately blame George Bush for unemployment, the failed stimulus and the $1.3 trillion dollar deficit, Conservatives will no longer be able to entirely blame the democrats if we lose our country. Tea Partiers must focus their energy solely on keeping their newly elected Republican majority working to regain our freedoms. After the election, the success or failure of the United States of America will be solely in the hands of the Republicans.

My name is not Sweetie - I am your customer. Please call me Sir.

2010-09-12T21:04:00.006-05:00

There is a problem in American business that seems to have grown to epidemic proportions. It is a problem that has caused millions of patrons unnecessary pain, anger, aggravation and discomfort. Now that the problem has been identified, it is possible to stop it once and for all, but we need the help of all who are reading this article. Please print, make hundreds and thousands of copies, post it on bulletin boards, telephone poles, everywhere. Email it to everyone you know. I am begging you to get the word out. I can't take it anymore.

Are you the mom or the dad of a teenage daughter who is about to start their first entry-level job, probably as a cashier in a store or fast-food restaurant?

Are you a manager of a convenience store, fast-food restaurant or what have you, with teenage to college age female cashiers or waitresses working in your store? Are you out front watching and listening to these youthful female employees or are you hiding in the back office, playing games and reading articles on the Internet while eating french fries because the district or regional manager is not visiting today?

It is time for moms and dads and grandpas and grandmas to sit down at the table with their teenage to college age daughters who are about to take their first entry-level jobs or who have already started their career path in customer service positions at fast food establishments, convenience stores, etc., and teach them that mature, adult male customers are to be called "Sir". It is time for store managers (who aren't deservedly about to be terminated) to regularly meet with their young female staff who have direct contact with customers, and explain to them, proper business etiquette.

By AARP standards, I am a male who has just entered my senior years, and one thing that irritates me to the point of biting a number 2 pencil in half with my eye teeth, is to be condescendingly called "Hun" or "Sweetie" by your little, darling, precious, angel daughter who is young enough to be my grand daughter and who many times has a tattoo on her neck and/or a pierced nasal and/or lip(s) and/or has an earring in the middle of her tongue, and who finishes my sentences -- because she has the patience of a gnat and a brain the size of a walnut -- while I am trying to articulate my business with her in two-second sound bytes (because I am aware of the two previously mentioned facts) as she ends each and every one of her sentences with "Sweetie", "Hun", "Baby", or some other term of condescension, as if she is "Flo" at Mel's diner.

This problem doesn't seem to exist among young male customer service employees. I've never had a teenage boy at a cash register or waiting my table call me "Sweetie" or "Hun"-- it may only be because I don't go to gay establishments. If they call me anything it is usually "Sir". They may have said stuff like "Ok man, hurry back" or "OK Bud, thanks alot" and maybe it should, but that doesn't bother me. I can live with that.

Hopefully Grandpa and Grandma, it's not too late to teach your adult children to respect their elders, and not too late for your children to teach your grand daughter to call older men "Sir". Managers, it is your job to teach your young female front line workers to call your customers Ma'am and Sir.

Some of you men who are reading this are in absolute agreement with me. Other toothless rednecks are saying to me right now "Lighten up! I like it when them li'l old young baby dolls call me Hun and Sweetie an thangs like 'at!" And I say that it is because you are a pedophile and probably a statutory rapist and most probably a democrat.

I have thought countless hours about ways I can get this message to the young females who insist on calling me "Babe", "Darlin'", etc., to get them to cease immediately. I have thought of having a few t-shirts printed to say "My name is SIR -- I am your CUSTOMER", but I know this would only cause me more frustration because I wouldn't have it on when I needed it, because I wouldn't want to wear it all the time, and I would have to keep it in my vehicle and change my shirt in my car every time I want a taco, or inevitably I would have unknowingly dropped mustard down the shirt which would cause me to look like a redneck. I have thought about getting business cards printed up with the same message, and after the first "HUN", I could pull one out and hand it over, but then I think, "they probably can't read". Maybe if I could do some kind of graphics like they use for the different sandwiches and fries on McDonald's cash register keys... no, they would probably not understand the pictures and the manager hiding in the back office would call the police and report me as a pedophile.

Please tell your daughters, grand daughters and young female customer service employees, to stop using what they think are "terms of endearment" which are actually "terms of condescension" when dealing with customers.

My name is not "Honey". I am your customer -- Please call me "Sir" (Unless you want to have sex).

Union Workers forced to finance tax break for corporation through payroll deduction

2010-07-16T15:07:00.002-05:00

The Missouri State Senate passed a bill which will require United Auto Workers (UAW) employees to finance, through payroll deduction for up to ten years, a tax incentive for Ford Motor Company to keep open it's Claycomo, Missouri manufacturing plant.

On Thursday, July 15, 2010, Missouri Democrat Governor Jay Nixon signed the controversial Missouri Senate bill SB-2, the bill to establish The Manufacturing Jobs Act, nicknamed the "Ford Bill", a plan to provide tax incentives of up to $150 million dollars to Ford Motor Company for keeping open their manufacturing plant in Claycomo, Missouri near Kansas City, which hires more than 3700 employees.

The bill's opponents called it another "bailout". The bills chief opponent, Republican Senator Chuck Purgason, who argued that the "government shouldn't pick winners and losers and tax breaks should be across the board to all Missouri businesses large and small", stood for twenty hours Tuesday afternoon through Wednesday morning delivering a filibuster. The bill was finally voted into law by the 24-10 Republican majority Missouri State Senate, with a 20-7 vote.

As Governor Jay Nixon signed the bill at the Claycomo plant, he received a standing ovation from the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 249 in Claycomo, but little mention was given to how the bill will be funded.

The bill summary explains how the tax incentive will work, the basic idea being that Ford Motor Company will be able to keep in their possession state income tax from employee payroll deductions for up to 10 years and explains the conditions a company must meet in order to retain those employee payroll deductions as an incentive.

In reality, the incentive is not speaking of taxes that Ford Motor Company pays. The incentive is that Ford Motor Company will keep in their bank account, or to use as they wish, Missouri state tax deductions taken from the United Auto Workers (UAW) union employees' paychecks. Translation: UAW workers will pay Ford Motor Company's tax incentive through payroll deduction.

Bubba, a UAW employee at the Ford Claycomo, Missouri plant since 1984, who wished to remain anonymous said,

"You mean to tell me that I'm going to keep having state tax taken out of my paycheck and Ford's just going to keep it?... for 10 years? ...That just ain't right! ...So we're going to be payin' Ford to keep our job? That's going to be like paying another union due ain't it?"

Now that this fact has been pointed out, it will be very interesting how this incentive program for Ford's Claycomo, Missouri plant will pan out, assuming Ford will choose to keep the plant open at all. Many are expecting Ford to close the plant regardless of the tax incentive, as they did not propose the plan in the initial stages.

The question is, will the UAW union employees be OK with the idea of being forced to pay the tax incentive for a "rich corporation?"

U.S. Department of Justice files lawsuit against the voters of Arizona

2010-07-08T15:25:00.001-05:00

The U.S. Department of "Justice" failed to also name as defendents the voters of Arizona and the state legislators in their July 6th, 2010 complaint to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, when in actuality they are really suing the voters of Arizona and the Arizona state legislators (who were elected by the voters of Arizona) who followed the will of their constituents by passing the illegal immigration bill.

The lawsuit names Gov. Jan Brewer as defendent -- but why? She merely signed the bill that the majority of Arizonans wanted. Who they really want to silence are the Conservative people of Arizona.

The federal government is suing a state, against the will of the people. Has the reality hit you yet?

Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer stands alone in the border war.

There's no need to mention California. Don't expect New Mexico to follow suit either. One can imagine Arizona's illegal alien neighbors in New Mexico chugging cerveza like water and sweeping up enough margarita salt to chalk a ball field as they celebrate the strong 45-25 democrat majority in their House of Representatives under the leadership of democrat Governor and former Obama cabinet member Bill Richardson. This will not change any time soon -- New Mexico will not be holding state legislature elections in 2010.

Meanwhile in the rest of the nation, Conservatives proudly remember The Alamo and recite the Texas constitution's right to secede provision and envision Texas as a Conservative rock and safe haven for possible future relocation. Unfortunately, even though the Texas House of Representatives has a slight Republican majority -- 79 Republicans versus 71 democrats -- the possibility of a Texas illegal alien bill similar to Arizona's is pretty much out of the question. Even if they were to somehow pass one and the Republicans in the Texas State Senate, who outnumber the democrats 20-11, passed the bill, would Texas Governor Rick Perry sign it into law? Governor Perry has already said, "I fully recognize and support a state's right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas..."

Unlike New Mexico -- California and Texas will have state legislative election in November 2010. Governor Rick Perry was the winner of the recent Texas Republican primary election and most likely will be re-elected over democrat primary winner, Houston Mayor Bill White. Texas Conservatives have a chance, if they will get out to the polls, to put a larger majority of Conservatives in the seats of their House of Representatives. If this is the case, Texans who like Arizona's new immigration law may have another chance at getting one for their state in 2011.

Everybody is talking about Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer and her illegal immigration law. Conservatives are in awe. Facebook has been "a-twitter" with her picture, her supporters' comments, etc.; however, a valuable lesson can be learned from the REAL heroes -- the Conservative voters of the State of Arizona. How did they do it? They immersed themselves in local politics in their state and made it a priority to be at the polls in their last state legislative election. The result: they elected a 60% Conservative majority for their state House of Representatives, and that was the true beginning of Arizona's tough immigration law.

All but 6 states -- Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Virginia -- will have their state legislative elections in November 2010. If Conservatives are to succeed with issues such as illegal immigration or state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over issues such as government health care, we must have a wide Conservative majority in our State Houses, and in order to obtain that majority, we must make it a top priority to get to the polls and vote in our state elections. We must immerse ourselves in local politics.

Defending Ann Coulter against Jamie Freeze's defense of Helen Thomas

2010-06-10T12:19:00.008-05:00

After sixteen years of putting it off, I finally got up the courage to watch Stephen Spielberg's Schindler's List. Back in 1994 when the movie was released, I saw a few clips from the movie as part of a study at my church on the subject of the Holocaust, the murder of 6,000,000 (six million) Jews at the hands of the Nazis in eastern Europe.  The scenes of six foot high piles of Jews' teeth for the purpose of rendering the gold fillings and piles and piles of other unspeakable things taken from their bodies, hurt my heart so deeply. Other clips of the movie showed truck loads of children being taken away as their mothers ran frantically after their children, only to have their teeth knocked out with the butt on the stock of a Nazi's rifle, or worse, shot in the head, as their husbands watched from behind fences of razor wire.

