Lincoln vs Reagan

After a recent mini email debate, I want to fully expound upon the debate topic. I took the position that Ronald Reagan was the greatest President in US History and, until I'm elected, he will be the only one in that status ;) The other position said that Abraham Lincoln was a better President than Ronald Reagan. The post today will evaluate the Lincoln presidency and the Reagan presidency.

The Lincoln presidency is highlighted by the Civil War. The Civil War saw the potential division of the nation resolved to maintain a Union of all states. So, what did Lincoln bring to the table?

One could argue that the Civil War was a result of Lincoln's election. He was hated in the South because of his opposition to slavery. South Carolina seceded first after the election. In 1863, Lincoln gave his famous Emancipation Proclamation which was supposed to be the freedom the slaves were longing for. In actuality, this did very little to free the slaves. It didn't apply to any southern areas that were already controlled by the Union and didn't apply to the states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware. The Proclamation stated, "all persons held as slaves...are, and henceforward shall be free." In return, the South gave the illustrious one-finger salute. In my opinion, the Emancipation Proclamation was the single event to prove that Lincoln had no control over the entire country nor had the ability to maintain it. Remember, Lincoln didn't win the war, Grant did. Now, you might argue that the Emancipation Proclamation changed the view of black men. They were allowed to join the Union Armies and Navies. What?! They were finally allowed to join the UNION military?! How does that discrimination of the North differ from any of the South? Now, before we go on, it would be good to read http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/search/label/Slavery to study the full, historical account of slavery in the US.

What other accomplishments of the Lincoln presidency are often overlooked because of the Civil War?

1. The Homestead Act of 1861 - a Federal subsidy program for land

2. The Morril Act of 1862 - a Federal subsidy program for education

3. Revenue Act of 1861 - Hello Federal Income Tax

4. 1862 - Hello IRS!

5. 1862 - Lincoln suspends Habeas Corpus without Congress' approval - later deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

6. 1863 - Lincoln institutes the draft

Contrast this to Reagan's time in office. The election of Lincoln fueled the South to secede from the Union. The election of Reagan - the very day he took office - saw the end to the Iranian hostage situation. Reagan defeated a formidable military force in the Soviet Union without firing a single shot. Lincoln defeats his own countrymen after 600k Union soldiers give their lives. Reagan takes top marginal tax rates from 70% to 28% and the economy roars. The Federal Treasury's intake doubles from 450 billion to 900 billion because of the tax breaks. Reagan stands in Berlin and gives an "Emancipation Proclamation" of his own to free those enslaved by Communism, but again, without requiring 2 more years of bloodshed, Reagan ends the Cold War and brings freedom and liberty to eastern Europe.

 

If Lincoln fails, we have a divided America. If Regan fails, we have no America. To me, the choice is obvious - Reagan wins, hands down. Unfortunately, if Obama keeps rolling back the Reagan Revolution, those in the future won't be honored to realize its benefits.

In There Own Words: Nancy Pelosi and Obama

Nancy Pelosi has no idea what's in the health bill.  Well, yes she does - she knows what's in it will kill this country.  The details are irrelevant to her.  Glad to hear we are in good hands!





Obama thanks the wonderful people of Sunshine, Florida.  Sunshine, Florida is inland from the Cape Coral area (South-West Florida).  However, when he thanks Sunshine, he is doing it from Sunrise, Florida which is near Ft. Lauderdale (South-East Florida).  Oh to be so smart!




Here's one of my favorites from the Originator of Optimal Oration





Obama admits he has no experience and has no place in the White House.  All this just 4 years prior to getting into the White House.  "I'm a believer in knowing what you're doing"  That's garbage!  I'm a believer in doing what's right!  A murderer knows exactly what he's doing, but it isn't right. 



This is a horrible rendition of the National Anthem, but a fitting demonstration of Obama's true "respect" for this country.

From The Tea Party

What Happened with Hannity

Dear Fellow Citizens and Taxpayers,

I hate to write this email, because this controversy detracts from the message and the purpose of our rallies. Our goal with everything we do is to spread our message of our shared values - free markets, fiscal responsibilty, and limited government. Regardless, Chris and I have been getting bombarded with questions and I want to share with you what we know.

First, a bit of history. We were already underway with planning for this event when we learned that Hannity was coming to Cincinnati for his book tour on Tax Day and was planning a separate event. We were ready to sign a contract with UC for the arena and we paused because of the risk of competing events. We were concerned with our ability to cover costs for the event if Hannity drew people away.

Chris made contact with Fox producers and we agreed to work together. He would cover our event for Fox and would broadcast his show from Cincinnati. It worked out for everyone. We got a media spotlight on our message, they got a great backdrop for them to do a show.

We executed our contract with UC and then Fox did the same. While we coordinated schedules for the event, they had no contract with us, nor any financial interest in what went on. At no point was money exchanged between Fox and the Cincinnati Tea Party or Hannity and the Cincinnati Tea Party.

This was the root of the controversy. Earlier today, George Soros-funded Media Matters jumped on the fact that we sold tickets to cover the cost of the event as evidence that we and Fox were "profiting" on the event.

Despite knowing clearly that this was not true, Fox caved and pulled Hannity back to New York.

