Liberty Or Death

Washington crossing the Delaware

Spirit of 1776

Patriotic Wallpaper for the 4th

Florida passes bill requiring mandatory drug testing for all welfare recipients!

BRAVO! The politicians finally act in the interest of the taxpayers. Yes if you are on welfare you have to be tested for drugs. The cost of the test comes out of their pocket, if they pass they get reimbursed, if they fail they lose benefits for 6 months. They can at their own expense take a second test, to challenge the results of the first. If the welfare recipient has minor children another adult can file for them to ensure they are fed and cared for. But, benefits to the failing person are not allowed, until they can successfully retest. Interesting in the Florida legislature the vote was divided along party lines, Luckily we have a majority of Republicans

Eliminate Taxes on Businesses

I mean it, completely eliminate taxes on Businesses.

I will tell you why.... even as we speak businesses do not pay any taxes, taxes are calculated into the cost of doing business, and thus are added into the price the consumer pays for those products or services.. That's right they extra money from their customers and transfer that money to the government. That’s right when you tax business you tax the people who buy from them. Raise taxes on Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart will raise prices.
Since people are the ultimate consumers, people pay all the taxes. There is not a corporation in America that pays taxes, because they pass that burden along, to their customers. When a customer earns their money, it is taxed by the Nation, in many instances the State (41 states have income tax), and in some cases even their local municipalities tax their income. The when a person buys something (in most cases) that consumer pays a local sales tax, as well as a state sales tax.

On top of everything else the consumer also pays the tax burden of the companies they buy from as well as the person who produces the raw materials, the manufacturers, distributors, the shipping companies and even the cross docks of the products they buy. It would be hard to say the least to even calculate how much of every dollar earned and spent goes into government coffers.

As a passing thought, if you tax a company and they lose money, they get those taxes back. So if you don't tax them they don't get any money back, when they lose money.

Theodore Roosevelt on Immigration

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people. Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

One Chance Only

Here in Florida, during our election process; Our Governor Charlie Crist decided he wanted to be our Senator, when Senator Martinez stepped down. His first step towards this process was to appoint someone who had no aspirations to hold on to it.... in other words someone to keep it warm for him (I'm surprised he just didn't appoint himself to the position). This made it so Charlie wouldn't have to run against an incumbent. Then our RINO (Republican In Name Only) Governor, announced his candidacy for the Senate seat. However, a young upstart by the name of Marco Rubio (keep your eye on him), announced his candidacy. During the primary Marco handed Charlie a sound defeat. Now here is where my problem is Charlie, announced he was running for Senator as an independent. Now he has already run as a Republican and lost, and he wants another chance? This is wrong, If someone runs for office and his own party doesn't want him that should be it. If he wants to run again, he must wait until the next election, The story has a happy ending as far as I am concerned. Marco beat Crist, and even if Crist received all the votes the Democrat candidate did, Marco would have still won, since Marco pulled in a majority vote (over 50%). Of course all this would be a moot point if my idea of a general primary where every candidate ran and the top two were our choices during the general election. By the way I am still advocating the number two man (or woman) becomes the Lt Governor, and that they both act not only as Governor and Lt Governor, but as the State's two Senators.

Owe Taxes? No Government Job!

According to an article written in the LA Times on September 10th 2010; 41 "Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes -- and they're not alone. We now know that federal employees across the nation owe fully $1 billion in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. 638 workers on Capitol Hill owe the IRS $9.3 million in back taxes. Tom Daschle was the president's top pick to run the Health and Human Services Dept. But it turned out the former Democratic senator, who was un-elected from South Dakota in 2004, owed something like $120,000 to the IRS for things from his subsequent benefactor that he just forgot to pay taxes on. In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS' parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis' husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System's board of governors owe $1,076,733. Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes. Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts "man-caused disasters." Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a brave Dutch tourist is aboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants. Within that department, there reside 4,856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37,012,174."

According to ABC News: "Currently, only IRS employees can be terminated for non-payment of federal income taxes -- a measure Chaffetz wants extended to all federal agencies. The IRS has the lowest level of tax delinquency among its employees than at any other federal agencies, according to the most recent statistics."

