|

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Another case of I voted against it, before I voted for it????

I was just watching Fox News, and Congressman Bill Cardin (D) from the state of Maryland’s 3rd District was on. I missed the question, but it had to do with the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I did not however miss the answer:

“I was never for the sending of troops to Iraq,” said the congressman. That got me thinking, there are many Democrat Congressmen and women along with Senators saying they were never for the deployment of troops to Iraq. Well I went to the Final Votes at the clerk’s website with regards to issue HJ Res 75 Dated on 12/20/2001 during the 107th Congress 1st session. As you can see there were 177 Democrat votes to pass the resolution. And you can also see that the distinguished Congressman from Maryland was one of the YES votes. So in actuality Cardin was for sending troops to Iraq.

We have set date for removing our troops, it just happens to be the date when the Iraqis have their government up and running, and their police force is strong enough to hold order. IF we were to remove our troops one day before that, all the loss of life of both Iraqis and US troops would be a waste. The establishment of the Iraqi government is moving relatively faster and smoother than our own fledgling years of establishment.

Remember to keep our politicians on both sides honest! When they say that they were against something make sure they were. Make sure they are being true to their constituents.

|

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Air Marshal's take action

Today on an American Airline flight from Medellian, Colombia to Orlando, Fl. a passenger claimed to have a bomb in his carry-on. The plane was on the ground and the man made the bomb threat while still on the plane. The Air Marshal's took action and the man resisted, he was then shot. This is the first time that Air Marshal's have had to act since 9/11. The passenger who was shot and killed was an American Citizen and around 44 years of age. It is now being said that man DID NOT have any explosives on him, but was reaching into his bag while shouting he did have a bomb in it. Something about shouting fire in a movie theatre comes to mind. Here is a perfect example of a terror threat being treated in the proper manner, quickly and a minimum of lives lost. Terrorists who may have any thoughts about using planes again for their acts of terror, beware.

|

Friday, November 18, 2005

State of Fear, a book report

I just got done reading the new book by Michael Crichton: State of Fear. Talk about a page turner!!
This is a fictional book based on scientific facts and scientific non-facts with regards to the Global Warming debate. Crichton sights many scientific studies on both sides of the debate through out the book including websites to find the research done on this topic. There are two appendices the first entitled: Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous, which talks about a little discussed history lesson from the United States about the theory of eugenics and the striking similarity to the way global warming is publicized. The second Appendix is the sources for all the data for the Graphs in the book. Then there is the 31 page bibliography of the sources that he used for the research of the writing of the book. It is important to note that he used authors of differing opinion so that he could make his own opinion, which he writes about as well.

The story is a fast paced plot about a National Security Agent that is trying to figure out all the pieces of a puzzle before time runs out and a catastrophic terrorist plot is achieved. Along the way he meets up with a lawyer from a firm that represents many wealthy people and a few Environmental Organizations, namely NERF.

The book will get you to think no matter what side of the debate you’re on, I recommend everyone read the book and then come back and tell me what you think, and if your thoughts on the issue have changed and why or why not?

|

On the Election

It has been a week and a half since Californians let the Public Employee Unions get everything they needed to send this state into a tail spin of out-of-control spending. That’s right that is what this past election was all about, that is what the recall was all about, the fiscal mismanagement of the State Legislators. Remember when WE recalled Gray Davis? Was it because of Gay Right’s or Illegal Immigration? No, it was about out of control spending. So as a State WE put Arnold in to replace the guy in the corner office. And he did everything he said he would in first 100 days. He repealed the car tax, he vetoed the gay marriage deal, and the illegal immigrant driver’s license, he listened to the people. Well the people spoke again last week, and the ones that spoke the loudest where actually not the Public Employee Unions, it was those in his own party. That’s right it was the conservative base. We put him in that office because we knew he could win. McClintock is by far the more conservative, but folks this isn’t a red state. This is a blue state, and in a blue state we can’t expect to win right away with a true red politician. Incrementalization is necessary, if not vital to changing this state. As much as we would all love to beat into the heads of the liberals the common sense and logic of our views, they see their views as being logical and common sense, so beating them over the head with a 2x4 of conservatism when we are out numbered wont work.