About 4:30 tonight, I was standing talking to people in line for the book signing when I heard people start saying that Hannity was not coming. I tried to find the source and I found out that local media was reporting that Hannity had been deverted while in route and was heading to Lunken Airport. I went downstairs to find Chris and we found that the Fox producers had locked themselves in their "green room" and that we were not allowed in.

Eventually we were allowed into the room where we spoke with two Fox producers. The senior producer explained that Hannity had gone back to New York for an emergency and that he couldn't tell us anything more than that. He was very apologetic and strongly hinted that it was a personal emergency. He even said they had a guest host on standby for his program tonight.

Given the explanation, we believed them. We asked about getting some of his show guests to speak and Joe the Plumber was added to our lineup. Even if we were skeptical, we didn't have time to wait - UC Police were insisting we announce information to the restless crowd in the concourse. We then made the announcement to the crowd with the information we had and moved forward with the show.

We continued to work to gain information while the show was on as we were hearing more rumors that Fox had pulled him because of the controversy above. Eventually, Chris spoke to a Fox VP who took responsibility for pulling him because we charged for tickets.

The Fox staff we worked with planning the event knew exactly how it was structured and it was no surprise to anyone that we charged for tickets. In fact, Hannity was well aware as he plugged the event and reminded people to get tickets multiple times on his shows.

I want to point out a couple of things in response.

First, Hannity promotes conservative causes/organizations/groups/events all the time - this is nothing new.

Second, I reject the accusations of "profiteering" from the event. Cincinnati Tea Party is a non-profit, political organization, and 100% volunteer. Not a single person has ever personally profited from anything we do. In fact, we each donate hundreds of hours of our time trying to build this movement and spread our message.

This event cost (numbers aren't final - we will get billed by UC for security, cleanup and other costs) over $50,000 and took thousands of man-hours to get done.

None of us are event organizers or promoters. We are ordinary citizens with jobs and families who do this in our spare time because we love our country and passionately believe in our values.

I've already recevied angry emails from some who are disappointed that Hannity did not come. We will honor all refund requests. We will have a process setup within the next 48 hours to get that done. In the meantime, I need to get some sleep and prepare for my day job.

I understand the frustration - I really do. Keep in mind that this is what the left wants. This is why Media Matters attacked us and Hannity and started the chain of events that led to Fox pulling him out - it's because they fear the power of our message.

Instead of talking about what a wonderful event it was, I'm talking about a completely manufactured controversy. And it was a great event. We had almost 10,000 people show up and listen to a great lineup of speakers and music. We sang our national anthem and ended with God Bless America.

I know I speak for the 300+ people who volunteered their time to help make this Tax Day Tea Party a success when I say that we will not be intimidated, silenced, or bullied. The fact that we were the targets of a leftist attack today or that Fox stupidly gave into pressure just adds to my resolve to fight onward.

Our message is too important and too powerful to do anything less. Our freedom and our country are worth fighting for.

Sincerely,

Mike Wilson

Founder, Cincinnati Tea Party

http://www.cincinnatiteaparty.org/

This Guy Gets It!

A reporter approached this gentleman and was curious as to how he exactly fit into the tea party movement.  The reporter must have this idea that "black people" aren't conservatives.  So, she wishes to patronize him by asking him if he feels uncomfortable - insinuating that he's out of place without his brothers.  Listen to his response.  Taste it!

For further reading, read http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2010/02/black-history-month-part-3-cultural.html

National Health Care Reeks Of Compassion

A woman in California had been undergoing cancer treatments and was in remission.  She was on a list to receive an organ from a donor.  During this time, the Government sent paperwork to her telling her that she is eligible to receive Social Security benefits for her three year old son.  She decided to take advantage of this and signed up.  This was in March.  Well, come April, Medicaid told her that she was no longer entitled to her universal health care because the disability benefits caused her income to rise above the allowable level for Medicaid.

Let this be a lesson to all - the long arm of Liberalism appears to be benevolent, but beware; the other arm of Liberalism is primed and ready to pick your pocket.  The promises of government will ultimately be your demise.  Health care is the responsibility of each of us, not collectively, but individually.  I wonder how many could afford health care for their families if they weren't spending their health care money on cable or on a brand new car which depreciates by roughly 50% over the first 4 years it is off of the lot (with 20% of that coming in the first year).  See, we spend money on the things we really want to spend money on.  We have left the principles of deferred gratification in favor of instant gratification by financing our lives through debt.  Then, when we have no money (because of our own choices) we expect the government to come in and save the day.  It's not fair that someone who has worked all their lives are enjoying the fruits of their labor and I'm not - unfortunately, that's the attitude of many in America.  Don't try keeping up with the Jones' -- in reality, the Jones' are probably broke anyway.

Research:

http://cbs4.com/health/Diana.Smith.Woman.2.1623788.html
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/news/column/lowdown/newcar_free/chart.500.jpg

Medicare Income Requirements for California:

Medi-Cal Programs – Qualification at a Glance (Asset limits are the same for all programs: Single: $2,000; Couple: $3,000)


Program / Requirements Your Monthly Income

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

•65 or older, blind or disabled

Single: up to $845/month

Couple: up to $1,407.20/month

Note: Higher income levels apply for individuals who are blind.

