Tuesday, December 29, 2009

The States of These United States Are Independent and Sovereign

For those of you who have not had a classic education, including history, especially American History, and your own respective State histories, my condolences. Here are some things you thus, can NOT know: The federal government was created by the States, not the other way around.

The POTUS is elected by the States, still today—the Electoral College, not popular vote. Why? So “the tail won’t wag the dog”; the same reason we have a Senate—each state having 2 votes, regardless of population. The Senate can derail any House of Representatives initiative by a simple vote—we won’t get into filibustering, cloture, etc.; you just won’t be able to comprehend it. My apologies, in advance. It was designed this way so that the highly populated, urban states could not dominate the balance of the country. Those states that have all of a sudden decided they would split their popular vote into a split electoral vote are in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. A lawsuit need only be filed to resolve that trite matter.

Quite a number of our first presidents were elected without one “popular vote” being cast. Shocked? That’s right; our “Founding Father” Presidents were elected without ONE popular vote being cast. A GREAT Trivia Question is: how many of our presidents were actually elected without even ONE popular vote being cast? That will be your homework question.

Our Constitution; the Supreme Law of the Land, clearly states the Federal Government has these functions and these functions ONLY: “insure domestic [common] Tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general Welfare” [e.g. Commerce Clause]. It also loosely references the establishment of Justice [Supreme Court] and secures the Blessings of Liberty—that would be the Bill of Rights—The Divine Rights of Man. That’s it! No Mas!. Emphases Added.

See the 9th & 10th Amendments of the Constitution [Bill of Rights] for clarification of the extent of the domain of the Federal Government:
Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Federal government is exceeding its authority and that is why the most brilliant mind—Thomas Jefferson—was so adamant about the Bill of Rights, and most especially, what became the 2nd Amendment; for the Citizenry to take back its rightful preeminence over the Federal government. Not for shooting ducks!

That is also why half the states—Sovereign & Independent States—now have Sovereignty laws, or resolutions, or concurrent resolutions pending in their respective legislatures, some of which have already passed in at least one chamber. The respective resolutions do not even need the signature of the respective Governor—he/she will never see it. Concurrent Resolutions, when enacted, go to a vote of the people in those states.

That is also why Montana just passed their Sovereignty Statute, signed by their Governor, regarding their 2nd Amendment rights. Keep your eyes and ears open for this as it unfolds. It will be the education you unfortunately never had. This is just setting up their overall Sovereignty Statute legislation under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

If these are things you do not know, do us all, and your country, a big favor and refrain from voting next time. You will do us all and your country a big favor.

Our Forefathers on the Second Amendment

The founding leaders of the United States were determined America could remain free only if its citizens were assured of certain rights that would guarantee their ability to withstand the abuses of power, by individuals, police, or government. One of the most important rights was the Second Amendment, "that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed." Thomas Jefferson declared: "No free man (or woman) shall ever be debarred of the use of arms." (Jefferson Papers, page 334, ed. C.J. Boyd). In 1770 he further emphasized this right: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they tend to encourage than to prevent homicides. For an unarmed man or woman may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man or woman."

George Washington agreed: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth and keystone...The rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable...more than 99% of the (guns) by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference (crime)." Or as Noah Webster stated: Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US) "Americans have the right and the advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose governing people are afraid to trust them with arms." (James Madison) Or as George Mason further emphasized, "To disarm a people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

The Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. Among freedom of speech, of press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to bear arms is the one right that allows "rights" to exist at all." And the first leaders of our country knew that the Bill of Rights was necessary to prevent a government's misconstruction or abuse of its powers, and that this Bill would extend the public's general confidence in the Government and alleviate its fear of another government like that of England which they had just overthrown (Preamble to the Bill of Rights).