Now there are some people like LN here who are gloating about the loss our State just under took:

“( Looking )Well, as I stated, I TOLD YOU SO!!!( smiling )So, now what happens?? Rightside?? Aaron?? Any clue??Ahnolds selling out McClintock....for that dipwad Fiorna of HewLett Packard fame. Anyone care to try to explain that one??Are we supposed to support AHNOLD or MCCLINTOCK now??Hmmmm, backstabbing a supporter, oh yea, THAT's going to win you grass root support.Ah well, here's your chance to make it 2 for 2...... 0 = ]”

To this I ask the question, are you surprised??? We as conservatives say, “Okay Arnold, here are the things we want you to do…. but when you ask us to give you the tools to get the job done we’ll be over here in the corner with our faces to the wall.”

As many of you know I study Brazilian Ju-Jitsu. I watch many matches and there is one thing that is very important that every fighter must do, and that is listen to his or her corner. But what does that fighter do when their corner is no longer giving them any support or incouragment? If that fighter is hearing nothing more than, “you’re not hitting hard enough, your going to loose this fight, just pack it up, man I wish I had another fighter in the ring… Hey buddy can I join your fighter?”

That is essentially what happened. And what did we conservatives get for it?

WE TIED the hands that hold the veto pen behind the back of the Governor = When the democrats ask for the tax increases to pay for the budget deficit… there will be no stopping it.

WE turned our backs on the one person who was strong enough in POPULARITY to stand up to the PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION MACHINE, and now they are free to do as they please with Union Dues to feed their agendas.

WE KILLED the recall, by not allowing the redistricting of gerrymandered districts = California will remain a BLUE state for the foreseeable future.

But there is a silver lining in all of this for those of us who did get out vote and supported the governor, what is that you ask? All of you who are conservative and worked so hard to defeat this governor because he was, “not conservative enough,” for you, you will reap the rewards of watching this state raise your taxes, watch as illegals get their driver’s licenses, and watch as homosexuals get to have their wishes of destroying the sanctity of marriage in name of equality. Why not the people have spoken and this governor listens to the people. So from now when you complain on this blog or on any other about what this governor is doing to this state, before warned that I will remind you of any statement on this or any other blog that was not supportive of this governor or the initiatives that were on the ballot for the people, and I will politely ask you to shut your mouth and swallow the medicine you self proscribed for this state.

|

Parents who care

Now here is a couple of parents who truly care about their childs future....

|

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Angelides vs. Arnold

Now I love a good joke as much as the next guy, and I have no problem with jokes that are risqué in nature, but I’m cold heartless conservative… right? Liberals are saying that we need to be sensitive to the feelings of others who are different from us. We should not make fun of the color of their skin, the way that someone speaks, or the clothes that they wear. So how can Phil Angelides have something this intolerant on his website for his political campaign?

This is not only childish with respect to the Seaseme Street but the fact that it shows yet again that the Dems still can’t put forth any ideas to better California. If Angelides’ camp had put half the effort they did into this garbage, they might have actually been able to come up with some helpful ideas on how we could finish fixing the problems that are still facing California.

Next question I have, what do you think would happen if Arnold had something like this up at a website of say Angelides, Barbra Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and Fabian Nunez, making fun of how they talk, dress, or the nationality of their origin (for those of you who don’t know where I’m going with this, the fact that Fabian Nunez is of Hispanic Dissent). For example, and this is just off the top of my head, what if we had the same setup, but now we have Barbra Boxer in a straightjacket, Nancy Pelosi dancing around in Gay Pride parade and Fabian Nunez in a field wearing a sack cloth picking tomatoes and lettuce? Then we have Angelides walking around the neighborhood with a doctor’s mask pulling the plug on an elderly man, and in the background a garbage can with the blood of aborted babies staining the sides. I can guarantee you that with in a hours time of the first liberal who came across that “spoof” it would be pulled from the net.

Why? Doublestandards.

|

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Public Service Announcement: Taxation

In my business I have been learning a lot about how the federal tax tables work. You see it is my responsibility to teach my clients how the system works. So I thought I might share some of the things that I have learned here with you all. The information that I am using comes straight from IRS 2005 Federal Tax tables.
First I will set up the tables for you, I will be using a Married couple filing jointly (this table is having difficulty showing up on blogger, please bare with it):
Taxable Income Tax + % on Excess Of the Amount Over
Over But not Over
$0 $14,600 $0.00 10% $0.00
14,600 59,400 1,460.00 15 14,600
59,400 119,950 8,180.00 25 59,400
119,950 182,800 23,317.50 28 119,950
182,800 326,450 40,915.50 33 182,800
326,450 ….. 88,320.00 35 326,450

So this shows us that we are not taxed at one rate. I will take the 25% tax bracket where most Americans find them selves. What this means is that if for example a couple has a combined household income of $70,000 dollars they are taxed at lowest tax bracket first so they pay the $1,460.00, then they are taxed at the second tax bracket so they pay $8,180.00 and then they of to pay an additional 25% on the amount in excess of $59,400, which is $11,600 and that equates to an additional payment of $2,900. For a grand total of $25,680. So in actuality this couple is paying roughly 37% of their total income back to the government.