Aged & Disabled Federal Poverty Level (A&D FPL) Program

•65 or older, blind or disabled

Single: up to $1,133/month

Couple: up to $1,525/month

Medi-Cal with a Share of Cost (SOC)

•65 or older, blind or disabled

Single: over $1,133/month

Couple: over $1,525/month

250% California Working Disabled (CWD)

•Have work

•Meet Social Security’s definition of disability

•Pay small monthly premium

Single: up to $2,257/month

Couple: up to $3,036/month Note: Income excludes disability benefits

http://www.cahealthadvocates.org/low-income/medi-cal.html#qualify

MSNBC Out Of Touch

MSNBC is running a piece about the Obama Economy.  Just as they are delusional to their own readership, they seem to be delusional on everything else.  The story says to ignore the polls because the markets indicate the economics that Obama is using is working.  On Friday, the DOW did reach 11k again and the S&P 500 is up 74% since the recession began.  But, what are the markets really a factor of?

When we speak of markets, there are the stock/securities markets (DOWJIA, S&P 500, etc.)  There are also markets in the retail world and in the corporate world.  The "market" is an invisible entity that houses the transactions of business.  Through these transactions, the markets thrive or shrivel.  When it comes to the securities markets, it is a little different.  The securities markets make their transactions, not based solely on the transaction of goods and services, but based on speculations.  When disastrous things happen in society, the securities markets do what?  They tank!  When the tide of these events is stemmed, what do the securities markets do?  Just like the spouse that was cheated on, they try to slowly regain trust in the other.  The securities markets slowly try to regain trust in the economy.  So, they "readjust" themselves and basically march forward with the notion of "this is the way it is now, let's just hold out and see what happens."  So, the market moves on down the road, moving up and down in value.

So, the DOW just hit 11k again.  All is well, right?  Last week, on April 6th, the jobless claim came out and it was a big surprise to the economists.  It rose by 18,000!  It was no surprise to the rest of us who actually have a clue.  Unemployment still at 10% (arguably higher since after so much time, this number doesn't include people who are unemployed).  Obama claims he will have laser-like focus on jobs and the economy.  The only laser he is using is a destructive one.  Not only this, the Federal Government is spending money like there's no tomorrow and charging it to future generations.  There was a story from the Tax Policy Center that reports the amount of people not paying any Federal Income Tax is now at 47%.  So, just about half of Americans pay no income tax - thanks to all of the deductions, credits, etc.  Now, I'm all in favor of getting my money back from the government and I'll take it when I can get it.  But, 47% pay no federal income tax.  Why?  Well, I have a theory:

Why do we find crime to be higher in poorer neighborhoods?  I know there are all kinds of studies on this, but the main reason is desperation.  When you've lost all hope but still have the need to survive, what do you do?  Do you regard the law?  No.  Do you regard others?  No.  You do what you need to do to survive, regardless of the lives of others; regardless of this country.  People who are told every day by their government that their poverty is a direct result of mean, capitalistic rich people and that their only hope is government, begin to actually believe it.  For the most part, who is easier to control, form a Government standpoint?  Those that have the least amount of money.  Therefore, to make their poverty more comfortable, they offer tax credits, etc. so that they do no have to pay Federal income tax.  This isn't done out of benevolence, but of sinicism. 

Now, don't walk away from this saying that I'm against tax breaks because I'm not.  However, to get a tax break you have to pay taxes!  If someone is going to loss weight, they have to have that weight to begin with - you can't lose weight you don't have and you can get a tax break on that which you don't pay.

So, unemployment is still high; almost half of America is subliminally being encouraged to remain poor and we have a Government who takes no regard for the people - whom they work for!  That's why they passed Health Care.  That's why Obama rolled-back the Regan Revolution by signing an Arms reduction, not with Russia, but with ourselves.  We will reduce our Arms, but you think Russia will?  But, in typical liberal fashion, we don't care about the facts, we just want Russia to like us again :)

The economy is improving?  Hardly. 

Research for this post:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36322393/ns/business-businessweekcom/

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001289

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2010/04/new_jobless_claims_make_surpri.html

Pre-Existing Conditions Important For Insurance

What is the definition of insurance?  Insurance is the transfer of risk from one party to another.  Usually, one party is willing to accept the risk of the other party by virtue of a premium.  For example, if the insured is wanting to insure his boat from natural disaster, the insurer will offer such protection (from property/monetary loss) at a rate deemed comfortable by the insurer.  A boat in the middle of New York is being insured and a boat on the Florida coast is being insured.  Which boat insurance policy is more expensive in our example?  Well, the boat that brings the most risk to the insurer will be the boat that maintains the most expensive policy.  So, the insurer is willing to accept both risks - but, if he is charging $300/annually (for a 50k damage policy) for the boat in New York and $300/annually (same 50k policy) for the boat in Florida, where is the insurer most likely to have to pay a claim?--Obviously in Florida.  Now, if insurer charged the same $300/annually for both New York and Florida, the insurer will take a very large hit once the next hurricane blows through Florida.  To which the Left would shout with joy that the insurance company is taking a hit - remember wise-guy, if they take a hit, all of the other policies they insure will take a hit as well. 

Anyway, so, for our example, the insurer must charge more for the same 50k policy in Florida than he would in New York.  Why?  Because the risk being transferred is greater in Florida than in New York.  Now, let's turn our attention to health.

