Uncivil Rights

Mr. Bin Laden,

I want to personally thank you for your recent video threat to the US. It could not have come at a better time. It was looking to be a close election. John Kerry may have actually pulled it off. Between the acute bias in the media foregoing Kerry's obscene lies, distortions, and delusions, and the liberals in this country bereft of individual thought, John Kerry was close to becoming the next President of the United States. THAT is something I believe you wanted. You knew Kerry was weak on terror, national defense and war. You believed he would not pursue you, and terrorism in general, around the world without UN approval. You knew the UN could be bought. You would be free to move around the globe; to countries with which you have financial ties or those that could be influenced with the threat of terrorist acts, like Spain.

However, you failed to come to know your enemy. You failed to educate yourself on the American psychology. You must have ignored the Europeans, who call us brash, selfish, tyrannical, snobbish, boastful, ideological, CHRISTIANS. Yes, we are all those things. And look where we are today. We live in the greatest country in the world. We have the freedom of choice; to live as we want; to work as hard as we want; to earn as much money as we want, and to spend that money on selfish, unecessary, commercialistic, trivial wastes. That is our right. A right bought with the lives of our brave. We have FREEDOMS that have never been free, rather bought with the lives of those willing to die to have and keep those freedoms. We value these freedoms so much, we are willing to die in other countries so others may have those freedoms. You cannot imagine freedom. You would prefer your 7th century Islamic state. So be it. BUT THAT is your failing also. We are willing to die for our freedom. We are NOT from Spain or France, or any other nation you may intimidate. WE ARE AMERICANS.

Your video threat actually did something you did not intend. It has unified us once again. You remember the first time, the bombing of the World Trade Center. You have just confirmed the re-election of George Bush. He will not go easy on you. He is NOT anti-war. He will not listen to the UN if it weakens the US. He will not worry about what the rest of the world thinks about us or our actions. He will hunt you down and kill you. No, you will not go before any world court, you do not have rights; they were foresaken long ago. You will die, and as you do, please remember; before you died, there were American soldiers that died, and I pray to GOD that they fucked the shit out of all of your virgins. After all, how can a girl resist a guy in a uniform?

Again I thank you.

Sincerely,

An American

C'mon, you people...I've only gotten 2 posts for the Name cracker's Dog contest!

1) At 9:24 PM, cracker said...
How about No. So it would be "Here No!" "Sit NO"...

I commented to your comment. I think we're going with Gunner
(Gunnar....maybe)

and 2) At 5:59 PM, Anonymous said...
How about Fluffly, or Fifi, or Snugglypuss?

Hey, there's 5 American on the line...let's hear some ideas!

OK all you Kerry supporters, all you people who want the UN to handle everything because the US is too big and SCARY. Here you go. This is why the UN wants a world tax; they will eventually build a world army; they have to or what's their purpose to be?

Another example of the POWERLESS and USELESS UN.

Syria to U.N.: Drop Dead Again
October 25, 2004
How seriously does Syrian dictator Bashar Assad take the United Nation Security Council? Not very. Last Tuesday the Security Council unanimously reiterated an earlier resolution calling for Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon. Instead of lessening its control, Syria did the opposite. Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri resigned Wednesday, and a pro-Syrian replacement, Omar Karami, was appointed in his stead. This type of response to U.N. pressure is looking more and more familiar.
Last month, the Security Council passed Resolution 1559, demanding that foreign troops -- belonging to Syria and the terrorist organization Hezbollah -- leave Lebanon, and calling for free presidential elections. The resolution didn't threaten any force if Syria failed to comply -- instead it called on Secretary-General Kofi Annan to report back on the state of affairs in 30 days.
The Baathist despot in Damascus responded to the resolution the next day by forcing the Lebanese parliament to amend the country's constitution to allow his puppet president, Emile Lahoud, to remain in power for another three years. In doing so, not only did Assad demonstrate his contempt for the Security Council by openly flaunting his power in Lebanon, but in so doing he increased his control over the country.
Thirty days later Mr. Annan reported back to the Security Council that the resolution had been ignored. Syrian troops and intelligence agents remain in Lebanon; Hezbollah continues to use the country as a base for its world-wide terrorist operations; and, as was very publicly seen, no presidential elections took place.
In response to Assad's disregarding one declaration with no backbone, the Security Council decided to pass another. And unsurprisingly, Assad's response was much the same. This time the U.S. and France (resolution 1559 co-sponsors) pushed through a "presidential statement" Tuesday calling for implementation of the resolution. But unlike the first resolution, which required a report in 30 days, this one asks for Mr. Annan to report back in six months. Meanwhile, Assad not only has a yes-man as president, but now as prime minister as well.
In his report, Mr. Annan said it was time for foreign troops to leave Lebanon and end a "sad chapter in Lebanese history." Until the Security Council realizes that the threat of more paper reports and resolutions isn't what makes a dictator fold -- it's the threat of force that does -- Lebanon's story is only going to get sadder and sadder.

WOW. And Kerry and you liberals want this useless body in charge of the defense of America? Not only that, but you want them in charge OF our army!

Another lie by Kerry. When will it stop? Oh that's right! NEVER!