For 16 years I put off watching the movie, but during that time I realized I needed to see it. I rented it from Netflix and it was laying on my desk for about a week and night before last I finally got up enough courage to watch it. I braced myself and stuck the DVD into the player as if I was shoving a dagger into my stomach.

When the movie started, I began seeing Jewish doctors, lawyers, intellectuals, business people, skilled laborers, their husbands, wives and their children, unaware of why they were being removed from their jobs and their homes. They reasoned that they were being relocated because of the war, being taken to "new homes" for their safety some of them thought. When Schindler began taking some of the Jews to work in his factory, they thought it was business as usual. Some wanted to negotiate the way they were to be paid, some demanded to have a percentage of ownership in Schindler's company, not knowing he was saving a few of their lives. I watched on and thought of the similarities between the society of pre-Nazi Germany and our pre-Obama society, and how similar we Conservatives are to the Jews before the Nazi's decided to put them to death. Also while I was watching Schindler's List, I several times recalled the video of Helen Thomas' comments... "...[the Jews need to] go back to Poland -- Germany...".

At the end of the Schindler's List movie, the war is over, A Russian soldier who had just came from Poland yelled out to Schindler's Jews that they were free to go find their remaining relatives. One of the Jews asked him, "You were in Poland...Were there any Jews still alive?" They were all dead Helen.

The other day I read Jamie Freeze's June 9th, 2010 article, "In Defense of Helen Thomas". I encourage you to read it if you haven't. I also encourage Ms Freeze to watch Schindler's List.

I was 34 years old when Schindler's List hit the box office. People who are around Ms. Freeze's age were about 6 years old, too young for the violence and the nudity. I served in NATO, Ms. Freeze went to college. I know that young people have a tendency to reject any movies or anything that is old or older than the DVD player itself, but I think it is time to watch Schindler's List. And kids, they made movies in color back then -- Spielberg made it in black and white on purpose.

Actually, the point I want to make with this article really has nothing to do with Jews or with Nazi's nor Helen Thomas. The thing that is on my mind has bothered me for a long time. My problem is with many so-called Conservative columnists, Conservative TV and Radio people, and many Republican politicians who are so worried about what the leftists think about Conservatives that they try to befriend them by attacking fellow Conservatives.

If it becomes a crime to be a Conservative I don't see enough evidence in Jamie Freeze's columns to convict her. There is certainly enough evidence to acquit her. For instance, she went after the "birthers" back in December in her article, "Facts are Stubborn Things: Obama is a Natural Born Citizen". You may also want to read my article, "Attorney Phillip J. Berg Defends Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuits. In it he rebuts Jamie Freeze's article.

I had the opportunity to speak to Ms. Freeze after I read her article which blesses Helen Thomas and attacks Ann Coulter. Ms. Freeze said,

"Thank you all for your comments. Let me clear up a few misconceptions that have been propagated here. [First,] What Helen Thomas said was morally and ethically reprehensible. I do not agree with her comments in any way.   Despite my moral revulsion, I am compelled to support her First Amendment right. Why? Because if we don't stand up for free speech for others (even when we disagree with them), who will stand up for our free speech? The ACLU? Get real.  I am a conservative. I think my columns support that. I believe in and support limited government, fiscal responsibility, and all the liberties proscribed in the Constitution.  What I don't support is pseudo-conservatism. This must be why I anger so many people. Pseudo-conservatism is when people CLAIM to be conservatives as long as their own agenda is established. They throw away core conservative principles in order to win. They ignore rationality and reason and cling to conspiracy theories. If anyone would like to critique my conservative philosophy (or lack thereof? lol) in a rational manner, please feel free to do so. My email address is j.l.freeze@juno.com. I will reply."

I asked Jamie Freeze if she wants to defeat the leftist movement in this country or does she want to "befriend" the leftist movement, and if she is indeed a Conservative, how is attacking fellow conservative soldiers in this war helping us to "RenewAmerica"?   Here is an excerpt from her article:

"...I don't know if it's just me, but I smell a little hypocrisy. Conservatives applaud Ann Coulter when she flippantly makes anti-Muslim comments (calling for the invasion of their country and conversion to Christianity) yet attack Helen Thomas for making anti-Semitic remarks. Boy, the smell of hypocrisy..."

Ms Freeze answered me. She said,

"Exposing conservatives who harm the conservative movement is fighting the leftist movement. How? It makes the conservative movement less of a laughingstock and more of an agent of change and reform. Oh, and please google Ms. Coulter's column. It was printed in the days following 9-11. She called for the invasion of Muslim countries and the conversion of those citizens: http://old.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml.   Her statement, right or wrong, is protected by the First Amendment. Why should Helen Thomas's statement, right or wrong, be afforded anything less? Or, is it possible that some conservatives only want to protect speech they agree with? I would hope all conservatives would want to uphold the Constitution for all people. But clearly, this is not the case."

I would like to direct your attention to Ms Freeze's comment, "...the conservative movement less of a laughingstock..." .  Her comment reveals the real problem: Many so-called Conservatives care what the left thinks about Conservatives. True Conservative soldiers couldn't care less what the leftists think. Leftists have brains the size of walnuts. We may convert one or two leftists, but that isn't going to bring this country back to the Constitution.

In defense of Ann Coulter, Ann hates communism and socialism. The left hates Ann Coulter because of that.
When the left starts despising Jamie Freeze as they do with the fervency they do Ann Coulter, then Jamie Freeze will be an effective soldier in the Conservative movement.

I encourage the Stephen Stone, the editor of RenewAmerica.com, which is one of the best Conservative websites available, to keep the site a place for Conservatives to write, and leftists to READ; not the other way around.

Uncovered: secret tea party tactic caused Arizona immigration law

2010-06-08T12:28:00.002-05:00

Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer stands alone in the border war.

There's no need to mention California. Don't expect New Mexico to follow suit either. One can imagine Arizona's illegal alien neighbors in New Mexico chugging cerveza like water and sweeping up enough margarita salt to chalk a ball field as they celebrate the strong 45-25 democrat majority in their House of Representatives under the leadership of democrat Governor and former Obama cabinet member Bill Richardson. This will not change any time soon -- New Mexico will not be holding state legislature elections in 2010.

Meanwhile in the rest of the nation, Conservatives proudly remember The Alamo and recite the Texas constitution's right to secede provision and envision Texas as a Conservative rock and safe haven for possible future relocation. Unfortunately, even though the Texas House of Representatives has a slight Republican majority -- 79 Republicans versus 71 democrats -- the possibility of a Texas illegal alien bill similar to Arizona's is pretty much out of the question. Even if they were to somehow pass one and the Republicans in the Texas State Senate, who outnumber the democrats 20-11, passed the bill, would Texas Governor Rick Perry sign it into law? Governor Perry has already said, "I fully recognize and support a state's right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas..."

Unlike New Mexico, California and Texas will have state legislative election in November 2010. Governor Rick Perry was the winner of the recent Texas Republican primary election and most likely will be re-elected over democrat primary winner, Houston Mayor Bill White. Texas Conservatives have a chance, if they will get out to the polls, to put a larger majority of Conservatives in the seats of their House of Representatives. If this is the case, Texans who like Arizona's new immigration law may have another chance at getting one for their state in 2011.

Everybody is talking about Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer and her illegal immigration law. Conservatives are in awe. Facebook has been "a-twitter" with her picture, her supporters' comments, etc.; however, a valuable lesson can be learned from the REAL heroes -- the Conservative voters of the State of Arizona. How did they do it? They immersed themselves in local politics in their state and made it a priority to be at the polls in their last state legislative election. The result: they elected a 60% Conservative majority for their state House of Representatives, and that was the true beginning of Arizona's tough immigration law.

All but 6 states -- Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Virginia -- will have their state legislative elections in November 2010. If Conservatives are to succeed with issues such as illegal immigration or state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over issues such as government health care, we must have a wide Conservative majority in our State Houses, and in order to obtain that majority, we must make it a top priority to get to the polls and vote in our state elections. We must immerse ourselves in local politics.

Are you a democrat or a Conservative? Take this ten question survey!

2010-06-07T16:20:00.005-05:00

You are invited you to take this quick, 10 question survey designed to help you learn about yourself and your own opinions about government.

1. I like government ruling over me and telling me what to do and not to do.

     a. True
     b. False

2. I like the government taking as much money as they want from my paycheck, whenever they get ready
     and spending it any way they wish.

     a. True
     b. False

3. I like the idea of big federal government; the bigger the better.

     a. True
     b. False

4. The government has

     a. a reasonably small number of rules and regulations over my life.
     b. too many rules and regulations over my life.

5. I want the government to have

     a. less power over me than over others.
     b.  less power over everyone.

6. The government knows better than I do what is good for me.

     a. True
     b. False

7. I want the government to tell me what I can and cannot do with and on my private property.

    a. True
    b. False

8. I want to pay taxes

     a. at lower rates than others as the government creates more and more expensive programs for me.

      b. at lower and lower rates as government encourages private sector job growth, enabling people to become less dependent on the government.

9. Because the Union won the civil war, the states no longer have the right to secede, or claim sovereignty
     over the federal government under the 10th amendment without permission from the U.S. Supreme
     Court.

     a. True
     b. False

10.  Choosing "a." on the highest percentage of the above questions means I am a

      a. democrat.
      b. Conservative.

Now, find out if you are a democrat or a Conservative! Count your A's and your B's.

Did you choose more of answer "a."? If so, CLICK HERE.    or,

Did you choose more of answer "b."? If so, CLICK HERE.

democrat or Conservative?

2010-06-07T16:13:00.004-05:00

Your answers indicate you are a CONSERVATIVE
Conservatives believe in the bill of rights, the Constitution, freedom, small federal government and a thriving free enterprise system.

If you didn't take the survey, CLICK HERE and take the quick, 10 question survey and find out if you are a democrat or a Conservative!

democrat or Conservative?

2010-06-07T16:10:00.004-05:00

Your answers indicate you are more aligned with the DEMOCRAT party.

True democrats believe in bigger and bigger central government, more and more regulation of the private sector and more and more entitlement programs, and believe the rich business owners should be taxed higher and higher to pay for them.

If you didn't take the survey, CLICK HERE and take the quick, 10 question survey and find out if you are a democrat or a Conservative!

Rediscover Ebay: Save the economy and a lot of money

2010-04-25T18:38:00.007-05:00

Even in this bad economy and recession, we all still need and want things. We need kitchen appliances such as pots and pans, coffee makers , toasters and blenders. We need power tools including drills, saws and sanders. We need parts for our cars. We want home entertainment equipment like DVD players, televisions, stereo systems. We need and want things for homes and our lives, and we need them to be cheap.