(Let's assume health care operates as a lump sum benefit based on diagnoses.)  The policy sought after is the same 50k policy, but it is for health and not for boats.  Person A has Type II Diabetes.  Person B has Type I Diabetes, had a stroke 3 years ago and is about to go on dialysis.  Which person brings more known risk to the table?--Person B, obviously.  So, again, the insurer will charge more for higher risk.  Is this wrong?  No, absolutely not!  The only way an insurance company is able to pay its claims is by taking the premiums and investing them to make money.  So, if an insurance company is going to consider a high risk individual (a person they will more likely pay a claim on sooner) they need to be able to cover that loss.

Now, are there people with so great a risk that insurance companies are not comfortable with covering them?  Sure.  Is that wrong?  No!  It is a private company and it can set its own standards of risk tolerance.  So, what does Obama's plan do to this scenario?

Obama wants to eliminate pre-existing conditions.  By doing this, the risk transfer is 100% on the insurance provider.  Therefore, it is no more insurance, but simply reimbursement coverage.  Now, if an insurance company is required to pay claims for any and every thing, what do you think will happen to premiums?  Again, the company is trying to protect against loss.  Well, we would have our Florida example to the 10th power.  Insurance companies would raise premiums; possibly hundreds or even thousands of percents higher.  By the way, who pays these premiums?  We buy the policies, so we do!  If your premium jumps 1000%, what would you do?  Well, you'd still keep your cable, but you'd get rid of the insurance.  Taste it - because you know its true.  So, insurance policies are being dropped at a rapid pace.  With no client's paying premiums, the insurance companies do not make money.  Businesses that don't make money, fail.  Obama's plan is to destroy the insurance industry thereby leaving no other alternative but to rely on the sugar mama of Government.  However, the Government cannot pay for this without help from your taxes.  So, instead of paying premiums to an insurance company, you will pay higher taxes to cover this massive intrustion into capitalism.

Call your Congressman and demand a "no" vote on healthcare!

Dial: 877-762-8762 or 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121

More Government Waste

There were a bunch of stories on the front page of CNN.com this morning so I felt I would take a minute and give a quick comment about a couple.

Story 1: FCC To Upgrade Citizen's Internet http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/16/life.without.broadband/index.html?hpt=C1

The FCC is planning to get 9 out of every 10 Americans on a broadband connection.  The FCC says that 2/3 of the American people do not have high-speed internet in their homes.  They base this one a sample population of 5,005 people.  There are 300,000,000 people in the United States (as of 2000 Census).  Assuming the family of 4 is the norm, that would leave 75,000,000 households in the US.  (I know, these are crude numbers.)  So, how can 5,005 represent 50 million people (2/3 of 75k)?  Furthermore, is it the government's job to spend our tax dollars to give someone else faster internet?  This is internet welfare!  However, there is an underlying reason for this.  The faster the connection, the quicker the Government can get to your personal information.  Remember the Cash for Clunkers deal?!  The website stated that by proceeding through it, your computer became property of the Federal Government.

Story 2:  Toyota Disputing Runaway Car

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/03/15/cb.rowlands.toyota.prius.cnn?hpt=C2

I've felt this since the beginning.  This Toyota accusation of hybrid malfunctions doesn't seem to add up.  Remember when SUVs were the evil killers on the earth?  Remember news stories that portrayed SUVs as actually thinking beings, capable of search and destroy?! (Note this story http://wcbstv.com/local/fatal.van.accident.2.1543802.html) Now, the wonderful hybrid car, the one that the Government needs to have towards a "cleaner earth" is now the subject of much scrutiny, much like the SUV.  However, cars do not accelerate on their own.  It requires input from the driver - either directly on the gas pedal or by pressing the increase speed button on the cruise control.  This whole circus is just another way that irresponsible people are trying to get something for nothing.  However, since it costs half of your estate to buy one of these things, perhaps the tree huggers have programmed these cars to fight back against the evil rich people.  Just goes to prove that Capitalism and Environmentalism do not mix.  The only logical conclusion?  Give Environmentalism a lethal injection and get it out of our way for good!

Reform, A Brief Thought

Obama is screaming for health care reform and reform of the health care industry.  Chris Dodd, one who paved the way for our financial crisis, is now demanding that we reform Wall Street.  Allow me to translate this for you.  Being tri-lingual (English, German, and Liberal) I'm able to translate these campaign slogans into every day English.  "Health care reform" = Government runs health care.  "Wall Street reform" = Government runs Wall Street.  So, these evil, big capitalistic companies that give evil large bonuses to their CEOs will now be ran by benevolent big Government; who votes on their own pay raises and spends your money, not because you bought a good or service from them, but because they stole it through your taxes.  Yes, reform is what we need!  (maniacally giggling like Gargamel).  

Here's a thought.  In this era of reform, how about we reform the real gluttonous beast called Government?  Government wouldn't be so confusing nor expensive if we just let the Constitution determine what it does.  Amendment 10 to the US Constitution says that powers not granted within the Constitution to the Federal Government are reserved to the States.  Period.  I'm sure I'll miss a few (since there are so many), but let's list some of this Federal "cellulitis".

1.  Department of Education  (63.7 Billion (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html?src=ln)

2.  Department of Agriculture (133 pages of PMS bloating http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/agr.pdf)

3.  Department of Transportation (73.25 Billion http://www.dot.gov/budget/2010/bib2010.htm)

4.  Department of Homeland Security (55.1 Billion http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1241715252729.shtm)

You can read the full list of Federal Departments and Agencies here:  http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

I'm not saying that everything on this list needs to go (obviously Military and Defense items, etc. need to stay).

