It's that time of year again. The Democrats, have partied away the last couple days at their convention, and the Republicans are gearing up for theirs on September 1st. We watched as speaker after speaker made their way up to the podium to endorse Barack Obama in one way or another, as  an aura of “unity” not seen before in American politics, passed through our televisions. We watched as Nancy Pelousi announced Barack Obama to be the first African American presidential candidate in this country’s history, and we heard once original speeches tainted by Obama advisers with their interpolation of left-wing talking points, namely " McCain’s more of the same," "he voted the same as Bush 95% of the time," "He doesn't even know how many houses he owns," and the list goes on and on.
 
When they aren't talking negative though, the Democrats like to focus themselves on one major ethereal motif: Reclaiming the American Dream. It headlines the subtitle of Barack's book, it has been uttered in all of his speeches, and it has been included in the entirety of the DNC diatribes. It is a phrase that has fueled the campaign of the freshman senator from Illinois. With this message, he has garnered audiences not seen before in the political scene, proclaiming his messages of hope and change to his varied group of disciples.

There are two parts to analyzing the meanings of Obama's shibboleth. First, what is Obama's interpretation of the American Dream, and what is its true meaning? Second, is it flawed, and does it need to be restored?

"On the other hand, Americans also believe that if we work full-time, we should be able to support ourselves and our kids. For many people on the bottom rungs of the economy-- mainly low-skilled workers in the rapidly growing service sector-- this basic promise isn't being fulfilled." This is a quote from Obama's book The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. From what I have learned and read about Obama, my best summation of his interpretation of the American Dream comes down to this: He believes that if you live in America, you can get a job, and that if you work full time, you and your family will prosper. Now I inherently disagree with this. His belief, and it is reflected in the quote, implies that by simply existing, you and your family will be able to live a comfortable life, and that you have the RIGHT to live comfortably. You have no such right. He then implies that there is a promise from the government, that if you work full time, you will be rewarded. Wrong. First of all, the American Dream is relative to the person that pursues it. Second, never in this country's history has the American Dream promised results. It is a contract with the ideology of democracy that promises not success, but the opportunity to pursue it; not money, but the free market to attain it; and not prosperity, but the freedoms to maintain it. Obama’s problem, and it is a big one, is that he feels the Government has a role in maintaining the American Dream, a contract if you will, when no such obligation has ever existed.
Is it flawed, and does it need to be fixed? Of course, not. As long as the Constitution of the United States sits in our archives, the dream will press on. We will always have the ability to pursue our greatest desires and our most fantastic dreams, regardless of who is sitting in the oval office. The American Dream is attainable through one thing and one thing only: hard work. Not government handouts and redistributed money. For Barack Obama to preach that this dream is “slipping away” is an insult to our great founding fathers and to the men and women who lost their lives to protect the idea of America.
 
So what is Obama actually going to do, to “reclaim the American Dream?” He will completely eliminate the income tax for 10 million Americans with varied amounts of tax credits depending on the person’s situation. Right now, the top 50% of income earners pay 96% of the tax burden. Under Obama’s tax plan, we could see the entire income tax burden being paid by the top 50%. Ethically, this is unfair, seeing that these 10 million Americans have, in no way, earned this money. In hindsight, Obama wants to punish people who have found success by raising their taxes and redistributing their money to people who haven’t earned it. It is the un-American way. He calls his tax plan the “Making Work Pay” Tax Credit. Is it me, or doesn’t work already pay, you know, with a salary? Why do they deserve extra money? Now do you think that the 10 million Americans who receive this free, unearned money will work even harder to get themselves out of their situation, or do you think that they would become more comfortable in their situation with the extra money, maybe spend more time with their kids, or take off work early every once in a while? Obama’s plan is dangerous, for it entails unfairness, and a false sense of security.