What we don't need is to pay retail prices. How can we get what we want and need at the lowest prices?

Contents:

How to narrow down a search for an item at its lowest price on ebay
How can ebay sellers offer their products at such low prices?
You can help your country's economy by buying on sites such as ebay.
Conclusion

1. How to narrow down a search for an item at its lowest price on ebay

Buying online is the answer, from websites such as ebay. If you have never bought anything from a seller on ebay, it is time for you to discover ebay. If you have bought from sellers on ebay but you are not currently buying on ebay, it is time you rediscovered ebay.

For instance, let's say you need a steam iron. For those of you who haven't done it, I'm going to walk you through finding steam irons on ebay. You veteran ebayers should follow along too, you may learn something or see something I am doing wrong.

First, go to www.ebay.com. At the top of the page, you will see a search box. There's another box with a pull down menu for categories -- just leave that alone and it will default to "all categories". In the search box, type "steam iron" (don't type the quotation marks). Now press search. At the time I wrote this article, right now, there are 1821 steam irons, both brand new and used. You are right, you don't want to shop 1821 steam irons. You want to narrow down your search. Let's say you want a brand new steam iron. Type "new" (without quotes) next to steam iron in the search box. I just did it and now I have 1133 steam irons.

Now, lets narrow the search further. Lets say you want a steam iron made by Proctor Silex. Go back to the search box and add the words "Proctor Silex" next to "steam iron new". Now it says "steam iron new Proctor Silex". I just did it and right now I have narrowed the search to 21 new Proctor Silex steam irons.

Look down at the top of the list on the right-hand side. There is a heading that says "price + shipping to" with a zip code. If the zip code shown is not yours, click on the zip code and change it to yours. When you do this, all the shipping charges for all the 21 steam irons will be changed for your zip code.

Also at the top of the list, there is a pull down box that defaults to "Best Match". If you click to pull down the choices, you will see other sorting options. Do this and choose "price + shipping: Lowest First". Clicking on that will cause the list to change to show the lowest price figuring shipping and everything, from lowest to highest. Right now when I did it, I see on top, a Proctor Silex steam iron, the listing will be on here for 1 day, 9 hours and 34 minutes longer. It is an auction style listing and no one has bid. The starting bid is .99 (cents) with a $9.10 shipping charge for my zip code. I can bid on that one and if no one bids against me I will win it and pay $10.09 total, shipping and everything.

Maybe I don't want to bid on an auction style listing. If I look a little further down the list, I see a BuyItNow listing for a Proctor Silex steam iron, non-stick, with vertical steam. After I click on it to read the complete description, see a picture, I decide to click BuyItNow and I just bought a $50 steam iron for the low, low price of $9 plus $8.35 shipping, USPS Priority Mail. I will get it in two days.

2. How can ebay sellers offer their products at such low prices?

Customer Returns: Along with some higher priced, brand new merchandise sold on ebay by retail stores as an additional avenue to create sales, the "new", "New in Box", "NIB" and "Brand New" merchandise listed by the smaller, independent sellers on ebay, the largest percentage of the time, are either new and unused, sometimes opened box items which can include store shelf display models, but in most instances, are customer returns.

You may not be aware of just how large the customer returned merchandise market is. It has been estimated that along with the closeout merchandise and surplus merchandise markets (also which makes up a large portion of ebay sales) the returned merchandise and liquidation industry generates over $100 billion dollars in revenue annually.

The customer return business works like this: Customers buy merchandise in stores like Wal-Mart, to give as gifts , etc. Some of those items are returned, opened or unopened, used or unused, working or defective, to the returns counter. Sometimes if Wal-Mart is sure the box has been unopened and the box is in perfect condition, they will re-stock the item. Items that are damaged or if it is either apparent or suspected that the boxes have been opened, those items will be stacked on pallets and returned to the warehouse. From the warehouse, the pallet load or "lot" will be sold off to merchandise "jobbers" many of whom contract to buy entire truck loads of returned lots, sight unseen. Much of the product is damaged beyond repair and will eventually discarded by the jobber, some of the product the jobber can refurbish, some of the product is brand new in opened but torn boxes, and some of the product is in unopened boxes, with the boxes being in varied conditions. Merchandise jobbers are in the business of liquidating this merchandise either in thrift stores, flea markets, and much of this merchandise is sold on ebay as used, new, new "store display", new "blemished", etc.

People on vacations, in Florida for instance, really like to sip daiquiris all day long on the beach. They can pack their own blender, OR, what usually happens, they just go to Wal-Mart (there's at least one in every town) where they buy a blender they can use while on vacation. They save the box, the foam, the plastic bags and the manuals. When they are ready to go home from their vacation, they wash and dry the blender pitcher, carefully clean any spots off the motor, strategically reposition it back into the box and carefully tape the box back together. They then return it to Wal-Mart with their receipt, and give some story as to why the blender isn't quite right for their lifestyle. Wal-Mart refunds their money, and then puts the box on the pile to go back to the warehouse. The blender may end up on sites such ebay, for a fraction of the MSRP.

The Home Shopping Network (HSN) has as one of their most successful sales tools: the unconditional money back guarantee. If you don't want it after you receive it and/or use it, you may attach the enclosed UPS return shipping label and UPS will return it to the address on the label, which despite popular belief, is not the address of the seller, but to a 3rd party company who stacks the merchandise into pallet lots and either sells the lots to merchandise jobbers or ships the merchandise to auction houses who auction the lots to other merchandise jobbers or to the general public. Much of this merchandise become ebay listings, again at a fraction of the HSN price. HSN sells so much product that they buy at ridiculously low cost anyway, usually from China, that even though they lose millions in customer refunds, the loss is a small percentage compared to their profit.

3. You can help your country's economy by buying on sites such as ebay.

When you buy the things you want and need on sites such as ebay, you are helping thousands of sellers, many of which are otherwise unemployed and need your business.

Ebay sellers are recyclers. They re-use a variety of materials to pack your boxes, they re-use boxes, they wrap merchandise boxes using the insides of paper grocery bags, boxes which would reveal the contents to thieves at the post office.

When you buy on ebay, you are directly and indirectly helping your country's economy in millions of ways; for instance, ebay sellers ship your packages via the Post Office, UPS, FedEx, etc., who hire personnel to work at their terminals, truck drivers to transport the freight, contract with 3rd party trucking companies who hire truck drivers, dispatchers, buy trucks, trailers, tires, fuel, oil and countless other items from companies who hire their own employees... the possibilities are endless, AND, you save money.

4. Conclusion

In this economy we all need to save money on the items we need and want. Buying online is the intelligent thing to do. Online sites such as ebay offer the same products as retailers at a fraction of the price because the sellers are able to obtain merchandise in ways that we, the consumers, cannot. By buying on sites such as ebay, we can save a lot of money, support recycling, help our country's economy by providing income to otherwise unemployed individuals, and by providing many other jobs, especially in the transportation industry and industries that support the transportation industry. Websites such as ebay have tools that make the shopping search process as easy as we choose it to be. Discover or rediscover ebay today and save.

Taxing Caucasians and Other 2010 Health Care Changes

2010-04-16T19:23:00.017-05:00

OK, so Obama got his government health care. When does he hope to change us?

The Caucasian Tax will begin in July. Citing the new health care law, the federal government will attempt to force tanning salons across the nation to collect a 10% tax from their customers. African Americans and Hispanics are not affected -- they don't darken the door of a tanning salon.

In September, the federal government thinks they will be able to force insurance companies to sell coverage to people with pre-existing conditions at the same premiums everyone else pays. This may mean that everyone else will be charged the same premium a person eaten up with cancer should pay, or, it could mean that people who have, for example, advanced leukemia, will receive the same medical coverage as someone who is healthy. It will be neither. Instead, the working Americans' taxes will be raised to cover $5 billion in federal grants to cover just a portion of the cost. The remaining portion will be collected through fees and taxes on pharmaceutical companies, medical-device companies, and health insurance companies, while bullying them to spend 80% of their premium revenue to pay medical claims.

The federal government plans to give medical coverage, which is not theirs to give, to an additional 32 million people in America (not necessarily American people), but not before the year 2014-- just in time for a newly elected conservative president to take office and be blamed for Obama's hope and change. Which conservative president do YOU choose for crucifixion? Sarah Palin? Mitt Romney? Newt Gingrich? Bobby Jindal? Joe the Plumber? "Forgive them (Obama voters) for they know not what [he] [did]."

Meanwhile, back at the state capitals, governors in all 50 are deciding whether to set up new health care coverage for small businesses and individuals who do not get coverage at work, to resign, or to plead the 10th Amendment. Oregon's Governor Ted Kulongoski: "I wake up worrying how I'm going to GET from 2010 to 2014." No, he's not a Republican. He's a democrat.

The new law says that taxpayers will spend about $350 billion on subsidies for 24 million low and middle income people in America (not necessarily American people) to buy insurance independently.

In the free-market system, evil health insurance companies would collect enough premium dollars to pay medical claims, to pay their operating overhead (utilities, salaries, lease payments, etc.) and to realize an immoral 3% to 6% profit. That was before they had to suddenly insure chronically ill people coming into their door coughing up blood, to pay their first month's premium after which to be shown the direction to the operating room.

Guy goes into a Los Angeles Allstate office: "Hi. I'm here to get auto insurance. I'm 17 and I've had six wrecks and a DWI this year. Here's the premium payment my grandmother pays in Hooterville, Missouri on her Buick LeSabre. This is for my first month. Now when will you be replacing my candy apple red Mustang Cobra I totalled this morning?"

Also in September, the federal government thinks it can require insurance companies to write new health coverage to children with pre-existing diseases and require parents to keep their computer game addicted adult children on their health insurance plans, up to age 26. Does this mean that the age of majority will be changed from age 18 to age 26? Will a 25 year old still be considered a child? Why age 26? Why not 46? Boys are staying at home with their single mothers until they are in their late 40's (later if they can't find a girlfriend with an apartment). Why not 56?

Also in September, taxpayers will be hit up for a $250 rebate each year to each AARP Social Security Senior Citizens Center Medicare recipient whose pharmaceuticals exceed $2700 that year.

You better vote for Obama for a second term. If you don't, you will have to hear AARP and the old folks blame your favorite conservative president, ad nauseum, for the fact that until 2019, their insurer is allowed to cut benefits and increase co-payments on their Medicare Advantage plans. Medicare beneficiaries earning $85,000 or more will pay higher Part B premiums, and this is surely to be blamed on the failed policies of the Plumber administration or whom's ever.

