Archive for April, 2008

Taxes under Bush vs. Taxes under Clinton

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

Taxes under Clinton 1999                  Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K – tax $8,400                   Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $14,000                 Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250                 Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800             Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000             Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750           Married making 125K – tax $31,250

Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates.

Something to think about.

One year with the democrats in control – here’s what happened

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

with special thanks to April, for sending this along.

Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following. A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it! 
 

Nice Job, Nancy.

Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s worst nightmare

Monday, April 28th, 2008

J. Wright spoke last night at a NCAA convention.  He had a press conference this morning.  Not only did he NOT refute his most controversial statements, rather he reinforced them!  And he added more.  Many more.

Since those two speeches, Obama has lost his 3 point lead in Indiana (primary).  His lead in North Carolina has gone from about 16 points to 12.  This is in less than ONE DAY.

Unconfirmed reports state that Jeremiah Wright has won an all expenses paid, eight month one way trip to Antartica.  Unnamed sources say that Obama has personally underwritten this prize.

At best, Wright has seriously damaged Obama’s run for President.  At worst, he has destroyed it.

Could the Republicans actually WIN in November?

Saturday, April 19th, 2008

No.  But the Democrats could lose.

If ever the stars were aligned for a Democrat victory, 2008 was the year.

The country hates the Iraq war.  The American people have been worn down by the constant drumbeat of anti Republican reporting by the main stream press.  The American people have been strongly influenced and impacted by the virulent anti-Bush sentiment of the media.

The country is in an anti-Republican mood.  And the Republicans have put forth a very weak candidate – one that the Conservative base cannot stand, and for very good reason.  The Republicans, frankly, deserve to lose.  They had the opportunity to do some amazingly wonderful things – and they blew it.  They clearly do not know how to be in control of the presidency, the house, and the senate.  They lost first one, then another, and now they will likely lose the last of the three – - and they deserve to lose.  In fact, all things considered – they SHOULD lose.

So how on earth could the Democrats lose in this environment?

A couple of things have gone wrong.  First, the unchallenged coronation simply isn’t going as Hillary fully expected – and felt fully entitled to.  Second, the kid gloves treatment that Obama has gotten so comfortable with seems to have changed somewhat – and has left him dazed and confused.  For all the talk of his brilliant communication ability, his performance at the last debate starkly demonstrated that he’s a lot less nimble than most of us thought.

Could the Democrats possibly lose?  Clearly the Republican candidate is no winner; but the Democrats could actually LOSE this election – by committing suicide.  They’re going out of their way to do just that.

Don’t count Hillary out yet; those who have watched her are fully confident that she is by no means finished.  There are several more shoes that are certain to drop in these next weeks.  And if she somehow manages to find a way to steal the nomination, the hard core Obama supporters (blacks and young people) will again feel that they’ve been screwed – and end up not voting for anyone.  Should this happen, the weakest imaginable Republican candidate will end up winning this election.  This is a candidate who didn’t “reach across the aisle” – but literally leaped across the aisle, and seems to be pretty much living there.  But Republicans and Conservatives will vote for him – many of us holding our noses while we do, simply because of the truly terrifying nature of the alternative.

The amazing thing – is that this could actually happen.  Will it?  I doubt it.  But could it?  Yes.

Why did the Chicken Cross the Road ?

Thursday, April 17th, 2008

DR. PHIL:  The problem we have here is that this chicken won’t realize that he must first deal with the problem on ‘THIS’ side of the road before it goes after the problem on the ‘OTHER SIDE’ of the road.  What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he’s acting by not taking on his ‘CURRENT’ problems before adding new problems.

OPRAH:  Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad.  So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I’m going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.

GEORGE W. BUSH:  We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road.  We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not.  The chicken is either against us, or for us.  There is no middle ground here.

COLIN POWELL:  Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road…

ANDERSON COOPER – CNN:  We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.

JOHN KERRY:  Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I  am now against it!  It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken’s intentions.  I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

NANCY GRACE:  That chicken crossed the road because he’s GUILTY! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.

PAT BUCHANAN:  To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.

MARTHA STEWART:  No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going.  I had a standing order at the Farmer’s Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level.  No little bird gave me any insider information.

DR SEUSS:  Did the chicken cross the road?  Did he cross it with a toad?  Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I’ve not been  told.

ERNEST  HEMINGWAY:  To die in the rain.  Alone.

JERRY FALWELL:  Because the chicken was gay! Can’t you people see the plain truth?’ That’s why they call it the ‘other side.’  Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay.  And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too.  I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media white washes with seemingly harmless phrases like ‘the other side.’  That chicken should not be crossing the road.  It’s as plain and as simple as that.