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian in exile in the United States, warned us repeatedly that we were on the path that the Soviet Union (former) had taken several years earlier that led to the terrible condition of repression that he and other Russians endured. Although he was ignored by most in our country, his statements are being fulfilled each day as our citizens are willingly allowing their freedoms to be taken away from them. Solzhenitsyn stated that "he was not a critic of the West; he was a critic of the weakness of the West." "I am a critic of a fact which we (in Russia) cannot comprehend: how one can lose one's spiritual strength, one's will power and, possessing freedom, not value it, not be willing to make sacrifices for it...Human nature is full of contradictions and riddles. One of these riddles is: how is it that people who have been crushed by the sheer weight of slavery and cast to the bottom of the pit can nevertheless find the strength to rise up and free themselves, first in spirit then in body; while those who soar unhampered over the peaks of freedom suddenly lose the taste for freedom, lose the will to defend it, and, hopelessly confused and lost, almost begin to crave slavery...How can free people, who have defended freedom across the world this century, suddenly plunge into lethargy, into a kind of mass blindness, a kind of voluntary self-deception...There is a German proverb: 'When courage is lost, all is lost.' There is another Latin one, according to which loss of reason is the true harbinger of destruction. But what happens in a society in which both these losses - the loss of courage and the loss of reason -intersect? This is the picture which I found in the West today." ...But the greatest danger of all is that you have lost the will to defend yourselves against those who would take away your freedoms."

We Are A Federal Representative Democratic Republic

The President Is Elected by the Electoral College

In response to Bob Basso’s, We the People Stimulus Package

What he said was very instructive but for 2 extraordinarily critical points that misunderstand the very basis of what the constructors of our Constitution intended. Firstly, we are NOT a "nation of laws"; that is a pure republic, as are Iran, Switzerland, etc. We are a Representative Democratic Republic by design, as Thomas Jefferson & James Madison intended. We are a nation of the people, who make the laws, amend the laws, abolish the laws, enforce the laws, etc. The phrase, "nation of laws" was simply coined by a law professor at Harvard Law School, Lawrence Tribe, and it seems to have stuck, as the liberals and loose constitutional constructionists would have it. "If you repeat something enough times, people then begin to believe it", as Hitler's communications director stated. Secondly, and in my opinion, most importantly, the electoral college, as designed by our forefathers is the essence of electing our presidents, and preserves this Democratic Republic so that we do not become a Republic, as this stupid national democratic party organization would love it to be. The states elect the presidents, as they do their representatives and their senators. U.S. Senators were elected/appointed by their state legislators from the beginning and it was not until recently, historically, that they were elected by a vote of the citizenry. In my opinion, that is why they are no longer beholden to their states/citizenry but represent national special interests above & beyond all else. The most important reason we want to maintain the Electoral College is to prevent the decadent city/states like New York, Illinois [Chicago], California [LA & SF] from controlling the election process. For instance, under the present system, Wyoming, Hawaii, Oklahoma for instance has a vote, winner take all, equal to that of any other state, NY, CA, IL or otherwise. Otherwise, you would never see a moderate to conservative elected as president again. Never! States which try to split the vote rather than “winners take all” are in violation of the spirit of the Constitution, if not the essence of it. To use a cliché, "the tail would be wagging the dog." Otherwise, what he says is very good. Thank you for sending it to me.