So what do we need? We need a President, and no one is offering this, that is the polar opposite of Barack Obama.  We need a young leader who emphasizes the power of the community and the efficacy of individual responsibility, a man that understands that hard work leads to prosperity, not redistributed money. A president that promises to help the middle class, not by giving them money they don’t deserve, but by giving the money they earn its true value. A real leader would restore the value of the dollar, an issue that seems to never be confronted, through energy independency, through fiscal responsibility, by lowering our national debt, and through reclamation of a dollar value system. A real leader would strip the Federal Reserves of its power to levy interest rated at their whim, instead of allowing the rates to raise and sink according to the free market. We need a President that gives people a real faith in the security of their dollar value by restoring some kind of value system, whether that be with gold or commodities, rather than allowing the Fed to create money out of thin air, which undoubtedly leads to inflation. And the list goes on and on. Our Government needs to restore fairness, by adjusting the rules, not by cheating.

We need a truly Conservative President.

Information from an op-ed in New York Times, July 27, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/us/27immig.html


     The setting is a kosher meat-packing plant in Postville, Iowa. From the outside, the building's facade mirrors the semblance of any other industry. Inside, there is a much different story to tell, for its immoral plot line echoes back to the iniquity of slavery.

     This past May, here at Agriprocessors Inc., the nation's largest kosher plant, Federal immigration agents raided its operation, rounding up 389 illegal immigrants. "They found more than 20 under-age workers, some as young as 13."Some said they worked shifts of 12 hours or more, wielding razor-edged knives and saws to slice freshly killed beef. Some worked through the night, sometimes six nights a week. One, a Guatemalan named Elmer L. who said he was 16 when he started working on the plant’s killing floors, said he worked 17-hour shifts, six days a week. In an affidavit, he said he was constantly tired and did not have time to do anything but work and sleep. “I was very sad,” he said, “and I felt like I was a slave.” Iowa law clearly states that, on account of the dangerous work that takes place, meat packing plants are not allowed, and that it is therefore illegal, to hire any persons under the age of 18.
    "In an interview, Elmer L. said he had told floor supervisors that he was under 18. He asked that his last name not be published on advice of his lawyer, Ms. Parras Konrad, because he is a minor in deportation proceedings.“They asked me how old I was,” Elmer L. said. “They could see that sometimes I could not keep up with the work.”Elmer L. said that he regularly worked 17 hours a day at the plant and was paid $7.25 an hour. He said he was not paid overtime consistently."My work was very hard, because they didn’t give me my breaks, and I wasn’t getting very much sleep,” he said. “They told us they were going to call immigration if we complained.”Elmer L. said that he was clearing cow innards from the slaughter floor last Aug. 26 when a supervisor he described as a rabbi began yelling at him, then kicked him from behind. The blow caused a freshly-sharpened knife to fly up and cut his elbow.He was sent to a hospital where doctors closed the laceration with eight stitches. But he said that when he returned, his elbow still stinging, to ask for some time off, his supervisor ordered him back to work.The next day, as he was lifting a cow’s tongue, the stitches ruptured, Elmer L. said, and the wound bled again. He said he was given a bandage at the plant and sent back to work. The incident is confirmed in a worker’s injury report filed on Aug. 31, 2007, by Agriprocessors with the Iowa labor department.


"In the aftermath of the arrests, labor investigators have reaped a bounty of new evidence from the testimony of illegal immigrants, teenagers and adults, who were caught in the raid. In formal declarations, immigrants have described pervasive labor violations at the plant, testimony that could result in criminal charges for Agriprocessors executives, labor law experts said."

So there it is, the article speaks for itself. The evidence is brutal and the testimony is heartbreaking. The fact is that this is slavery. Therefore, since we have dealt with this problem before, we have laws. Dramatic one's like the 13th ammendment, and simple ones like Iowa's law that you cannot hire people under the age of 18. So who is responsible, who gets in trouble?

Well, this where it gets political. I know, I know, I don't want it this way either. People start to feel for those illegal immigrants. They think well, they need this work, and to simply start catching illegals and throwing them back over the border is unethical and lacks morality. Then they'll start to identify with the companies. O, well they are just trying to give work to the people that need it the most, besides Americans wouldn't do these jobs anyway. I mean there's just so much love going around that I can't take it. Everyone is trying to understand one another, when all we have to do right now is understand the law.

 So here's what we do in this situation. We shut down this company, for what they did was illegal, and they should therefore be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. As for the illegal immigrants, they should be deported for they are in this country illegally.

