Saving Our Nation

You may be a believer in economic opportunity versus government handouts, but millions of people have been indoctrinated by the federal government to believe in a government handout philosophy, as their best chance for economic success.
    
Our society is already embarked on a downward economic spiral and the death blow will be dealt in November, if the majority of voters believe in government handouts.
    
If you want the US to pull out of its disastrous decline and rebuild economic stability for all of its citizens, you have the responsibility to convert handout believers to opportunity believers before the November election.
    
Remember that Obama was elected under a program of "hope and change". This is a strong motivator and can be used again. People do not sit and dream about how they can spend more time in front of the TV. They dream about how they can be wealthy enough to own a boat, RV, take a cruise, or send their kids to college.
    
The sales program for the November elections must tap into those dreams for that portion of voters who are presently in the low income bracket. We know that this constitutes approximately half of all federal income tax payers.
    
Much present political TV programming is based upon items which appeal to middle income taxpayers. The sales points of the TV ads include reference to the candidate's educational background, previous experience in public office, traditional family values, church affiliations, etc. The non-taxpaying voters have no interest in these items, other than perhaps to be jealous of the candidate for his success.
    
We need a complete change in the nature of political TV programming to appeal to the non-taxpaying public. One of the political slogans of the past was "two chickens in every pot". Notice the simplicity and the universality. All people eat, and it is also a promise of wealth. It was applicable to a time in our history when hunger was rampant. This is no longer true, but the concept is still viable. Sell opportunity on the basis of what it can do for individuals. Start your own business and move up to the big time like George Jefferson, the black dry cleaner in an old TV series. Work for some other rich guy in a business where you will be paid a good salary and can buy yourself a boat or an RV. Government handouts will always keep you poor. Opportunity will allow you to use your genius and capabilities to become as rich as you would like.
    
Many of you just donate money to political action groups and assume that it will be properly spent. This is a copout. When you lay out money, you have the right and obligation to put limitations on how it is spent. Demand that we must deviate from standard political ads to ads that are directed to the so-called "impoverished", such that the impoverished will be convinced that their greatest advantage lies in opportunity rather than government handouts and will vote accordingly in the November election.

Federal Income Tax

We have recently been hearing a lot of talk in the TV news on federal income tax. Buzz words are "pay your fair share" and "the Buffett rule".
   
Let's take a look at the purpose for a federal income tax. It is to pay for the cost of government! Period!. The justification is for government to obtain the funds in order to do the things that are not easily done by individual citizens. An example would be to develop, equip, and maintain a military force able to defend its citizens from foreign aggressors.
    
Most taxes are based upon use of a product or service. Such "use taxes" track the quantity of product or service used by an individual and charge a number of dollars accordingly. The easiest and fairest calculation is to apply a percentage on the amount used. For example, the cost of developing and maintaining a federal highway system is paid for by a percentage tax on purchased motor fuel. The rationale is that the more motor fuel one purchases, the more miles he is likely to be traveling on federal highways.
   
 In the case of government services, it is essentially impossible to distinguish between amounts used by various individuals. For example, do I get the same amount of protection from the federal military as my neighbor? The answer is obviously "yes", and logic would say we should pay the same amount. The difficulty comes in with the fact that my neighbor makes 10 times as much annual income than I do and $1000 out of his pocket would create much less hardship for him than $1000 out of my pocket. The more extreme case is my neighbor on the other side, who can barely afford to feed his kids, and $1000 from him would put them in semi starvation.
    
So while we are essentially interested in obtaining money from the people in order to run the government, it is apparent that a federal income tax cannot be a fixed dollar amount for an individual. This then leads us to consideration of the percentage system.
   
 Let's just grab 10% as a starter. Since my neighbor on the left makes $1 million per year, we will charge him $100,000 in tax. I make $100,000 per year, and we will charge me $10,000 in tax. My neighbor on the right makes $10,000 per year, and we will charge him $1000 in tax. Not really fair, is it? My neighbor on the left is paying 100 times more tax than my neighbor on the right for the same service. But another way to look at it is that the amount of pain is distributed more evenly. $100,000 from my neighbor on the left probably causes him about the same amount of pain as $1000 from my neighbor on the right.
    
