Saturday, August 15, 2009

Health Care Poll

Do you feel Members of Congress should be forced to enroll themselves in the health care plan they vote for?

Kudos to Representative Fleming!
And So It Begins

Not just one, but two tropical storms have developed in the Atlantic Ocean. Ana and Bill are on a westerly course. I have pictures of their current locations and the 5 day forecast for each.

Of course, with tropical weather formations (depressions, storms, and hurricanes) just because this is the forecast, doesn't mean the storm has seen it and knows where it's supposed to go. In fact, I think some of them go here just because they know they're forecast to go there. Anyway....

Here's Ana and Bill's current locations:

And this is Ana's 5-day forecast:

And Bill's 5-day forecast:

Looks (at this time) like Bill will be following in Ana's footsteps (so to speak) about four days later. If you're in the path, get out the umbrellas.
How Big Is Walmart?

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St.Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.

8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie).

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

11 This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart

Let Wal-Mart bail out Wall Street.

Better yet . . . let them run the damn Government


Are these stats correct? I dunno, but Walmart is doing something right.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Streaming Audio

Neal Boortz, co-author of The Fair Tax book, talking about the history of, and reasons behind the Fair Tax.

It should answer your questions, and hopefully, show you just why the Fair Tax is the best tax plan offered - head and shoulders above the current disaster we're currently under, or the Flat Tax, which the income tax was supposed to be as amended years ago.

All I ask is, if you do listen, listen with an open mind.

here's the link:

Some Men See Things As They Are....

...and ask Why? I dream things that never were and ask why not?

I read this on a bio page and saw that it was attributed to Robert Kennedy. Something didn't feel right about this attribution, so did spent a time doing Google searches. I mean, RFK was a quotable person, I guess, but why would he say such a thing? It sounds more like something an inventor would say. I could hear Edison, or Disney, or even DaVinci saying it, but RFK?

I found that George Bernard Shaw was the original source of this line. GBS, was of course, an Irish writer of the 19th and 20th centuries. Wow....that sounds like it was hundreds of years ago, but we're less than a decade from the 20th.

Now, could RFK have used this quote in a speech? Absolutely. I'm not saying RFK didn't quote GBS, or even that he spoke the words without proper attribution. I don't really care about that. I just happened across a quote attributed to RFK that would have been more properly attributed to GBS and for some reason felt I needed to set a record straight somewhere.
By Michelle Malkin
August 14, 2009

The White House press office is now Miss Manners' office. President Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, took to the television airwaves this week to criticize congressional town hall protesters for "yelling." Gibbs' underling, Bill Burton, chastised voters not to "disrupt" and "scream." Instead, he advised America to engage in a "spirited debate about health care, a real vigorous conversation about it."

What constitutes "spirited"? How do they define "vigorous"? When does forceful dissent become intolerable disruption? Herewith, the Obama Etiquette Czar's Official Rules for Patriotic Protest. Keep this guide with you at all times to avoid being flagged by the Democratic politeness monitors.

-- No shouting. Congressional representatives cannot sell Obamacare with mobs of unruly senior citizens and small-business owners interrupting to press them on specific sections of the bill. Limit your objections to a library whisper and only challenge your lawmakers with hushed, dulcet tones. Otherwise, you will scare them, and they will be forced to hide behind teleconference calls, sick children at hospitals or union bosses.

If, on the other hand, you are attending a presidential town hall to show your affection and approbation, "spirited" chanting is acceptable.



Also permitted: Shouting at historic inaugurations to protest war (as legions of Code Pink activists did in 2005 during the president's address) and shouting, "We didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed us!" to protest immigration enforcement (as thousands of illegal alien supporters did during raucous rallies in 2006).

Do refrain from boisterous shrieking against those who accuse you of lacking patriotism -- unless you are Hillary Clinton, who bellowed at the top of her lungs in 2003:

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

-- No laughing. Snickering at proponents of nationalized health care is rude, bordering on political terrorism. Stifle all derisive chuckling at bogus statistics and denials that Obamacare will lead to long lines and rationed care. That would be "evil-mongering," as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put it on Thursday.

If, however, you are a member of Congress confronted with silly questions about whether you have read the bill, feel free to giggle. For tips on executing acceptable levels of cackling, take a cue from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. "If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes," Hoyer told while choking back laughter after a recent news conference. "I'm laughing because a) I don't know how long this bill is going to be, but it's going to be a very long bill." Tee-hee-hee.

