USA Conservative

This Will Shock You...

I was listening to the Neal Boortz Show this morning in my car as I ran an errand.  Neal was discussing his interview a few months back with Democrat Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich.  Boortz is the co-author of the book The Fair Tax, so he is keenly aware of tax policy in this country and his questions were related to that topic.

He asked Kucinich what percentage of the total income the Top 1% of income earners made.  Kuncinich hemmed and hawed a bit, but eventually responded 60%.  The real answer as provided by Neal and the IRS - 17%.  This clown missed it by a whopping 360%.  How on earth can a man who has run for the Presidency multiple times and based much of his campaign on the fact that the rich don't pay enough, be so clueless as to the answer to that question?

If that's not bad enough, he was then asked what percentage of the Federal Income Tax the Top 1% paid.  His answer, "15% or less."  The real answer?  38%.

Let's review.

Kucinich thinks the top 1% made 60% of the total income, but paid only 15% of the tax burden.  That clearly wouldn't be fair to the other taxpayers in this country.  In reality, the top 1% earned 17% and paid 38%.  That doesn't seem fair to the top 1%, yet people like Kucinich scream that the rich are getting a free ride?

It is mind-boggling that a Democrat candidate for President can demand that the rich face a significantly higher tax burden and be so completely unaware of what they actually pay.  In fact, he was so off base that he suggested they earned nearly four times what they actually earn and paid roughly half what they actually paid.

Here's a question.  Why won't anyone in the mainstream media ask that question of a Democrat in a debate?  My guess is because their call for higher taxes on the rich falls apart when the facts are laid bare.  The rich in this country clearly pay more than their fair share of the tax burden and the LIE that they don't is perpetuated by incompetent, dishonest politicians and their lackey's in the press.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear one of these liberal scum bags wanting to take more of your money.  It's a freaking sham.

Founding Fathers or Liberal Blowhards - Who Ya' Got?

In a follow-up to my previous post, below are several additional quotes from our Founding Fathers on the right to keep and bear arms.  As you read these, think how drastically they conflict with the position of the liberal left in this country:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." -- Samuel Adams

"The great object is that every man be armed.  Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." -- James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -- Richard Henry Lee

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." -- John Adams

Could they be more clear?  Nothing that suggests the right is only for sporting purposes or that additional restrictions should be placed upon it.  And yet, many on the left couldn't disagree with them more.  But what else is new, there seems to be a lot about the Constitution they'd like to change. 

Ironically, Ben Franklin wrote to future generations of American's that "we gave you a republic, if you can keep it."  They obviously thought the right to keep and bear arms was central to that cause or they wouldn't have added language about it in the 2nd Amendment?

I wish gun control proponents cared more about what our Founding Fathers thought and less about their own ill-informed opinion.

Thoughts On The Right To Bear Arms

Many on the American Left want to eliminate your right to bear arms.  Virtually all on the American Right want to protect it.

If you're apathetic about this issue, consider the following:

It's 3:30 in the morning and you and your family are in your home upstairs asleep.  A loud noise suddenly startles you awake and you quickly realize that someone has broken into your home and is running up the stairs.  Adrenaline enters your bloodstream and you immediately jump from bed.  You quickly grab your Glock .40 and take cover on the side of the bed.  The door suddenly bursts open and several shots are fired.  The two armed assailants are both hit in the chest and left totally incapacitated.  You and your family are safe.

Right now you have a choice of what to defend your home with.  Obviously, my choice is blue steal with 165 grain hollow points.  Maybe I'm nuts, but that choice seems to have better stopping power than calling the cop who is finishing off his third cream-filled donut four miles down the road.  The point is that you currently have a choice.  If our friends on the Left have their way, you'll eventually have fewer choices with greatly diminished stopping power.

Logistically, it is very difficult for the police to protect you after an assailant has entered your home.  Once the intruder enters your living space it is really your responsibility to make sure they leave - and in a much different way than they entered.  Specifically, via an ambulance or the meat wagon as in the above example.

Home invasions are more prevalent and the perpetrators increasingly violent.  However, the libs continue to harp on the virtues of a gun-less society.  The question is, who do they think will be gun-less?  Certainly not the criminals.