Judge Andrew Napolitano Speech at Columbus, Ohio Tea Party

Judge Andrew Napolitano Speech at the Columbus Ohio Tea Party August 1 2009

Tenth Amendment CenterAugust 3, 2009

Let me set down a couple of fervent beliefs that animate everything I do and everything I say.
I believe that God created heaven and earth and every single individual on the planet.
I believe that the God who gave us life gave us liberty and that freedom is our birthright.
I believe that the States created the federal government and not the other way around. And that the power that the States gave to the Federal Government – they can take back.
When we were colonists, and the King and the Parliament needed money from us, and they always seemed to need money, they devised ingenious ways to tax us. One of them was called the Stamp Act. The Parliament decreed that every piece of paper that the Colonists had in their homes; every book, every document, every deed, every lease, every pamphlet, every poster to be nailed to a tree had to have the King’s stamp on it. You think going to a Post Office is bad? You had to go to a British Government office and buy a stamp with the King’s picture.
Question: How did the King know that his picture was on every piece of paper in your house? The Parliament enacted a hateful piece of legislation called the Writs of Assistance Act which let the king’s soldiers write their own search warrants, and bang down any door they chose to look for the stamps or anything else that they were looking for.
It was the last straw.
We fought a revolution. We won the revolution. We wrote the Constitution. The constitution doesn’t grant power, it keeps the government off our backs.
When they were debating the Constitution in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, there were two great arguments – one by the Jefferson and Madison crowd and one by the Adams and Hamilton crowd. Jefferson argued, though he wasn’t physically there in Philly, as he did in the Declaration of Independence that our rights are ours by virtue of our humanity. That as God is perfectly free, and we are created in his image and likeness, we too are perfectly free. The big government crowd – yes they had them even in those days – argued that you can’t have freedom without government, and that government gives us our rights, and therefore, that government can take them away. This was not an academic argument. Jefferson and the natural law argument prevailed because the Constitution was written to keep the government from interfering with our natural rights.
And so, your right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to travel where you want, to worship as you see fit, to keep and bear arms to defend yourself against a tyranny. And, after the right to life, the greatest and most uniquely American of rights – and I say this in front of the seat of the government – is the right to be left alone.
We wrote a Constitution to ensure that the government would never interfere with these rights. Think about it – if rights come from the government, then the government, by ordinary legislation, or presidential decree can take them away. But if the rights come from our humanity, then unless we violate someone else’s natural rights, the government cannot take our rights away.
This is not just a democrat, upper case D, or a republican, upper case R, problem. It’s a problem with government today. There’s a republican version of big government just as assaultive to our liberties as there is a democrat version of big government.
We fought a revolution because British soldiers could knock on our doors and demand that we house them, and demand that we turn over property to them because they could write their own search warrants. In the Patriot Act, the most hateful piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts, a republican congress and a republican president authorized federal agents to do the unthinkable – to write their own search warrants. And the republican administration didn’t even let members of the House of Representatives read the Patriot Act before they voted on it.
Why should the government be able to spy on us? We should be able to spy on them!