Up to now, we have used some logic in order to come up with what may be a reasonably practical solution of financing government. But now, we get into some human aspects. Somebody jumps up and says my neighbor on the left should be paying more than my neighbor on the right. Another person responds that my neighbor on the left is already doing so; he's paying 100 times as much. The first person then says that what he means is my neighbor on the left should not be entitled to $1 million in earnings per year and government should confiscate more of it than merely a standard tax rate of 10% or $100,000. While that doesn't make any logical sense, there are a great number of people who don't make anywhere near $1 million per year and begrudge the fact that my neighbor can do it while they can't (jealousy factor or compassion?).
    
Now the politicians get into it. Each income earner is a voter and there are many more voters in the low income group begrudging the incomes of the higher income group. In order to hopefully reduce their own taxes, and at the same time not reduce benefits, they will vote to increase TAX RATES for the higher income people. Since the public votes its interest through the political representatives, the politicians pass laws which establish a GRADUATED INCOME TAX RATE. This is where we stand now. High income persons now pay not only a high dollar tax as compared to low income persons, but also pay significantly higher tax rates. In fact, approximately half of US taxpayers pay zero federal income tax.
    
We now have to consider ideology. If you believe that one's efforts should be rewarded, you likely will find the present federal income tax rates abominable. Conversely if you believe that every individual has a right to economic equality, you will likely feel that income tax rates on high income people should be further increased.
    
In order to resolve that dilemma we must consider another human attribute. That is, "incentive". Incentive basically means why a person will do something. Most people aspire to economic wealth, whether they are presently high income earners or low income earners. The high income earners have already established procedures whereby they justify their higher incomes through some general public accomplishment, such as making automobiles or selling groceries. In so doing, they also have developed what we call business/economic capability. That is, they have the ability to continue to grow and produce. But what if society penalizes them for their success? Will they continue to grow and produce, or will they lose incentive to switch to some other form of "entertainment", such as partying, gardening, reading, etc., all of which benefit only the individual and not society as a whole. Some say that human beings are like ants. No matter how many times one knocks down their bridge, they will rebuild it. It is likely that there is some of that aspect in a human being, so that he may strive to continue to produce, even under negative conditions of government or the people's desire, but it is more likely that as a rational organism he will follow the course of least resistance.
    
Conversely, low income people or a few guilt-ridden high income people most likely will continue to pursue a program of obtaining their assets from the "rich". The progressively higher tax rates on high income people will help support medical and pension benefits and in extreme cases food stamps and other "entitlements", which previously were designated as "welfare" for the poor. Since this group of "users" is already a large voting block, it will likely increase in size and ultimately evolve into a system where user demands exceed the ability of producers to produce. The mass of voters to vote more benefits at the expense of producers then becomes of no consequence and privation develops.
    
What is to save our society? Another aspect of incentive. Those persons who now operate in the user mode, with primary activity of obtaining benefits from the "rich", also have the ability to modify their operations to become producers themselves. It is those persons who will really decide the forthcoming election in November. They will decide whether they should have individual freedom to develop and maintain financial or other goals or whether they will continue with a user philosophy with eventual destruction of the society beyond their life terms.

Ousting Pres. Obama

There are two ways to unseat Pres. Obama. Both require the November elections.

If another candidate wins the Presidency, Obama is automatically out in January.

If Obama is reelected, but Republicans take control of the Senate and maintain control of the House, Pres. Obama can be impeached. Impeachment will involve a trial concerning whether he is qualified to be President. I recently heard a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded), in which Pres. Obama admitted that he is not a natural born citizen, which is required by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore,a trial will likely result in a conviction, which is an automatic discharge from office.

Why Atty. Gen. Holder Is Opposed to American Citizens Having Guns

Atty. Gen. Holder says, "We have no right to possess guns". He is apparently referring to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
   
Let's take a look at the Second Amendment. It says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Notice that it is a very short statement, which is very different than the 2000+ pages of Obama's health care bill. There are two possible reasons for having such a large document as the Health Care Bill. One is to discourage anyone from reading it, and the other is to be very explicit about every point possibly related to the subject.
    
Since the Second Amendment is a very short statement, it cannot be considered as a discouragement to anyone reading it, nor is it explicit on the many possible points related to it. However, it suffers by leaving open different interpretations, such as that of Atty. Gen. Holder and the National Rifle Association.
    