Security Council members deny meeting Kerry
By Joel Mowbray, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq. An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred.
At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council. "This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein." But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either. The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Mr. Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria. The ambassador of a fourth country gave a similar account on the condition that his country not be identified. Ambassador Andres Franco, the permanent deputy representative from Colombia during its Security Council membership from 2001 to 2002, said, "I never heard of anything." Although Mr. Franco was quick to note that Mr. Kerry could have met some members of the panel, he also said that "everything can be heard in the corridors." Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, Mexico's then-ambassador to the United Nations, said: "There was no meeting with John Kerry before Resolution 1441, or at least not in my memory." All had vivid recollections of the time frame when Mr. Kerry traveled to New York, as it was shortly before the Nov. 7, 2002, enactment of Resolution 1441, which said Iraq was in "material breach" of earlier disarmament resolutions and warned Baghdad of "serious consequences as a result of its continued violations." Stefan Tafrov, Bulgaria's ambassador at the time, said he remembers the period well because it "was a very contentious time." After conversations with ambassadors from five members of the Security Council in 2002 and calls to all the missions of the countries then on the panel, The Times was only able to confirm directly that Mr. Kerry had met with representatives of France, Singapore and Cameroon. In addition, second-hand accounts have Mr. Kerry meeting with representatives of Britain. When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate's previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council. But after being told late yesterday of the results of The Times investigation, the Kerry campaign issued a statement that read in part, "It was a closed meeting and a private discussion." A Kerry aide refused to identify who participated in the meeting. The statement did not repeat Mr. Kerry's claims of a lengthy meeting with the entire 15-member Security Council, instead saying the candidate "met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council." Asked whether the international body had any records of Mr. Kerry sitting down with the whole council, a U.N. spokesman said that "our office does not have any record of this meeting." A U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the Security Council's actions in fall of 2002 said that he was not aware of any meeting Mr. Kerry had with members of the panel. An official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations remarked: "We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council." Jean-David Levitte, then France's chief U.N. representative and now his country's ambassador to the United States, said through a spokeswoman that Mr. Kerry did not have a single group meeting as the senator has described, but rather several one-on-one or small-group encounters. He added that Mr. Kerry did not meet with every member of the Security Council, only "some" of them. Mr. Levitte could only name himself and Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of Britain as the Security Council members with whom Mr. Kerry had met. One diplomat who met with Mr. Kerry in 2002 said on the condition of anonymity that the candidate talked to "a few" ambassadors on the Security Council. The revelation that Mr. Kerry never met with the entire U.N. Security Council could be problematic for the Massachusetts senator, as it clashes with one of his central foreign-policy campaign themes — honesty. At a New Mexico rally last month, Mr. Kerry said Mr. Bush will "do anything he can to cover up the truth." At what campaign aides billed as a major foreign-policy address, Mr. Kerry said at New York University last month that "the first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people." In recent months, Mr. Kerry has faced numerous charges of dishonesty from Vietnam veterans over his war record, and his campaign has backtracked before from previous statements about Mr. Kerry's foreign diplomacy. For example, in March, Mr. Kerry told reporters in Florida that he'd met with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him. "I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly," he said. "But, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' " But the senator refused to document his claim and a review by The Times showed that Mr. Kerry had made no official foreign trips since the start of 2002, according to Senate records and his own published schedules. An extensive review of Mr. Kerry's domestic travel schedule revealed only one opportunity for him to have met foreign leaders here. After a week of bad press, Kerry foreign-policy adviser Rand Beers said the candidate "does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements." The Democrat has also made his own veracity a centerpiece of his campaign, calling truthfulness "the fundamental test of leadership." Mr. Kerry closed the final debate by recounting what his mother told him from her hospital bed, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity." In an interview published in the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Kerry was asked what he would want people to remember about his presidency. He responded, "That it always told the truth to the American people."

No, this isn't fear-mongering. It is fact. Lest we forget, I am here to remind you. If John Kerry becomes president, he will, in essence, begin the end of humanity:

Kerry would still supplyIran with nuclear fuel
Remark in debate was not slip-up, campaign website lists same policy
Posted: October 2, 20043:20 p.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Even while top Iranian officials are calling for the development of nuclear weapons within the next four months, Sen. John Kerry insists as president he would provide Tehran with the nuclear fuel it wants for a pledge to use it for peaceful purposes only.
During the debate with President Bush Thursday, Kerry remarked that the U.S. should have given Iran the nuclear fuel it wanted.
"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes.

When you go to the polls, remember this.

When Kerry is elected and Iran makes nuclear weapons because this idiot appeased the religious fanaticals in charge and gave them the resources by which to make those weapons, it will be far to late for us conservatives to say "We told you so."

It wouldn't matter anyway to the liberals. As their flesh melts away from the radiation, I'm sure the last thought on their minds would be, "I wonder what we did to make them hate us so much?" or "I can't believe they lied to us." or "I would have converted to Islam, if only they had asked." or "Damn, this is Bush's fault."

Remember when...