Now, the real problem here, the answer that I do not have, is how to cope with the effect this machination will have on the economy. Obviously, if we just start deporting people left and right and prosecuting companies, jobs will be lost, businesses will falter, and the economy will fall into a downturn. In defense of this proposition, as I just said, many pundits say that Americans would not "stoop" to the level of work that illegals do. Well, that I am not sure of, but regardless, it is definitely a possibility. So the best I can do here is give some kind of road map to immigration reform, and that is the law, and more specifically prosecuting companies and illegals to the full extent of it. But I am just a 16 year old high school junior. So if I can get this far, then Barack Obama and John McCain have to have some brilliantly coherent ideas to fix this. I mean especially Barack. He went Harvard Law School, was the editor of the Harvard Law Review there, and to top it all of he was a "community organizer."

 Unfortunately, neither Barack nor McCain have confronted this issue at all. Obama's website adresses the issue with 6 sentences. A s for McCain, well McCain-Kennedy speaks for itself. The Iraq War, the Economy, and Gas Prices have taken center stage in this campaign on account of the personal effect it has on the American people, that is simply the realisitic and statisitical truth of the matter. However, a true presidential candidate, someone truly determined to lead this nation, would address the serious issues, regardless of their popularity. We just don't see that anymore. I guess sincerity is simply to cliche these days.

Well here we are, 10 years into the 2008 presidential election, and the end seems farther away as ever. The differences in the candidates are extreme, the race is close according to polls, the media is falling more and more in love with Obama, and John McCain just keeps getting older. It's great, isn't it? There have been a lot of wishy-washy attacks, quotes, smokes, and mirrors thrown around in the last couple months so I figured I would winnow all that aside for you and focus on the three things that I think are the central issues of this campaign,[taxes, the war, and gas prices] in a short little commentary. I am way too lazy and sporadically uninformed to talk about every talking point in this election, so here it goes.

Taxes. To put it simply, Obama's raising them. If your making over 250,000 dollars, your Social Security tax is going up. Capital gains tax, as high as 28%(currently 15%).(Over 100 million Americans invested in the Stock Market last year). All an increase in the capital gains tax does is smother growth and discourage investment, two things that embody our free-market based economy. To add to the list, Obama favors the Cap and Trade system, which basically means that you are going to have to pay for pollution. The sad thing is that Johnny Maverick favors it too so there's no room to budge. Now to the income tax. This is where Obama demonstrates his principles of inequality. Here's a quote from his website: "Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans." Sounds great doesn't it? Except that it is completely unethical. Barack, how many more tax breaks do there have to be for you to realize that tax rebates do not get people out of poverty. The top 10% income earners in this country pay 70% of this nation's tax burden. How much more of the burden do we have to put on their shoulders to get you to realize that your "Robin Hood" polices will not work. I guess the real question boils down to who deserves tax cuts? The people who actually pay taxes, or those who don't? And that is simply a question of fairness. Think, don't feel when it comes to taxes. The way I see it, if you hate the rich as much as Barack does, why wouldn't you support a  fair, low, progressive tax rate based on income. That way, the "rich" would pay more because they get richer, and therefore would be paying more taxes. Or we could get really crazy and implement a flat tax. But that's just too fair. Right, Barack?

The War. Obama was against the surge, McCain was for it. Surge worked. Obama was wrong. This is the thinking of a reasoned human being. Now here's how Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and the rest of the school girls on the left see it.(Except Lanny Davis)Obama was against the war from beginning, so that's really all that matters. And if you really want to talk strategy about this unjust war that Cowboy Bush brought upon us, then the only reason the surge worked was because the Sunni Anbar Awakening and the Sadr cease-fire arose to the scene. Now, this is why I love politics. Obviously  they weren't quotes, I am being satirical, but you get the point. Obviously the Awakening and the Cease Fire were important in decreasing the violence. But to blatantly neglect to acknowledge the efficacy of the Surge and the domino effect that it spurred is irresponsible and flat out partisan. In an interview with Katie Couric(surprising I know), Barack was directly asked several times if the surge had worked, and he kept saying that the "troops" did a sufficient job. Politics as usual. I mean come on Barack, we know you have a shallow character and pitiful judgment, but at least acknowledge the political decision that allowed the troops to succeed. Stop playing games.  Now, shifting gears to the Afghanistan issue. Everyone  has been going crazy about this, so let's get it straight. Afghanistan is a serious issue, I have thought that all a long. But the only reason that we can directly confront that now, is because we are winning in Iraq, where Barack wanted to cut-and-run from a year ago. Oh, but he didn't flip-flop, he simply revised his position, or in clear thinking terms, realized he was wrong and therefore had to change his policy to avoid political embarrassment. The major point here is that Barack really does not take Iraq seriously. His goal is to get out of Iraq, McCain's is to win.