When some judge is rationalizing away our liberty, or some congressman is plotting to take away your freedom or your tax dollars, we should know what they do every minute that they do it.
I was speaking to a group of congressman from a neighboring state – I won’t tell you which state it was, but they don’t play football there – and they came up to me and said “this is the first time we have heard that the Patriot Act allows federal agents to write their own search warrants.”
Remember, in the Constitution, we put in the 4th Amendment, the right to be left alone, to make sure that if the government had a target, no matter how guilty the target, no matter how widespread is the belief in the guilt of the target, no matter how dangerous is the target, the government has to go through a neutral judge with a search warrant before it can get to that target. These members of Congress said, “we didn’t know that the Patriot Act allowed the government to bypass the courts and write any search warrant they wanted.” Then I asked them a question I knew the answer to already – did you read the Patriot Act before you voted on it? The answer – no. What were you voting on? A summary we received. Let me guess who wrote the summary – some lawyers in the justice department, right? Of course.
Would you hire anybody to run your business that committed you to a violation of the very reason you’re in business if they didn’t even [read] the document by which they were making that commitment? Of course not.
The camera is the new gun. There’s nothing that government dislikes more than the light of day, and cameras recording what the government is doing, whether it’s on a street corner, or in there, or in Washington D.C., we have the right to know everything that they do and why they do it, and when they do it, and how they are taking our freedoms.
I have another one of my basic core beliefs. The individual has an immortal soul. Every individual is greater than any government.
Your government is based on fear and force. You don’t have to take my word on it. The 2nd president on the United States, John Adams, said “Of course the government is based on fear.” And the first president, George Washington, said “Government is not reason, it is force.” I think they knew what they were talking about.
Now fast-forward to modern times. Whenever the government wants something, it scares us. During the civil war, Lincoln tried civilians in this state where no battles occurred, by military tribunal. After he died, the Supreme Court invalidated everything the military tribunals did. During the First World War, the Wilson administration locked up 2000 people called anarchists – same thing as enemy combatants. No trial, no charge, just jail for the duration of the war. In World War II, FDR locked up 150,000 Japanese Americans, people born in the United States, who got no trial and had no charges, and when the war was over were given $25 and told to go home.
Today we have federal agents. You know I get in arguments with my friends at Fox News, and one of them, I don’t have to tell you who it is, but is truly the most irascible person there. And he said to me, you know you have a problem with Guantanamo Bay, and you have a problem with the Patriot Act, what will you do if I get sent to Guantanamo Bay, will you visit me? And I say, Bill – no, because they’ll probably keep me there as well.
Government likes to say that it’s taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. In the years that I was on the bench, it seemed that every time government lawyers were in my courtroom, if the government was prosecuting someone who was legitimately guilty or whether it was a mistake, or whether somebody was suing the government because government contractors or government doctors, or government workers made a mistake – the government doesn’t come in to the courtroom to enforce the Constitution, it comes into the courtroom to evade and avoid it. That, ladies and gentlemen, must be stopped.
This is a great moment in our history. A crowd of this magnitude on a beautiful day, in the boiling sun, in the most middle-American of great middle-American states…comes together not because the president is a democrat, not because his predecessor was a republican, not because a war is just or unjust, not because the Fed is stealing or printing – you’re here because you believe in human freedom.
It is the essence of our existence that we should be free. But remember this: the government hates freedom. It is an obstacle to every one of their designs. Whenever they write laws, whenever they take your tax dollars, whenever they regulate your private behavior, whenever they tell you how to spend your money, whenever they tell you what medicines to take, whenever they tell you what food to eat, whenever they tell you with who you may or must associate, they are taking away your freedom and they love to get away with it. And they cannot get away with it any longer.
In the long history of the world, very few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its maximum hour of danger. This is that moment and you are that generation! Now is the time to defend our freedoms.
Jefferson was no saint but he was the greatest of our American presidents. He believed that the individual was greater than the state. He believed that the states were greater than the federal government. And when he wrote that our rights come from our creator, and that our rights are inalienable, he forever wed the notion of natural rights to the American experience and the American experiment. We must be vigilant about every right that the government wants to take away from us.
You’ve heard the president say, present president and his predecessor, “my first job is to keep you safe.” He’s wrong! His first job is to keep us free. It is his only job to keep us free.
Shortly before he died, Jefferson lamented, that in his view of the world, that it was in the natural order of things for government to grow and freedom to be diminished; how ardently he wished that that wouldn’t happen. And in order to prevent it from happening he had a very simple remedy, “When the people fear the government, that is tyranny. When the government fears the people, that is liberty!”

Rule of Law vs. U.S. Constitution

The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, is a general legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion in their application.[2] This maxim is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance. The word "arbitrary" (from the Latin "arbiter") signifies a judgment made at the discretion of the arbiter, rather than according to the rule of law.[3][4]
Generally speaking, law is a body of rules prescribed by the state subject to sanctions or consequences.[5] The predominant view is that the concept of "rule of law" per se says nothing about the "justness" of the laws themselves, but simply how the legal system operates.[6][7] As a consequence of this, a very undemocratic nation or one without respect for human rights can exist with a "rule of law" — a situation which may be occurring in several modern dictatorships. The "rule of law" or Rechtsstaat may be a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not a sufficient condition.[8]
Under the United States Constitution
All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.[21] At the same time, the legislative branch has considerable discretion as to what laws it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutional rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion.
Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law", and if so which one. For example, Law Professor John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria", and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria.[22] Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all.[23]
James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as Judges to give it a free course."[24]

WE ARE NOT A NATION OF LAWS! WE ARE A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