The Clinton-Gore-Albright Unilateral Strike on Iraq
By Dr. Paul Kengor
We’re being told by Democrats that the Bush administration’s war against Saddam was illegitimate because it allegedly lacked United Nations approval and sufficient multilateral support. What Democrats are not saying is that the previous presidential administration—a Democratic one—did not meet this standard in Iraq, nor did it care to. The case in point occurred ten years before the Bush invasion, and involved names like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, and a man named George Bush—George H. W. Bush.
On April 14, 1993, a group of Iraqi terrorists put the final touches on a 170-pound bomb built into the body panels of a Toyota Landcruiser. The vehicle was smuggled into Kuwait in the dark of night. The bomb was equipped with a radio-controlled firing system. The vehicle was positioned at Kuwait University, where it was poised to take the life of ex-president George H. W. Bush during a three-day visit honoring him for liberating Kuwait two years earlier. This was just one of countless examples of Iraq’s state-sponsored terrorism—another reality that Democrats today conveniently deny—and of Saddam targeting American citizens.
The plot failed. The Kuwaiti government arrested 16 people, including 11 Iraqi nationals. The Kuwaitis eventually identified two vehicles loaded with remote-controlled bombs. Altogether, several hundred pounds of explosives were seized. The explosives held enough firepower to kill not just the former president but also his entourage.
“I was forced into this operation,” later confessed one Iraqi saboteur, Raad al-Assadi. “Our regime does not permit us to object.” His partner in crime was fellow Iraqi Wali Abdelhadi al-Ghazali, a male nurse by profession, who, in attempting to kill the former president, forsook any Hippocratic oath. He was the driver of a van packed with explosives. He was also instructed in how to detonate the Toyota. To ensure success, Ghazali was fitted with a belt packed with explosives—a suicide vest—if the vehicle bombs failed. Suicide vests are a common accoutrement in Iraq; coalition troops found thousands of them in April 2003, destined for special use against Israeli Jews in particular.
News of the botched assassination reached the new Clinton administration. Especially alarmed was Vice President Gore, only on the job a few months but not naïve to the fact that the dirty deed could not be dismissed. Though Iraq was suspected, its exact role was not immediately known. Yet, even before the FBI and CIA reports were completed, Gore smelled a rat. He knew the foiled assassination attempt had Saddam’s bloody fingerprints all over it. He undertook his own personal inquiry into the plot.
Saddam was behind this, Gore concluded to Clinton. The president consulted with Gore extensively on what to do. Doing nothing, Gore told Clinton, would make the freshman president appear weak and rekindle concerns that Democrats were too wishy-washy about employing force. He firmly steered the president, then with no foreign policy experience, toward retaliation. He insisted Iraq be punished. As U.S. News & World Report reported, Gore “concluded that retaliation was not only appropriate but required.” Saddam, Gore told Clinton, must pay for trying to kill George H. W. Bush.
On the weekend of June 25-27, 1993, military retaliation followed. The Clinton administration struck hard with a volley of missiles on Baghdad. The strike killed a number of Iraqis but left Saddam in power and unscathed.
The Clinton administration did not seek U.N. approval for the strike, and some U.N. Security Council members were quite annoyed, including France’s representative, Jean-Bernard Merimee. They were bothered that the Clinton team proceeded on its own evidence, prior to the end of the trial of the saboteurs. However, Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, strongly objected, insisting that classified American intelligence confirmed that Saddam’s regime was behind the plot. According to Albright, U.S. evidence alone was sufficient for U.S. unilateral action; U.N. approval was not necessary, and neither was any type of U.N. investigation. Albright, Clinton, and Gore were adamant: the United States did not need U.N. approval to use force against Iraq.
In almost every respect, Madeleine Albright and Al Gore in particular acted contrary to the angry public position they later staked during the presidency of George W. Bush.
For the record, I was impressed with how the Clinton administration handled this incident. I wrote it up in a 2000 book on Vice President Gore. My information was taken from articles in the New York Times, London Times, the Christian Science Monitor, U.S. News & World Report, as well as interviews. When I shared this material then, during the 2000 presidential race, Democrats and Gore supporters were rightly pleased. I’ve republished the account almost verbatim in a 2004 book on President George W. Bush, which liberals are dismissing as Bush campaign propaganda.
Democrats behave completely differently when a Republican is in the Oval Office. They’ve mindlessly done a total reversal—from unilateralists to multilateralists, from hawks to doves—because of partisan politics. The case of Iraq is a tragic example.

This is from the Wall Street Journal, 'Provisional' DemocracyOctober 22, 2004; Page A16. The Democratic Party, the party of the common man, the party of the middle-class, the party claiming the Republicans are going to STEAL the election...AGAIN.

The race card is a big part of this strategy, as the nearby liberal political mailer shows. John Kerry and John Edwards regularly tell crowds that a million blacks had their votes "stolen" four years ago and that countless others were kept from the polls. Never mind that Janet Reno was the Attorney General in 2000, and that she dispatched platoons of lawyers to search for evidence of disenfranchisement and found nothing worth reporting. Yet on Saturday Mr. Edwards told a group of mostly black supporters, "We know they're going to be up to their old tricks, right, trying to keep you from voting."
In particular, Democrats have been promoting the use of "provisional" votes. Under the 2002 Help America Vote Act, anyone who shows up at the polls on Election Day is entitled to cast a ballot even if he isn't registered. Such a provisional ballot is then supposed to be set aside and investigated to make sure it is legitimate. The rules for verifying these ballots are up to the states, and in Colorado in 2002 some 3,000 provisional ballots decided the outcome in the Seventh Congressional District. It took the district's three counties, each of which had different rules for counting the ballots, 35 days to finish.
So in addition to delaying the election outcome for days, provisional voting has the potential to create all sorts of legal mayhem. Liberal groups have been suing around the country to overturn laws requiring that a provisional vote at least be cast in the precinct in which the person resides. In Ohio, Jesse Jackson mentioned Bull Connor this month in denouncing GOP Secretary of State Ken Blackwell for defending provisional ballot rules that were unanimously (and bipartisanly) adopted last year. And sure enough, a federal judge recently obliged and overturned the law.
Someone could now presumably cast provisional votes in several Ohio precincts on Election Day, in the hope that they aren't compared across district lines and more than one would be counted. In a close race, partisans will surely demand that all such votes be counted -- and will accuse anyone who objects of denying voter access, or of racism if the provisional voters are minorities.
You don't have to be a cynic to imagine that some polling places will be rushed with dozens, even hundreds, of unregistered voters, perhaps just as the polls are scheduled to close. The right to cast a provisional ballot will then become an excuse to sue to keep polls open later, which is precisely what happened in 2000 in St. Louis and might have cost then-Senator John Ashcroft his seat. Any refusal would be cause for another equal-protection lawsuit that could take weeks to settle.
Don't take our word for it. Listen to John Kerry, who laid out the strategy at a rally in April: "We are going to bring legal challenges in those districts that make it difficult for people to register," and his aides are telling reporters they'll insist that "every vote is counted," implying every provisional vote.
Not that the partisans care, but there's a larger principle that is in danger of being trampled here. A fair election requires two things: The ability to cast a ballot but also the confidence that any vote is honestly cast. The count-'em-all-legal-or-not-and-sue strategy stomps on the second principle in order to serve the first. Denying the right to vote was common in many areas before the Voting Rights Act of the 1960s, but there is no evidence that it was a problem at all in 2000.What we are seeing now isn't an attempt to prevent injustice but looks to be a calculated political strategy to create enough confusion at the polls to justify legal challenges that will cloud any close Presidential outcome. Let's hope we have a clear winner on Election Night, or we may all wish we were in Afghanistan.

Be careful what you wish for people, you just might get it.