Gas Prices. To confront this issue head on, Americans have to realize that there is no quick solution. To fix this lousy picture, we have to add a varied group of colors that can proliferate their specific benefits into our economy. Politically, the future looks bleak, for both Barack and McCain are nature freaks. Neither of them are really offering any solutions. They are against drilling in Anwar, and as for off shore drilling, the only reason McCain supports it now is because it is politically expedient. What  both of these candidates have to understand is that we have oil, a lot of it. Let's use what we have. Drill everywhere, convert coal to oil(one barrel costs $40), take advantage of the oil shale in the Rocky mountains(location is untouchable, prohibited by Fed) where we have roughly 2 trillion barrels worth of recoverable oil, the same amount of oil as the Saudi Arabian Crude Reserve. Let's allow the oil companies get out there on the free market and explore and drill and produce. We know where the oil is, so let's stop playing political games in Washington, and let's get it done. At the same time, we have to invest in nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. The worst type of action is no action, and that is exactly what this government is harboring, and that is precisely what Obama and McCain support. So I really don't have an answer for you there.

Well here's a goodnight. Hope you enjoyed my late night unspellchecked rant.

    With Barack Obama's sporadic moral controversies arisen, his experience, perhaps a more definite issue of his campaign, seems to have taken a back seat. So to bring it back within the critical lens, we must put his goal in perspective.
    Obama is running for the President of the United States of America, the most prestigious, vital, and decisive profession on the face of this planet. Therefore it is obvious that the person holding the position be fluent with and aware of the fluxations of the political world and the atmosphere that surrounds it.(aware of, not conformed to)
    Now, to many, a necessity for experience would seem obvious, a given if you will. The reason that I reiterate its importance is because it seems that this principle does not apply to Barack Obama in the presidential election, or perhaps that it doesn't apply enough. So let's look at the facts.


      Two years in the U.S. Senate. Seven years in the Illinois Senate. One loss in a primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives. One stirring keynote address at a Democratic National Convention. Two best-selling books.That's Barack Obama's political résumé. Is it enough to qualify him to be president? Nope, here's why.
First of all, the fact is that he has been in the US Senate for only 2 years, a number that speaks for itself, and has spent a majority of that time period running for president, away from Washington.
While in Washington, Barack  has sponsored 130 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 117 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). He has also missed 21% of the votes.(govtrack.us)
Impressive right? not really. But with all criticism aside, we must not look over those two remarkable bills that passed into law. One of which is really impressive. Obama was lead sponsor of a bill to provide relief and promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which was signed into law in December 2006. Forget everything else, that's enough right there, put him in the White House.
   

Now here is Obama's argument to this and it is a legitimate one: "I remember what was said years ago by a candidate running for President. He said, 'The same old experience is not relevant. You can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience.' Well that candidate was Bill Clinton. And I think he was absolutely right," Obama said in a statement released by his campaign. “I may not have the experience Washington likes, but I have the experience America needs—the ability to bring people together, stand up to the special interests, and tell the truth to the American people on the major issues we face, from Iraq to Social Security,” Obama said. This is a very attractive argument, and I believe that it is why his experience has been overlooked. He concedes that he does no have the experience that Washington likes, meaning actual political experience, but he also evinces that he has more of an internal experience, a moral one if you will. The problem here is that those abilities of "standing up the special interests" and "bringing people together" are variable attributes. These moralities or internal fortes are influenced by their surroundings, in this case, by the political atmosphere. Now to demonstrate his true experience, he must lay out to the American people that these personal attributes can withstand in the face of Washington politics. And to be frank, he hasn't done that yet. From what I have seen during this campaign is that Obama is developing as a politician during the actual campaign. His past is arising, he is demonstrating his extreme weaknesses in foreign policies, and in a sense, Barack Obama has become the Democratic front-runner on the campaign. What I mean is that he had not yet developed in the Illinois senate or more importantly the US senate, and that's a problem. To have a potential President gaining his experience on the actual campaign is not healthy for him or for this country.
What it comes down to when simplified numerically is that Barack Obama, as I said, has been in the Senate for only 2 years. It's just not enough; not enough to clearly demonstrate who Barack Obama is a person or as a politician.
   