I Guess It Truly Does Take a Racist to Know a Racist

Response to Harvard Professor Kennedy

I Guess It Truly Does Take a Racist to Know a Racist. You, Mr. Kennedy, may wish to read your column again and then take a good, long, look in the mirror. You are at best ethnocentric, but more likely a racist—your column was, and none too bright.I am an ethnocentric. However, I voted for the Honorable Douglas Wilder for governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He was properly qualified and ultimately a really good governor. Your guy from that corrupt political “machine” of Chicago is not. Of the four persons on the respective tickets, he is the least qualified. I served as staff on two democratic gubernatorial administrations over a span of 10 years. We did not have a cabinet system, thus, the staff, under the direction of the governor, were the administrators of government. I had all business regulatory and economic development agencies. In addition, I served on staff of a democratic member of Congress in Washington, DC. That makes me more qualified than your “community activist” and legislator. My experience with legislators in Washington, from 1979 to present, having been there, is that most couldn’t run a shoe-shine stand, save the former governors and a handful more.I lived up Chicago way for a few years and saw first-hand the corrupt political machine in the late 1960s. I wouldn’t vote for anyone from that cesspool, especially a black politician from that machine—recall, if you will, the “eminent” Mayor Washington. He inherited an outhouse and turned it over on its side. I guess he thought it was Halloween.If the white folks in this election took the same racist view as the black folks and voted for the white ticket in the same percentage as their counterparts, the black ticket would be thoroughly embarrassed and deservedly so. Why? We are beginning to see your true colors and you are not even subtle about your racism AND absolute sexism. We have known about the latter for a long, long time and so have you. “Judged fairly?” Would that be as “fairly” as Hilary Clinton was treated by that sexist Obama bunch?I have been watching this blowhard for several months. I have never before seen a candidate for any office talk so much and say absolutely nothing. I have heard but one salient fact from the Windy City goof—what day the election is to be held. That’s it. Finito. No mas. Jeez! Give me a break.He couldn’t cite the Pledge of Allegiance or the Lord’s Prayer without a teleprompter. Without one, he mumbles, sputters and misspeaks most embarrassingly. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone over 12 (excepting some of my fellow democrats who would vote for Daffy Duck if he were the democratic nominee) would take the Chicago boy seriously. He is laugh track material.He shouldn’t have had a prayer on Election Day because Americans previously decided to vote their conscience when they are approaching that all important voting booth. Forget the polls. When I was in business college, in Business & Economic Statistics class, we imputed a plus or minus 5 percent factor in any statistical poll. We called it the “liars’ factor”. That has more than doubled since the 1960s. Lying in political polls has now become a sport—“of course I would vote for a liberal black candidate”. They poll liberal and vote centrist. One should not wonder why Joebama is moving ever more centrist as the election gets closer.When Election Day has come and gone, my wish is that this ship of fools on South Capitol and Ivy Streets, Democratic HQ, will form a circle firing squad, fire on three and then we can start all over, zero base, and begin nominating normal people for a change. The last time they actually nominated one who won an election was James Earl Carter—our daily disappointment. You will likely say, wrong, it was Bill Clinton. I will say, you are, once again, none too bright. He ran against Demo HQ from the pulpit of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The nitwits on South Cap & Ivy generally referred to him as a yokel from Arkansas. I say, yanks go home.Finally, I was in the private conference room at the Capitol Hyatt in Washington, DC, at the winter meeting of the National Governors Conference when the DLC was hatched. Strangely, it was all Southern Governors. I guess they knew then what the DNC was about and it wasn’t about them. The DNC is still comprised of the same old hacks from the northeast corridor and it of course keeps on losing and losing and losing until this ship of fools got elected. Please refrain from any reference to John F. Kennedy when Obama is even in the same zip code. Kennedy could not even be nominated by the DNC today—he would be considered as too conservative. Besides, I thoroughly resent it and this present “Democratic” party has NO John F. Kennedy.p.s. I have had the extreme disappointment of having hired Harvard grads and would never again make that same mistake—lame, very, very lame.

Bush on Negotiating with Terrorists

President Bush delivered an important and controversial address to the Israeli parliament this morning. A few excerpts worth noting: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President noted. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you. America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

And now look what we’ve got—The Appeaser in Chief. We are doomed!

Cash for Clunkers--Who Got Snookered?