This is unreal! and it is a slap in the face of all Americans. Our taxes pay their wages! If they are not going to pay their taxes, they should not be eligible to hold those positions. Elected officials should be ineligible to run or hold office if they cannot pay their fair share. How can they expect us to pay our taxes (the ones they raise all too often) if they don't pay theirs.

Anyone who runs for office, should be audited by the IRS. Their records for the past 10 years should be released for public scrutiny. If they are found to be delinquent, then they will not be placed on the ballot. Anyone already in office found to be delinquent on their taxes (and do not bring their account current within 6 months), will be removed from office; then they will be ineligible to run again.

Anyone who applies for a government job (or appointed to a government position), will have an IRS background check added to their list of qualifying standards. If they are found to be delinquent on their taxes, they will be removed for consideration for any government position. If they are already employed by the government and found to be delinquent on their taxes (and do not bring their account current within 12 months), they will be removed from their position and marked ineligible for rehire.

Government, should set the standard. That's The Way It Should Be.

South Fulton FD Refuses to Put Fire Out
A family is left without a home and with 3 dead dogs and a dead cat, after the South Fulton Tennessee fire department refused to put their house fire out since the family did’t pay a $75 fee to warrant their services.
The Cranick family, who lives in Obion County, next to South Fulton forgot to pay a $75 yearly fee for for fire service. Obion County does not have a county wide service, so they rely on South Fulton’s fire department to respond to any fires, but only if the homeowners pay a $75 fee each and every year. The Cranick family forgot to pay the fee, so the fire department refused to respond to the emergency call.
The fire department eventually showed up, but only to put out the fire that had spread to the neighbor’s yard, watching the Cranick’s house burned to the ground. “They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn,” said Gene Cranick.

ARE WE KIDDING??? No, I am afraid not. This actually happened or didn't happen. Were I a federal prosecutor, I would bring the fire chief up on charges under the Rico act. Who runs the South Fulton Fire Department anyway? the Mob? the Mafia?, or the Cosa Nostra? These arrogant thugs have tarnished the brilliant reputation of firefighters everywhere. They might as well quit their jobs as firefighters, and take up careers more suited to their demeanor, becoming Lawyers, used car salesmen, or loan sharks (if those professions will have them).

First of all, the way it should be, is when someone doesn't choose to pay the fire response fee, and they have a fire, they get charged the entire cost of the fire department responding (gas, wages, etc.....). The fact that they stood around tells me they were intimidating the family.

What is next, Police allowing criminals to assault, or kill you, if you haven't paid them in advance?

Before and After

It is said the office of the presidency ages a man these pictures prove it....
My question is "How stressful could the job be if it affords a man 7 vacations in two years?" but, then again maybe that is what is aging him....

Ground Zero Mosque?

No, and not because I am against Muslims. Just as I would disagree with the Klan erect an eternal flaming cross, outside the hotel where Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. Mr President can you honestly say that the Klan has the right do so, as you have said it would be appropriate to place an Islamic center, so close to ground zero? What would be the difference? It is one thing, to place a mosque anywhere, in the United States, as they have. But to place one so close to such a location as ground zero.... Consider this many of the foriegn countries who are actually financing this mosque, will not allow a Christian Church, or Jewish Synagogue to be erected on their soil. Again, I say no, No to placing a mosque in such a location, for which the sole purpose is to thumb their noses at us. Would we have placed a monument to the Enola Gay, and her crew in Hiroshima? Or a muesuem dedicated to the B-17 Flying Fortresses of WWII in Dresdan Germany? Should we allow a mosque near ground zero? I don't think so, for the same reason I wouldn't wear a Oakland Raiders jersey at Foxboro station, unless I wanted someone taking potshots at me. Maybe that is what they want.