I could not let this one slip by. It is from the AP:

WILKES-BARRE, Pa. Oct 23, 2004 — President Bush said Friday the choice facing voters amounts to who can keep Americans safer from terrorists, and his opponent does not measure up. John Kerry shot back that if he were president, Osama bin Laden would have been killed or captured by now, and Bush let him get away.

Classic. From the man who, in my opinion, would have let the FBI handle 9/11. From the man who, in my opinion, would have asked for the UN's approval before doing ANYTHING militarily. From the man who, in my opinion, after receiving word from the UN Security Council that he could NOT use military force, would be alleviating himself of all responsibility and accountability of the situation by claiming that he could not get a coalition, or pass a global test to use the military. From the man who, in my opinion, would then be unable to locate, capture, or kill Osama. From the man who, in my opinion, could never do it "differently" or "better."

Classic.

OK students. A little lesson today in business and economics from the Kerry Campaign.

They have stated they are going to raise taxes on those making over $200,000. This is comprised of many small businesses since they are taxed at the same rate for individuals.

With me so far?

This is what the Kerry campaign said about Kerry's healthcare plan. Now the context is that healthcare is costly, so the government is going to help small businesses out by taking on some of the cost of the healthcare. Understand? Are you ready?

This is from: Momentum Builds for U.S. Role in Paying Highest Health Costs
By MILT FREUDENHEIM and ROBERT PEAR, Published: October 23, 2004
"Senator Kerry views this as good health care policy and good economic policy," said Sarah A. Bianchi, the policy director for the Kerry campaign. "Many businesses are not expanding because of the soaring costs of health care."

OK. Is everybody with me? The argument by the Kerry campaign is that they will take on some costs of healthcare incurred by small businesses because the higher cost is keeping them from expanding. REMEMBER: expanding businesses mean more jobs!

Now, Kerry, as mentioned above, also wants to increase taxes on those same small businesses. Does anyone see the irony in this yet? Higher costs (in general) are keeping small businesses from expanding, so he wants to help REDUCE the healthcare cost burden, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME INCREASE THE TAX COST of small businesses! Logically, THIS IS ABSURD. It is bad economics and bad for businesses!

As seen in this example, Kerry does not understand the principles of business nor the economy. Yet people think he is going to increase jobs and "turn this economy around."

Is it just me, or can anyone explain his philosophy to me?

This one is particularly good because the liberal is actually talking about taking responsibility for one's own actions. I didn't think they even knew what that concept was. Then I realized, they don't.

Carter was saying...I just hope you remember that if Bush wins, and we go to shit, it's your fault. If it goes to shit under Kerry, I'm willing to stand up and say I'm responsible. If Bush wins, will you be like Bush and not stand up to your mistakes?

One of his commentators wrote (you MUST notice the part about inflation)...Sheryl said...
You can be sure that they will not. I don't know anyone who voted for Bush or Nader in 2000 who has apologized for the deficit, the loss of jobs, the loss of international respect for this country, the loss of lives in Iraq, the destruction of infrastructure, the inflation, the erosion of the middle class, etc, etc.I'll cut the 2000 Naderites and Bushites slack if they have learned something and are voting Kerry this time. We tried to warn them then, but people have to make their own mistakes. And when they do learn from them, you have admire people who can admit mistakes, because that takes character.But I seriously doubt that anyone who votes for Bush or Nader this time will take responsibility for anything. If they were going to, then they already would have. We'll just blame everything on "the terrorists" or "the establishment" while we all lose our rights and watch our country/planet go to hell.

To which I replied...I would love to know what effect the deficit has had on you.

I guess in liberalspeak unilateral means 30 countries, multilateral means 34 countries. Is that about right? Kerry sure loves the talking point of "going it alone" in Iraq, yet he voted against getting Saddam out of Kuwait when there was a complete coalition of forces favoring the act. Hmmm...kinda makes one wonder which way he'll flop next.
As for jobs, why don't you actually look at the numbers. On the payroll survey, the bottom was hit in August 2003 at 129.789 million employed. So, from August 2003 to September 2004, the payroll survey shows an increase of 1.8 million jobs. And let’s be clear that total private-sector employment in the payroll survey from August 2003 to September 2004 expanded by 1.7 million.

Meanwhile, the household survey registered its trough much earlier – at 135.715 million in January 2002. That would translate into an increase of 3.8 million jobs from January 2002 to September 2004.

Now, one can debate the merits of the payroll survey vs. the household survey. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two. But what is unmistakable is that job losses have not been nearly as bad as Senator Kerry portrays them. In fact, a comprehensive view of the jobs market shows no losses at all, but gains under Bush. And no matter which employment survey ranks as one’s favorite, the recent trends have been unmistakably in a positive direction, that is, job growth. http://www.sbecouncil.org/LatestNews_Action.asp?FormMode=CyberColumn&ID=308

The INFLATION? You think inflation is high? How old are you, 4?
Erosion of the middle class: means people are moving up or down the socioeconomic scale - freedom of choices - America is great isn't it.

Oh right. America is great. That's why you hate it. You think we should slink on down to the levels of mediocrity like the rest of Europe, so they'll like us again. I bet if the US takes away all of its foreign aid, those same countries would soon become our best friend and think we were the greatest. It is amazing what money can do. (Just ask France and Russia about the Oil-for-food scandal.) It is no wonder why theyt voted against the war in Iraq. It interupted their flow of money.

Do you realize Kerry is about BIG government intervention; thereby alleviating all you liberals from taking responsibility and being held accountable for your own actions. Scary thought. The thought that you are the one to blame for your situation. No wonder you want to vote for Kerry.

Happy reading - and no, even I, as warped as I am, could not make this up.

Benefits Of Social Security Reform Far Outweigh The Transition Cost from the Cato Institute.

Some highlights:

President Bush reinforced his commitment to modernize Social Security when he said, "We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account — a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away."

This reform means moving from a tax-based system to one of saving and investing in the strength of our economy. The nest egg the president referred to would be one's personal property, a marked improvement over the existing system wherein one has no personal property rights. This would allow retirees to bequeath their accumulated assets to their loved ones should they choose. And for the first time, low-income workers would have the opportunity to accumulate wealth — not magically become multimillionaires mind you—but build a nest egg they would own.