One way of deciding which of the various interpretations is correct is to look at the context of political conditions at the time the Second Amendment  was written.
    
Prior to 1776, the American colonists were British subjects. The Parliament in England had imposed a Stamp Tax in 1765 and the Tea Tax in 1773. Both taxes were very unpopular with the American colonists, and in 1775, a segment of the colonist society physically revolted against its British government. This was followed by a Declaration of Independence in 1776. The Declaration did not initially receive significant support from the colonists, but the war had already started in 1775. It continued until 1783. The war was protracted for eight years, because the British had difficulty with a long supply line to America, while the colonists had insufficient weapons.
    
After the British conceded victory to the colonists, a new American government was set up through the Constitution of 1787, which was four years after the close of the war. The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part, was established in 1791, eight years after the war.
    
The question is what was in the collective mind of the American leaders in 1791, eight years after a very difficult war. People do not generally forget major events that have affected their lives, even over an extended lifetime. There is no doubt that the citizens of the newly established nation and its leaders clearly remembered the difficulties they had in defeating the British. They knew that one of their major problems was insufficient arms. They also knew that government could become onerous to its citizens and that there might be occasions where revolt would be necessary, even in cases where government was controlling from a near geographical position, as opposed to across an ocean.
    
There's little doubt that our forefathers wanted to have us retain firearms in order to protect ourselves from an overreaching government or from a foreign force which local government is unable to repel.
    
The leaders of our present government and its successors obviously do not like the threat of citizen military action against them. As a means to minimize that threat, they naturally oppose citizens having firearms.
    
It behooves citizens to be sure that no regulations are passed and enforced which would eliminate their control of firearms.

The State of Virginia Encourages Fraud in Its Operations

Cuccinelli is the Virginia State Attorney General. Mann was an Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia.
   
Mann received a state grant of funds to investigate climate and later became a strong proponent of global warming and the greenhouse gas theory. Cuccinelli suspected fraud in use of the funds from the state grant. He subpoenaed the University of Virginia to obtain access to Mann's e-mails and other documents relating to the research. The University of Virginia refused, and the case went to the Virginia Supreme Court.
   
The Virginia Supreme Court decided that Cuccinelli had no right to access Mann's records, notwithstanding the fact that state funds were involved. The Court held that while Virginia law allows the attorney general to investigate individuals or businesses that receive state funds, state agencies, including the University of Virginia, may not be similarly investigated.
   
 It appears to me that if anyone wants to steal public funds in Virginia, he would be well advised to first obtain a job with the state, wherein he would be exempt from investigation.

America/s Last Election?

    The following was sent to me by a friend:

 

 WE, IN AMERICA, ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE.....

Pathfinder says: Could 2012 be America’s Last Presidential Election?

Food for thought.

I’ve asked this question to a number of people and most them respond as if I were crazy for asking. They tell me that this is America, land of the free and that there will always be elections. I tell them that we are no longer the land of the free and that if Obama gets re-elected in 2012, that this just may be America’s last election.

In the past three years, the Obama administration has been very carefully crafting the nation for a political take over by his Marxist regime and this isn’t just my opinion.

Popular radio talk show host Michael Savage is the son of Russian immigrants and is very familiar with Soviet and European history. Savage warned his listeners this week saying, “I have to tell you that if this man, God forbid, is the next president of the United States, we’re going to be living in something along the lines of – people say Europe. I don’t believe it’s going to be like Europe – I think it will be closer to Chavez’s South American dictatorship.

“This is the most corrupt, incompetent, dangerous tyrannical administration in American history. It’s not politics as usual. It’s not just Democrats versus Republicans. Obama has a long history of being at odds with American values and with America itself and the core principles of this country. They don’t want government-sponsored opinions. They only want government-sponsored ‘Pravda.’ That’s exactly what the government-media complex tells you on a daily basis – nothing but the government-media complex party line. Pay attention. Your freedom may be at stake.”

Over the weekend, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told a small group of people in an Iowa coffee house that, “Barack Obama is not incompetent, ladies and gentleman. He knows exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it. He sees America differently than you see America.