Right of Last Respects

When you have fringe radical jerks (sorry for that kind of language, but that is just what they are), who come out to protest against America at Military Funerals. Something has to be done. The portion of the first amendment that guarantees free speech, does not in spirit give someone the right to disrespect another human life in such a solemn occasion as a private funeral. The disgraceful actions by Fred Phelps (I will not give this person any credence by referring to him in any way as a man of God) of the Topeka Kansas Westboro Baptist Church. Who uses Military funerals as a spring board for his anti-christian and anti-American stance. He uses the issue of Homosexuality to justify his hate mongering. He is not only Homophobic, Anti-American, Antisemitic and what I would add a False-Prophet (closer to Satanic than Christian). Church members, led by Phelps, believe God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events including soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country, shouting at grieving family members at funerals and displaying such signs as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Blew Up the Troops" and "AIDS Cures Fags." To make things worse the Judiciary has come to his aid, when Missouri, imposed tight restrictions on protests and picketing outside military funerals (Kudos to Missouri), the courts granted a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the law until it could be challenged. (Sour Grapes to the Courts).
Phelps, his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, and other church members had protested near the August 2005 funeral of Army Spc. Edward Lee Myers in St. Joseph, Missouri. The married Army Airborne Ranger died while on patrol in Samarra, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee military vehicle. He was 21, and in addition to his wife, he left behind a daughter (I ask "what did this man have to do with homosexuality"). He was later buried at Leavenworth National Cemetery in Kansas. In response to that protest, Missouri lawmakers passed the "Spc. Edward Lee Myers Law," criminalizing picketing "in front or about" a funeral location or procession.
The congregation is made up mostly of Phelps and his family. The pastor has 13 children, and at least 54 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. He described himself as an "old-time" gospel preacher in a CNN interview in 2006, saying, "You can't preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God."
Phelps obviously, has misinterpreted God's message, and in his own way ensuring God's wrath upon himself, as he preaches hatred not Love, Intolerance not tolerance. He does harm to Christianity by twisting the word of God into his own lawyer-istic perverted interpretation.
Sorry for that tangent, but, it is the above situation which spurred me on to put into word my two-cents worth. Every American has the right to peaceable assemble and protest, to say his piece, under the first amendment. However, every American is also granted his right to worship in his own way, and be protected from the prejudiced hate of others. Phelps exercising his right to free speech is infringing on the right of families exercising their freedom of religion. Yes funerals are a religious ceremony a way of mourning the passing of a loved one. When these hypocrites, come out from under the decaying filth of their own hatred strewn deficant, like cockroaches from under garbage (my apologies to the cockroaches), then they forfeit their right of free speech. What if it were the KKK protesting at Martin Luther King's funeral? Would the courts be so understanding? Does the liberal disregard of the contribution of the American Serviceman, justify the disrespect? I say once again every American deserves the right, to be buried in peace, at whatever cost, even the cost of curtailing the right of free speech, during that moment of silence in respect of an American Sacrifice.
Mr Phelps, may God have mercy on you. May he open your eyes to your misinterpretation of his word. May he fill you with the Love of your neighbor he spoke of in Matthew 22:34-40 34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Mr Phelps, I recognize you from the Bible as well in Matthew 7:15 - 20 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Mr Phelps, remember as Christ said in John 8:3-11 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” So I ask of you.... Since you are so ready to cast the first stone, are you saying you are without sin?
Mr Phelps, as far as your anti-semitism is concerned, remember Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Israel, David, John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, James, the rest of the apostles and even Jesus were Jews, and if you blame the Jews for his Crucifixion I ask you to remember what he said on the cross in Luke 23:34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.
Mr Phelps, you need to study your bible, the whole bible, and if you have missed these passages and the multitude like them, or if your bible does not include the new testament, I recommend you get a new one. Read it, and find within yourself the fault of your current path.
In Conclusion, I say every true American, has the right for that quantity of respect, needed to bury them in peace. At those times, our right to free speech, if not coupled with respect is forfeit.

3 Strikes And You're Out, Make It 2

Some states have a 3 Strikes and you're out law, Florida has the "Three-strike Violent Felony Offender Act" which puts violent offenders away permanently on their third offense. Plus "10, 20, Life" that puts violent offenders in jail for life when they use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Here's how it works 1) a mandated minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device 2) a mandated minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged 3) a mandated minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed 4) a mandated minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon and it is mandated that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed. This drove down Florida's violent-gun crime rates by 30% by the year 2004. This should be expanded or shrunk down to two strikes for sex offenders. Also when someone is sentenced for a crime that sentence should be carried out. 25 years to life means 25 years to life, after 25 years then he could be up for parole, not after 8 years. Too often career criminals get off Scot free. If Judges can't be tough then mandatory sentencing laws must be. I am not saying that we need to get tough on victimless crimes. Non-violent and victimless crimes should not require prison or jail terms. Restrictions yes.... But, reserve the cells for the violent, and those who require separation from society. Drunk drivers who are habitual (more than 2 offenses), lose their driving privileges until they can prove they are completely off the bottle. Also we should apply the use of a car as a "Destructive Device" under the "10, 20, Life" statute; If their drunken driving impacts on innocent bystanders. It is also time for Driver's Licenses that are embedded with a chip that activates a motor vehicle allowing it to start. If the person has their license revoked the chip is deactivated preventing the vehicle from starting. If the driver is in possession of someone Else's license the owner of the active license better be able to prove the unlicensed driver took it without their knowledge. A side benefit would be family vehicles could be set up for only drivers the owner of the car has designated as authorized drivers.