The problem with all of this, many argue, is that it would be too expensive. Their point is that under present law projected payroll taxes will not be enough to pay all promised benefits. Redirecting some of that tax to personal accounts would, therefore, incur a further burden. Some people would have to pay twice, once for their own personal account and then for those already retired receiving Social Security benefits. This double cost may be in the trillions of dollars and our nation, at least at this stage, just can't afford it.
This argument appears persuasive, and for a couple of reasons. First, there is some truth to it. But more importantly, it is not complete. It does not consider the costs of the existing system should it not be reformed. Recognizing these costs sheds an entirely different light on the benefits of reform.

To compare the two systems' costs, let's first assume that Social Security is not reformed. According to Social Security's Trustees, this would lead to payroll taxes being insufficient to pay all benefits by about 2018. Let's further assume that the government at that time borrows the difference so that all benefits are honored. Such borrowing would continue through 2078 and then well beyond because the demographic trends which cause the imbalance are well established and not subject to meaningful change. Of course, the government would have to borrow even more than the shortfall in taxes in order to pay principal and interest when due on the funds previously borrowed. The trustees estimate that total borrowing only to 2078 would be about $4.5 trillion in present value terms. Another way of presenting this is each American family would have to give the government about $43,000 today plus pay payroll taxes stipulated in present law in order to afford promised benefits.

Now let's assume we reform the system as broadly outlined by President Bush. What happens? If a 21-year-old would choose the new system and a 64-year-old would not, then there must be an age between 21 and 64 when one is indifferent; that is, one would get as much from one system as the other. Let's assume it's 35. All workers older than 35 would stay with Social Security, pay the full payroll tax and receive the stated benefit. All workers younger than 35 would choose the market-based alternative, save and invest part of their payroll tax for their retirement and continue to pay the remainder of the payroll tax to the government to help provide for those who stay with Social Security. The government is largely off the hook for them and fully off the hook for all new, younger workers who enter the labor force.

The government's liability, therefore, is now capped at the benefits payable to those over 35 and the much lower accrued benefits of those under 35. Starting almost immediately, the total number of workers and retirees in the older group shrinks because of death and the fact that no one enters the group. When the last person dies, the government's benefit payments drop to zero. The government's ongoing liability for the younger group phases out as well because more and more people of this expanding group provide for themselves exclusively through their personal accounts.

The ultimate steady state, when each individual provides for himself, takes decades. In the interim, however, financing is required just as if there were no reform except for the fact that this borrowing is not endless, it's temporary. Here's how it would work: First, the year when Social Security will begin running a deficit will be earlier, let's say 2010, because some of the payroll tax that was earmarked to pay benefits would now be invested in personal accounts. In 2010, let's assume the mismatch between taxes and benefits is made up by government borrowing, just like the original case. As mentioned earlier, the older group, which continues to receive Social Security benefits, naturally shrinks over time as its members die. At some point, the payroll taxes received from the younger group exceed the benefits paid to the older group. When this happens, no new debt is issued and future payroll taxes from the younger group refund the debt accumulated during the transition. Eventually all the debt is repaid.

At the end of the transition, the government has no future retirement benefit obligations, the payroll tax that was earmarked to pay off the debt drops to zero, and the employer payroll tax drops to zero as well. What remains is each individual's payroll deduction, which is saved and invested in highly diversified portfolios of wealth-producing assets. Based upon reasonable capital market returns and the new personal property rights one will have with his account, retirement income will be greater and more secure than can possibly be provided by the existing system, which was designed during the Great Depression.

It is true that achieving President Bush's vision for modernizing Social Security will require a transition period, bridge financing and an earlier date when we experience negative cash flows. But under all reasonable assumptions, a market-based Social Security system will, over the long run, always be less costly than remaining with the present tax-funded structure. And long-term viability must be one of the fundamental goals of any Social Security reform.

How can anyone argue against social security reform - logically?

Making Choices: Exploring The Tax Issue from the Cato Institute.

A few highlights for those (liberals) that learned to read in government schools:(

Bush's 2001 tax cut reduced income tax rates to stimulate greater working investment and entrepreneurship. As Bush has pointed out in debates with Sen. John Kerry, the cuts in the top rates were particularly important because of the heavy concentration of small businesses in those brackets. The substantial size of the tax cut at $1.35 trillion made fiscal sense because projections in 2001 showed that there was a huge $5.6 trillion budget surplus to work with.

In March 2002, Bush's enacted his next tax cut, which was designed to spur business investment in the wake of 9/11 and the lingering recession. Bush continued his focus on pro-growth tax cuts with the dividend and capital gains tax cuts of 2003.

Cutting dividend taxes helped solve a number of problems. U.S. corporations had relied too much on debt instead of equity financing because the tax code gave an advantage to interest over dividends. The 2003 tax law reduced this distortion to make the corporate sector more stable and efficient. High dividend taxes also caused companies to excessively retain earnings, which led to unproductive investments and was a contributing factor to recent corporate scandals.

The economy responded strongly to the dividend tax cut. The stock market soared after the tax cut's passage, and a recent Cato Institute study found that dividend payouts by Standard and Poor's 500 companies rose about 20 percent in the year following the cut.
Earlier this year, Bush signed into law an extension of some of his prior individual tax cuts. And he will sign a corporate tax bill passed by Congress this month. The bill has been criticized for the many special interest breaks it contains, but it also includes reforms to help U.S. firms compete in foreign markets.

While Bush's spending policies have been irresponsible, Kerry is promising more of the same with about $2 trillion in new spending. Kerry says that he would reverse some of Bush's tax cuts, but that would only pay for a fraction of his promised spending. Kerry is right to criticize Bush's big deficits, but his own promises undermine his claim to be the more fiscally responsible candidate. On spending, voters have little choice since both candidates embrace Big Government.