-- No Nazi comparisons. References to fascism are ugly and un-American. Swastikas have no place in debates about nationalizing 20 percent of the economy. Swastikas may, however, still be used as substitutes for the "S" in "BusHitler" and tattoos on the forehead of Darth Cheney.

-- No boorish questions. "Real vigorous conversation" requires town hall attendees to formulate queries that will encourage true debate. This is not the time to ask why Congress won't subject itself to the health mandates it wants to foist on every other American. This is not the time to ask how the White House will pay for the massive Obamacare bureaucracy without raising taxes on the middle class. The White House endorsed model citizen questioning at its East Room health care town halls in March and July, including this:

"Hi, Mr. President. I'm a member of SEIU, and I'm down here in Fairfax County working on Change That Works. What can I do, as a member of the union, to help you with your reform bill?"

-- No mean signs. That 11-year-old daughter of a Massachusetts Obama donor and campaigner who was randomly chosen to criticize the scary posters held up by town hall protesters in New Hampshire was right. "Mean" signs are, well, mean. Never mind the placards that blared "Bush is the only dope worth shooting" in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco and the assassination art depicting former President Bush with a gun to his head in Chicago. "Obama is a socialist" is a sign too far and cannot be tolerated in a civil society. Period.

Instead, print out the "STAND UP FOR HEALTH REFORM" signs helpfully produced by Obama's Organizing for America, and burn your "Don't Tread on Me" flags. Such rebellious sentiments are dangerous incitements to violence.

To those of you who can't abide by The Rules: Shhhhhhhhh.
May 15, 2009 · Filed under: AFFT Updates, Articles
Missouri House gives final approval to FairTax amendment

The Missouri House gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the state income tax and replace it with a FairTax system.

The proposal would raise the state sales tax from 4.225 percent to 5.11 percent and eliminate the 6 percent personal income tax and 6.25 percent corporate income tax on business earnings. Accompanying the sales tax rate hike would be a substantially broadened sales tax base that would include all purchases. Estate taxes would remain on the books.

The proposal would create the distribution of a monthly tax rebate check to cover the cost of any taxes incurred up to the federal poverty level, which is $26,000 for a family of four.

If the Missouri Senate approves it, the measure will be submitted to Missouri voters in November 2010 without need for consideration by the governor. If approved by the voters, the measure would take effect on Jan. 1, 2012, and Missouri would become the first in the United States to test the macro-economic benefits of the fair tax, according to the release.


Wooo-hooo! My ancestral state of Missouri rocks! If this passes, other states will fall like dominos. I could consider moving back to snow country if Missouri passes this. (Maybe very sourthern Missouri?)

What state will be next?

Update: my sources are gonna be flogged for not reporting this earlier!!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
By: Chad Livengood

Critics claim measure would burden poorest

Jefferson City -- The Missouri House gave final approval Thursday to a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the state income tax and replace it with a "fair tax" based on consumption.

The proposal would raise the state sales tax from 4.225 percent to 5.11 percent and eliminate the 6 percent personal income tax and 6.25 percent corporate income tax on business earnings. Estate taxes would remain on the books.

The tax structure is known as a fair tax because it taxes people based on their spending and gets rid of all exemptions, deductions and credits carved in the tax code -- often to the benefit of special interests.

But critics, including some Republicans, said the legislation is flawed because it would levy taxes on things that aren't taxed now, such as home purchases, food and prescription drugs.

"The way it's written, it's not a 'fair tax,'" said Rep. Dennis Wood, R-Kimberling City, who voted "present."

The resolution passed 90-65, with seven members absent and Wood casting the only "present" vote. Mostly Republicans supported the measure, which requires Senate approval before it can be placed on the 2010 ballot.

"I'm not just a 'yes sir' man. I think for myself. I think this is wrong," Wood said of his choice to effectively sit out the vote.

Wood said he supports replacing income taxes with a flat sales tax, but said the current proposal would place an unfair burden on senior citizens in his Stone and Taney county district.

Rep. Ed Emery, R-Lamar, is sponsoring the resolution and argued that it would not impact state tax revenue while spurring job growth through the elimination of corporate income taxes.

"It will catch the cheaters and the illegals because they'll be paying taxes, where they aren't now," Emery argued Tuesday on the House floor during initial debate.