So, you took FEDZILLA up on its offer of $4,500 to trade in your old "Clunker" (interesting choice of words)? Well, let's see who got the best of that "deal"... If you traded in a clunker worth $3,500, you got $4,500 off for an apparent "savings" of $1,000. You could have gotten $3,500 if you had just traded in the car. So you really are $1,000 ahead (depending on your clunker's value) at this point. Not too bad... However, you WILL have to pay taxes on the $4,500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer [or Fedzilla] will tell you). If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1,350 on that $4,500. So, rather than save $1,000, you will actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, trading in a "clunker" that was costing you less to run than the payments that you will now be making. Even if you save $1,000 dollars a year in gas due to better mileage, you're still gonna be in the red for five years....hello? But wait, it gets even better: you also got ripped off by the dealer. For example, the month before the "cash for clunkers" program started, every dealer in LA for instance was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc for $12,500 because competition was stiff due to poor sales from the stalled economy. When "cash for clunkers" came along, they stopped discounting them and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3,000 more than you would have the month before. Honda, Toyota, and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did. Now let's do the math .... You traded in a car worth: $3,500 You got a discount of: $4,500 --------- Net so far +$1,000 But you have to pay: $1,350 in taxes on the $4,500 Net so far: -$350 (that's minus...in the red) And you paid: $3,000 more than the car was selling for the month before ---------- Net Loss: -$3,350 We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, dealer prep, etc.) on the extra $3,000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of interest on the car loan; but let's just stop here while you kick yourself. Suffice it to say that those costs will be much higher than any savings you get from "better mileage". So who actually made out on the deal? FEDZILLA collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4,500 they "gave" you. The car dealers made an extra $3,000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. Manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before. Lots of good or repairable used cars got taken off the market, crushed and sold as scrap metal to (ready for this?) CHINA (Look it up...). Or just as likely, it was surreptitiously shipped to Old Mexico for resale. The poor consumer got saddled with even more debt that they cannot afford. FEDZILLA'S merry men (who promised that people making less than $250,000. would pay "not one red cent more in taxes") will make millions in new tax revenues after convincing Joe Consumer that he was getting $4,500 in "free" money from the "government". In fact, Joe was giving away his $3,500 car and paying an additional $3,350 for the privilege. This is Chicago politics gone global...with an agenda. If you find errors in this math, please let me know...being a simple guy, I'm always willing to learn new things; and if you took "advantage" of the Clunkers deal, I have some swamp land down in Florida that's for sale...besides, you hopefully get the point. I’m thinkin’ it is this kind of thinkin’ that got Doofus elected in the first place. Just sayin’…

Hannity, Obama and His Socialist Cabinet/Czars

Hannity and Obama and His Socialist Cabinet


Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rthv8QmJLUw

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBfdPLWuHb8


Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hch7YPZKWno&feature=related

Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-syNFDDzwbc&feature=related

Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQSduV-KynA&feature=related

Part 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmEmRbRJFLU&feature=related

My Democrat Compatriots Were Right

They told me if I voted for McCain, the nation's hope would deteriorate, and sure enough there has been a 20 point drop in the Consumer Confidence Index since the election, reaching a lower point than any time in the last 30 years.
They told me if I voted for McCain, the US would become more deeply embroiled in the Middle East, and now, tens of thousands of additional troops are scheduled to be deployed into Afghanistan.
They told me if I voted for McCain, that the economy would get worse and sure enough unemployment is at 10%.
They told me if I voted for McCain, we would see more "crooks" in high ranking positions in Federal government and sure enough, several recent cabinet nominees and Senate appointments reveal resumes of scandal, bribery, racist beliefs, Socialism and tax fraud.
They told me if I voted for McCain, we would see more "pork at the trough" in the Federal government and sure enough, 17,500 "Pork Bills" have showed up in Congress since January 2009.
I was also told by my Democrat friends that if I voted for McCain, we would see more deficit spending in Washington D.C. and sure enough, Obama has spent more than all other Presidents together - in the entire history of the good ole USA!!
Well, I voted for McCain in November and my Democrat friends were right...all of their predictions have come true! Damn I hate it when that happens. Why then has the stock market breeched the 10,000 mark again?! Ever heard of inverse relationships? My compatriots seem to have missed class that day ;-) Bless their little pea-pickin’ hearts.

Obama and His Muslim Brethren

OBAMA said in his recent Cairo speech: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story." Really?!

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed?

Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving Day?