The federal government thinks that it can also require companies who have 50 or more employees to provide health coverage to all their employees after 2014, or face a fine. No doubt many of those employees will have pre-existing conditions and terminal illnesses. Will this mean that companies will layoff more employees, or does it mean that a company won't hire a person with a pre-existing condition? If that happens, will the government initiate some new-fangled affirmative action program? Will American businesses be required to hire a large percentage of chronically ill employees? Can people with one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel produce better?

Remember, the democrats' health care bill was 2,400 pages. We cannot possibly cover all the changes, problems and possibilities the new law will create in one article.

The good thing is, there is still hope. States can reject this federal mandate. The majority of the states have already begun actions pertaining to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Is it time to become more involved in politics at local and state levels and vote for governors and state representatives who will fight for states' sovereignty?

Tea Party Crashes Tea Party Crasher

2010-04-15T22:14:00.016-05:00

It was only a few days ago that conservative activists' Facebook pages were "a-twitter" with news that a website named CrashTheTeaParty.org had been formed, which described themselves as, "a nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are all sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself 'The Tea Party."

They went on to explain their ultimate goal: "to dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary." To do this, they planned to operate within the Tea Party itself by infiltrating the movement. Their website described their plan of attack: "Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans."

Within hours of discovering the site, conservative activists began working together as busily as a colony of bees, tracing the site back to an actual human being. Facebook and Twitter were both a buzz, first with the name of the web host, and later, the name of the owner of the domain name. He was identified as Jason Levin, a middle school teacher in Beaverton, Oregon. Levin's telephone number, home address, and Google Map satellite images of the top of his roof were all over the web, and had it been available, a street view with a zoom into his living room window would have been included.

Security plans for the [then] upcoming 2010 Tax Day Tea Parties were quickly being laid. On April 13th, the Tea Party Patriots website emailed all their members, advising them how to handle infiltrator situations that might happen at the next few days' tea parties.

" ...Prepare your security teams and any police officers at your event... handle any incident in a calm and reasonable manner... No aggressive confrontation... be polite, and ask them to leave... Take videos that we can use to expose the impostors... Parnter up... have at least one person with you for a witness... Make signs that say INFILTRATOR with a big arrow on it so that you can stand next to infiltrators and point at them with a cheerful demeanor...."

During the next couple of days Tea Partiers flooded the website, joining and posting tens of thousands of threads on the site's forum. Initially, this attack overloaded their servers and locked up the site.

On April 14th, Portland, Oregon's KPTV Fox 12 reported that Jason Levin, a Beaverton middle school teacher, was being investigated for misconduct and breaking district and state rules in his effort to dismantle a political movement.

A parent of a Conestoga Middle School student who didn't want his identity revealed said Levin's behavior [was] unacceptable. "Everyone has their private life and the right to do these kinds of things, but I do find it kind of disturbing that a teacher is using these hate-mongering kind of tactics to denigrate a group of millions," he said.

On Tax Day, April 15th, 2010, the website's features were unavailable with the exception of a page selling t-shirts for the cause.

KPTV Fox 12 reported that afternoon that Beaverton schools spokeswoman Maureen Wheeler confirmed that Levin had been placed on leave while the district investigates whether he broke district or state rules.

Unemployment: Why American businesses are failing

2010-03-01T19:51:00.032-06:00

Why are American businesses laying off instead of hiring? Why aren't they making money?

American companies shouldn't be downsizing, they should be expanding. "But our sales are down!" OK, who's fault is that? Don't you know how to sell? "But we have a bad economy -- don't you watch the news?!"

Sales are not down because we have a bad economy; rather, we have a bad economy because sales are down. It's not the democrats' fault completely. It's not because of NAFTA. The simple fact is, American companies have forgotten how to make money. Get out there in front of the customer and sell.

I don't care what kind of business you are running. For instance, the phone rings at Kellie Temporary employment service and "Taqwandra" answers the phone. "Thank you for calling Kellie Temporary Personnel, this is Taqwandra, how may I offer you an award winning customer service experience at this time?"... as she scrubs her 4 inch fingernails with an emery board. She continues, "Hello William! No William we don't have any positions right now, it's been really slow -- the bad economy you know, we don't have any positions at this time, but you are still on our "active" list as soon as one of our clients calls us with an opening. What? No William, WE DON'T NEED ANY SALESMEN HERE AT KELLIE! -- I just got through telling you it's the bad economy -- what? You got a bad attitude. William, I don't think we will be placing you anywhere at this time..." Translation: "William, go die."

William is right. Taqwandra is wrong. It's not the economy. The problem is that Taqwandra hasn't been busy selling her company's services to new business clients. You see, Kellie Temporary Personnel Services, the "Kellie Girl" people, has a talent base consisting of skilled professionals in every business field, many of whom possess qualities acquired through involvement in various fields for several decades. Temporary personnel agencies like Kellie can save their potential clients millions of dollars every year by advertising job openings, screening and testing applicants, handling payroll, deductions, benefits, not to mention hiring and firing. Kellie's potential business clients can use the skills of the cream of the crop, on a temporary basis, and every now and then find a temporary employee who would be perfect match as a permanent, direct hire for their company.

Yes, I just gave Kellie Services their perfect sales pitch, but they wouldn't hire ME, I guarantee you. They aren't thinking of how to make money through the expansion of their business, their managers hired on for one thing: to be the boss over people. So instead of going out to new potential clients to market their services, they just sit and wait for the phone to ring. They not only have forgotten how to sell, they don't have the desire.

Automobile dealerships have forgotten how to sell cars. They used to sell the customer on the benefits of the product and matching the product to the customer's needs and desires, arriving at a final "win-win" deal was a fine art. Real estate agents no longer sell the corner lot, the state park across the street, the excellent school district, the brand new architectural roof. Instead, they put a bad picture in the Multiple Listing Service and wait on the phone to ring. They take the customer to see the house the customer wants to see, and they stay in the kitchen while the customer walks around the house, and hope they sell it to themselves. Sales people have become merely "order takers".

Businesses have forgotten how important it is to get in front of the customer and sell the product. One of my favorite examples is Circuit City. In early February 2003, North America's second largest electronics retailer announced sweeping cutbacks of its workforce, including the dismissal of approximately 3900 commissioned salespeople. Circuit City's sales force was moved to an hourly wage, a measure that then CEO Alan McCollough said would save the company about $130 million in payroll costs which included severance pay (to the sales people that they were going to fire). At that time, Warren Mann, former director of the MARTA Cooperative of America buying group said "...Circuit City's abandonment of sales commissions is a major blunder. They’ve gone to the dark side of retail, with a clerk floor like Kmart. You can’t make money selling better goods in a self-sale environment."

Approximately 60% of Circuit City workers were commissioned sales people. In 2007 the chain fired 3,400 of their most experienced salespeople and replaced them with generic, untrained, near-minimum-wage workers. Warren Mann was right -- Circuit City sold their last laptop and went out of business in early 2009.

Another thing that is destroying American business: managers. As I wrote in my October 13, 2009 column, Now Hiring: Anti-Capitalists Needed - Management Positions, management blames employees when the numbers are down. When the numbers are up, management takes the credit.

Managers are so intelligent. An employee may be an outstanding earner for their company, but if they don't stroke the ego of their bosses just right, they will he fired at the drop of a hat without warning. Years ago, the majority of the U.S. states adopted the "at-will employment rule". The at-will rule has its genesis in a rule in Horace Gray Wood’s 1877 treatise on master-servant relations. Managers, who are in it to control, manipulate and boss people, think they benefit because there are no employment contracts, and they can fire an employee anytime they get ready, for any reason or no reason, with no warning verbal or written, with no thought of how much money their company spent to train and to develop that employee. The manager doesn't listen to the employee's issues he runs into every day on the front lines, dealing with the company's customers. Managers don't want to get involved in the process, they are bored by the process, and are interested only in the "bottom line".

So instead of listening to the employee's complaints and suggestions, the manager fires the employee in whom the company has heavily invested, for insubordination, without warning, without any prior counselling. Never mind that the average cost to recruit, hire and train a new employee can cost anywhere from $4000.00 to up to $50000.00 depending upon the industry and profession, "You're fired. Turn in your badge and your credit card.". Translation: "William, go and die". Just like at Circuit City, the money maker loses his job, and the worthless manager, who after firing the employee, sniffs smugly like Barney Fife and struts with a swagger back to his office as if he has performed a master stroke.

In the mind of a manager, if things go bad, say the numbers are down, it is the workers fault. On the other hand, if things go well, and the numbers are up, "management has done an excellent job." In other words, workers are incapable of doing a good job, and management is incapable of making mistakes.

While in the womb, a person is wired to be a worker or a manager. His direction is later further determined by whether his parents set rules for him or allow him to set rules for THEM. The young manager kicks and screams, and his parents frantically begin offering toys and/or putting bottles or food into his mouth until the tantrum stops, as the child becomes increasingly impressed with his ability to control his employees. He begins using his learned manipulative talents in his interactions with those whom his parent's mistakenly believe is his peers. Watch young children playing together. You will see which children patiently work with the toys, and which children instruct and direct the activities.

In order for the order giver to become a manager, he goes to college and majors in business (because this is the easiest course of study, requiring less work (which is attractive to him, because he is a manager, and really doesn‘t want to work)).

Why is a college degree such an important prerequisite for a management position in America?

While in business college, during the time when she isn't "binge drinking" and/or having group sex, the young manager is taught by her Marxist professors that capitalism is bad and socialism is good, corporations pollute the earth, profit is immoral, et cetera, then she graduates with this nonsense in her brain and off she goes to a management "POSITION" in the American marketplace!

In the old days, smart companies would “promote from within”. These days however, companies largely do not promote from within, but on the occasion that they do, a laborer who is a good producer will remain on the production line, and those who produce at the lowest output levels are promoted to management. As stated by Dogbert in Scott Adams’ Dilbert comic strip of February 5, 1995, "leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow".

During the corporate “downsizing” craze of the late 1990’s when many laborers were “laid off”, smart companies like AT&T downsized their management ranks instead, and through “empowerment“ they allowed front line workers to make certain management decisions which the worker believed would benefit the company as well as the customer. The idea was brilliant.

Aren't businesses supposed to be in business to make profit for producing a product or service? Why then do they hire managers (or laborers for that matter) who only desire to be boss and to manipulate and make counter-productive decisions?