Where is the outrage over the Government's out-of-control lifestyle?  Where is the demand for reform?  Well, I believe come November, we will see some immediate reform in the seats of Congress.  But, just because they have an R by their name doesn't mean anything (thank you Newt Gingrich).  We must hold them to Conservative principles of limited government and maximizing of personal freedoms and liberties.  Obama wants the Iron Curtain to rule over this country.  Let's be sure to stop that come November!

Health Care At Any Cost

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/08/health.care/index.html

This is unbelievable.  Read the article for a quick temper boost.

Obama was upset because private health insurers have recently raised their rates.  Guess what, Obama - it's none of your concern; they are PRIVATE health insurers.  If people don't want to pay their rates, then they go down the street to the next guy.  But, perhaps this is just a strategic move by the health insurers knowing that once pre-existing conditions are gone, they will have to insure any and all, and thereby, requiring to raise rates to be able to pay for all of it.  Therefore, to recoup this cost, they must raise rates...which is what I've been saying all along (http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2009/08/fundamental-problem-with-national.html, http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2008/11/be-it-resolved.html).  Obama thinks his policies will have no ramifications on private business.  But, we clearly see it is beginning to happen.

So, Obama opens his speech with another sob-story.  I doubt the validity of this and question how much she was paid to lie to the crowd.  But, this woman is purportedly a diabetic and was just informed by the evil health insurance company she has that her rates would "more than double."  First of all, the trade off of what she is paying verses what the insurance is paying is still working in her favor.  Secondly, what are the details of such a rate increase?  Are there specifications in her policy that would allow for rate increases if certain criteria are met?  Is this another case of someone not reading their policy before agreeing to it?!  Lastly, Obama is using typical Liberal tactics by avoiding objective, analytical facts and going straight for the "emotional jugular."

Obama goes on to say (quoted from the article) "The price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families, businesses and our government," Obama said. "The insurance companies continue to ration health care. ... That's the status quo in America, and it's a status quo that's unsustainable"

What?!  The price of health care is a punishing cost to the government?  And he wants the government to run it?!  Who funds the government anyway?  WE DO with our taxes!  So, if health care is a punishing cost to the government, then Obama will have to RAISE TAXES to ease the pain of this so-called punishment.  Don't be fooled.  Obama is "concerned" about the rising cost of health care, but he isn't concerned about the rising taxes since he took office; he isn't concerned about the rising deficit.  What makes you think he is all concerned about the costs of health care?

Furthermore, "The insurance companies continue to ration health care."  Two things about this: is it possible for a company to "ration" its services because they only have a certain amount of money?  But, Obama here is committing fraud to the American people.  He is giving the idea that companies are turning away people left and right and that's not what America is about.  Obama - you run Medicare.  You run Medicaid.  You run Social Security.  How many are turned down for Medicare and Medicaid benefits?!  How many that file for Social Security disability are turned down - and they actually have a viable disability?!  Notice how Obama never tries to explain how government-run health care will be different than these three behemoths of waste.

I'll end with this: Obama responds to GOP criticisms that this plan (nearly $1 trillion) doesn't have any breaks on spending.  Obama's response: "You had 10 years.  What were you doing?"  Ok, 57-states, 1994 to 2006 isn't 10 years, it's 12.  What were they doing?!  They were passing tax-cuts for Americans - that's right, giving us our money back.  They were fighting off the destruction of the Clinton Administration.  They had 9/11 to deal with.  They passed Welfare Reform that limits the amount of time a citizen can be on the program.  So, Obama, like the little brat in the store who doesn't get candy, stands up and says, "Fine.  Since you didn't take any initiative to do this, I will.  Screw you, America!  I'm going to cost your children and grandchildren trillions of dollars because the GOP did nothing for health care.  Yeah, how do you like me now?  What choice do you think I had?" 

In an unrelated story, Scoliosis claims have risen in the US due to added weight and pressure of Hope and Change.

So-Called Science Is At It Again

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35712419/?GT1=43001

This is a very interesting article about laying to rest any debate over the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs.  A group of scientists have closed the case and the verdict is in: dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor that hit the earth millions of years ago.

Combining all available data from different science disciplines led us to conclude that a large asteroid impact 65 million years ago in modern day Mexico was the major cause of the mass extinctions.

Are we happy?  Well, I'm not.  First, notice the language of the above quote from the article.  "Combining all available data"...  In other words, there is still data that is not available.  The data that is available is a known known.  The data that is unavailable is an unknown unknown.  Therefore, to draw an emphatic conclusion is a blatant disregard to any existing data that may have not been uncovered yet.

Not only this, as I addressed in my blog post http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2009/11/science-couldnt-be-wrong.html , what observations/testing was done millions of years ago to give us documented evidence that we can compare to?  To take a bone and tell me it is 65 million years old, based on faulty radiometric dating methods, isn't very scientific.

So, what about these dating methods?  Here's a little bit that "science" doesn't want you to know.  There are 3 major assumptions that are being made in order for these dating methods to seem valid.  Every rock has elements within the rock.  Based on the elements present determines which dating method is used.  (Potassium-Argon, Uranium Lead, etc.).  The dating method basically makes a mathematical calculation based on the amount of each element in the rock.  Now, before we go on, it would behoove us to not assume any level of intelligence and explain a few things.  This will get a little technical, but hopefully it is understandable.  Thank you college Chemistry for the following explanations.