Democrats criticized the fair tax plan as regressive, saying it would be a burden on the working poor, and people who often pay little to no income tax to begin with. Democrats also took exception with the fact the new sales tax would not apply to corporations when they're purchasing goods and services from other businesses.

"If I'm an individual, I don't get the same tax relief that a corporation does. That doesn't seem fair," House Democratic Leader Paul LeVota said Thursday during final debate.

To offset taxing basic necessities, Emery's proposal would create the distribution of a monthly tax rebate check to cover the cost of any taxes incurred up to the federal poverty level, which is $26,000 for a family of four.

"I think this is the most family-friendly way to gather revenues that I've ever seen," Emery said, noting people would have more money in their paycheck without a state income tax deduction.

Democrats from St. Louis and Kansas City argued on the House floor that people in their districts living along state borders would cross into Illinois and Kansas to purchase goods because those states would have lower sales taxes.

Emery predicted just the opposite would happen and that neighboring states would adopt a similar tax code to compete if Missouri changed its system.

"They're the ones that are going to have to scramble to figure out how they're going to compete with a state with no income tax," Emery said on the House floor.

If approved by the Senate and voters, the change in tax structure would begin on Jan. 1, 2012.

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Springfield, spoke Thursday in favor of the bill on the House floor.

He cited a recent report by the American Legislative Exchange Council that noted a consumption-based sales tax system fuels economic growth.

"From the evidence that we're seeing, those states that have a sales tax- only system do attract people" and businesses, Burlison said.


Not exactly the "breaking news" I thought it was. Gonna have to flog my sources!

According to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, your children should be the first target for mass swine flu vaccinations when school starts this fall.[i]

This is a ridiculous assumption for many reasons, not to mention extremely high risk.

In Australia, where the winter season has begun, Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon is reassuring parents the swine flu is no more dangerous than regular seasonal flu. "Most people, including children, will experience very mild symptoms and recover without any medical intervention," she said.[ii]

Sydney-based immunization specialist Robert Booy predicts swine flu might be fatal to about twice as many children in the coming year as regular influenza. Booy estimates 10-12 children could die from the H1N1 virus, compared with the five or six regular flu deaths seen among children in an average year in Australia.[iii]

“Cure the Disease, Kill the Patient”

Less than 100 children in the U.S. die each year from seasonal flu viruses.[iv] If we use Australia’s math, a very rough estimate would be another 100 children could potentially die of swine flu in the United States in the coming year.

If children are the first target group in the U.S. per Sebelius, that means we’re about to inject around 75 million children with a fast tracked vaccine containing novel adjuvants, including dangerous squalene, to prevent perhaps 100 deaths.

I’m not overlooking the tragedy of the loss of even one child to an illness like the H1N1 flu virus. But there can be no argument that unnecessary mass injection of millions of children with a vaccine containing an adjuvant known to cause a host of debilitating autoimmune diseases is a reckless, dangerous plan.

Why are Vaccinations Dangerous?

The presumed intent of a vaccination is to help you build immunity to potentially harmful organisms that cause illness and disease. However, your body’s immune system is already designed to do this in response to organisms which invade your body naturally.

Most disease-causing organisms enter your body through the mucous membranes of your nose, mouth, pulmonary system or your digestive tract – not through an injection.

These mucous membranes have their own immune system, called the IgA immune system. It is a different system from the one activated when a vaccine is injected into your body.

Your IgA immune system is your body’s first line of defense. Its job is to fight off invading organisms at their entry points, reducing or even eliminating the need for activation of your body’s immune system.

When a virus is injected into your body in a vaccine, and especially when combined with an immune adjuvant like squalene, your IgA immune system is bypassed and your body’s immune system kicks into high gear in response to the vaccination.

Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature, and vaccination carries enormous potential to do serious damage to your health.

And as if Vaccines Weren’t Dangerous Enough on Their Own …

… imagine them turbocharged.

The main ingredient in a vaccine is either killed viruses or live ones that have been attenuated (weakened and made less harmful).
Flu vaccines can also contain a number of chemical toxins, including ethylene glycol (antifreeze), formaldehyde, phenol (carbolic acid) and even antibiotics like Neomycin and streptomycin.

In addition to the viruses and other additives, many vaccines also contain immune adjuvants like aluminum and squalene.

The purpose of an immune adjuvant added to a vaccine is to enhance (turbo charge) your immune response to the vaccination. Adjuvants cause your immune system to overreact to the introduction of the organism you’re being vaccinated against.