Consider the divergence of these two quotes:

"The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes." Sarah Brady - Handgun Control (1993)

"A free people ought to be armed."  George Washington (1791)

They could not have more different meanings.  Sarah Brady, the gun control czar states that there is no place for guns to be used in self-defense.  George Washington, authors that citizens should be armed.  Blathering liberal or Father of the Country - who do you stand behind?

The next time you hear that do-gooder or media pundit babbling on about the necessity of creating a gun-less society remember the Washington quote.  Oh, and consider my previous point:  If guns were banned, who in their right mind actually believes that criminals would hand their guns over to the authorities?  By law they are not allowed to have them now!

Nope, the only people turning guns into the authorities would be the law abiding among us, eliminating the last line of defense between the lawful and the predator.

Let's take this one step further and fast forward three years.  The Democrat President has just finished celebrating the one year anniversary of the "Gun Abolishment Act" with a big high-brow party at the White House.  Earlier that very day, you were forced to turn the last of your firearms over to the authorities.  It's now 3:30 in the morning and you and your family are upstairs asleep.  A loud noise startles you awake and you quickly realize someone has entered your home and is running up the stairs.  Adrenaline enters your bloodstream and you immediately jump from bed.  Since you have no gun, you quickly dial 911.  As you are connected to an operator the bedroom door bursts open.

Multiple shots are fired, but you only here the first.

One Way To Improve The Country: Improve The Electorate

Have you seen the Britney Spears act lately?  It's quite a show.  A cross between a train wreck and a monkey procreating with with football.  You don't want to look, but you must.

The point?

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of American's are more familiar with Brit's daily trips to crazy town than they are with anything going on in the current political news cycle.  Is that surprising?  Unfortunately, less so every year.

What makes this situation so disturbing is that these political illiterates are provided with the same right to the ballot box as an informed voter.  The fact that they're clueless as to whom or what they're voting for is totally irrelevant.  This is certainly nothing new, but the idiot pool is clearly expanding exponentially on an annual basis.

It's a fact that the best friend of a Democrat candidate is an uninformed voter.  A political simpleton is far more likely to pull D than R (sorry libs - sad but true).  The more people know about the issues, the more likely they are to vote on the right side of the spectrum.  That being the case, many on the left enjoy the status quo and aren't anxious to make any adjustments.

Consider the fact that you must be tested and proven competent before you're approved to do any of the following:

• Massage therapist
• School teacher
• Auto mechanic
• Pharma Rep
• Cab driver

The list could go on, but you get the point.  We test for proficiency in any number of endeavors, but when it comes to a persons competency to select our nations leader's, it's come one dumbass, come all.  Think about the absurdity of this.  Did we really ask men to lay down their lives to give people of this ilk a vote?  Doesn't it bring dishonor to their personal sacrifice to do so?

If you can't take 15 minutes to do a cursory review of the candidates and issues, you don't deserve the right to vote.  PERIOD.  But how do you determine who is qualified and who is not?  Simple.  You create a Voter Competency Exam that would be taken by each person prior to their vote (online or at the polling station).  If you can't name the major candidates in a race, their party affiliation and the primary issues on the ballot, you lose your right to vote.

Is that too harsh?  I don't think so.  It's time people are held accountable for their wanton stupidity.  Too many in this society seem to wear it like a badge of honor.  They take pride in foolish, irresponsible behavior (Paris, Britney, Lohan).  Providing ignorance of that sort a voice within our electoral system, in always increasing numbers, will eventually destroy this country from within.

The right to vote is the most sacred right we have as Americans.  If you're too dense, lazy or irresponsible to take a few minutes to prepare yourself, then I would suggest you be swiftly removed from the voter pool.

And our country would reap the rewards of an informed electorate - and likely move sharply to the right.

This Should Really Make You Think...

I came across something recently that I found utterly amazing.  It was a list of goals that had been penned by the American Communist Party in 1963.  A Florida congresswoman received a copy of the list, had it vetted and then entered it into the Congressional Record that same year. 

In short, it's legit.