Rerun Reaganism

History gives us an insight on, how long a recovery might take. Since World War II of the U.S economy has had only one increase in the employment-population ratio of five percentage points in a single decade: the recovery Ronald Reagan's fueled with his 1983 tax cuts.
The employment-population ratio recovered less than two years after hitting bottom, during the mid 80's. This generated a momentum that continued through the rest of the 80's, due to 1986 tax reform that reduced the top marginal income tax rate to 28%, this allowed America to employ the millions of women, baby boomers, and immigrants who were actively looking for jobs. At the end of the boom in 1990, the employment ratio increased from 57% to 63%.
An administration which pursues job creation — not ideology — would note this record and see how companies and individuals create wealth and jobs if they have the right incentives. Instead, the current Administration has policies that are muddied with ignorance and have bought into the notion that recovery can only happen with higher taxes and greater regulatory burdens. This is causing consumers to restrain spending, and business to cut back production, reduce costs (i.e. lay off workers, middle managers, rely on part time workers, shift the cost of benefits onto the employees as well as cutting back the number of benefits) creating such a drag on the economy that even the government cannot reverse, even through the use of stimuli, that really shift the burden of the recovery onto the taxpayers who are making less and paying more to support proven the failure of socialist and communist regimes.
We have no time to waste. Rather than talk down Reaganism, the Politicians in Washington should heed its lessons and unleash the American Economy with a hands off approach that alone can put us back on track and prevent us from repeating the past of Carter or worse prevent us from reliving the great depression. Ronald Reagan while campaigning for office said "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." it is time to edit this to "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid lose theirs"

Remarks by the President on Unemployment Insurance

Rose Garden 10:55 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. Right now, across this country, many Americans are sitting at the kitchen table, they’re scanning the classifieds, they’re updating their resumes or sending out another job application, hoping that this time they’ll hear back from a potential employer. And they’re filled with a sense of uncertainty about where their next paycheck will come from. And I know the only thing that will entirely free them of those worries –- the only thing that will fully lift that sense of uncertainty –- is the security of a new job.

MY RESPONSE: That's right there are many Americans looking for a job, more than ever before, more than even during the Great Depression. In actual numbers not in percentage. But, still there are too many Americans out of work! Yes, they are uncertain about their futures, in a time where when you call your mortgage company to ask for a little more time to bring your payments up to date, and you hear a voice with an Indian or Pakistani accent and you know he is in some call center in New Delhi, or some other distant location. Knowing that the majority of Manufacturing jobs have left the country and are residing in Mexico, Indonesia, or Malaysia.

THE PRESIDENT: To that end, we all have to continue our efforts to do everything in our power to spur growth and hiring. And I hope the Senate acts this week on a package of tax cuts and expanded lending for small businesses, where most of America’s jobs are created.

MY RESPONSE: Spur the economy? you mean your stimulus packages that have sent billions of our money to 3rd world nations? Tax cuts? I thought you and your cronies said tax cuts were voo-doo economics? or is that only when Reagan or Bush asks for tax cuts? Maybe when you bailed out the big financial houses you could have used that leverage to cut the interest rates they charge the people who bore the burden of paying for their blunders. Do you even realize why most of America's jobs are created by small businesses? I'll tell you the big businesses are cutting back not expanding and as they cut back the nation falters even more. Your policies have crippled the Auto Industry. Your buddies who lined you campaign pockets with the dues of the unions, have attacked Detroit demanding even more benefits and more pay, for their rank and file who instead of seeing more jobs, see their jobs go overseas as the Nationally backed automakers in socialist Europe and Uber Capitalist Japan and South Korea.