On taxes, the candidates have different philosophies, but they would find themselves dealing the same problems in the years ahead. For one thing, the next president will need to deal with concerns about America's tax competitiveness. Global markets are creating pressure for major reforms to the U.S. corporate tax, which has the second highest rate in the industrial world.

An excellent read.

It pisses me off whenever I hear a liberal talk about tax cuts or tax breaks as "giveaways". The latest liberal misnomer is the corporate tax breaks. Maybe the pinhead liberals don't understand that it's the company's money NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S! In fact I believe they think we all work for the government, and it is up to the government to decide how much we should make. That's not only insulting, it's against the very principles for which this country was founded.
Someone should explain to Kerry and Edwards that American companies are the only companies to be taxed in both the foreign country and the home country. These tax breaks help alleviate some of the increased cost associated with those taxes to help the company be competitive in the foreign market. This competitiveness increases marketshare, which enhances the chance of expansion, which increases the number of jobs, BOTH OVERSEAS AND HERE. To eliminate those tax breaks is to reduce the competitveness of the companies. This resuction will lead to less marketshare, which can lead to closure and the loss of jobs, BOTH OVERSEAS AND HERE.
Logically, it follows, Kerry's policy on outsourcing is bad for America (businesses and employees), while the Bush policy is good for America (businesses and employees).
Now, if you're a liberal and reading this, please make a logical argument against what I just said WITHOUT calling me a Poopie Head.

This just in:

John Kerry has declared himself the winner in the 2004 presidential election. Dan Rather has comfirmed the win for Kerry on the CBS Evening News.
You can read about the stunning victory (it was actually a landslide) and the subsequent, follow-up, hard hitting, fact-finding news story by Dan Rather in the New York Times front-page article dated October 5, 2004.

I had to get this out there. It's brilliant!
I hope everyone reads it.

I love listening to music, so I picked a CD to listen to last night. I don't know why I chose that particular one. After listening I thought it might be divine intervention. I enjoy corresponding with the liberals. Their mindset and philosophies interest me. I thought about them as I reflected on 3 particular songs from this CD. The CD is "Pieces of Eight" by Styx. It was released in 1978.

I want your opinion, liberals and conservatives, on what the following song lyrics mean to you. I will post my own later.

I'm OK
Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey, Eight, Skate, Seven on the Rotate!
If I could standBeside myself Would I see me or maybe someone else?
'Cause it's hard to please, Most everyone
When your spirit's got you on the run, on the run
They say do your best,But don't cause a fuss
Don't make waves be like the rest of us
But I can feel the tide is turning fast
'Cause deep inside I know that I can't last, Another day, Not another day!
'Cause I'm O.K., I finally found the person I've been searching for
I'm alright, I'm feeling good about myself and that's for sure
'Cause I believed them when they said I must do things their way,
They tried to cast me in their mold, But I just had to say,
That I'm O.K.I'm O.K. this way yes I'm O.K.
Yes I'm OK!I'm O.K., I finally found the person I've been searching for (everybody sing now!)I'm alright, I'm feeling good about myself and that's for sure (whoo!)
I'm O.K., I finally found the person I've been searching for (yahoo!)
I'm alright,I'm feeling good about myself and that's for sure
I'm O.K.. I'm feeling good about myself and that's for sure
I'm alright,I'm O.K., this way yes I'm OK!

Blue Collar Man (Long Nights)
Give me a job, give me security
Give me a chance to survive
I'm just a poor soul in the unemployment line
My God, I'm hardly alive
My mother and father, my wife and my friends
I see them laugh in my face
But I've got the power, and I've got the will
I'm not a charity case
I'll take those long nights, impossible odds
Keeping my eye to the keyhole
If it takes all that to be just what I am
I'm gonna be a blue collar man
Make me an offer that I can't refuse
Make me respectable, man
This is my last time in the unemployment line
So like it or not
I'll take thoseLong nights, impossible odds
Keeping my back to the wall
If it takes all that to be just what I am
I'm gonna be a blue collar man
Keeping my mind on a better life
When happiness is only a heartbeat away
Paradise, can it be all I heard it was
I close my eyes and maybe I'm already there

And, of course to be fair and balanced:

Pieces of Eight
It's six o'clock
Good morning sounds are everywhere
The warmth of spring, a gentle breeze blows through my hair
I hurry through my life never stopping to see
How beautiful it was meant to be
I'm just a prisoner in a king's disguise
Broken dreams as we shuffle by
It's six o'clock it's quitting time I'm done for the day
Out on the streets I overheard a lady say
We now have everything or so people say
But now this emptiness haunts me every day
We seek the lion's share never knowing why
Come alive spread your wings and fly
Pieces of eight
The search for the money tree
Don't cash your freedoms in for gold
Pieces of eight
Can't buy you everything
Don't let it turn your heart to stone

Let the postings begin!

It is quite clear, even for you liberals, that the media has been on sKerry's side since Howard Dean dropped out. When his blabbering on the campaign trail is mimicked by the New Kerry Post's editorial page, I guess any semblance of fair and balanced should be reserved for Fox News. I wonder if the Kerry campaign and the elite media actually have strategy meetings or coordinate by email? Hmmm...

On this "news" article, does it mention, even once, that a democrat is the elections suervisor and is in charge?

And finally, this article, from THE GUARDIAN, in England, mentions the republicans by name but somehow omits to label the democrats. Not only did I pick this for the international media bias, but I also think it enhances my argument that if your stupid, YOU SHOULD'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. I DO NOT WANT THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY DECIDED BY THE GALACTICALLY STUPID!

It's time for the vote warp again!

Political Bohemian Rhapsody

Sense of Humor

Saddam...face the USA.

No where to run Osama.

And finally, in all fairness.
He's a Democrat!

A few reading assignments for you students.

The "spin" on the economy.

The "spin" on the debates.

Hmmm...I wonder why France and Russia and China didn't want us going into Iraq...hmmm

Kerry's own "spin" on Kerry.

WooHoo let the lawsuits BEGIN!

Has anyone seen the WMDs?

But John Kerry is going to use diplomacy on Iran...

Did I mention "SPIN"?