GRANDPA:  In my day we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road.  Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.

BARBARA WALTERS:  Isn’t that interesting?  In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.

JOHN LENNON:  Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.

ARISTOTLE:  It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

BILL GATES:  I have just released eChicken2007, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your check book.  Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken.  This new platform is much more stable and will never cra…#@&&^<>C%  …….. reboot.

ALBERT EINSTEIN:  Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

BILL CLINTON:  I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What is your definition of chicken?

AL GORE :  I invented the chicken!

COLONEL SANDERS :  Did I miss one?

DICK CHENEY :  Where’s my gun?

AL SHARPTON:  Why are all the chickens white?  We need some black chickens!   

MICHELE OBAMA’S MILITANT RACISM REVEALED

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama, the wife of  stated that America was a nation founded on “crime and hatred”. Moreover, she stated that whites in America were “ineradicably racist”. The 1985 thesis, titled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community” was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.

Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to “Whites at Princeton , it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first…” However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, “If those “Whites at Princeton ” really saw Michelle as one who always would “be Black first,” it seems that she gave them that impression”.

Most alarming is Michele Obama’s use of the terms “separationist” and “integrationist” when describing the views of black people.

Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a “separationist” view of race. “By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.”

Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her “further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”

Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder.

Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America , but she elevates black over white in her world.

Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning: “There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.”  

What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she’s first lady that will elevate black over white in America ?

The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration. “Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.

The conclusion of her thesis is alarming. Michelle Obama’s poll of black alumni concludes that other black students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skin. “I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.”

Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire? Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.

Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another.

The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama’s thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism. This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in an administration.

Michelle Obama’s intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern.

Now maybe she’s changed, but she sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind with America . Will the press let Michelle get a free pass over her obviously racist comment about American whites? I am sure that it will. But it shouldn’t.

FYI: I am not a supporter of any of the candidates for president. In fact, they all leave a bad taste in my mouth. However, I am definitely sick of the main stream media (MSM) feeding us all this crap about Obama being an agent of change.

Has anyone stopped to think what kind of change; really?

I suggest we all remember the message in the novel Animal Farm by George Orwell. If you are not familiar with the novel, I highly recommend reading it.

PASS THIS ON if you are sick of the main stream media (M SM) hiding the facts!

Michelle Obama requires no editing to make her appear to be a black-first separatist. In fact, there is nothing wrong with that position. Except if you want to be the first lady in a country with a 12% black population.

Does it matter? Well, drooling crackpot Teresa Kerry may well have cost her hubby the election with her particular brand of ‘crazy’.

In the wake of this inevitable landslide, Michelle will not be blamed for defeat, nor should she. But, she sure ain’t gonna help…LOL

 

Some trouble for Obama – now known as “Snob-ama”

Sunday, April 13th, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama yesterday worked to extinguish — and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to fan — a prairie fire of controversy over the Illinois senator’s musings on small towns, bitterness, religion and guns.

Criticisms of Mr. Obama’s remarks at a California fund-raiser erupted as a distracting and potentially enduring wound for his campaign.

There was a measure of political irony in this latest hurdle for the Obama campaign in that one of the fundamental premises of his candidacy was that he could transcend the very kind of culture war the controversy has evoked.

It also placed him on the defensive over the charges of cultural elitism that Republicans have tried to use as a club against Democrats for a generation.

Mr. Obama defended the essence of his observations yesterday while conceding that they had been poorly phrased.

The furor started Friday as the Web site Huffington Post reported Mr. Obama’s answer to a question at a private fund-raising event concerning his campaign’s effectiveness among rural voters.

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Mr. Obama responded, according to a transcript published on the Web site.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Mrs. Clinton branded the remarks “demeaning” as she made them the target of repeated criticisms while campaigning in Indiana.

“Sen. Obama’s remarks are elitist and they are out of touch,” Mrs. Clinton said to factory workers at one stop. “The people of faith I know don’t ‘cling to’ religion because they’re bitter. People embrace faith not because the are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.”

Mr. Obama apologized for his choice of words but not for his message.

The real cost of illegal immigration

Thursday, April 10th, 2008

Immigration: As some experts tell Congress to fight a possible recession with more immigrants, a respected economist warns that immigration’s costs are grossly underestimated — because the government won’t study them.

Set for release Tuesday is a report published by Social Contract magazine, “The Fiscal Impact of Immigration: An Analysis of the Costs to 15 Federal Departments and Agencies.”