Adjuvants are supposed to get the job done faster (but certainly not more safely), which reduces the amount of vaccine required per dose, and the number of doses given per individual.

Less vaccine required per person means more individual doses available for mass vaccination campaigns. Coincidentally, this is exactly the goal of government and the pharmaceutical companies who stand to make millions from their vaccines.

Will There Be Immune Adjuvants in Swine Flu Vaccines?

The U.S. government has contracts with several drug companies to develop and produce swine flu vaccines. At least two of those companies, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, are using an adjuvant in their H1N1 vaccines.

The adjuvant? Squalene.

According to Meryl Nass, M.D., an authority on the anthrax vaccine,

“A novel feature of the two H1N1 vaccines being developed by companies Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline is the addition of squalene-containing adjuvants to boost immunogenicity and dramatically reduce the amount of viral antigen needed. This translates to much faster production of desired vaccine quantities.”[v]

Novartis’s proprietary squalene adjuvant for their H1N1 vaccine is MF59. Glaxo’s is ASO3. MF59 has yet to be approved by the FDA for use in any U.S. vaccine, despite its history of use in other countries.

Per Dr. Nass, there are only three vaccines in existence using an approved squalene adjuvant. None of the three are approved for use in the U.S.

What Squalene Does to Rats

Oil-based vaccination adjuvants like squalene have been proved to generate concentrated, unremitting immune responses over long periods of time.[vi]

A 2000 study published in the American Journal of Pathology demonstrated a single injection of the adjuvant squalene into rats triggered “chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation,” also known as rheumatoid arthritis.[vii]

The researchers concluded the study raised questions about the role of adjuvants in chronic inflammatory diseases.

What Squalene Does to Humans

Your immune system recognizes squalene as an oil molecule native to your body. It is found throughout your nervous system and brain. In fact, you can consume squalene in olive oil and not only will your immune system recognize it, you will also reap the benefits of its antioxidant properties.

The difference between “good” and “bad” squalene is the route by which it enters your body. Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.

Your immune system will attempt to destroy the molecule wherever it finds it, including in places where it occurs naturally, and where it is vital to the health of your nervous system.[viii]

Gulf War veterans with Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) received anthrax vaccines which contained squalene.[ix] MF59 (the Novartis squalene adjuvant) was an unapproved ingredient in experimental anthrax vaccines and has since been linked to the devastating autoimmune diseases suffered by countless Gulf War vets.[x]

The Department of Defense made every attempt to deny that squalene was indeed an added contaminant in the anthrax vaccine administered to Persian Gulf war military personnel – deployed and non-deployed – as well as participants in the more recent Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP).

However, the FDA discovered the presence of squalene in certain lots of AVIP product. A test was developed to detect anti-squalene antibodies in GWS patients, and a clear link was established between the contaminated product and all the GWS sufferers who had been injected with the vaccine containing squalene.

A study conducted at Tulane Medical School and published in the February 2000 issue of Experimental Molecular Pathology included these stunning statistics:

“ … the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene.

In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene.”[xi]

According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., a former principle research scientist for the government of Australia:

“… this adjuvant [squalene] contributed to the cascade of reactions called "Gulf War Syndrome," documented in the soldiers involved in the Gulf War.

The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.”[xii]

Post Vaccination Follow-Up Might as Well Be Non-Existent

There is virtually no science to support the safety of vaccine injections on your long-term health or the health of your children. Follow-up studies last on average about two weeks, and look only for glaring injuries and illnesses.

Autoimmune disorders like those seen in Gulf War Syndrome frequently take years to diagnose due to the vagueness of early symptoms. Complaints like headaches, fatigue and chronic aches and pains are symptoms of many different illnesses and diseases.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for vaccine purveyors and proponents to look seriously at the long-term health consequences of their vaccination campaigns.


Click on the link in the title for links and cites within the article.
FairTax on Twitter

It's Friday. Did U take a look at the Federal withholdings on yr paycheck? How much better off wld U be if U could keep those $$'s?

Call yr state reps and urge them to press for a FairTax on a state level. This application will prove it's success!

Thursday, August 13, 2009

'Brown Shirts' vs. Purple Shirts
By Michelle Malkin
August 12, 2009

Who are the real thugs? Democrats attack congressional town hall protesters as "Brown Shirts" -- likening taxpayer activists across the country to Hitler's storm troopers. But it's the Big Labor hoodlums clad in identical purple shirts -- the uniform of Service Employees International Union members -- who own the mob label.