Elements contain Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons.  For example, if you look at Carbon on the Periodic Table, it is Atomic Number 6.  Atomic Numbers designate how many Protons are in the nucleus of the atom.  It would be easy if Carbon was just Carbon, but there are actually varying occurrences of Carbon.  For lack of a better term, under "normal" circumstances, an element's number of Protons is equal to the number of its Neutrons.  The number of Protons never changes otherwise the element would change.  However, if an element gains Neutrons, it's Atomic Mass can change.  The Atomic Mass number or nucleon number is the total number of Protons and Neutrons.  So, the Atomic Number never changes (# of Protons) but the Atomic Mass (# of Protons + Neutrons) can.  When an element gains Neutrons, the element is no longer known by its title, but rather it's Isotope title and number.  An Isotope is a base element that has gained more neutrons.  For example, Carbon may be Carbon-12 (C-12), Carbon-13 (C-13), or Carbon-14 (C-14).  (Simply subtract the Atomic Number from the Isotope number to find the number of Neutrons). 

Now, there are Isotopes that are stable (C-12, C-13); and there are Isotopes that are unstable (radioactive) (C-14).  When an Isotope is radioactive, it desperately wants to become stable (non-radioactive).  However, it just can't shed Neutrons by jumping on the treadmill.  Isotopes must undergo a process known as Radioactive Decay.  Through this decay, the element works its way down to stable element.  However, sometimes, the Radioactive Decay not only sheds Neutrons, but also sheds Protons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay for further insight into Radioactive Decay, including types of radiation that occurs).  Uranium-238 (U-238), through this decay process, transforming into many other elements and eventually ends up as Lead-206 (Pb-206), which is finally a stable element.  Lead's Atomic Number is 82, so PB-206 contains 82 Protons and 124 Neutrons.  Uranimum, in this case, is known as the Parent Element and all those it decays into are known as Daughter Elements.  The time it takes for half identical Parent radioisotopes to decay into their Daughter Elements is known as a Half-Life. 

Many of these Half-Lives are said to be hundreds of millions of years--which brings us to our first major assumption.  Since no one has every lived for hundreds of millions of years to test and observe such decay, it is impossible to say, with any level of certainty, that the actual Half Life is xxx million years.  So, assumption #1 is that they know the time of these Half Lives.

Assumption #2 is that they know the original ratio of Parent to Daughter elements.  For radiometric dating to work, you have to know where you started from to where you are now and then measure that span by factoring in "known" Half Lives and thereby deriving an age.  If you don't know where you started from, then you must assume.  Therefore, the radiometric dating methods do not being with viable, provable observation.

Assumption #3 is that they know, for certain, that radio active decay rates have remained constant.  Again, without being around to observe such decay rates, we can only assume they have remained constant. 

Unless these assumptions are made, radiometric dating is nothing more than faulty at best.  If we make these assumptions, then we are leaving the world of the testable and the observable and therefore, we leave the world of science.

With this, I can't accept the notion that the death of the dinosaurs was caused by something we can't prove.

Reagan on the 50?

Patrick McHenry, R-NC, has proposed that we change our 50 dollar bill from picturing Ulysses S. Grant with our 40th President, Ronald Reagan.  I think this is a fantastic idea (although putting Reagan on the penny would get him more face time under the Obama economy.)  Well, the LA Times is reporting distaste with this idea.  (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/03/nation/la-na-reagan-fifty3-2010mar03) Democrat Brad Sherman said we should have a currency that unites us.  As Rush Limbaugh said, what is less uniting about winning 44 states and then 49 states in two elections?!  Other people have also expressed their disdain because of their love for Grant - seeing Grant's accomplishments more meaningful for the nation than Reagan's.  Oh really?!  Well, once again, we will let the eyes of history be our judge.  Let's list the accomplishments of both and see just whose are more meaningful.

Many historians would probably argue that the Civil War being won by the Union is more important than the Cold War being won.  So, the Civil War ends and what are the results?  We stay together as a nation and we have some important Amendments added to the Constitution (13th, 14th, and 15th).  The Cold War ended with an end to the strangle of Communism that Russia had on Europe it also made America safe and secure as Russia couldn't contend with Reagan's military.  See, we lose the Civil War and the nation is just cut in half.  We loose the Cold War and the nation no longer exists.  The rest of Reagan's accomplishments speak for themselves.  And, these are just a few of the many during his Administration.  We truly can say, as Reagan did, "Not bad...not bad at all."

Let's honor Reagan with a fitting tribute.  The mechanism of economics is supply and demand, but the mechanism of transaction, which ultimately drives supply and demand, is money.  In honor of a great economy Reagan allowed to happen, let's put him on the 50 dollar bill!

Obama Urges Taunting Of Talk Radio On Health Care

The Obama Reich can't get enough of health care.  After telling the Republicans at the summit meeting that if the American people don't want it, we'll just push it through anyway, Obama is now deploying a new tactic.  He is afraid that the message isn't getting heard because of talk radio.  (When, it is quite the opposite: the message is being heard.)  So, Obama has created a webpage that encourages health care supporters to call these talk radio shows and be armed with talking points.  These talking points are designed to hit the talk radio audience in a spot they are perceived as not having - their emotions.  Let's take a brief minute and examine these talking points.  (Go to http://radio.barackobama.com/ for the list)

1.  For most Americans, their health care plan covers too little and costs too much. Far too many people delay or even skip the care they need because they simply can’t afford it.