   

  
PS: What the hell is a community organizer?

    On April 16th, Barack Hussein Obama and Hilary Rodham Clinton engaged in their 6000th debate. The critics, donating their left-wing criticism, complained that Obama was questioned way "too hard." The bloggers complained that the questioners didn't base their questions on the issues that matter: the war, health care, the economy, immigration etc. Obama supporters shouted that these types pillory are exactly what their candidate is trying to stop; to try to "Fix Washington," with "Change."
    First of all, I want to start by saying that the issues should obviously be the major concern in these debates. They are the areas that need to be addressed, it is unquestionable. But the fact is, with this Democratic race, Obama and Clinton's positions on the issues have been made very clear: Socialized Healthcare, higher taxes, get out of Iraq, flaccid immigration policy, and abortion. We all get it. They have had an inordinate amount of debates about the issues, and when it comes down to it, they are both virtually tantamount in their ideologies.
    So now the question comes down to: does character matter? Sure it does, character always matters. So let's look at Barack Obama. He has attended a racist, anti-American church for 20 years. He has a "friendly" relationship with Bill Ayers, who was a member of the Weather Underground Group that set bombs in the Pentagon and Capital buildings.  He calls the blue-collar people of Pennsylvania bitter, and says that they "CLING" to their guns and religion on account of this bitterness. And then there's his wife. She says that this has been the first time in her adult life that she's been proud of her country. The first time.
    So let's first look at the rebuttals to the Reverend Wright controversy: Barack Obama never attended any of the specific masses when the reverend went on his litany.
Rebuttal to rebuttal: False.(file:///Users/frizzo/Desktop/Editorials/Obama%20Attended%20Hate%20America%20Sermon.html)
    That Wright was like family to Obama, and that he could not simply abandon him, comparing him to his grandmother. Rebuttal to rebuttal: You cannot choose your grandparents, you most certainly can choose your pastor.
    That the comments given by Wright do not reflect Obama's views. Rebuttal to rebuttal: He was at the church for 20 years, and he obviously had no problem with the comments made by his pastor.
 
    So now to Bill Ayers. Who is he? He's a terrorist. On 9/11 2001, Ayers told the New York Times said “I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough.” They served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago together, an organization dedicated to "increasing opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area, including the opportunity to shape decisions affecting them," as it says in the foundation's mission statement (That sounds good right? So how the hell did a terrorist bomber mange his way on that board?). And to top it all off, Barack's campaign declared that they had a "friendly" relationship.
   
    Rebuttal: Barack said, during the debate, that "“The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense.” Rebuttal to rebuttal: This is ridiculous and I can't believe that people are actually buying into this excuse. That is like saying that because Hitler killed 11 million people when I was 8, that it is just and conventional to associate with him. It's ludicrous. I know that might be an extreme example, but you understand my point. Actions are actions, and bombings are bombings, regardless of when they occur.
   
    Next he calls the blue collar citizens of Pennsylvania "bitter," in that they cling to their guns and religion in an economic depression. He said this in San Francisco, behind close doors. Well this is an easy one, and even Barack has essentially said it was a obtuse comment.
    Rebuttal: He didn't really have one. He said it was a mistake.
    Rebuttal to Rebuttal: I just want to say that I live in that area of Pennsylvania, and the people here find religion as a way to release, not to cling.