Margarida Jorge, a former SEIU organizing director who now serves as national field director for the deep-pocketed, left-wing coalition Health Care for America Now, sent out a memo to her foot soldiers last week on how to counter Obamacare opponents. "You must bring enough people to drown them out and to cover all our bases so as to marginalize their disruptive tactics," she exhorted.

Local SEIU chapters echoed the call to brass knuckles. "It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices," urged the leaders of SEIU's Local 2001 in Connecticut, according to a memo exposed by The Weekly Standard's Mary Katharine Ham.

At town hall meetings in St. Louis and Tampa, Fla., last week, purple-shirted SEIU members engaged in physical confrontations with critics of the Democrats' health care takeover plans. Assault victim Kenneth Gladney, beaten while passing out "Don't Tread on Me" flags, is turning the tables on his SEIU assailants. The black conservative activist announced Tuesday that he's filing hate crime charges against the union goons in Missouri.

These were the first outbreaks of violence since the summer recess began. And that's no coincidence. SEIU President Andy Stern, the militant social worker turned union heavy, boasts of his organizing philosophy: "(W)e prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn't work, we use the persuasion of power."

Last April, SEIU bussed in hundreds of Purple Shirts to a labor meeting in Detroit, where the union was battling a competitor over representation of nurses and health care workers in Ohio. The SEIU invaders ambushed the conference, sending one attendee to the hospital with a bloodied head and wounding several others. The competing union filed a restraining order against the SEIU. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney responded, "There is no justification -- none -- for the violent attack orchestrated by SEIU." California Nurses Association Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro condemned the violence: "There is an ugly pattern here of physical abuse and tactics of intimidation that have no place in either our labor movement or a civilized society."

SEIU and Stern's shock troops have similarly bullied companies from private equity firms to Burger King to food management company Aramark to security provider Wackenhut Services, who have resisted SEIU's attempts to organizer their workers. The Purple People have organized aggressive protests and a "War on Greed" campaign to pound the employers into submission.

In Oakland, Stern and his Washington crew imposed a trusteeship on a 150,000-member local that had publicly opposed SEIU strong-arm tactics. D.C. headquarters accused the local -- known as SEIU United Healthcare Workers West (UHW West) -- of financial malpractice and misconduct. The local fought back, charging the Beltway union leaders with manufacturing the allegations to retaliate and to distract from Washington mismanagement. The UHW West president, Sal Rosselli, quit the SEIU executive board and formed a new union in February 2009, which declared: "We don't trust them with our contracts, we don't trust them with our dues -- we just don't trust them."

Team Obama and the Democrats -- who together received more than $60 million in SEIU independent expenditure funds -- remain mum about SEIU thuggery. Obama, after all, promised the SEIU on the campaign trail: "We look after each other!"

Accordingly, SEIU-endorsed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius openly praised the union's drowning-out campaign against Obamacare critics in a teleconference call last week. She urged her "brothers and sisters" to keep doing what they were doing. SEIU health care chair Dennis Rivera of New York then railed against the "radical fringe" of "right-wingers," whom he accused of "terrorist tactics."

Savor the Purple Shirts playing pot-and-kettle.


Michelle Malkin is the author of the just released "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2009).


Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America's true living legends - an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.


Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'Blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg, which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. It's happening right now


I personally have no idea who Lou Pritchett is, (sorry, Mr. Pritchett), but he addresses issues that I've had ever since Mr. Obama came on the scene. I'm used to knowing pretty much every detail of the life of the candidate almost as soon as they hit the campaign trail, and there seem to be holes in Mr. Obama's story.

We know a lot about Mr. Obama, but there are still questions about his past, his past affliations, and yes, about his ability to run a country.

Now I know that most leaders have people under them who actually run the day-to-day activities and events of a company, a campaign, or even the Presidency. I know that no one person can possibly know everything there is to know about everything the President has to make decisions about; they usually rely on information and opinions given by those who do know about these things. I really have no problem with that.

It's all the little things. Just where did Mr. Obama get the money for that Ivy League education? His beginnings were fairly humble, as I understand. He certainly didn't have the money of a Bush, a Kennedy, or a Roosevelt. Others have come from humble beginnings to become President (Carter and Clinton both come to mind).