Some of their goals are dated and have not been included in this post, while others have been paraphrased to make them easier to articulate.  I think you'll find the number of objectives that have come to fruition stunning:

• Do away with loyalty oaths (Pledge of Allegiance).
• Use the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming they violate civil rights.
• Soften school curriculum. Get control of teachers associations.  Put the party line in textbooks.
• Infiltrate the press.  Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, etc.
• Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in media.
• Present homosexuality and promiscuity as normal and natural.
• Infiltrate the churches.  Discredit the Bible.
• Eliminate prayer in schools on the grounds it violates the "separation of church and state."
• Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step.
• Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture (education, health care, etc.).
• Discredit the family as an institution.  Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Sounds like modern day America, huh?  Seems they were pretty effective at pushing their agenda doesn't it? 

But how did they do it? 

Though we haven't elected any communists to national office, we've elected a whole gaggle of liberals.  The fact is, liberals and communists are part of the same political family tree - they're blood.  If they married and had a child, it would be born with a third ear growing out its forehead and its name would be Deliverance.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting there was a conspiracy here.  I don't believe our liberal politicians were necessarily in bed with the communists, however, their political values are not terribly far from those of Cousin Commie, so the idea that they unknowingly pushed their agenda forward is far from a stretch.   

In the end, the list was a blueprint for the weakening and eventual destruction of our Republic.  When you consider how these changes have vastly impacted the nation, you could argue that we are now closer to the aspirations of the 1963 communist party than to those of our forefathers.

The next time you hear some politician babbling on about change, consider that we are still the greatest country in the history of the world.

Doesn't common sense and history dictate that we leave well enough alone?

Al Sharpton Is A Shakedown Artist With Bad Hair

God forbid you're some type of celebrity and you make a comment offensive to a particular liberal constituency.  At that point, it's simply a matter of two things:

1. What liberal constituency did you offend?
2. What's going on in the news cycle that might deflect attention away from you?
   

If you're REALLY unlucky, you've offended the black community in a dead news cycle.  Kelly Tilghman must be REALLY unlucky.  An on-air Schleprock if you will.  Prior to being bandied about in the press for three weeks, it appeared the story had run its course.  But then some of us heard a noise in the distance.

Was it a bird?  Huh-Uh. 

Could it be a plane?  Nope. 

What was it? 

It was a big, self-serving, fat ass waddling down the street with a blow horn and pompadour.  That's right, Reverend Al Sharpton was coming to stir the pot of racial insensitivity.

I came across Al on TV one morning all up-in-arms and beside himself about the lynching comment Tilghman had made on the Golf Channel.  He was appalled!  He was aghast!  He was winded after :30 seconds.

Al was demanding action and he wasn't going to be satisfied until he got it.  He wanted her employer to fire, not suspend her.  He was going to march on the Golf Channel until she was gone!!!  He was going to make her pay!!!!

And then... He was gone...

It seemed the Clinton campaign had gotten itself in hot water for some perceived racial slights directed at the campaign of Barrack Obama.  Al apparently decided there was more exposure and financial upside in hassling the Clinton's than in tweaking Tilghman.  After all, in the end this was about one thing - lining Al's pocket.  The Clinton issue provided a far bigger fish bowl and greater opportunity to do what he did best in the public eye - complain, bitch and moan.

Let's face it, the business of race is big business.  Sharpton has made millions off the backs of corporations and individuals alike who supposedly insulted the black community.  Bad race relations equals good business for big Al.  Good relations and he becomes the encyclopedia salesman - obsolete.

But isn't that the point?  Shouldn't that be the goal of any civil rights leader?  The day when their role becomes archaic, unnecessary, when they can disappear from the the public eye after a job well done.  Of course it should, but Sharpton?  The only way he's going to disappear is if he pops.

After 20 plus years in the public eye, what are we to make of him?  At his core, he is shakedown artist.  His craft honed over decades, looking for or concocting racial slights and then making a spectacle of himself to garner attention of the incident (see hairdo).  Unfortunately, his friends in the press are seemingly all too eager to share his version of events and ask questions only after the initial coverage as been filed.  At that point, the dye is cast and the names of those involved are often tarnished beyond repair.

In the end, how do you judge who is worse.  Al Sharpton and his modus operandi or the mainstream press who actually give this tedious blow-hard public credibility by covering his every sham. 

The verdicts in... THE BOTH SUCK

Corporal Punishment: Who Wants Some?