    Finally, there is Michelle Obama, Barack's wife. She was quoted as saying that"for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country."
    No rebuttal here, for it has not been seen as that big of a deal. However, her statement implies so many things.
    She is not proud of winning the Cold War? Not the fact that we feed and defend the world, not that we lead in science and technology research? Not the fact that she and her husband were able to go to Ivy League schools before embarking on extremely lucrative careers? Not the fact that we help out in disasters wherever they strike in the world? And there is so much more that this country has done in her lifetime that is more ebullient than Barack Obama's running for President. I just do not have time to list specifics.
   
    With all of this at hand, the question presents itself again: Does character matter? Of course. What what we have seen is that Barack Obama has associated himself with people that are anti-American and racist, while also making derogatory comments about the hardworking people of Pennsylvania behind their back, like a little school boy.
    With recognition to the rebuttal to this article's argument in its totality, this is not petty criticism, this is not a hate attack, these are facts, and tough questions that need to be answered by Barack Obama.
    The truth is though, that Obama supporters simply do not care. It seems that every time one these controversies arises, Obama's ratings rise. Obviously character does not matter to them. They made their decision a long time ago. It's Barack Obama, regardless of the implications of his actions.

   
   
   


   

Simplicity against difficulty, pithiness versus confusion, efficacy against ineffectiveness. What wins? To an everyday hardworking American citizen, the victors are clear: Simplicity, pithiness, and efficacy. Now, wouldn't  it be great if these three words were an everyday aspect of the great institution of the United States  Government and more importantly, the policies that it implements. Although this desire is a faint possibility, one policy has the ability to be changed forever, a policy that has troubled Americans since the colonists came over from England: Taxes.

In 2005, Representative John Linder(R- GA) proposed the Fair Tax Act. The bills major points

• A 23% national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure that NO American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• A dollar for dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• A repeal of the 16th amendment.

The Fair Tax would abolish all federal, corporate, and personal income taxes, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with ONE simple, pithy, and effective federal retail sales tax. 

It would be administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities and is a fair, efficient, transparent, and rational solution to the frustrating and onerous current tax system.

So what does this do for the people? In its entirety, the Fair Tax enables workers to keep their entire paycheck, enables retirees to keep their entire pensions, allows American products to compete fairly, brings accountability to tax policy, ensures Medicare and Social Security funding, and most of all ladies and gentlemen it abolishes the IRS. 

Sounds good doesn't it? Well there's more.

Tax Awareness

 With the Fair Tax, whenever a consumer buys something, the tax is separately listed on the receipt, so he or she knows the exact amount of money that the government is taking. With the Fair Tax, the people keep the money he or she earns and has the liberty to essentially choose how to pay their own taxes. He who spends more pays more taxes. As a result, the Fair Tax not only solves the overgrown current tax policy, but at the same time, it controls a what seems to be, chronic overspending trend by the American people.

  Fair

Another great bullet point of the Fair Tax is the fact that there are no exemptions. So all of the lobbyists, corporations, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and prostitutes have to pay the same taxes that everyone else has to pay. More simply, no more cheating the system. With the Fair Tax, the government(Democrats) can stop over-taxing billionares and under-taxing the middle class, for the Fair Tax allows every brand of people to keep the money they earn, and pay their taxes according to their lifestyle, according to their means.

  Rewards

 The Fair Tax provides a rebate to every American family with a rebate of the sales tax on spending up to the federal poverty line. The rebate is paid monthly in advance. It allows a family of four to spend $27,380 tax free each year. The rebate for a married couple with two children is $525 a month($6,297 annually). Therefore no family pays a federal sales tax for essential goods and services.

 Social Security and Medicare

As for Social Security and Medicare, the benefits remain the same. The funds receive the same amount of money they do under the current law. No changes will occur to retirement funds, hence there is no give and take here. All of the essential policies are still in action, however their funds are taken from a different source.

Ultimately, with the Fair Tax, the American people are given more freedom. The money is still being arrogated by the government, but the people choose how much will be deducted. Hardworking American citizens are able to keep their full paycheck, and spend it accordingly to the 132 page Fair Tax, rather than the 50,000 page current tax code.

For the complete proposal and further resources go to: fairtax.org 

 Join the fight for fair taxes. 