Why do companies hire anti-capitalist college grads who think profit is immoral? Why do they promote entitlement-mentality, non-producers to management? Can the American economy survive when company decision makers have contempt for capitalism and very little knowledge of economics?

If American businesses don't soon wake up and remember why they are in business (to make money and be successful), the downward spiral will soon result in the final crash of our economy.

By the way, I need a job. I am accepting offers for employment.

Birmingham, Alabama: Proposed New Location of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial

2010-01-30T20:20:00.004-06:00

Although President Obama's popularity continues to plunge among fellow democrats and the leading New York democrats' objections to the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) in their city has caused the tumble to increase speed, don't expect the President to hand him back to the U.S. Military for tribunal. This president will not, on principle, reverse his decision regarding the closing of Guantanamo Bay nor his belief in the rights of [those who conservatives correctly call "terrorists"] to a trial by jury.

Conservatives have been against the concept all along. Over 120,000 people signed a petition circulated by HumanEvents.com asking Atty. Gen. Eric Holder to move the KSM trial out of New York, but now, political support from prominent Democrats appears to be collapsing on every front for the Obama administration's plan to try KSM and other accused 9/11 co-conspirators in federal court in New York City.

Among the latest leading Democrats to join the growing political wave urging that the trial be moved to a different location is Senate intelligence committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who up until now has been a supporter of President Obama's counter-terrorism policies. In a letter sent on January 29th to the White House, Feinstein urged President Obama to reverse his decision to try KSM in New York City, citing objections and concerns regarding the trial that have been expressed lately by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other local officials.

Regarding the headline of this article, it is I who would like at this time to propose the Federal Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama for the new trial location for KSM and other terrorists.

"Birmingham, Alabama?!" you say. Yes Birmingham, Alabama. They will take him, trust me. Here is a city who will do anything for news and their place on the map. Go ahead. Call them. Call Birmingham's own ABC 33/40 Newsstation. Trust me.

I was born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama, where I spent the first 18 years of my life. Later in my life I accumulated approximately 12 more total years in or near Birmingham, a grand total of 30 years. During that time, I witnessed a city who is hungry for news, desperately trying to rise above itself, sitting 140 miles west of Atlanta, a city who knows it is better than Birmingham, and Birmingham knows it, and has lived in its shadow since the civil war reconstruction. Atlanta even outdid Birmingham during the civil war --Atlanta actually saw action, but not Birmingham... sure there was Union General James H. Wilson whose troops cannonballed the Tannehill Furnaces 60 miles west, burned down the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, during which he cooled his heels in the lush Arlington Antebellum plantation home in Birmingham's "5 points west" section, but Atlanta got burned down. Nothing like that every happens in Birmingham, and over the years, it's really gotten to them.

When they were debating which city would get a major expansion to their airport, and it came down to Atlanta or Birmingham, Atlanta got the huge international airport expansion. Birmingham to this very moment hasn't gotten over that.

Birmingham will never outlive it's civil rights struggle torn past. They are still fighting the black-white issue. Drive through Birmingham (on your way to Atlanta) and turn on the radio. John Ed Willoughby or Doug Layton or somebody will be talking about the school situation (Alabama either has or is among the states with the lowest achievement test scores). You will be amazed to find, that any conversation on any topic, including whether a snowflake will hit the town or whether or not a similar disaster can happen in Birmingham, or why construction paper can't be purchased in a Jefferson County elementary school, the conversation will always turn to RACE--and I don't mean NASCAR. Many years ago, Atlanta got the big NASCAR racetrack, and the fastest one went to Talladega.

Atlanta got the Falcons. Birmingham tried to compete, couldn't get the NFL interested, so they got the World Football League. I will never forget--The Birmingham Americans founded in 1973. In 1975 Birmingham nearly made it when they signed Kenny Stabler, former quarterback for the Oakland Raiders, and several linemen from the Dallas Cowboys, but before the 1976 season when Stabler and the linemen were to start, the club folded. Not enough turnout for the games.

Next they tried the American Football Association. The Alabama Vulcans (named after Vulcan, an iron statue designed by Italian artist Giuseppe Moretti and cast from local iron in 1904 (the only time Birmingham "one-upped" Atlanta, until Atlanta later got Mt. Rushmore's Gutzon Borglum to carve Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson on Stone Mountain)) The Alabama Vulcans lasted one year, 1979.

Next came the Birmingham Stallions, of the US Football League, 1983 -1985, followed by the Birmingham Fire of the World Football League, 1991-1992.

When all else fails in the deep south city of Birmingham, Alabama, there's always the good old Canadian Football League! The Birmingham Barracudas (no barracuda's in Birmingham or Canada) lasted one year, 1995.

Yes, granted, they had a good run with a professional ice hockey team, the Birmingham Bulls in the World Hockey Association from 1976 to 1979 and the Central Hockey League from 1979 to 1996, and in 1994 Michael Jordan made his short-lved baseball debut with the minor league baseball team, the Birmingham Barons.

Trying and trying for some kind of pro ball team to compete with Atlanta, Birmingham contracted with Vince McMahon of World Wrestling Entertainment and NBC, and brought in the Birmingham Thunderbolts, an XFL team. It also lasted one year, 2001.

Next came the Alabama Steeldogs of the Arena Football League which did best of all, a seven year run, 2000-2007.

They haven't had anything for the last three years other than calling their bookies to bet on University of Alabama Crimson Tide (who took their home games from Legion Field in Birmingham back to Tuscaloosa) and Auburn University Tigers football games and University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) sports, but they are now about to launch the Birmingham Blackbirds of the United National Gridiron League, slated for this year.

Every time there is a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico or a snow storm in Missouri, James Spann, the legendary weatherman at ABC 33/40 begins preparing his fellow "Birminghamians" for the worst. "Could it reach Birmingham?! Could we too also [please] be in danger?!" Once I saw one of the downtown Birmingham ABC 33/40 correspondents on TV, positioned on top of their building "atop Red Mountain" (the mountain that has separated the "have's" (those that live "over the mountain") from the "have-nots" who live in the valley which contains the Birmingham Metropolitan) since the 1800's when iron and steel mills first opened there)). James Spann asked the reporter if he saw any snow coming in. The reporter said "James we are infact and indeed experiencing snowfall here in Birmingham! Cameraman, can you get a zoom on my glove? See here on my glove James, and hopefully you folks there at home can see this snowflake on my glove..." A single snowflake fell on the reporter's glove. The next morning, there was no accumulation, but all the Birmingham City and Jefferson County schools were closed and I-59, I-65 and I-20 were shutdown, until they realized it wasn't feasible, because the heavy traffic trying to get the heck out of Birmingham couldn't get to Atlanta, Chattanooga or Pensacola, Florida.

And then there is the tornado envy. Every time a cloud appears in the sky -- forget clouds -- every time someone blows a smoke ring... James Spann calls a tornado watch. Yes they have had a few killer tornadoes, but sorry James, you aren't in Kansas.

Every time a major disaster happened anywhere in the world... ABC 33/40's Pam Huff or FOX6's Janet Hall or some news anchor would say, and you could bet money that they would, "Could [whatever it was] happen in BIRMINGHAM?!"

When two jet airliners hit the two World Trade Center towers in New York City on September 11, 2001--you guessed it, "Could airplanes crash into the Harbert Plaza or the Southtrust Tower in Birmingham?!" Uh, no, sorry.

Despite their hopes, no matter how terrible, no, it won't happen in Birmingham.

They did have the Natalie Holloway story for a good while and I must say, my heart has continually grieved for the Twitty's.

I was not there two weeks ago, but I would bet, that when the magnitude 7 earthquake hit Haiti, scattering folks all over the city of Port-au-Prince, somebody on TV in Birmingham said "Could an earthquake happen in Birmingham?!"

Birmingham's former mayer, Larry Langford, who also had been a Birmingham TV news anchorman in the 1970's and who was elected to be the mayor of nearby Fairfield, Alabama in 1988 and managed to bring a "theme park" named "Visionland" (probably had something to do with Civil Rights), (later named Alabama Adventure) to the city, finally to compete with Atlanta's Six Flags over Georgia, was recently found guilty of 60 federal felony charges of bribery, fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and filing false tax returns (I think they were just mad because Langford was against the proposed dome football stadium that they believed would bring visitors from Atlanta (right!)). While this news has been good for Birmingham by ranking the city among other larger, more notorious cities, Birmingham needs more negative publicity still.

What Birmingham needs now is something BIG. President O'bama, please call Birmingham's new Mayor, William Bell and Birmingham's ABC 33/40 and FOX6 News, and I promise you, you will have your change of venue for the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial.

The news anchors have probably already been asking their viewers the rhetorical question, "Can a terrorist be tried in Birmingham?!" Yes Birmingham, this time, it can happen.

...but please, please, please President Obama, don't let Atlanta get this one too.

Play Boogie/Blues/Major Scale/Chords in any Key (PIANO)

2010-01-11T12:23:00.000-06:00

Play Boogie/Blues/Major Scale/Chords in any Key (PIANO)! Slip guide behind keys-play scale in ANY KEY instantly!

Click for Details or go to http://www.MusicAandE.blogspot.com/

Deadly virus with no symptoms killing millions worldwide

2010-01-11T09:12:00.015-06:00

The deadly virus was first isolated in 1989 and reliable tests to detect it were not available until 1992. Now after 21 years, why still has the word not been spread? In the last 21 years how many lives could have been spared? Is it intentional that the word of this silent killer is not spread? Is it for population control? How many hundreds of millions of people are dying right now and don't even know they are ill? Are you one of them?

In chronic infections, it has no symptoms. It has entered the bodies of approximately 170 million people worldwide. More than 3 million people are chronically infected right now in the United states, where 19,000 new infections and 10,000 deaths due to the disease occur each year. 85% of the people who acquire the disease will become chronically infected.

Without symptoms, the chronically infected don't realize they are sick, much less that they are dying. Many of those people are proud of their health and boast often that they rarely get sick.

The majority infected by the most common strain of the disease who accidentally discover their infection after routine blood screenings and who begin daily anti-viral drug treatment for six to ten months while the virus actively replicates itself within their bodies, unfortunately have only a 50% chance of cure -- the other 50% will continue to be infected with the alien microorganism thriving in their bodies and if they don't already have it, will proceed to cirrhosis of the liver and then to liver cancer.

Have you ever borrowed and used someone else's toenail clipper? Have you shared the same razor with a girlfriend? Have you ever "just this one time" used your lover's toothbrush in a hotel, and noticed you brushed a little hard and a little blood surfaces on your gum? Are you sure your dental hygienist has always used thoroughly sanitized dental instruments? Have you ever had an injection at a doctor's office or had blood drawn but don't remember seeing the needle come out of a sterile factory sealed wrapper? Have you ever had a blood transfusion? Have you ever had an organ transplant? Have you ever shared a hypodermic needle?