THE PRESIDENT: So we've got a lot of work to do to make sure that we are digging ourselves out of this tough economic hole that we've been in. But even as we work to jump start job growth in the private sector, even as we work to get businesses hiring again, we also have another responsibility: to offer emergency assistance to people who desperately need it -- to Americans who have been laid off in this recession. We've got a responsibility to help them make ends meet and support their families even as they’re looking for another job.

MY RESPONSE: We? We can't dig out of a hole! when you dig in a hole one of two things happen, the hole gets deeper or just bigger. No wonder we in this mess, you idiots give us shovels when we need fill dirt. But, don't do us any favors there, with your track record we are likely to be buried. If you want to jump start job growth, scrap the IRS! replace it with a 10% National sales tax (exempting Food, Medical and the first $50,000 of home purchases or $500 of rent) take away the burden you and your past economic half wits have heaped upon us. Link tax revenue to spending not earning! Let every American take home his or her entire paycheck (including what our employers have to match) that would mean every American working would take home 30-40% more pay. Then all that extra money coming in means they would be spending it. Then a domino effect would drive the economy into hyperdrive. As spending increases, demand for goods increase, which means production increases, and finally jobs increase, which starts the cycle all over again. It is simple economics. By the way, really stimulate our economy bring back tariffs and make American made products more attractive.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s why it’s so essential to pass the unemployment insurance extension that comes up for a vote tomorrow. We need to pass it for men like Jim Chukalas, who’s with me here today. Jim worked as a parts manager at a Honda dealership until about two years ago. He’s posted resumes everywhere. He’s gone door-to-door looking for jobs. But he hasn’t gotten a single interview. He’s trying to be strong for his two young kids, but now that he’s exhausted his unemployment benefits, that’s getting harder to do.

MY RESPONSE: No, No, No! that is BS unadulterated BS! Has Jim applied at Wendy's? Burger King? Taco Bell? or is he too good to work fast food? They are always looking for good managers. He needs to show his kids the character in himself, that says I'll do whatever it takes to provide for my family. I will tell you why he didn't! those jobs made it more attractive to sit on his butt and collect a check larger than what they McDonald's will pay. Maybe now instead of waiting for someone else to help him, he'll help himself.

THE PRESIDENT: We need to pass it for women like Leslie Macko, who lost her job at a fitness center last year and has been looking for work ever since. Because she’s eligible for only a few more weeks of unemployment, she’s doing what she never thought she’d have to do -- not at this point, anyway. She’s turning to her father for financial support.

MY RESPONSE: What's wrong with families taking care of their own, they did it for years.... I have known people who consider it shameful to receive welfare. Not long ago (the 1950's) Indianapolis posted the names of those on welfare on billboards around that city, and the welfare roles decreased. We have made every attempt to remove the stigma of being supported by the government, we handed out Debit cards that look like credit cards to replace food stamps. Cashiers at grocery stores don't know the difference and let their customers buy alcohol and cigarettes with "MY" money. Then Medicare uses "MY" money to treat their over burdened Liver and smoke filled cancer ridden lungs. They eat steak, on "MY" money and you have taken so much of mine I eat hamburger and chicken.

THE PRESIDENT: And we need to pass it for Americans like Denise Gibson, who was laid off from a real estate agency earlier this year. Denise has been interviewing for jobs -– but so far nothing has turned up. Meanwhile, she’s fallen further and further behind on her rent. And with her unemployment benefits set to expire, she’s worried about what the future holds.

MY RESPONSE: Why was she laid off? Oh yeah, you and your cronies in Washington, created an environment where real estate values were over inflated. As you made it easier and easier for people who had no business buying houses they couldn't afford, buy bigger and better houses, hoping when the house of cards you created came crashing down. Then to make things worse, as the housing and finance industry faltered, someone had to pay and once again Washington reaches into the pockets of working Americans, decreasing our buying power, driving down demand, making production go down, causing industry to lay off workers or close shop and opening in other countries where minimum wage is less than $1.00 a day. causing the cycle to repeat and our country to get that closer to becoming a third world nation.