 

 

    As our economy continues to falter in this the year 2008, panic is so very prevalent. Washington is scrambling for a plan to fix the downfall, and with President Bush's stimulus plan approved, the stalling continues. The Government is temporizing their way all the way to the bottom of the monetary pit, therefore softening the impact from a more harsh and sudden fall.
    The fact is that recession happens,  and it can be healthy. Our country has learned from mistakes in the past and it can learn from mistakes in the present.
    The Bush Stimulus Plan's basic premise that it gives money to the consumers so that they can "fuel" the economy through spending. Well, this just really isn't going to solve anything, in my opinion. The problem does not only derive from the people, it's the government that is damaging the economy.
    The government is simply spending too much. They earmark and earmark until you just can't earmark anymore, and quite frankly, it's unacceptable. They build billion dollar bridges to nowhere, pointless museums, and consume themselves with feckless projects. Our country prints billions of dollars everyday, money that they just do not have. Our debt is in the trillions, and they just go on like its another Monday, while you know maybe throwing in a 150 billion dollar stimulus plan that will do virtually nothing except allow consumers to buy a couple extra shirts at the mall.
    Now fortunately its not all the government's fault. The people of America also spend too much. Debt spending is pushing people over the edge with rising interest rates, and hardworking Americans just can't handle it anymore. Yes, this is the almighty capitalistic America, but we have to start taking some personal responsibility. The government is not always going to be there to bail the people out of their fiscal problems.
    As for the presidential candidates, both Hilary and Barack are proposing annual billion dollar socialized health care plan while  John Mccain is proposing an annual billion dollar "Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act" for climate change. The only strong fiscal candidate was Mitt Romney, you know the CEO buisness man that has made the economy his life, but he dropped out, how convenient.
    The problem is here, but it's going to be alright. We are the United States of America, we always find a solution. Nevertheless, we must start to heal, not deny the wound.
   
   
   

    
    Having seen President George W. Bush's final State of the Union Address on January 28, I could not help but get a laugh in from the chess game that those elephants and donkeys were playing. After every comment by the President, you could see the house and senate all looking around at each other to see who's standing and clapping. It was ridiculous, as it always is. For such a prominent event in our nation's history, the State of the Union Address has become a superficial joke. Even from your living rooms you can sense the lack of serenity and respect, although disguised by the fake handshakes and sporadic undulations of applause and disapproval by the Republicans and Democrats.
 

note* This was an article written before the drastic overturning of evidence occurred, namely the falsities of the AL Qaeda-Saddam connection along with Saddams purported possession of WMDs. If, and this would be lovely,  we could go back, knowing what we know now, I do not believe we should have invaded Iraq. This article confronts the reality of what were the "facts" at the beginning. It demonstrates that if the intelligence was viable, this was necessary. It also confronts the reality of Islamic Extremism.
    With the Iraq War pressing on into its sixth year, the public opinion of the war's purpose and effectiveness seems to be outwardly pessimistic. As shown over and over again by the liberal media, this war is costing a lot. American soldiers are being killed. So the major question here becomes: Is it worth it? Yes it is. And here is why.