School in America is not what it used to be.  When I was an elementary and middle school lad, bad behavior was dealt with harshly - a wooden board was introduced to your rear-end.  Fear of reprisal kept most kids with a brain in check.  The others usually came around after they tired of the shame and humiliation that came with getting the "red-ass" outside the classroom door.

Discipline issues were by and large not a problem back then, whether the school was located in the suburbs or the inner-city.  Kids knew the boundaries and stayed within the confines.  If they strayed too far, they knew a not-so-gentle reminder was on the way.

Let's face it, a good paddling hurts - that's the point of the exercise.  Couple that with the disgrace of often having the deed meted out within earshot of your classmates and it makes for an all around miserable experience.  There was nothing worse than returning to a room full of snickering kids who had just heard you getting your hiney popped outside the door.  It's among the most humbling things I ever remember experiencing as a kid, but it also left me with a stark impression - HOLY CRAP, DON'T EVER DO THAT AGAIN.

The Left argues that Corporal punishment is ineffective and barbaric.  Their answer?  Detention and in-school suspension.  Oh, the nightmares children must have about passing notes with buddies in detention.  The unspeakable memories of sleeping through an in-school suspension session.  It's too much, I can't go on!

Who are they kidding?  Does anyone really believe punishment of that nature serves as an effective deterrent to serious behavioral problems?  Folks, we live in serious times.  Times that call for serious solutions to serious problems.  Those are not serious solutions.  They're mamby-pamby, fantasyland crap.

Want some real world, straight talk?  How about this:  If you can't take the wood, you better be good.  The child holds all the cards.  If they behave, they're in the clear.  If they don't, accountability is on the way in the form of our largest renewable resource - lumber.

Look, the real world is full of boundaries.  Isn't it better that children learn those boundaries at an impressionable age, rather than when they are older and too jaded to care.  At that point, it is generally too late.

Spare the rod, spoil the child.  That's what HE said.  And HE was right.

Socialized Medicine - Canadian Style

Hey Guys,

I noticed on the news recently where Hillary Clinton introduced her new health care plan to the American public – something similar to what we have up here in Canada.  I also saw that Michael Moore was raving about the Canadian health care system in his latest movie Sicko.  As a friend and someone who lives with the Canadian health care plan, I thought I would give you some additional information about the Canadian health care system:

• Contrary to popular opinion, the health care plan in Canada is not free.  My wife and I pay a premium every month of $96 to be covered.  What they don't tell you is how much we pay in taxes to keep the health care system afloat. I am in the 55% tax bracket - yes I said 55% of my earnings go to taxes.  In the states, I believe the highest tax bracket is 35%.  If you embrace the Canadian system, get ready for your tax rates to go through the roof… but at least your health care will be "FREE"!

• I would not classify what we have as health care plan… it’s more like a health diagnosis system.  It’s easy enough to get in to see a doctor and receive a diagnosis.  The challenge comes when they find an ailment that needs treatment or an operation to fix a problem.  The stories you’ve heard about Canadians traveling to the States for treatment are not only true, they are routine.  Otherwise, get ready to wait.

• Rather than cure what is ailing you, the general treatment in Canada is to prescribe drugs.  Have a pain? Try this pill!  It is far more important to move patients thru the system as quickly as possible (to maximize government reimbursement) than to waste valuable time trying to cure the ailment.

• Shirley's dad recently cut his hand on a power saw and it required that his hand be put in a splint.  To our surprise we had to pay $125 for this service. In addition to this, we have to pay $60 for check up visits.  I think that is similar to what you’d pay in the States right now, but without the enormous tax burden to cover the "FREE" health care system.

• Shirley's cousin was diagnosed with a heart blockage.  Like everyone in Canada, she was given a number and put on a waiting list for treatment.  Like some in Canada, she died before her number was called.

• The Canadian government allots only so many operations each year.  When that allotment is used up, no more operations.  The Canadian Prayer: “Dear God, please bless my family, friends and all those less fortunate.  Oh, and if you’re planning on giving me a tumor or something, please allow it to be diagnosed early in the year.  Amen."

• The Government takes great pride in telling us how much more they are increasing the funding for health care.  Government continues to throw money at the problem but the situation doesn’t improve.  Of course it’s government, so that’s to be expected.  What confounds many of us north of the boarder is that you’re seriously considering following our lead in the States.  To those of us who live with this disaster, that is nothing short of stunning.