OK, now that conservative 527 groups have raised as much money as the liberal 527 groups, the media can report on it.

Kerry supporters...wait, let's get this accurate...Bush haters seem to forgo any semblance of rational and logical thought in their attacks and arguments. Here is a response to one of my responses:

dude mare, what a shithead. republicans are selfish bastards who would assume that a person's paycheck is equal to their social class or worth. in europe and other places on this big round thing we call earth (and not america sphere as i believe kirsten called it once), people actually live and enjoy their lives instead of slaving away for the big white asshole on the top floor. they go home to their families at lunch-time, they have months of vacation to spend with their families, they have national healthcare. have you ever experienced those things as an american worker? god no. americans work hard, and that's a great thing to be a hard worker. but it's a different thing all together when you base your life around your job, your paycheck, and your visa bill instead of your family, your values and the joy of living. if paying more taxes will feed, educate, and give medical care to those who need it then well shit i guess i'll buy fewer dvd's and hit mcdonalds drive in a few less times. you in humane bumptious asshole.

# posted by the king : 1:18 PM

Here is my response to this one:

The socialistic view I've been talking about shines through. The top 20% wage earners pay over 95% of the income taxes to keep (by their own choices) the laziest in creature comforts. I, unlike you, work hard so my family can enjoy the fruits of my labor, and we can enjoy more time together. I have never asked, nor will I ever ask, to enjoy the fruits of another's labor. Before the government decided to take money from the wage earners and give to others (income redistribution) there was a thing called philanthropy which still exists today on a much smaller scale. That is the way it should be.
If you analyze what your beliefs are, you will find that they are socialistic ideals, and that's fine, but not in America. If everyone thought as you do, and waited for government handouts, and waited for the other guy to do the work and be taxed, eventually, no one would work, and you would find America controlled by the government since the people could not (or would not) take control of their own lives. That is called communism. That is fine also, but not in America.
It is obviously clear by your well educated wit and wisdom that you are one of the liberal, socialistic, and capitalistic hating people, and that's OK too.
Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to drive around needlessly in my Excursion (why an Excursion? Because I couldn't find any thing bigger and more gas -guzzling). Go on with your lives and enjoy the things subsidized by those who work hard, but at least acknowledge the effort they put in to make your life a little better.

Now you can see the difference between logic (conservatives) and emotion (liberals).

Let's tell the truth; Bush won the debate last night. Yet all I hear from the liberals was how nice Kerry looked, and that he even looked more presidential. Hell, if you put me in a $4000 suit, with magnificently coiffed hair, and a manicure, I could look as gay (No Glen, I would not look MORE gay) as Kerry. Listen to what they said. Bush was for less government and a safer America; Kerry was for much more government intervention, higher taxes, class warfare, and a europeanized-socialized America.
Bush won hands down. Now for the election...

This just in!

NYT

In an embarassing display of political philandering for votes, President Bush has announced that he will be in New York City tomorrow at the corner of 87th and 42nd Streets to turn water into wine for all the winos and homeless. In exchange, he will ask that they register and vote for him.

John Kerry (while walking on water) responded by saying, "The Bush administration is not only pandering to the winos and homeless for their votes, but by turning water into wine, the President is actually admitting the water is not fit to drink! In a Kerry administration, we will create a governmental task force to not only turn water into wine for the winos and homeless, but we will also turn water into SAFE water for the winos and homeless to drink as well. Not only that, the wine created by a Kerry administration will taste better and BE better for you!"

I have a copy of John Kerry's rare book. It is in an Adobe file, 2.32 meg. If anyone would like me to send them a copy, please email me and I will send it. Depending on the demand, I will send it as soon as I can.

I had a novel idea the other day. This surprised me as I have come to believe, through the study of philosophy and thought, that there are no new ideas just new names for them. It is an idea, judging by the flow of our societies tide, who’s time has come. But first some pointed background.

Point 1. Most of us know of someone or worse have ourselves been the victim of a civil lawsuit. This is a process more of who can financially hold out the longest than in any search for justice. There are lawyers who will attempt to get extension after extension on a case just to lengthen the time a person must pay for his own legal defense. This, many times, causes a settlement just because the settlement is cheaper than retaining the legal representation.
Point 2. You can not pick up the paper, watch the news, or open your mail without hearing about some new class action lawsuit about something or other. The problem with this, as most of us know, is that when damages are paid out most of the money goes to the lawyers. How many times have we heard of million dollar settlements and the actual victims receive a check for 37 cents?
Point 3. It has long been understood that we have 2 justice systems in this country. There’s one for the rich and there’s one for the rest of us. Time and time again the rich, by the ability to afford the most expensive lawyers and teams of lawyers, have gotten off on charges that would have sent any of the rest of us to jail for life.
Point 4. There is a crusade in this country right now to push for socialization of many things that used to be an individuals responsibility but now are considered a persons ‘rights’. I.E. “I have a ‘right’ to medical care, a ‘right’ to pharmaceuticals…the government should pay for them!”

I wonder how many of you after reading these points have had the same epiphany I recently enjoyed…or maybe the brainwashing runs too deep. Well, for those of you who may not have figured it out, here is my great idea. A SOCIALIZED LEGAL PROFESSION!!!!
This would, in one fell swoop, fix the problems innate in all the above points.
Point 1…justice would again be done as each person involved would have representation throughout the full process of any civil suit.
Point 2…If all lawyers are paid a yearly rate, say $50,000.00, then the cash amount of any settlement will go to those who deserve it-the victims.
Point 3…All lawyers would be free to the people and chosen by whoever would be up next on the docket, thereby leveling the playing field for the rich and the poor.
Point 4…There is no clause in the Bill of Rights for medical care, but there is one for legal defense. So I ask, why not?
Well here’s why not. Because in this great country, unfortunately, the lawyers make the laws. How many congressmen, how many governors, how many justices, how many presidents and presidential candidates are lawyers? Do you believe any lawyer would vote for such a zany idea?
When it comes right down to it, it shouldn’t surprise me that this is such a novel idea. I have come to believe that it’s not that no one has ever come up with it, just that anyone who has is somewhat hard to locate. And because of this I am sending this letter to as many people as I can and posting it on the internet. Unless, of course, some faceless group of lawyers tenders me an offer of a little hush money.
*For the slow witted, the above is meant as sarcasm and irony. Or is it?