THE PRESIDENT: We need to pass it for all the Americans who haven’t been able to find work in an economy where there are five applicants for every opening; who need emergency relief to help them pay the rent and cover their utilities and put food on the table while they’re looking for another job.

MY RESPONSE: Look at your history, the fall of Rome, the fall of the Soviet Union had one common ideal "You cannot tax your way into prosperity"

THE PRESIDENT: And for a long time, there’s been a tradition –- under both Democratic and Republican Presidents –- to offer relief to the unemployed. That was certainly the case under my predecessor, when Republican senators voted several times to extend emergency unemployment benefits. But right now, these benefits –- benefits that are often the person’s sole source of income while they’re looking for work -– are in jeopardy.

MY RESPONSE: "You cannot tax your way into prosperity"

THE PRESIDENT: And I have to say, after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, the same people who didn’t have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn’t offer relief to middle-class Americans like Jim or Leslie or Denise, who really need help.

MY RESPONSE: Those tax breaks should affect all Americans, at the same rate. Under a national sales tax those who spend the most pay the most. Those who spend the majority of their income on food and shelter pay the least. The Rich who buy a $1,000,000.00 mansion will pay $95000 in taxes on that home the Poor who buy a $100,000 home will pay $5000 in taxes (1/20th of what the rich will pay for a mansion 10 times more expensive) and the family in rural Appalachia who buy a home for $50,500 will pay $50.00 (almost 1/100,000th of what the rich will pay for a mansion 20 times more expensive).

THE PRESIDENT: Over the past few weeks, a majority of senators have tried -– not once, not twice, but three times –- to extend emergency relief on a temporary basis. Each time, a partisan minority in the Senate has used parliamentary maneuvers to block a vote, denying millions of people who are out of work much-needed relief. These leaders in the Senate who are advancing a misguided notion that emergency relief somehow discourages people from looking for a job should talk to these folks.

MY RESPONSE: Again you want to give our money to other people so you look like the heroes. IT IS "NOT YOURS TO GIVE", IT IS OURS! (read Not Yours To Give by David Crockett in my Heroes and Roll Models blog) if you want to override the congressional vote, put it to us the American people let us vote on it.

THE PRESIDENT: That attitude I think reflects a lack of faith in the American people, because the Americans I hear from in letters and meet in town hall meetings –- Americans like Leslie and Jim and Denise -- they’re not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work. Just right now they can’t find a job. These are honest, decent, hardworking folks who’ve fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and who have nowhere else to turn except unemployment benefits and who need emergency relief to help them weather this economic storm.

MY RESPONSE: If they don't want a handout, don't give it to them, if they want secure jobs, give it to them. This Economic Storm, is not a natural phenomenon, it is a Frankenstein Monster created by a collection of mostly Lawyers who can't speak English without twisting the meaning of words

THE PRESIDENT: Now, tomorrow we will have another chance to offer them that relief, to do right by not just Jim and Leslie and Denise, but all the Americans who need a helping hand right now -- and I hope we seize it. It’s time to stop holding workers laid off in this recession hostage to Washington politics. It’s time to do what’s right -- not for the next election but for the middle class. We’ve got to stop blocking emergency relief for Americans who are out of work. We’ve got to extend unemployment insurance. We need to pass those tax cuts for small businesses and the lending for small businesses.

MY RESPONSE: I agree it is time to stop holding Americans hostage to Washington politics. It's time to hold Washington hostage to the American Voters. We don't need to give away money we don't have, we don't need to expand the deficit. We need to create jobs, and relieve the American Tax-payer of his Global Burden.

THE PRESIDENT: Times are hard right now. We are moving in the right direction. I know it’s getting close to an election, but there are times where you put elections aside. This is one of those times. And that’s what I hope members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will do tomorrow.

MY RESPONSE: We are moving in the wrong direction, we need to turn this contraption around and quit trying to dig our way out of a hole that eventually become so deep that the side collapse and bury us all.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks very much.