Although injection drug use is the most common route for infection, any practice, activity, or situation that involves blood-to-blood exposure can potentially be a source of the infection. The virus may be sexually transmitted, although this is rare, and usually only occurs when open sores and bleeding is also present making blood contact more likely.

The disease is usually discovered by accident during a routine physical examination which includes blood sampling, used to detect other common diseases such as HIV or diabetes. When the blood testing reveals higher than normal liver enzymes, new blood is taken to determine the cause, and the patient is scheduled for abdominal ultrasound imaging. While waiting for the ultrasound appointment, the new blood test results come in. The doctor's office calls. "The doctor needs you to come in. No we won't be able to discuss any of the findings over the telephone. You need to come in. What is a good date and time for you?" This is December 22. Your appointment to speak to the doctor is set for January 4th. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

After being traumatized by the mysterious call from your doctor's front office and being held in suspense though the holidays, the patient enters the examining room and after a few moments, the doctor enters. After the usual greeting, he gets right to the point.

"Your blood tests came back with a positive reading for HCV, genotype-1a. You have Hepatitis C."

The patient's heart drops in their chest. Tunnel vision ensues. A feeling of tragedy overcomes the patient's mind -- "It will be OK", says the primary care family practice physician. "I will get you through it. You have genotype 1 and its the most common". The patient breaths a half sigh of relief. "After all -- the doctor's going to get me through it -- and it's genotype 1 and it's the most common. They will know what to do."

The primary care physician now refers the patient to a Hepatologist, a doctor who specializes in the treatment of Hepatitis C. The next available appointment is several months away (at the time of this article, we still had a non-government, private sector medical system).

Before the patient leaves the primary care physician's office, the doctor has his nurse inject her in both arms with the first in the series of Hepatitis A (HAV) and Hepatitis B (HBV) vaccines. The patient will get two more -- the next will be in six months. These are necessary to prevent her from being infected with HAV and HBV, which if infected with either or both, would naturally complicate the killing of the HCV virus.

At the time of the writing of this article, there is no vaccine for the prevention of Hepatitis C.

The patient was incorrectly relieved by the news of the commonness of genotype 1 (approximately 80% of HCV patients in the United States). While cure rates of 75% or better are seen in people with HCV genotypes 2 and 3 with 6 months of treatment, cure rates are at about 50% in patients with HCV genotype 1 given 10 months of treatment and 65% in those with genotype 4 (more common in the Middle East and Africa.

The current treatment for HCV is a combination of Interferon (brand names Pegasys or PEG-Intron) along with the anti-viral drug Ribavirin for a period of 6 to 10 months. These drugs have numerous active side effects and the cost of the drugs are astronomical. Pegasys and PEG-intron currently costs over $4000 for a 3 months supply -- 10 months supply of that drug alone would be over $13,500.00. Some of the best prescription insurance plans only pay about $1000 for a three month supply. Due to the cost, most victims of this disease simply cannot afford the treatment. If they do rape and scrape, beg borrow, steal, sell everything they have to pay for the drugs, there is a good chance that the patient may not be cured of the disease. Some patients start the drug treatment, only to drop out after a few months due to illness from the drug side effects or the price. Not finishing the treatment makes the virus incrementally more and more immune to the drugs in new infectees.

Today is a good day for you to make a phone call and schedule a blood test which will include screening for Hepatitis C. Don't be a hero. Don't wait until your liver stops functioning. You or your loved one may be dying and don't even know it.

Tea Parties: One of the Greatest things in 2010

2009-12-28T16:09:00.017-06:00

One of my favorite writers, Warner Todd Huston, wrote his Dec 28, 2009 article, "Tea Parties: the biggest mistake we'll make in 2010". I offer the following response to my friend Mr. Huston:

I say the biggest mistake we conservatives can make in 2010 is to continue worrying about how we appear to the left, John McCain style, as we have been doing for so many years past. We must stop appeasing the leftists, we must stop caring what they think, we must have the courage of our convictions and the pride to voice it without shame. No more bipartisanship. We need partisanship and plenty of it

Yes, 2000 - 2009, or the "aughts" as our fellow conservative, Mr. Huston, calls them, had some bad times, but they weren't all bad. They started with the last two years of the administration of President Clinton who sowed the seeds of the "housing bubble" but didn't weed out the Muslim problem nor take out Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance, and that was bad. The Republicans elected President George W. Bush and we didn't have a democrat president in the White House when we were attacked by Muslim extremists in 2001, and that was good. We lost many soldiers in Iraq which was bad, but we took out the murderous, weapon of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein, and we killed lots and lots of Muslim extremists, and that was a really good thing. In 2006, Conservatives lost the majority position in congress, and Mike Huckabee, instead of dropping out of the Republican primary and endorsing Mitt Romney, gave us John McCain who became the Republican nominee (bad), who stabbed his running mate, Sarah Palin, in the back and gave up the presidency to Barack Obama, and that was really bad.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama caused the awakening of the sleeping conservatives, the Tea Party movement arose, but not through spontaneity and not by "all sorts of different groups", but rather, through the work of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News and several others, but more directly, Glenn Beck.

The Tea Party movement doesn't need to be organized, we are already organized. We are an "organism" like a colony of ants or even better, like the "Borg" on "Star Trek: the Next Generation". We communicate with each other and act as one, toward a common goal, and just like the Borg, "Resistance is futile -- you will be assimilated." We don't need a leader. We lead each other. We just so happen to have a few louder voices with further reach among us (see last paragraph).

We don't care that it raises the blood pressure of the leftists to hear the term "Tea Parties", we don't care that it "fills them with disgust". Conservatives get disgusted when we hear "Al Gore", "global warming", "cap and trade", "health care reform"... do the LEFTISTS care what WE think? Why should I care what THEY think? I want them to get their blood pressure up. The higher the better (actually, the lower the better -- I would prefer the leftists have zero blood pressure).

As far as the "herding cats" comment, that may be so when trying to organize conservative democrats (or "blue dogs") and libertarians, but that's not an accurate description of organizing Tea Party Conservatives. We are already organized.

Another "worst thing" conservatives could do is vote strictly "Republican" in the November 2010 elections, especially if many of the so-called "blue-dog" democrats follow in the footsteps of Congressman Parker Griffith of Alabama, switch to the Republican party to prevent losing their seats in Congress, as some are predicting will happen in the months leading to the election. The Republican party would just be adding more weak, timid, moderate, appeasing, "bipartisan", woosies, otherwise known as RINOS (Republicans in name only).

Mr. Huston believes that the Tea Party movement was destined to fail from its inception, and continues to say that the main reason is lack of a leader. If he doesn't believe we lead ourselves or that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Mark Levin (the latter three are also an "organism") are the leaders, then I guess he is saying he doesn't want to lead it either. OK, if that's the case, I nominate myself -- I will lead it. As the leader of the Tea Party, I propose that we rename it the Constitution party or the Conservative party, and effective immediately, we don't care what the leftists think.

Mr. Huston also says that the Tea Party movement will fail because of lack of campaign funds. Read my December 21, 2009 article, Possible Sanctions Against the U.S. Government; we may just fund our campaign with the funds from our shredded tax checks at our April 15, 2010 Tax Day Tea Parties. You may just be surprised at just how powerful a Tea Party may be.

Atty Philip J. Berg defends Obama birth certificate lawsuits

2009-12-24T17:59:00.002-06:00

Philip J. Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and an activist attorney who brought a lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to become president of the United States has provided the following reply to Jamie Freeze's Dec 22, 2009 Article, "Facts are stubborn things: Obama is a natural-born citizen" .

Source: http://obamacrimes.com/?p=340

"by the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg http://philjberg.com/"

Jamie Freeze, a law student, has called any of us who question Soetoro/Obama’s Citizenship status and Constitutional Eligibility to serve as U.S. President, a Constitutional Right of ours of course, incompetent idiots. However, Ms. Freeze may want to continue her education, part of being a lawyer, which is a very important part, is being able to comprehend what you read and to cite the correct law to collaborate it. Something Ms. Freeze has clearly failed to do. I will respond below to Ms. Freeze’s allegations, however, my responses are in bold. I also want to make very clear to all readers, none of the eligibility cases have been heard, litigated or dismissed based on the law pertaining to any of the issues raised. Instead, the eligibility cases have been dismissed on the basis of “STANDING” only.

This type of thing, by Ms. Freeze, is what gives folks the WRONG information and confuses them, it is a deception by Ms. Freeze (as a law student, I hope her professors teach her how to properly, honestly and with integrity, investigate, research the laws, properly cite the laws and argue issues before her). Otherwise, she will be unable to do her clients, when that time comes assuming she passes the bar, justice.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/freeze/091222

December 22, 2009
Facts are stubborn things: Obama is a natural-born citizen
By Jamie Freeze

"I never will forget meeting former North Carolina State Senator Hugh Webster my senior year of high school. He came to my school and had lunch with the seniors. As he sat down beside me, I asked him to tell me what he most loved and hated about being in Raleigh. I don’t remember what he most loved, but I’ll never forget what he most hated. In the words of Mr. Webster, “I don’t deal well with incompetent people.”

Ms. Freeze, unfortunately, is showing her “INCOMPETENCE”, as Ms. Freeze would call it, but I feel “IGNORANCE” is the more appropriate word, as outlined below.

"At that point, I knew Mr. Webster and I were kindred spirits. I too don’t deal well with incompetent people. As a matter of fact, I go out of my way to avoid them, but when dealing with them is inevitable, I can’t help but point out their incompetencies. As a law student, I am being trained to be meticulous, well-reasoned, and intelligent. After my final exam grades come back, we’ll see how well I’m doing. But that aside, I feel that I have been too longsuffering in letting the Birther Movement receive simply a few caustic remarks and jabs from me. It’s time for me to call a spade a spade. Here goes: If you believe that President Obama is NOT a natural-born citizen, then you are an incompetent idiot who is probably watching Glenn Beck while wearing a tin-foil hat. You probably think Obama’s a Muslim too."