Covers too little?  Costs too much?  According to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/26/health-care-reform-simple-explanation-updated/ 60% of Americans get their health insurance through work.  These people are not buying their coverage.  Their company is buying the coverage and the employees are able to take advantage of the coverage through small deductions from their pay checks.  So, this "most Americans" is whom?! 

Allow me to translate "covers too little" - if you don't get EVERY service, visit, test, etc. covered, then you don't have the right coverage.  Allow me to translate "costs too much" - if you have to pay for your health care, then it costs too much.  These Democrats are once again just trying to get the federal government into the driver's seat of the American society. 

The notion of "too many people skip care" because they "can't afford it" only seems to exist in these talking points/tv ads.  Many ILLEGAL immigrants are getting the health care they need, free of charge.  Well, not free of charge, it came out of my pay check!

2.  The plan the President laid out includes the largest health care tax cut for middle class families in history and makes coverage more affordable for tens of millions of families and small business owners and expands coverage to over 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

Federalizing 1/6 of our economy is not a tax cut for the middle class!  Health care costs are high because we are in desperate need of TORT reform.  Frivolous lawsuits against doctors cause doctors to have more mal-practice insurance.  To pay these premiums, they need to have more income.  Therefore, health care costs MUST increase.  If you want health care to be more affordable - bring us TORT reform!  Nationalizing health care only deals with the symptom (and very poorly at that). 

Secondly, it is said that over 31 million Americans who are uninsured would now have coverage expanded to them.  This is prime territory to cause a Lib to jump ship and go to another point.  Here is the poignant question:  What is the reason for being uninsured?  Is it because when the poll was taken, many were in between insurance plans and have since gotten insurance?  Is it because those who used to have work coverage lost their benefits due to tax increases and increased federal regulations on businesses?!  According to http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/38/12/1.2.full about half of this number are just in and out of coverage - shopping for lower rates, changing jobs, etc.  So, that takes our number to 15 million uninsured.  What is interesting is that unemployment has been at 10%.  10% unemployment equals out to be about 15 million people.  (http://cbs11tv.com/national/unemployment.10.percent.2.1299266.html) So, it would seem to reason that if we fix unemployment, we fix the number without insurance.  Companies, however, are afraid to hire because any profits gained are in the cross-hairs of Obama.  What's the point of making profit just to have it taken away?!  Exactly, there is no point - therefore, there is no point in hiring any new workers.

3.  This plan will give millions of Americans new choices in health insurance by making coverage more affordable, ending the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, putting power in the hands of consumers instead of insurance companies and providing one of the largest tax cuts in history while also reducing our national deficit.

This is the most asinine group of words I've ever read.  Pre-existing conditions exists as a way to KEEP COSTS LOW!  I sell life insurance.  We can offer term plans for pennies on the dollar per thousand because of requiring great health.  If an insurance company is forced to take on ALL risks, premiums will go UP!!  How else is the insurance company going to pay for the claims that will be hobbling in day after day?!  Secondly, this puts the power in the consumer's hand??  The power is already there!  If you don't like the health coverage you have, then go down the street and buy from someone else!  You decide where your dollar is spent, not the insurance companies.  And, thirdly, this will reduce our national deficit?!  How does government spending reduce our deficit?  Obama has already taken our deficit, sorry libs, well past your coveted Bush deficit.  You honestly think Obama is worried about the national deficit?! 

 

4.  Reform couldn’t be more urgent – just this month consumers in California were told their premiums could go up as much as 39 percent.

Then go buy from someone else!  What about tax rates that just went up because you let the Bush tax cuts expire?  Don't patronize us about reform because rates are increasing.  IF WE HAD MORE OF OUR MONEY, WE'D HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR BETTER HEALTH INSURANCE!

 

5.  Too many in Washington are now saying that we should delay or give up on reform entirely, but Americans understand the stakes for our economy and our lives, and we want action

 

Americans do NOT want this bill!  Even Obama at the health care summit said he would just ram it through if he didn't get the cooperation he wanted.  Too many in Washington are out of touch with their voting base and come November, they will be out of touch with Congress.

 

Don't back down from these guys!  Hold their feet to the fire!

Black History Month Part 6: The Good Part

I’d like to close out Black History Month on a positive note - in a few short days, it will be over! Come Monday, we will get back to normal history and end a month of celebrating segregated information and racism. The best part of Black History Month is March 1st.

We are Americans. Let’s truly live Dr. King’s dream where the content of our character stands center stage rather than what color our skin is. By the way, that is what a Conservative sees. We see the character of a person. Liberals are focused on the “minority groups” – groups they’ve created.

Now, Black by popular demand, here are a few quotes from Dr. Walter E. Williams

Equality before the general rules of law is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty that can be secured without destroying liberty. It is an equality that neither requires nor assumes people are in fact equal. Our attempt to make people equal in fact by rigging law to produce equal results destroys civility and generalized respect for the law. Government cannot create an advantage for one person without simultaneously creating a disadvantage for another.

Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.