I would like to think there's a reasonable reason for not supplying your birth certificate, if only to shut up the "birthers". My own home state of Pennsylvania does not offer a "birth certificate" but a "registration of birth". I think there's little difference because both offer the same information, and it could be the same in Hawaii. I don't know, I haven't bothered to look at the document that has been offered because so many others have. I decided to concentrate on other matters and leave this issue to others.

Perception is everything. We make judgements on what we see and hear. It's the only way to make decisions. Thinking people question what they see and hear when they think there is a reason to question it. You and I might not agree that there is any reason for doubt. Had our ancestors never questioned what they "knew" we might still be living in caves and hunting for food.

The perception of the "birth certificate" issue is that there is something wrong since Mr. Obama will not provide an authenticated document. The document provided could be perfectly legitmate. But, since there have been questions raised which haven't been answered clearing the matter, it leaves the impression that there is something to hide. If he's hiding something about his birth, then what else might be lurking in the background?

Right now, the perception is that we have a President who is hiding things in his background. True or not, the perception is there.

The question is, why?

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

FINALLY - Someone is bitchy enough to say it like it REALLY is!


When I stand up for myself and my beliefs, they call me a Bitch.

When I stand up for those I love, they call me a Bitch.

when I speak my mind, think my own thoughts or do things my own way, they call me a Bitch.

Being a Bitch means I won't compromise what's in my heart. It means I live my life MY way. It means I won't allow anyone to step on me.

When I refuse to tolerate injustice and speak against it, I am defined as a Bitch. The same thing happens when I take time for myself instead of being everyone's maid, or when I act a little bit selfish.

It means I have the courage and strength to allow myself to be who I truly am and wont' become anyone else's idea of what they think I "should" be.

I am outspoken, opinionated and determined.. I want what I want and there is nothing wrong with that!

So try to stomp on me, just try to douse my inner flame, try to squash every ounce of beauty I hold within me.

You won't succeed.

And if that makes me a bitch, so be it. I embrace the title and am proud to bear it.

B - Babe

I - In

T - Total

C - Control of

H - Herself

how about this...

B = Beautiful

I = Intelligent

T = Talented

C = Charming

H = Hell of a Woman

or maybe this...

B = Beautiful

I = Individual

T = That

C = Can

H = Handle 'anything'

Happy Birthday to…..Me!!!!

Yes, today is my birthday. I won’t tell you my age, because I prefer to be “ageless”. It’s easy enough to figure out, if that’s really important to you (if it is, you really need to get a life!).

I’ll have a nice dinner, some well wishes, a few gifts, and maybe a movie. Whatever I do, it will be because it’s something that I want.

I am dedicating the next twelve months to me, and becoming the person I want to be.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

FairTax on Twitter

FairTax An easier approach to health care reform ~ How many more Americans could afford health insurance if they could receive their entire paychecks, plus a monthly prebate!

Looks Like Trouble for the 'Other' 95%
Posted By Bobby Eberle On August 4, 2009 at 7:24 am

Don't worry, your taxes won't go up. That's what Barack Obama has said over and over again. Wait... actually, he was just saying that about the 95% percent of Americans who are not "at the top." Apparently, he had always planned to extract even more out of the people who purchase the most goods, hire the most people, and already pay the most taxes.

But, what we are now learning is what we all believed was coming. Actually, I can't say "all," because so many people seem to have thought that Obama could cure the country's ills with the wave of a wand or the use of magic money. Well, this is real life... where massive government intervention into the private lives of Americans comes with a price. And it's a price we'll all be paying.

First, a quick look at taxes and who really pays. Late last week, the IRS released a report on the distribution of income taxes. The Heritage Foundation has a great article on it.

In 2007, the top 1 percent of taxpayers "paid over 40 percent of all federal income taxes." In contrast, the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers paid just over 39 percent of income taxes. As noted in the story, "The top 1 percent, those earning over $410,000, consists of 1.4 million taxpayers, while the bottom 95 percent contains 134 million."

Now for a little bit of historical perspective. Liberals love to say that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich. They fail to mention that ALL tax rates were cut... with the biggest percentage cuts coming from the lower income brackets. As The Heritage Foundation points out:

In 2000, before the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that some claim disproportionately benefited the rich, the top 1 percent paid less than 38 percent of income taxes, while the bottom 95 paid almost 44 percent. Since the tax cuts, the top 1 percent’s share increased over 2 percentage points while the bottom 95 percent’s share decreased 5 percentage points. Those that argue the tax cuts solely benefited the rich are mistaken.