Our lawsuits have nothing to do with Soetoro/Obama’s religion, they never have. Ms. Freeze seems to have lost a very important part of her education, we as people are entitle to redress, we as people are entitled to ask questions, especially of our elected officials. Incompetent Idiot? It appears that Ms. Freeze’s law school has taught her when you cannot counter something to call the opposing party names. That is not what I was taught in school. I do not see one shred of evidence that supports Ms. Freeze’s position. Ms. Freeze obviously forgot about Barry Soetoro’s name; Did she locate where he legally changed his name to Barack H. Obama? It is fraud to run for and serve as President under an “alias” name. What about Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian citizenship? We have the School Record which Soetoro/Obama has admitted too.

"If you are still reading (and not firing off angry emails), then allow me to offer you factual proof that Obama is a natural-born citizen who satisfies the constitutional requirements for Commander-in-Chief. My argument is two-fold: 1. Obama was born in Hawaii (a U.S. state for my incompetent readers). 2. Obama satisfies the requirements found in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which defines natural-born citizens."

Where is the factual proof? Ms. Freeze apparently forgot to attach it. What does Ms. Freeze have to back up that Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii? We have been unable to obtain verification of that, no long form birth certificate, only an image that has been deemed a forgery. Despite this, what about his Indonesian Citizenship? Had Ms. Freeze read our briefs, and retained the information, she would have seen that all we do is talk about the Nationality Act of 1940 revised in 1952.

"1. Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii joined the Union in 1959. Barack Obama was born in 1961. Do the math. It works. Ok, so perhaps that argument is a bit over-simplified, but that is because I find the birth certificate question so ridiculous. The President released his birth certificate (which was verified by the Hawaii Health Department) yet conspiracy theorists refuse to see logic. “Big bad Obama must be hiding something. That certificate isn’t the long form. What’s he hiding?” What the naysayers fail to realize is that in 1961 the standard Hawaiian birth certificate was…wait for it…exactly the same length as Obama’s! The Hawaiian Health Department has said this, but as conspiracy theorists point out, they must be covering for Obama. Despite the facts, folks say that even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not a natural born citizen because his father was Kenyan. However, even if Obama was born on the moon, he would still be a natural born citizen under the Immigration and Nationality Act."

First, the “long version” birth certificate we are asking for has nothing do to with the size of the document itself, instead it has to do with the information on the document. We have never claimed Hawaii was not a State or Union, so this has nothing to do with the questions we are seeking answers too. Soetoro/Obama released two (2) forged images of a Certification of Live Birth, claiming it to be his birth certificate. Hawaii Health Department has NEVER verified the images placed on the internet. Law 101, no agency or person can look at an online image and state the document came from their agency or location, unless, the person making such statement was the one who personally printed the document in question (Soetoro/Obama’s Certification of Live Birth in this case) and handed it to Soetoro/Obama and can prove it is in fact the same document. In Soetoro/Obama’s case, his campaign office stated they mailed the application for his Certification of Live Birth to Hawaii and recieved this supposed document back from Hawaii. However, the date that Soetoro/Obama would have signed it, Soetoro/Obama was traveling campaigning. We are not disputing the length of Soetoro/Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, we have copies of other’s actual Certificate of Live births from the same time period, these are two (2) completely different documents. Soetoro/Obama has never released a hard copy of any type of Certification of Live Birth or Certificate of Live Birth to anyone other than Factcheck.org which is part of Annenberg and yes who Soetoro/Obama has close ties with. I am wondering what Ms. Freeze is basing her unsubstantiated statements on. Maybe she will enlighten us. We are not questioning the British Father, as we are well aware of the fact if Soetoro/Obama was born on U.S. soil, which we do not believe, he would in fact be a U.S. “natural born” citizen. However, in fairness to Ms. Freeze, others have questioned the British citizenship of the father and claimed that even if Soetoro/Obama was born on U.S. soil he would not be a “natural born” U.S. citizen due to his father’s foreign citizenship status. I’m going to ask again, what about Soetoro/Obama’s legal name and his Indonesian Citizenship status? Ms. Freeze fails to address these very important issues. We have been unable to locate any legal documentation legally changing Soetoro’s name back to Barack H. Obama; where Soetoro/Obama relinquished his Indonesian Citizenship; and/or where Soetoro/Obama reclaimed any U.S. Citizenship status he may have once held. Again, hopefully Ms. Freeze will enlighten us.

"2. "Obama is a natural born citizen. In Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159 (2000), we have a clear definition of what natural born citizenship is. Scales’ father was an American serviceman stationed in the Philippines where he met Scales’ mother. They married despite the fact that Scales’ mother was pregnant with him at the time. In all probability, the court said, Scales was a product of his mother’s previous relationship. However, he was born after Mr. Scales married his mother, and he was treated as Scales’ son. Later, Scales was facing deportation because of an aggravated felony involving drugs. He challenged his deportation saying he was a natural born citizen. The court determined that natural born citizenship depends on the statute in effect at the time of the child’s birth. Since Scales was born in 1977, he was a natural born citizen because a “person shall be a national and citizen of the United States at birth who is born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.” Id. at 1169; see 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(7) (1976). Therefore, Scales was a natural born citizen despite the following: having been born in a foreign country, having been born to a non-citizen, having his American father later deny paternity (and prove non-paternity), and having claimed to be a citizen of the Philippines. Sounds like it is difficult to get rid of natural born citizenship. Let’s examine Barack Obama’s citizenship."

I would first like to note that Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159 (2000) is not exactly on point as neither of Soetoro/Obama’s parents were in the U.S. Military, however, it does outline some of the issues we present. Some more appropriate cases are United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998), Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005). And, if Ms. Freeze would have read and retained what is in our briefs, she would have seen the laws we used. We believe Soetoro/Obama was born in Kenya, contrary to Ms. Freeze’s beliefs, Soetoro/Obama’s mother was not old enough to confer U.S. “natural born” citizenship status to Soetoro/Obama. Moreover, neither of Soetoro/Obama’s parents were in the U.S. Military at the time of Soetoro/Obama’s birth, her whole argument above, which was meant to mislead people and which is very ignorant for a law student, does not pertain. Ms. Freeze also forgets to mention the Nationality Act was revised in 1986 with a proviso regarding active Military, the only part of the code that was retroactive was the Proviso regarding the Military Status, nothing else. But again, neither of Seotoro/Obama’s parents were in the U.S. Military. Moreover, contrary to Scales, Soetoro/Obama’s father admitted paternity, the parents were married in Hawaii prior to Soetoro/Obama’s birth. Ms. Freeze has done nothing more than attempt to misapply the laws. And, once again Ms. Freeze also fails to address the legal name of Soetoro/Obama and Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian citizenship.

"Obama’s citizenship will be determined under the 1952 version of the Immigration and Nationality Act since he was born in 1961 and the Act wasn’t updated again until 1966. According to § 301(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 235), “a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person [is a natural born citizen].” According to § 305 of the same statute, any person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900 was to be considered a natural born citizen. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States, and his father was a citizen of Kenya. They were married six months before Obama was born. There is no doubt that Obama’s mother resided in the United States or its possessions for at least one year prior to Obama’s birth. Therefore, Obama can’t be anything other than a natural born citizen. Combine this detail with his birth in an American State, you have a certified natural born citizen. "

Ms. Freeze’s 1966 law fails and she completely contradicts herself. The law that is applied is the law in effect at the time of the birth, in Soetoro/Obama’s case, the Nationality Act of 1940 revised 1952. See Marquez-Marquez a/k/a Moreno v. Gonzales, 455 F. 3d 548 (5th Cir. 2006), Runnett v. Shultz, 901 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir.1990). Law in 1966 does not apply, unless Ms. Freeze can show me where it states it is retroactive, which she CANNOT. We are not disputing that Hawaii was a state, we are not disputing if in fact Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii he would be a U.S. “natural born” citizen. Further, Kenya is not an outlying possession of the U.S. The law used by Ms. Freeze once again does not pertain to the issues outlined in our cases; does not apply to Soetoro/Obama’s birth in Kenya; fails to address Soetoro/Obama’s legal name; and fails to address Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian citizenship. Moreover, even if the 1966 version applied, which is does NOT, Soetoro/Obama’s mother was not present residing in the U.S. for a continuous year prior to Soetoro/Obama’s birth. We believe Soetoro/Obama’s mother was residing in Kenya and in fact gave birth to Soetoro/Obama in Kenya.

Important issues left out by Ms. Freeze in attempt to confuse the reader is the fact Soetoro/Obama became Barry Soetoro an Indonesian Citizenship. No records have been located legally changing Barry Soetoro’s name back to Barack H. Obama. No records have been located showing Soetoro/Obama relinquished his Indonesain citizenship, which was a requirement of Indonesia and outlined in their laws (Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship status) and reclaiming any U.S. citizenship status he may have once held. Thus, Soetoro/Obama is still Barry Soetoro an Indonesian Citizen.

One last question I have for Ms. Freeze, if in fact Soetoro/Obama was a U.S. “natural born” citizen and eligibile to serve as our United States President, why in the world would he spend in excess of a Million Dollars litigating these cases instead of just proving his citizenship status? I’m curious to see how Ms. Freeze would respond. We know the answer, because Soetoro/Obama can’t.

Breaking News: Obama a Natural Born Citizen - Birth Certificate and Presidential Eligibility Issue Solved

2009-12-23T13:55:00.006-06:00

RenewAmerica 's own Investigative Journalist Jamie Freeze, who, according to her credentials page on the RenewAmerica website, "...received battlefield experience in the war of ideology while attending the University of North Carolina at Greensboro ((aka UNC-Gomorrah) (quote)). While earning a bachelor's degree in political science and history, she served as Vice President of the College Republicans and was the lone conservative opinion columnist for The Carolinian, UNCG's student newspaper. After surviving college without becoming a liberal, she graduated in 2009 and is currently working toward a law degree at Regent University."

Freeze gained notoriety earlier in her career. At some point she was personally granted an exclusive interview from her deep throat source, "...a Bolivian political analyst with a "...law degree who had worked in the Bolivian Media and government who [at the time was] currently seeking political asylum from the US...and [who had] two assassination attempts on his life [by the corrupt President Morales of Bolivia] ..." . The scoop was that Hugo "...Chavez has over thirty nuclear weapons that can hit all of the major US cities." SOURCES: Email dated Sept 30th, 2009 and her RenewAmerica article on the same date "The Ticking Time Bomb in Our Back Yard" , third paragraph).

Freeze: "He validated his story by refering me to other contacts (who I cannot not name due to concerns for their safety). In the interest of journalistic integrity, I wish I could reveal all of my sources, but I cannot compromise their safety..."

Jamie Freeze's career as an Investigative Journalist is certainly taking off. Again using her "journalistic integrity" and crack investigative and in-depth research skills, has single handedly solved the mystery of Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, and has proven once and for all, the "...Stubborn fact...": "Obama IS a natural born citizen".