Can you show me one Muslim signatory on our founding documents?

Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England?

Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America?

Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights movement of this country?

Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era?

Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler.

Finally Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America.
We didn't need them then AND we don't need them NOW!

Obonzo, Lobbyists and Healthcare

This healthcare debacle is very instructive. Why? Obonzo has no substantive experience in the legislative process—he hasn’t a clue how legislation is drafted and submitted.

A member or legislative committee germinates an idea for a legislative bill [vehicle]. Member staff & committee staff in concert with former staff [lobbyists—THE institutional memory of congress] then develop a framework of language, objectives, etc. and submit it to Bill Drafting—an agency of Congress. NOTE: Member staff and committee staff come and go—elections—but lobbyists hang around like a bad penny [myself included]. Obama simply is not privy to this process—why would he be? How many pieces of legislation has he ever “authored”? He loves to say lobbyists should be carved out of the process altogether—how naïve. He doesn’t even know what lobbyists do.

Who wrote the healthcare bills? Lobbyists—those friendly with the democratic leadership. Who has now read the bills? We know it ain’t Obonzo. Most members of Congress, even staff, have not as you now know. It’s the other half of those on K St. and surrounding—lobbyists. The audacity of those bastards actually reading the bills and now letting us all know what is really being codified! Why do lobbyists do this? Because they CAN and they are highly compensated to do just that—read the damned bills.

FYI: Lobbyists wrote these healthcare vehicles [bills]. Only a socialist would approve of them. Lobbyists are going through this bill, line by line. You won’t believe what is really in these bills—see link to HR 3200 below, as of July 14 markup, as an example. Some line items in the bill will be noted separately.

When you criticize lobbyists, as the naïve POTUS does, with political expediency, keep in mind, there is not one person in these United States who is not represented by some lobbyist. In each piece of legislation, without exception, you will have one set of lobbyists who want you to drop the soap [HR 3200] and the other set of lobbyists who are attempting to protect your interests. In fact, every person in these United States has self-interest in every bill filed. That’s why we have lobbyists. That’s why every time BHO opens his mouth, the lobbyists laugh heartily. He thinks he can hoodwink you.

Go ahead and laugh along with us; it is warranted.

Steve Matthews
Lobbyist

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf

document at: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfmvvj8n_22hdwbjzfw

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Tinkering with Our Health Care System

Well, here we go again, tinkering. Tinkering is what we democrats seem to do best in recent history. We tinker with the economy, tinker with the tax code, tinker with health care, tinker with social engineering, and tinker with everything imaginable; when in fact, we should often just leave this government alone to operate efficiently as Jefferson and Madison intended. They designed a system with limited federal government with three very specific charges and all else left to the states and to the people--with good reason[s].

When I heard Obama, the candidate say, “we live in the greatest country in the world and working together we can change it”, I knew we were possibly in for a whole lot of tinkering. When I saw the euphoric response to that statement, I knew we had lost our collective mind. I do not know who said it but it is too often true; “the Republican Party is the party of no ideas but the Democratic Party is the party of bad ideas”.

I am one of those Jeffersonian Democrats who believes the federal government has no business tinkering with health care and further, this healthcare initiative should cease and desist. If Barack Obama has his way, I believe I may not see another democratic president in my lifetime [I am 60], and rightfully so. We don’t NEED health care reform, we don’t NEED cap ‘n trade, we don’t NEED more TARP, we don’t NEED further federal bailouts and we don’t NEED to continue to fund the money pits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite more bad loans. We just think we NEED them and we just can’t help tinkering.

I am not one who has ever been a single issue voter but the above “NEEDS”, especially health care reform [1/6 of our economy] and cap ‘n trade are enough for me to vote against anyone who votes in favor of such boondoggles. I want my party, the party of Jefferson, back and those who have hijacked my party out.

I hope you will use good sense and judgment over party affiliation and vote NO to this health care disaster. One doesn’t need be a Mensa or take a poll to discern the majority of Americans are scared to death this congress and president have run amuck and will pass something, anything, even if it’s wrong. Please vote NO.

Steve Matthews
Fairfax, VA