Cause- Al- Qaeda and Iraq/ WMDs
    On 9/11 3,000 men and women were killed. American citizens lost brother, mothers, and fathers. It is a day that will live in infamy. So who did it? Al Qaeda did it. So where is Al Qaeda? Well to put it simply they are everywhere, but they are largely located in Afghanistan. Where else are they? Pakistan and Iraq, North Africa, all looking to establish an Islamic caliphate to operate. Therefore, we have to go to one of these places to fight Al-Qaeda. President Bush told us that there was WMDs in Iraq and that there was a relation between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.  The 9/11 Commission found that the Hussein- Al Qaeda relationship was exaggerated.
    So Weapons of Mass Destruction. The CIA and the MI6, two of this planet's most prestigious intelligence agencies, had intelligence that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. So what do we do? Do we assume that these reports are wrong, reports from the bastions of intelligence? Do we assume that they are simply George Bush's propaganda? Or do we trust them, having no reason not to? I go for the latter, I know its crazy, but I'm not that paranoid. Although some of these intelligence reports have been proven false, the fact is that there was intelligence. And with this threat of mass weaponry combined with an attack on this country on 9/11, war was necessary. Knowing what we know now, different decisions would have been made.
Justifications
    So we went into Iraq, and overthrew a mass-murdering dictator. Some question this in that there was no connection found between Al- Qaeda and Saddam, so why Iraq? To rebut that, I would ask them to look at it this way. We had to go somewhere. If we overthrow a man, who has a history of WMDs and who the CIA and MI6 have intelligence of having WMDs, and then centralize that country under a democracy, making them militarily and politically viable and able to fend off the Al Qaeda, therefore setting an example for the middle east, and furthermore silencing Al Qaeda and its terrorist regime; then we can begin this fight against Islamic Extremism.
Afghanistan?
    So what about Afghanistan? Al Qaeda is centralized there right? I want to start off by saying that I do agree that there should have been a larger effort directed towards Afghanistan. The problem with the "Get out of Iraq and go to Afghanistan" people is that they want to completely cut and run out of Iraq. Here's how I see it. Al- Qaeda and the Taliban are prevalent in Afghanistan and in Iraq. So what I don't understand is why do we have to pick one? Al Qaeda wants to find a place to centralize their operations, so let's deny them both Afghanistan and Iraq, not leave one in turmoil. Let's reinstate the draft. Let's get this done. This war is real, and we can lose it. As soon as people start to realize that, then we will move towards victory. For some reason this war is a joke to everyone, and that has to stop.
Present
What is now undeniable is that we are making progress in Iraq. So whether you agree with the above or not, you have to realize what is happening. To leave now is ludicrous, even Obama realizes that. We have to get over whether this was a just or unjust war. The past is over, and the present is evincing opportunity.

  
      What I don't think people understand is that those guys over there with the AK-47's, they want you dead. Whether it be by planting IED's or crashing jet planes into skyscrapers(an event that everyone just seems to forget about), they want you dead.
    There is a reason that there haven't been any further terrorist attacks in the United States in the last 6 years: we are winning the war, a war that will have approached abruptly if not dealt with promptly. 

    Since the beginning of organized civilization, the essence of a God(s) has existed. Whether this spiritualness radiates from a plethora of separate gods with specialized roles, as in the Romans and ancient Greeks, or from an almighty God with an esoteric divinity unmatched by any other, as in Christianity, a sense of religion and divinity has always prevailed. Now I simply pose the question: why?      There has never before and still to this day been any physical, overwhelming, or undeniable evidence to prove the existence of a being sumptuous beyond all humanity. It is almost as if, to break it down for an agnostic's mindset, that there's this thing that none of us can see, with no evidence of it ever existing, some where out there watching us, and indirectly interfering in human affairs(Now that summary doesn't include the beliefs of deism, the belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation). Not only is there no proof but it almost an oxymoron.
    So there' s something up there watching you and if you do bad things you're going to be punished and if you do good deeds you'll move into a euphoric afterlife(Tried to summarize all the major religion's beliefs there). But wait, isn't, this "God," supposed be the creator, the perfect being, and with reference to Christians, the forgiver of all sins? How can this God possess this inordinate amount of power, and, without emotion, simply choose to send people to the "good people place," and the "bad people place." Now the argument for a Christian believer, being raised as one, would be God is not that black and white. If you are truly sorry for your sin you will be forgiven. Hmm. So one of those serial killers, they just have to be really sorry for what they did and God will know if they with divine power, and forgive them of their sins. I just think there is a big gray area there, one that is far too large for civilization to be centered around. Nevertheless, I am not here to put down religion, for I believe that religion was a part of the civilizations that existed during all the ages of humanity and that life, as we know it today, would cease to exist. Religion keeps a person moral, it keeps a group harmonic, and most of all, I believe, it keeps an individual sane. For if there is no hope of existence after the human life, why even bother with morality?
    So to conclude, I just want to say that I hope there is a God, one that will offer an opportunity at eternal life, one that is all-loving, all-merciful, and all-knowing. I am simply delineating that there is nothing to demonstrate this concept as true. But maybe that's the whole beauty of it, it can't be understood, but man, that would be unfortunate.