• My mother needs an operation for a blockage in her leg, but because she is a smoker they will not do it (despite the fact that she paid into the health care system all these years).  There is now discussion that we should not treat obese people either because they are a drain on the health care system. We’re basically shooting for a health care system that treats only healthy people.  I guess that’s one way to reduce our health care costs.

• Second opinion??? They don’t exist.  Hope your government doctor is good – we should probably add that to the Canadian Prayer.

• In dire straits?  Need an operation quickly?  Too bad, wait your turn or head to the States.  Unless of course you’re a hockey player – move to the front of the line.

• Oh, did I mention that immigrants are covered automatically at tax payer expense even if they have never contributed a dime to the system?  If you have a problem with that, I’m required to inform you that you’re a bigot.  But you probably already knew that didn’t you?  Bigot.

• And lastly, we now give free needles to drug users in an effort to keep some of our best and brightest healthy.  However, people with diabetes (who actually pay into the "FREE" health care system) have to pay for their needles because they are not covered by the system.

I hope this adds some clarity to the decision you’re facing.  If you’ve been left with nothing else, please remember this:  CANADA HAS NEITHER FREE OR QUALITY HEALTH CARE.  If you make a decision to emulate our system, you have not done your homework as a nation. 

I leave you with this.  I don’t know a single, self respecting Canadian who wouldn’t trade our health care system for the U.S. system in a heartbeat.

Good Luck,

John

Want Proof of Liberal Bias? Here You Go...

Oh, the times we live in. 

Dana Jacobsen, an ESPN anchor, gets drunk at a public company function, takes the mic in front of a large audience and proceeds to let loose a string of profanity laced insults that culminates with the following:  F Notre Dame, F Touchdown Jesus and F Jesus.  She is consequently booed off the stage by those in attendance.

Considering the flood of media coverage that similar incidents have received over the past twelve months, this would seem to be a newsworthy happening.  Major network + Popular On-Air Host + Statement Offensive to Millions = Mass Press Coverage.  Just ask Don Imus, Kelly Tilghman, Mel Gibson, Michael Richards & Dog the Bounty Hunter how their ill-advised remarks played in the press.  They played 24/7.

Dana Jacobsen?  Not so much.

Nearly ten days after the incident occurred a newspaper reporter who was in attendance decided to write about what he had heard.  Bloggers read about the incident through the newspaper account and word spread online like a Malibu wildfire.  Unfortunately, that's where the story ended.  Not one major news outlet, other than ESPN who announced she had been suspended for one week, reported the story.  Contrast that with Kelly Tilghman's nonsensical statement about lynching Tiger Woods and the non-stop, worldwide coverage that story generated and the question becomes why?

Why is one story newsworthy and one that is seemingly identical to it not?  Is it substance?  Is it timing?  Is it something more disturbing? 

I believe it is liberal bias in its purest form.  Want proof?  Try this on - what would have happened to her if she had uttered any of the following unacceptable remarks instead of her statement about Christ?

- F Blacks

- F Jews (she may have gotten a pass here - she's Jewish)

- F Muslims

- F Hispanics

- F Asians

- F Mohamed

- F Gays

The answer:  SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED.  NO DISCUSSION AND AN IMMEDIATE APOLOGY WOULD HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING FROM ESPN.  PERIOD.  I'm not supposing this outcome - we've seen it time and again.

Fortunately for Dana, she offended the right group.  Christians are one of the only groups she could have insulted without facing much more severe repercussions.  White men are the other.  We know from history, that had she offended one of the Lefts aforementioned protected classes she would have been dealt with far more harshly.  People within those constituencies are simply off limits.  Slip up and your head will be handed to you by your employer, and if you're famous enough, the press.

In the end, I can't imagine anyone making a more offensive remark and yet she receives half the sentence than Kelly Tilghman got for a misguided attempt at humor involving the word lynch.  A comment that Tiger himself dismissed as unfortunate, but a non-issue.  Yet still, it became a massive story that still lingers in the press today.

Why did one incident become a huge story and one remain largely anonymous? 

Bias.  Liberal bias.