[Obama] has gone out of his way to divide this country in a way I haven’t seen since the Great Depression when Franklin Roosevelt went around to divide his country. That’s his hero. What makes America great [in Obama’s mind is that] the government takes money from somebody and gives it to somebody else. No, that’s what makes America, France.” With his control over the Executive and Judicial branches of the government, the stage is set for a complete takeover of the government. Think about it.

Since taking office, instead of helping the economy, Obama has purposely escalated the economic crisis by plunging the country into unprecedented debt. He has a number of programs that are designed to go into effect in January 2013, just in time for his second term of office. The economic burden and increased taxes on everyone will be enough to cause the final economic collapse of the country. As soon as that happens, Obama declares Martial Law and assumes dictatorial control of the nation.

The Department of Justice has already been subverting federal laws to strip us of a number of freedoms. The Supreme Court and many of the other federal courts have been seeded with socialistic liberal judges that will rule in Obama’s favor on virtually anything, thus ending constitutional rule and law.

He’s already changing the face of America’s military. Allowing homosexuals to openly serve along with changing the retirement program is causing many conservative military leaders to resign commissions and leave the military. Some Pentagon officials are also noting that an increase in the enlistment of radical Muslims into the US military where they get all the training they need on weapons and defense systems. We have no idea how many of them there are in the armed forces or in what positions they may hold.

Obama has been wielding executive powers this past year as if he were already a dictator. When Congress is not doing his bidding, he simply bypasses them and used an executive order to accomplish it anyway. This has set the stage for his disbandment of Congress. He would not be the first world leader to take control of a nation and disband the legislative branch of government.

He has been effectively using the media to anesthetize the public to the dangers he poses. Like a patient being prepped for surgery, people are numb to the changes and won’t have a clue what took place until they wake up in recovery and realize that free America has been removed and replaced with a regime that may parallel those of Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Chavez and Castro.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, I earnestly pray that we are spared from what seems a certain future and that Obama is overwhelmingly defeated in 2012. Otherwise, heaven help us.

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous

Birth Control Costs

I have a friend who sent me her comments concerning testimony of a woman law student before a Congressional Committee concerning taxpayer financial support for birth control. Rush Limbaugh has also commented on this during one of his radio broadcasts. Read the comments of my friend at the bottom and then read my comments at the top.

 

    I checked the Internet for price of high quality condoms. $19.52 for a 24-pack. Let's say $1 each. To use up $2000 worth of condoms in a year, Ms. Fluke would need to have coitus more than 5 times per day each day for the year.

    Prices on birth control pills vary all over the lot. Most quotes are on a monthly basis. They range from $9 to $84 per month. On an annual basis, that's $108 to $1008. Notice that it's a far cry from $2000.

    An intrauterine device costs $175-$400, which includes the initial doctor visit, the device, and a 3-month doctor follow-up. It has a 5-year life. Note that cost is a lot less than $2000.

    If Ms. Fluke really wants to cut her birth control costs, she can buy one 24-pack of condoms for about $24. She can use 2/month by washing and drying the condom after each coitus. Fifteen days on each condom will not damage it, but she can start a new one after the 15-day period to be safe. In that way, she can have birth control for $24 per year, not $2000.

    It seems to me that if law student Ms. Fluke can't figure these things out for herself, our society is already in deep trouble.

 

 

 

  -----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:37 PM
To: Arthur Sucsy
Subject: I have a question
The news showed a Georgetown law student who thinks we need to buy her $2000 worth of contraceptive pills each year, per Obama's new Free Pill Law.

I think those pills have affected her brain.(no worse than Global Warming and CO2) and boy what a lawyer she will make.
I had just recieved a Natural Health Letter in which it suggested men sould not drink tap water because our water systems cannot clean up estrogen from tap water and it is getting more and more contaminated from the chemicals we consume and excrete.  It is connected to an increase in Prostate cancer.  At the same time I read (in C&E News)about the Garter snakes.  Male snakes flock a female in heat.  When the same substances the female produces was introduces into a male snake other males flocked to him.  It is possible our estrogen contaminated water can explain the increase in homosexuals too, they can't tell the difference and this must be somewhat mental too.  Free contraceptives will increase the hormones in our water supply.    I think Obama needs a Biology and Chemistry lesson.  If he is the Environmentalist he claims to be, raising gas prices etc, because of CO2, he sould investigate his free Contraceptive Pill Law and withdraw it.
Am I loosing it?