The 70-page study was conducted by Manhattan Institute adjunct fellow Edwin S. Rubenstein. As senior economist at W.R. Grace & Co. in the 1980s, he directed in-depth studies of government waste for the Grace Commission that sparked much popular outrage against Washington’s spendthrift habits.

Rubenstein found that each immigrant costs taxpayers more than $9,000, while every immigrant household of four costs $36,000 in taxes. That’s far more than the $3,408 in 2007 dollars the National Research Council’s 1997 “New Americans” study of federal, state and local government expenditures found immigrants to cost.

“The federal government has never produced a comprehensive study of this issue,” Rubenstein noted. “Executive agencies are not required to do Fiscal Impact Statements for new immigration policies. Even the immigration reform legislation sent to Congress last year contained not one word on its potential budgetary consequences.”

So Rubenstein looked across the government at departments and agencies that include Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Interior, Justice, Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Treasury and the State Department, as well as Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.

His purpose was “to increase awareness — within the government and among citizens — of the myriad ways by which immigration increases the cost of government and how government policies increase immigration.”

Looking at education alone, Rubenstein found that about “3.8 million public school students — 7.9% of total K to 12 enrollment — are enrolled in classes for English language learners,” according to Department of Education statistics. These classes are significantly more expensive than mainstream English classes.

Personnel costs include specialized teachers who supplement instruction provided by the mainstream English teacher and professional development to strengthen the skills of teachers working with English language learners.

Rand Corp. researchers discovered back in 1981 that added costs for language assistance instruction ranged from $100 to $500 per pupil. Added to that are program administration costs, staff development and functions such as student identification and assessment.

Rand found that “the total additional per pupil costs for language assistance instruction was estimated to be in the range of . . . $460 to $1,600 in 2007 dollars,” according to Rubenstein’s extrapolations, making “the total cost of providing English Language Learning instruction to the 3.8 million students enrolled in those programs . . . about $3.9 billion ($1,030 times 3.8 million).”

With more than 140 languages spoken in, for instance, Connecticut’s schools, bilingual education requirements for immigrants are on track to becoming a crippling unfunded mandate imposed on states and school districts.

Turning to the Department of Justice, the study found criminal aliens to be “an increasing burden on U.S. prison systems.” In 1980, federal and state facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens, Rubenstein said. But at the end of 2004, about 267,000 noncitizens were incarcerated in U.S. correctional facilities.

Of all prisoners in federal prisons, 27% are criminal aliens, he found, with a total cost of $1.5 billion. But that may be low-balling it. “A shortage of available prison capacity has forced federal authorities to release criminal aliens prematurely. Nationally an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes still walk the streets,” he said.

On top of that are the private costs criminal aliens impose on their victims. Analyzing the rap sheets of 55,000 incarcerated illegal aliens in 2003, the Government Accountability Office found that the average criminal alien was arrested for 13 prior offenses, 12% of which were cases of murder, robbery, assault and sexually related crimes; only 21% were immigration offenses, the rest being felonies.

“The economic burden they impose on victims, including loss of income and property, uncompensated hospital bills, and emotional pain and suffering, has been estimated at $1.6 million per property and assault crime offender,” Rubenstein found.

Washington has been paralyzed for many years on immigration policies because advocates of restricted immigration are routinely accused of nativism and racism.

Rubenstein’s groundbreaking study, of which the facts above offer only a taste, suggests that Washington doesn’t want to take a good look at the issue because the facts will spur the public to demand action to stop the hemorrhage of taxpayer money out-of-control immigration is causing.

So far, here is what we know about Obama

Thursday, April 10th, 2008

To date we have learned that Obama is a Marxist, attends a black separtist church, is married to a woman who just recently found something decent about America, is a millionaire, has been friends with Ayres a Weathermen member, somehow bought a high priced property with the help of Rezko, speaks of compassion for the needy yet has contributed very little of his own money to help same, has emerged from obscurity during the last DNC, wants to attack our ally Pakistan yet plans to extend an olive branch to our enemies, plans to increase taxes, has little idea about global politics.

Sounds as though he has all the credentials to be the Dem/Socialist presidential hopeful.

New York Times – an interesting perspective

Thursday, April 3rd, 2008

A biker is riding by the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion’s cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents. The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A NYT reporter has seen the whole scene, and addressing the biker, says, “Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole life.”

‘Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right.”

‘Well, I’ ll make sure this won’t go unnoticed. I’m a journalist from the New York Times , you know, and tomorrow’s paper will have this on the first page. What motorcycle do you ride and what political affiliation do you have?’

“A Harley Davidson and I am a Republican.”

The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys The New York Times to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on first page:

BIKER GANG MEMBER ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH.    

“If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.”
Mark Twain