That same $25,680 could be used by that married couple to help them prepare for retirement or maybe start their own business.

Now lets take a look at if their was a fair tax or a flat tax of say 10%. Meaning everyone who earns an income of $0 to ….. pays an income tax of 10%

A couple who earns 14,600 would still pay the same amount. But our Married couple earning $70,000 would pay $7,000. That gives them $18,680 to invest for retirement. Now if everyone was paying an equal tax percentage, we could budget both our personal lives as well as the national budget quicker and more reliably. Also think about the retirement account you would have if were able to save that much each year, there would not have to be the big scare regarding Social Security not having funds, the people could take care of it themselves. Also we would get rid of the disincentive to make more money!

Now one note needs to be made regarding this tax table. The IRS as we all know looks at your Adjusted Gross Income, meaning this is your income after all deductions like mortgage interest, contributions to pretax investments like 401(k)’s , Pensions and deductible IRA’s. You should always consult with Certified Public Accountant or other quallified Tax proffessional before makeing changes to your retirement plan to avoid any taxable events. For more information on how to make use of the current tax codes feel free to look at my jobsite and then give me a call.

|

Friday, October 14, 2005

A word on Prop 75

This is not very shocking, but it does give us very “up close and personal” look into the psyche of the democrat mind.

Democrats are so worried about proposition 75 passing…. why? Because they think it the Republicans wanting to take away the power of the democrat party; here is a secrete, they’re absolutely correct!!! Let’s take a look at the argument the dems are using here.

Republicans want to stop unions from taking union dues and making political contributions with out the consent of the union workers. They are making a power grab to take away power from Democrats.

Okay, so in this argument Democrats are admitting that union dues are going to political campaigns, that is no big secrete. They are also admitting that the union workers have no say in this matter. But more importantly than that, they are admitting that if the union workers actually had a say in the matter, the money would not go to the Democrats!!! The money would go to the workers and then they would spend it how they please!!! This is what troubles the Democrats the most, personal control over the funds!!

VOTE YES ON PROP 75!! ALLOW FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!! (Another thing Democrats supposedly want for the people… as long as it matches THEIR choice).

|

The DOJ Cracks Down on Non-Profits

Before I start on this topic, let me just start out by saying, I think gambling one’s paycheck away to casino is not healthy, not moral and not wise.

That said, what is happening to non-profits which use these “casino nights” to raise money for charities is wrong. There is a major difference between gambling in a casino who keeps all the money lost by the participants, and the giving of the house “winnings” to a good cause such as fighting cancer or putting money into the education system. There is also a societal difference between the two entities.

A casino: Offers the participants the chance (which is more in the favor of the house than the gambler) to take home a cash prize. People who have “won big” at a casino are never reminded that they more than likely lost more in the pursuit of the “big winning!” The casino is praying off those who are in most cases desperate for money and have the most to loose, not just monetarily. Families are lost, as well as homes and vehicles.

A non-profit organization: Any “buy-in” is known up-front as a donation. If you don’t have money to donate, more than likely you will not participate. Usually in Texas-Hold’em style there is a defined percentage that will go to the charity off the top. The money is going to go to a specific charity cause, not to make a profit for a flashy building to attract poor souls and tempt them to give up their life’s savings.

A distinction needs to be made between the two. The fact of the matter is people like to play card games. I am one of them. I also belong to a non-profit organization that has in the past used such casino events to raise money. There is an entertainment value, just as there is in the casino. The only difference is there is no false pretence that I will walk away from the one night event a millionaire. I know that my money is going to a good cause. I know that I will not be loosing my shirt, home, family or dignity by playing at the event. There is a lot of money raised that goes to our children from these types of events, money that would not otherwise go to them because of bureaucratic red tape. Besides if you ask me this is the best way for these organizations to raise money, rather than raising taxes and making everyone pay a portion, why not let those that want to give, do that, and get some entertainment while they are at it.

|

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Bennett's Economic/Racial Remarks

I know I am late to gate with this story, but I feel that there needs to be some clarifications to this debate.