No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong

If we wish to be compassionate with our fellow man, we must learn to engage in dispassionate analysis. In other words, thinking with our hearts, rather than our brains, is a surefire method to hurt those whom we wish to help

President Obama could rise several notches in my book if he refused the Nobel Peace Prize, with a nice letter to the Nobel Committee that might read: Since you did not see fit to award Ronald Reagan, the U.S. president who did the most for world peace in this century, by peaceably shutting down the Soviet Union, I respectfully decline your offer

Suppose I hire you to repair my computer. The job is worth $200 to me and doing the job is worth $200 to you. The transaction will occur because we have a meeting of the mind. Now suppose there's the imposition of a 30 percent income tax on you. That means you won't receive $200 but instead $140. You might say the heck with working for me -- spending the day with your family is worth more than $140. You might then offer that you'll do the job if I pay you $285. That way your after-tax earnings will be $200 -- what the job was worth to you. There's a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $285. So it's my turn to say the heck with it. This simple example demonstrates that one effect of taxes is that of eliminating transactions, and hence jobs

Jobs Bill Misses The Mark

Yesterday, the Senate was giddy about passing a "jobs creation bill." The media has been proclaiming how even Republicans are jumping on board with this bill. They are making a big deal out of Scott Brown, R-MA, voting yes since he just got to Congress. But, let's slow down. What is this bill about?

This bill is supposed to be a $15 Billion job creation package. First, let's remind our good friends in Washington that the only jobs Congress can create are Government jobs. Congress cannot create jobs in the private sector. Their policies can hinder or encourage job growth in the private sector, but they are not the ones responsible for any new jobs. Now, Congress wants the credit for jobs creation because then Obama can take credit for it as well.

One of the focal points of this bill is that it frees any company that hires the unemployed from paying their 6.2% social security tax for 2010. If the company retains the employee for at least a year, they get a $1,000 tax break.

So, with less money going into Social Security, Congress will have to go after it somewhere else. And, that somewhere else will be from those who are already employed. Secondly, a $1,000 tax break?! Is that per new hire? And, by the way, companies don't pay taxes anyway - we pay them through their prices they set for their goods and/or services. So, giving a company a "tax break" would actually be giving us a tax break. But, a $1,000 tax break isn't a tax break. That's like letting the couch cushions fund your kid's allowance. If you want to encourage more corporate participation in the hiring game, then do something big. How about eliminate a lot of the taxes and regulations that are imposed upon them and that stifle their ability to be able to afford to hire additional help. Why not suspend and even eliminate the federal income tax - give people more of their money to spend in the economy. This is the real issue, folks. Giving companies "tax breaks" is only a symptom of the problem.

Jobs are created based on two simple things: Supply and Demand. If demand is higher than supply, then companies need to hire more workers to get supply back even with demand. If we had more of our own money to spend, demand would start to increase, companies would begin to hire more to meet the demand with more supply and two things ultimately happen: the economy is back on its feet and unemployment falls. Companies do not just arbitrarily decrease their work force. This bill suggests they do by virtue of it focusing on the corporations and their hiring practices. Jobs exist for one reason - a company needs to make money and they need workers to make supply to meet demand. If the demand isn't there, then the need for employees decreases. Companies are not going to keep an employee on the books at 20k/year or 30k/year just to get a 1k tax break. That's like the common practice of hanging on to a mortgage because of the tax write off. So, you send 10k to the bank in interest so you don't have to send 3k to the IRS in taxes?! (By the way, if your CPA suggests that you do that, then fire their sorry carcass and get one that can actually do math.) Frankly, this bill is insulting to private business.

The Government that has given us this economy and this deficit are now the ones who are going to fix it?! The Government that hates the private sector now are seen as their savior? Don't fall for it - these people want one thing only and that is full government control over business industry - and you take that to the bank...well, don't take it to the bank because they will be taxed more for the TARP money they've already paid back.

Middle Class Tax Cuts? You Lie!

I think this needs to be revisited. Earlier this month, Reuters reported that Obama's budget was full of back-door tax INCREASES for the middle class. The White House promptly grabbed Reuters by the crotch and demanded they pull the story. (So much for freedom of the Press). Reuters, with a backbone the consistancy of jello, pulled the story. But, what do you expect from the State-run media?! So, the story is only found on blogs at this point. (i.e http://www.thehotjoints.com/2010/02/02/reuters-does-story-on-obamas-backdoor-tax-increases-then-withdraws-it/). The portion I want to focus on is the actual tax increases for the middle class. Now, on Feb. 11th, 2010, Obama said he was going to be "agnostic" on tax increases. He was going to establish a "bi-partisan" group to investigate debt reduction proposals. This "bi-partisan" group is 60% Democrat and they are going to demand tax increases to fix the debt problem. Obama is going to play dumb and say "Well, uh, we've made progress, and un, the commission has worked hard, uh, and, they've determined, that uh, we need to increase taxes to pay for this debt." THE VERY DEBT YOU'VE CREATED! This way, he can say he didn't flipflop on his no taxes for the middle class promise. Come on, folks - his promises are about as pointless as Russian Roulet with a semi-automatic pistol. So, without further delay, here, again, is some insight to what will be coming down the pike to us middle class folk. Here is the story that wasn't protected under freedom of the press.

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) –The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

Reuter's pulled this story and promised a new story to run in its place a week later. No such story ever was ran.