MY RESPONSE: Thanks very much. and remember "You cannot tax your way into prosperity"

Palestinian Situation

We hear the sound of our liberal brethren bemoan about the 711,000 Palestinians who 1) fled Israel or 2) were ejected from Israel; after Israel was created in 1948 by the Palestinian Mandate. As the region was divided by the British into two autonomous intertwined regions Israel and Palestine, the Arabic world decided to finish the job Hitler was unable to complete. That may sound harsh, but Saddam's own Ba'th party was deep into the hip pocket of the Nazi Regime. Also the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was a supporter the "final solution". So when in 1948, when the Nation of Israel was formed in the council halls of the United Nations, the Arabic resistance was less than passioned, for they had their own "solution". The word was spread by the Arabic world extending a faint hand to the Palestinians, leave Israel for a short time, and they would restore the Palestinians to their homes once they were rid of the vermin Jew. At the same time the 711,000 Palestinians fled Israel, the Arabic world forced 850,000 Arabic Jews from their homes in Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq and Yemen (In fact in several of these countries the Jewish population was established long before what has become today’s local population or over 1,000 years before the advent of Islam). These refugees were dumped into Israel, as their plan unfolded. Then when they thought the time was right, the combined Arabic world attacked Israel with the sole purpose of eliminating the Jewish people. The problem was, the Jews didn't roll over and play dead. Instead they fought back, leaving close to a million Palestinians homeless. Now we talk about them as victims, yet victim is hardly the word to describe them. Arafat the former savior of his people, wasn't even Palestinian, he was Egyptian. In my opinion if the Palestinians deserve a homeland it is up to the other Arabic nations to provide it to them, since they were the ones who orchestrated the refugee issue. The Jews were willing to create a country where Arab and Jew could live together in Harmony. They started their Zionist mission, by legally buying the land from the Arabs, which was taken away from them by the British, when the Arabs claim the Jews cheated them (even though the land was sold for 3-4 times it's value). So as far as I am concerned the Palestinians are along with their Arabic breathern are the authors of their fate and deserve nothing more than what Israel is willing to give them and or what their Arabic brothers will.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

The following is an excerpt from CBS News on-line
"The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights. By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges. Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states." The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority. Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home. That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here. Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans. Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment."

I appauld the 5 judges who know enough of Constitutional law to uphold the Constitution. the Second Amendment, was passed by the Congress, reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". I stress the part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What part of that, needs interpetation? "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Must I define Infringed? infringe on or upon something compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, dimish, disrupt, or curb,

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be compromised."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be undermined."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be limited."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be weakened."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be dimished."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be disrupted."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be curbed."

Need I go on? Obviously there are 4 Supreme Court Justices who do not know their Constitution! There are 4 Justices who do not know how to read English! There are 4 Justices who want to erode our rights! Remember when they take away our right to own guns, only criminals will have guns!

American Spoken Here

It is said the United States does not have an official language, however, it is generally accepted that English fills that spot. Now when our founding fathers sat down to discuss this subject many of them were so disgusted with England, that they refused to make English the "Official" language. Had it not been for the fact that Hessian troops were in British employment, to fight against us, The German movement might have had a chance of holding that honor. Despite, the myth, that because of one pro-German advocate suffering from diarrhea, English became our "Official" language. A vote never occurred and we just accepted English as the common tongue. Truth be told we don't have an "Official" language, but, English is the language used in documenting our official records, and the majority (for now) of Americans speck English. We need to establish English as the official language or perhaps since we are so far out of step with our British brethren, American as our Official language (despite the slang connection there). What would this mean? To most of us not much, Citizenship for example would be linked to speaking the American language. Official documents would no longer need to be printed in bi-lingual type. In the past, the key to successful integration into our society was linked with shedding the mother tongue and learning the language of America. When everyone is on the same page, we can all read it. I have nothing against foreign languages, and I think it is great that our children can learn other languages (I took German in high school myself). We cannot put ourselves through what the Canadians have put themselves through being bi-lingual. I remember spending the fourth of July in 1990 in Quebec, and having a waitress refuse to speak English to us, which changed once one of the guys tried miserably to speak french (which he took in high school so many years earlier), his Alabama accent was enough for the waitress to realize he was American not Canadian (she then explained that she and her friends were mad that French Canadians had to speak English, even though English Canadians could get away with not learning French) Do we really want to have that issue face us? Language unites us many languages divide us. If we accept Spanish as a second language, do we accommodate Chinese American the same way? Portuguese? French? Russian? Japanese? Italian? Korean? (need I list every language?) So I say lets do what our founding fathers should have done and make it "Official", American should be our official language.