The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) have posted their legislative agenda on their website www.afscme.org. This agenda is posted in the form of several “fact sheets” which I would like to address one by one.


“Restore Fairness to the Income Tax” – Fact Sheet

Most of the taxes cut in the 1990’s were income taxes to the benefit of the wealthiest citizens.
“…when the true cost of those tax cuts become clear…states have been reluctant to ask for the wealthy to contribute to the solution.”
“When balancing their budgets, states should look to those who received the most from the 1990’s tax cuts, and not to those who depend on public services to get by.”

Rebuttal: The concept of a taxpayer receiving a benefit when taxes are cut is socialistic. It is saying the government is giving them something when in actuality; it is the wage earner that is paying the government in the form of taxes. Utilizing socialism, the “wealthiest” received the most from the tax cuts because they “EARNED” the most wages, therefore they paid the most in taxes. Those who depend on public services to get by usually pay NO taxes. The solution should start by reducing costs and expenditures, and staying within a budget dictated by the fees and taxes collected.
America has created a welfare state. Welfare has become a way of life and income rather than the short-term help it was supposed to be. This in turn has fostered and enforced the greatest socialistic philosophy of income redistribution.
Income taxes can be an important part of the solution to state budget shortfalls.
“A one percentage point increase on incomes above $100,000 would generate…”
“A 10 percent across-the-board surcharge…would generate…”
“An income tax surcharge is a straightforward, progressive and easy to administer way of increasing state revenue.”

Rebuttal: AFSCME seems to be more interested in raising taxes and government spending than finding ways of governmental cost reduction. This is the biggest mistake unions make. Their leaders are stuck in the past rather than evolve as the business and economic climate of this country evolves. However, for the laymen today, unions are a business. For a business to prosper, it must make a profit. The profit for a union is found in its dues structure. The more union employees, the more union dues collected. Therefore, it is logical a union would argue against outsourcing and argue for increased taxes and services. Increased services will increase union members; increased taxes will pay for those workers.
Instead, unions should be looking to the future. By reducing taxes, consumer spending on goods and services increases. This in turn will increase manufacturing and eventually expand businesses which will then increase jobs (potentially union jobs).
Rather than looking for sources of revenues in the form of taxes and surcharges, unions should look for ways to expand businesses and create jobs.
Just the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)
“Raising income taxes, particularly on high-income taxpayers, will likely have less impact on economic growth than any other policy choices, like cutting funds for schools or infrastructure. A dollar cut in government spending immediately removes one dollar from the economy. When a dollar is raised in income taxes from high-income individuals some of that dollar may come from savings, thereby putting a dollar into the economy that otherwise may not have been there.”

“Most high-income individuals itemize their federal tax returns and deduct state and local taxes from their federal taxes. Therefore, the federal government will, in effect, provide high-income taxpayers a partial rebate on any additional state income taxes they may pay. People choose to live in a state because of its climate, jobs and social opportunities, not because of its tax structure.”

Rebuttal: School reform should be on the top of the list for unions. School vouchers would bring competition to the public school systems and increase effectiveness and efficiency of the public schools. School funding is at an all time high with little to show. Schools do not need more funding; the system needs to be fixed.
Any concept for removing someone’s savings is abhorrent and should not be tolerated. Social Security will not be around much longer, and people should be planning their future with that in mind. The concept presented above by the union is self-serving and does not have the best interest of the people in mind. Eventually, all money will enter the economy.
If the unions are so interested in keeping money in the economy, then the fair tax plan should have their full support. With more money in the pockets of the consumers, consumers will spend more, thereby putting more money in the economy.
There are many professional athletes that live in Texas due to the tax structure. If the above premise (this premise was true in the 1920’s and 30’s, once again showing unions still live in the, past )of living in a state for the climate, jobs, etc…, then Americans would be migrating to California for the seasonal work and eliminating any reason to hire illegal immigrants. However, due to the welfare state, people will go where they can get the most for the least. This is why we see concentrations of families on welfare in the urban areas.

This is from Neal Boorts at www.boortz.com

This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Too many times I have heard liberals make comments regarding Bush’s tax cuts such as: “the tax cuts are unfunded”, “these are reckless tax cuts”, and “how can the government pay for these tax cuts?”

The philosophy on which these questions are based is clearly Socialism. Whether liberals admit it or not, these tax cut arguments are based on socialistic ideals.

First, tax cuts occur when the government decides not to take as much money, in the form of taxes, from the taxpayer.
Second, it is the taxpayer, not the government that works and earns the wages that are taxed. Unless one works for a government entity, one does not earn wages from the government. It is not the government’s money; therefore the government cannot decide how much money the wage earner is paid.

The government, in no way, shape, or form, pays for tax cuts. Therefore, the phrase “unfunded tax cuts” is erroneous. The only possible meaning of such a phrase would be based on a deeper, philosophical meaning of socialism. The belief that the government pays for any tax cuts is a principle of socialism.

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of production and distribution of goods, services, and pay, or in other words, a redistribution of wealth.

The government’s main focus, economically and financially, should be to work within a budget based on the taxes and fees collected by the government. If the government receives less taxes and fees, such as the result of tax cuts, then the government must be fiscally responsible and reduce spending. There is no law that states a government must increase spending every year. If a private business were run as the government, that business would fail.

This country is based on financial and economic freedoms, a free market, and the right of every citizen to make as much money, or as little money, as he or she wants. People have exercised their right to spend that money as they see fit which has created the largest and strongest economy in the world.

To denigrate and demoralize those freedoms, and ultimately to eliminate those freedoms, is socialistic and should not and will not be tolerated in this great country.

For those that believe in those socialistic philosophies, France, Spain, and Russia are the places for you.