Obama wants to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 per year. In essence, he wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the top two income tax brackets. The top rate would go from 35% to over 39%. It should outrage all Americans that there are some who are paying over a third of their income to the government, but that outrage doesn't exist because 1) too many politicians play the class warfare game, and 2) so many people EXPECT something for nothing. They feel it is right for someone else to pay their way.

Then, don't forget the health care plan. If enacted, an additional 6 percent "surtax" would be added, thus making the top rate close to 45%. I don't care how much a person makes, NO ONE should pay that much to the government.

In contrast, the bottom 40% of taxpayers pays no income taxes on average. In fact, they get money from the tax code well above anything they paid in because of refundable credits. And President Obama’s Make Work Pay credit, passed as part of the stimulus, will increase the money redistributed to these non-taxpayers.

The author makes a great point, saying, "It’s a dangerous situation when a majority of voters can get services and benefits from the government for no cost, because there is no incentive for them to limit the growth of government."

However, all of this "growth of government" will eventually hit the wall, and the so-called 95 percent of Americans who are safe will see that they are the next targets. Obama's statement was already false when you consider his programs such as Cap and Trade are essentially a tax on all Americans. Now, his team is being more direct.

As noted in a story by the Associated Press, "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere."

"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."

This is absolutely ridiculous! They want to raise taxes on everybody because they spent so much money trying to get America out of a recession, when, during the last recession, cutting taxes did the trick just fine. So, not only is the American public being strapped with a monumental amount of debt for future generations to repay, we will all be doing it with higher taxes.

The American people are seeing the effects of Obama's "hope and change" agenda. He is transforming America into a country many of us don't even recognize. Perhaps if Obama's plans start hitting EVERYONE in the pocketbook, they will start to pay attention. Until then, many will simply sit back and let the "other guy" pay.
Dog Pack Attacks Gator In Florida

At times nature can be cruel, but there is also a raw beauty, and even a certain justice manifested within that cruelty.

The alligator, one of the oldest and ultimate predators, normally considered the 'apex predator,'can still fall victim to implemented 'team work' strategy, made possible due to the tight knit social structure and 'survival of the pack mentality' bred into the canines.

See the remarkable photograph below courtesy of Nature Magazine. Note that the Alpha dog has a muzzle hold on the gator preventing it from breathing, while another dog has a hold on the tail to keep it from thrashing. The third dog attacks the soft underbelly of the gator.

Not for the squeamish!

Monday, August 10, 2009

On The Birthers - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Shared via

Says it all.
ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 29, 2009 at 7:32 am

The debate over Barack Obama's health care plan continues. Senators are trying to cut deals and members of the House of Representatives are doing the same. Democrats are trying to push through a massive government plan that will cost Americans billions and billions of dollars all because Obama wants to take power away from the people and put it in the hands of government.

Throughout this debate, the voices of seniors have been strangely and disturbingly silent. Do they not know the details of ObamaCare? Are they so enamored with this "nice, young man" that they don't even look at what the plan has to offer? ObamaCare has a strong message for seniors, and it is one they shouldn't ignore: If you are old in America, then don't get sick... you're not worth the cost.

In a recent update by The Heritage Foundation, seniors can read for themselves some of the results of ObamaCare on their daily lives.

First, seniors would face an increasing risk of losing their doctor. With cuts to Medicare reimbursements, more and more physicians are no longer taking Medicare patients. ObamaCare makes it worse: "Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients."

Obama's plan also places a disincentive on people to become physicians as his "public" option "could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion, while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion."

Then there is the worry that seniors will lose their coverage. As noted in The Heritage Foundation's report, "22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coor­dinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely."

And, of course, there is the issue that Obama and the liberal Democrats want seniors and all Americans to ignore: the rationing of health care. Under Obama's plan, there will be a new government bureaucracy known as a "federal health board." The purpose of this board is to determine whether various procedures and tests are deemed necessary in the eyes of the federal government. That notion is truly scary.

Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: "The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated." Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government-rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed. Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick.

As noted in a story by the Associated Press, a group of senators is actually working to squeeze more money out of Medicare. "Under the plan, an independent commission would be empowered to recommend changes in Medicare annually, to take effect automatically unless Congress enacted an alternative."

As noted in a new Rasmussen Reports poll, only 23% of Americans believe that health care costs will go down under ObamaCare.