In the Educational system, mainly in the Higher Educational system, and amongst Economist the idea of eliminating a portion of the population to reduce crime rates, abortions, poverty and the like is a common discussion. It is a THEORETICAL discussion but it is discussion. This discussion does cross the lines of race to show the thinking patterns of people who actually believe that this is a way to solve some of society's ills, actually wouldn't work (As Bennett said at the end of his statement, but by that time shock took over and the damage was already done).

In my time studying Economics at a Higher Institution, I experienced this debate and jumped in whole heartedly. Here is the set up of the debate:

Because the crime rate is so high in certain areas of our society that have a high concentration of certain races (black, brown, yellow), so if we were to control the birth rates of these populations we will reduce the crime rate.
RSB: The logic does flow, but there is a problem with it, morality and economically.

If we control the birth rates of these populations through for example abortions yes we would lower the population and the crime rate may possibly fall. But this argument does not take into consideration other factors for the crime rate. Population or rather over population (meaning over crowding is only a factor of the crime rate). Other factors are morality, education level, financial well-being, and family structure.

Now the argument has to change:

Because there is a high population in the ghettos, over crowding has occurred, this combined with a high poverty level and low education level on average puts the people in this area at a greater risk for a high crime rate. Couple this with lack of morals (meaning the low regard for human life, the laws of society, etc.) and you get the current crime rate situation. In order to combat this crime rate society could THEORETICALLY abort all babies of certain ethnic origins there by relieving the stress on society of over population.

RSB: The problem with this answer is again moral and economical. The person who uses this argument has painted themselves into a corner as they stated that a portion of the cause is the lack of morals (meaning the low regard for human life, the laws of society, etc.). The very act of abortion is having a low regard for human life. Secondly they are only addressing one part of the issue. Education level and financial situations are being ignored.

Now here is my answer to this debate:

Given that low morality (meaning the low regard for human life, the laws of society, etc.), education level and financial situations are all factors in the crime rate along with over population adding additional stress on society, there are several rectifying actions that need to be made.
1) Education of money
2) Education of morality
3) Ease of population living situations.

What do I mean by these:
1) Education of Money: means that schools need to teach at a young age, starting in Kindergarten how money works (really works not just the size of a Nickel compared to that of Dime).

2) Education of Morality: means that schools need to teach that morals were first handed down from God to Moses in the form of the Ten Commandments, and then have been modified and expanded upon by man's laws.

3) Ease of population living situations: means increase supply of housing. With the foundation of the first two steps worrying about affordable housing will not be as much of a concern. If one knows how money works, and can make money work for them, in moral fashion, then buying a home will not be as difficult as it is now. Now please don't think that I am saying that home owners are more moral than renters, it just goes to follow having knowledge of how money works, that one would than rather buy than rent.

What is the problem with my solution? Well for starters the education of money. And don't think that the rich don't want everyone to know how money works. Because that is not always true. It is more like some people in government do not want you to learn this. Here is why, they need you to rely on them. If you have the knowledge of how money works, than you don't rely on them to solve your biggest problem... that you don't have enough money! So you go to a public school from K-12 and they don't teach you about money, they teach you to get good Grades so that you can get a good Job that will pay you a good Wage. Then you go to college funded by government dollars, and there they instill in your brain that if you don't do well you will fail your courses and if you fail your courses you never get a good Job that pays you a good Wage. They prepare you to do just what those of you who have to get up in the morning at certain time in order to make it to work by a certain time, and punch in on a time card. You got a good Job, and you get a good Wage, and you have NO choice! So if they started teaching that money can work for you and gave you the choice of working for it or it working for you, they know that you would want to have it work for you. So they don't want to show you how money works.

Now as for the Education of Morality, I don't think I need to explain this one so much, we see how terrified certain people in politics are about this subject. It is about freedom. If you have to freedom to choose to believe or not to believe they have lost. These people who are fighting so hard for what they call "separation of church and state" don't understand that God already gave us the freedom to choose. No form of government can take that a way, and saying "under god" in the pledge of allegiance does not designate any specific God or deity that the nation must bow down to three times a day. It simply acknowledges that our founding fathers did not create this nation by themselves. They were not as egotistical as our society today is.

|

Breaking News.... Miers An Evangelical

Okay so it's not breaking news to those of us who have been following this since Monday morning. But you wouldn't know that by listening to MSM. Yes that article is on Yahoo... hardly MSM but it comes from the AP. The fears of religious beliefs on the left are laughable! I can't wait to see what they come up with next: Harriet Miers is a WOMAN!!!!!!!! You saw it here first folks!!! I broke that one.


Search Engine Optimization and Free Submission