This matter, thanks to Jamie Freeze, can now be put to rest.

In her article, "Facts are Stubborn Things" , posted on the conservative website, she fondly recalls a private conversation she had with North Carolina State Senator Hugh Webster: "In the words of Mr. Webster, "I don't deal well with incompetent people." -- "At that point, I knew Mr. Webster and I were kindred spirits. I too don't deal well with incompetent people. As a matter of fact, I go out of my way to avoid them, but when dealing with them is inevitable, I can't help but point out their incompetencies. As a law student, I am being trained to be meticulous, well-reasoned, and intelligent."

She goes on to write of her gracious benevolence: "I have been too longsuffering in letting the Birther Movement receive simply a few caustic remarks and jabs from me. It's time for me to call a spade a spade. Here goes: If you believe that President Obama is NOT a natural-born citizen, then you are an incompetent idiot who is probably watching Glenn Beck while wearing a tin-foil hat. You probably think Obama's a Muslim too."

She describes her readers as incompetent: "Obama was born in Hawaii (a U.S. state for my incompetent readers)." [And as for Orly Taitz, Alan Keyes and the rest of us] Freeze continues, "I learned a long time ago that most people are sheep — they'd rather regurgitate something they've heard rather than doing their own research".

"RenewAmerica began in January 2002 as a grassroots support for [1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 presidential candidate] Alan Keyes' MSNBC TV show "Alan Keyes Is Making Sense..." (RenewAmerica's "About [us]" page).

"The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates." This position seems to hold true even against the reason RenewAmerica was orignally founded.

It is sad that Alan Keyes didn't have the brilliant Jamie Freeze to advise him so he wouldn't have displayed his apparent ignorance of the law when he brought Berg v. Obama et al., Martin v. Lingle, Donofrio v. Wells, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, Keyes v. Bowen, Hollister v. Soetoro, Cook v. Obama, Barnett v. Obama, and Ankeny v. Gov. State of Indiana, all for the purpose of producing an original U.S. birth certificate and all surely taking thousands of hours of legal research. I am sure if he has read Ms Freeze's article, he must be in anguish that he hadn't merely solicited her brilliant baccalaureat legal expertise in the first place.

Orly Taitz has been contacted with the news, so that she can rush out and withdraw her pending lawsuits.

Possible Economic Sanctions Against the US Government

2009-12-21T09:56:00.006-06:00

We conservatives write blogs and articles and we post comments at the bottom of others' blogs and articles. We complain on our blogs, columns, articles and comments about our big oppressive federal government and how everything they do is unconstitutional. As I wrote in my February 21st article, OUR Constitution: Let's Put It Away, we brilliantly point out the unconstitutionality of whatever they are doing at the moment as if somebody on the left would be moved. We complain that the federal government is making us do this or that, making us pay this tax or that tax and how those taxes are being spent on things we don't believe in and "won't somebody stop them from making us do [whatever they are making us do] against our will?". Just look at all the conservative articles and their titles and headlines. All complaints. Complain, complain, complain. This article is no different I guess.

In our defense, our constant complaining hasn't been all for nothing. We have heard each other's complaints and we have united. People who didn't realize that they were conservative have paid attention to the things we have said and written, and they have joined us, which increased our ranks. Thanks to all this blogging, posting and talking back and forth, we pretty much know what we believe and we are now on the "same page". As Toby Keith tells us in his song, its time now for "less talk and a lot more action" or in our case, it's time to TAKE action.

Yes, it's time for you and I to take action -- and I need to stop waiting on you to take action. I need to take action. You need to stop waiting on me. YOU need to take action.

Talk is all over the web about the upcoming 2010 Tax Day Tea Parties. Go ahead -- Google it and see for yourself. Facebook is "a-twitter" with conservatives begging "somebody [else]" to start a tax revolt.

You will find among conservatives the largest tax paying block of the estimated 53 percent of tax payers who actually cut a check on April 15th, because we OWE tax when we get to the bottom of our return, due to the fact that we are capitalists and we own the largest portion of all businesses [which remain] in this country and we work harder than the leftists. Oh and yes, we believe in obeying laws -- so much so that when we start hearing somebody suggest that we don't send the IRS our tax checks on April 15th, it scares us nearly to death. I'm scared right now as I write this article.

Those of us who think that it would be a good idea to withhold our 2009 tax checks are waiting on "someone else" to make the first move, and I don't mean just to "say" they aren't sending their tax check, I mean we want them to get up on a podium on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with a megaphone and announce it into about twenty network microphones, and tear up their check while Fox News zooms in for a closeup shot, as hordes of other conservatives climb up the steps, turn around to face their timid supporters and courageously shread theirs' as well.

Do we really believe the federal government is taking away our freedoms? Do we believe that they are destroying the free market in this country? Have they regulated the private sector to the point that businesses cannot turn a profit? Have they systematically become more powerful than the individual state governments? Do they really require us taxpayers to finance programs that are diametrically in opposition to our patriotic and religious beliefs? Are they indoctrinating our children into a socialistic and communistic mindset?

If all that is true then the federal government has become our enemy. What is one of the first things we always do when another country becomes our enemy? We put economic sanctions on them. Is it time to sanction the federal government?

Most of us have heard of city or county governments shutting down because their legislatures didn't come up with a budget by whatever deadline they had. I've seen local government offices being closed for a week or so while the governing bodies were in overtime trying to agree on expenditures. For instance, back in August, Jefferson County, Alabama (Birmingham) shutdown due to a municipal bankruptcy. How long would it take the federal government to shutdown if first, more people this year procrastinated until April 15th of next year to mail their checks, and then when April 15th finally comes, tens of millions of angry conservatives don't mail their taxes at all.

What would they do with us? Put us all in jail? Maybe they will take a few of us to Guantanamo Bay (you know, where they used to keep Islamic terrorists?). Maybe they could waterboard us. What WOULD they do with us all? Maybe they could build a fence around us (the one that was supposed to go on our southern border) and make like a concentration camp for us. My guess is, they will be shutdown and won't be able to do anything.

I realize I am going too fast for you here. Lets slow down for a minute and think about this. Here is how we handle this. For starters, you aren't one of those conservatives who rushes out and mails your taxes as soon as you get your W-2's or whatever are you? If you owe taxes, you should be waiting until April 15th to mail them a check anyway. Ok there's the start. Everbody who reads this, write your check to the IRS, but hold it until April 15th. Now that you have resolved to do this, try to get everybody you know to resolve to do the same thing. Email or share this article with your friends on Facebook, etc. I just gave you your first New Year's resolution.

See? That wasn't so bad now was it? Now for the next step. Start right away finding out where they're going to have a Tax Day Tea Party that you can attend. I'm not saying that you will go, I'm just saying you are going to start networking to find out where one will be closest to where you will be on April 15th, that's all (we aren't moving too fast, remember?).

Now, imagine it's April 15th, and in this daydream, you could go to the Post Office and mail your IRS Check, OR instead... I don't know..., maybe attend that Tax Day Tea Party? In this dream, you do in fact go to the tea party and you take the IRS check, and wait for "somebody else" to get up to the microphone and make the first move.

Would "somebody" please make the first move?

2010 Congress Will Reduce Size of Federal Government

2009-12-05T10:51:00.000-06:00

In the 2010 congressional elections, conservatives will most certainly win back the majority position in the House and the Senate. Between now and next November, conservatives must carefully choose, nominate, support and elect those conservative candidates who meet specific criteria.

Tea Party conservatives will require from their candidates more than family values, pro-life stance or strong gun rights positions; rather, the criteria is really much more simple.

The ideal member of the coming conservative Congressional majority will

Sponsor only bills which call for the ending of government programs, or propose deregulation or decrease taxation.
Vote in favor of all bills which call for the end of any government program (regardless of how seemingly beneficial), propose government deregulation and/or decrease taxation.
Vote against all newly proposed government programs, regulatory or increased taxation legislation (regardless of how seemingly beneficial the proposed government program, regulation or increased taxation).
Vote against the confirmation and appointment of liberal and leftist Supreme Court Justices
Not be influenced by opinions of the mainstream liberal news media.
Not be affected by the certain unpopularity among the Democrat minority.
Not seek the approval of the Democrat minority.
Completely eliminate the word "bi-partisan" from his/her vocabulary.

What Conservatives want for the country is simple--smaller government--the smaller the better. To reach this goal for the federal government, conservatives are taking a strong stand against all new government regulation, regardless of how seemingly beneficial, including such champion causes as tort reform legislation, though long sought after by previous conservative movements, now is rejected as another form of regulation of the private sector. While conservatives believe that lawyers have made a mockery of the judicial system and have all but destroyed the U.S. medical and pharmaceutical industries with outrageous and unreasonable personal injury lawsuits, conservatives recognize that the changes they sought to be achieved through tort reform can be reached slowly and eventually by reforming the judicial system, by the appointment of conservative Supreme Court justices and Attorneys General, without giving the federal government more regulatory power.

The goal of the new conservatives: All regulations, taxation, licensing, zoning and any and all other barriers which block a citizen's rights to of the pursuit of happiness must be systematically dismantled. During the process of stripping away the regulatory power of the federal government, they must defeat all new regulatory legislation, even to the extent that new regulatory legislation which seems beneficial and/or consistent with traditional conservative values must also be blocked.

Conservatives realize that stripping away laws would naturally and eventually result in the lightening of criminal laws which protect citizens from each other, but at the same time, this process would increase citizens' rights to protect themselves, their families and their properties.

The replacements for the current moderate republican legislators will be conservative leaders who are not interested in making friends with the "mainstream liberal news media" nor gaining the approval of or popularity among the Democrat minority. Conservatives will no longer tolerate the use of the word "bi-partisan" from their new conservative candidates--their new conservative leaders will not even be allowed to us the term in the privacy of their shower--the word must be completely removed from their vocabulary.

The conservatives' certain recapture of the majority position in Congress will be a defensive position only. President Obama will be in "lame duck" status. The Democrat minority will then begin sponsoring bills which the Republican majority will not pass, but bills passed by the then Republican majority to end job killing legislation will most definitely be vetoed by the president, at least until 2012, when conservatives get a shot at putting Sarah Palin, Dick Chaney, Newt Gingrich or Joe the Plumber in the White House to take the blame for the economic effects of the Obama administration.

If President Obama gets re-elected for another term and we still have a country here in North America in the year 2016, Obama will have been blamed for the coming economic tsunami throughout the then previous four years, assuming he is not impeached, conservatives will play the offensive position in Congress, and will own the White House for many years to come.