Most Americans are happy with their coverage. Most have coverage. Yet in order to cover the ten percent or so of Americans who don't have it and are having trouble getting it, he wants to impose a new government plan on the other 90% of the country. This is just crazy. ObamaCare is bad news for seniors and bad news for the entire population.


There are links in the article; please click on the link in the title to follow them

Sunday, August 09, 2009

Boozman to Obama - TAKE DOWN THAT SITE!

I try to be careful about perpetuating items that are a little too far left or right of center. What one person considers a Major Issue may be more of a conspiracy issue than provable fact. And yes, on this blog I am the sole arbiter of how far from the center something might be, or even if it falls into the "conspiracy theory" arena. I'm also the arbiter of whether it's something I care to even acknowledge or spend any time on. This particular issue is something I feel I have to write about because it is so dangerous to our Constitution and very liberties.

It seems there has been a request from the White House for Internet users to report on sites that are "fishy" regarding healthcare reform to an email address at the White House. I haven't seen the website linked to the email address, but I have seen the response (see below) from Arkansas U.S Rep. John Boozman to the White House.

Boozman Statement on White House Internet Monitoring

Washington, Aug 7 -

U.S. Representative John Boozman (R-AR) today issued the following statement regarding White House Internet Monitoring efforts:

“The Obama Administration has requested that e-mails and internet materials produced by private citizens that are critical of the President's policies be reported to an e-mail address at the White House.

The White House website states: "If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to"

American citizens should be free to criticize the policies of the President or any other elected official, including me, without fearing that the criticism will be policed and monitored by the government.

The First Amendment specifically protects speech, and our Constitutional rights must be protected when we use the internet.

I call on President Obama to disable this e-mail address and I ask that he stop soliciting this kind of surveillance on private citizens.”

With all the comments lately referring to Nazis, I have remind you about a well known practice in Nazi Germany. Most Germans were cautious enough to be careful about what they said outside their homes, but spoke more freely in the company of their own families. Children were encouraged to turn their own parents into the government if they criticized Hitler, other government officials, or the government itself. At the very least, it was to identify dissenters.

I have to point out one of my favorite observations: Perception is everything. Let me explain what I mean. I am not privy to what goes on in the White House, so I don't know the reasons why they may do as they do. I can only go on what I do know: that Rep. Boozman is asking the White House to take down a website that asks people to report when they see anyone critizing the healthcare plan. My first thought is that the White House is trying to limit my First Amendment right to Free Speech.

The White House may have very honorable reasons for asking Interneters to tell them who has a criticism of the healthcare plan. Perhaps the White House wants to have answers for the problems presented by those against the plan. But, and this is a big but, the perception is that they want Interneters to snitch on each other.

To have answers ready for questions or to identify dissenters? It doesn't really matter. Those who believe in the Constitution see it as a serious 1st Amendment issue. I know people, who simply because they see it as a government attempt to interfere with their Constitutional right to Free Speech, will start blogging and talking about the healthcare issue when they wouldn't have to begin with simply because the implication is that the White House doesn't want dissention.

Much has been said about the White House "hate list". If wanting to live in a country where I can state my opposition to a government plan means I am against the government, then go ahead a put me on the list. I don't hate the Obama administration, nor do I want it to fail, but I will trust in the judgment of the American people when they go to the polls in 2010 and again in 2012.

I am an American, and as such, I am protected by the American Constitution, until it is replaced by something else. When that day happens, America will no longer be the greatest country in the world. It will be just a shabby, tattered, sad, caricature of it's former self. We'd no longer be the country where the streets are paved with gold, where everyone can live and speak freely. We'd be no better than a third rate nation run by petty dictators and bureaucrats. I know there are those who think we're there now, but as of today, they have the right to speak those words out loud to anyone who cares to listen. In what third rate country does that happen today?

It's our rights granted under the Constitution that make us free to speak out against what we perceive to be governmental blunders and politician's faux pas. Under the First Amendment we can laugh at politicians when they say something laughable. It's our Constitution that set us apart from those second and third rate nations where you can speak long as you parrot what the government tells you to say. It's our Constitution that makes this the greatest nation in the history of the world.

If the White House is asking our fellow citizens to report when a blogger or anyone else criticizes the government, it doesn't really matter why they want to know, it's that slippery slope again...and we're on a toboggan gaining speed toward that third rate nation status.