Blogalwarning

The truth that was swept under the rug

On Obama, taxes, deficit and freedom

by bigblock57, blogalwarning blog.

An entry of mine in a discussion on another blog:

You see ognir, in my opinion your view that my money is automatically designated for government use is a huge problem. The more of MY hard earned money I am forced to give to the government, the less freedom I have. It is proven again and again that by raising taxes you take away the incentive to earn money (and increase the incentive to cheat) and revenues go down. By lowering taxes financial activity increases and revenues grow. Now don’t get me wrong. I voted GW twice and was deeply disappointed. Probably for different reasons than what you have against him. Nevertheless, very disappointed. However, this trillion dollars deficit he left us with, is something we are all going to long for when Obama is done with us. we are going to have way, way higher deficit, while still paying way, way higher taxes. I know I am digressing, but in my opinion Obama will go down as a dictator who was democratically elected by a bunch of blind fans who were so busy hating GW, they would vote for anything that did not have R beside it. The hell with democracy, freedom and constitution. You may think I am a lun, but you will regretfully come to agree with me, and this will not take long. Though It may be too late for both of us.

Advertisements

March 28, 2009 Posted by | BHO (Obama...) | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Did Obama Get Voted In?

A good entry from “gunnerdad” in sodahead.com on the question “Obama voters, do you regret Voting for Obama?”

I didn’t vote for him and neither did nearly 75% of the eligible voters. 
Consider that the turnout was just over 50% of the voters. Pretty sad commentary for our Country. Then consider that BO got just over 50% of those people and JM got just under 50%. That means 50% of 50% voted for either party. So something like 28% of the “eligible” voters elected the President of the United States. Seems we may be getting what we deserve. As for the Bush haters…your Democratic Congress encouraged the banks to run their housing racket so people who shouldn’t have gotten loans to begin with. And someone started the run on the money market funds that started the melt down in September that got BO elected. And as usual it all got away from them and our children and grand-children will have to pay for all of these Trillions he’s going to spend trying to spend our way out of the mess we’re in. 
You should all be worried. Just like the latest vote from Congress in placing a 90% tax on the few people from AIG. Your group may be next if this stands. The whole point of all that is to draw everyones attention from the fact that 55 Billion Dollars of the bailout money went to overseas banks to cover AIG’s debts. That’s 55 Billion of US taxpayers money that just went bye bye with absolutly no chance of any gain for us. Those bonuses are less than 1% of that money but oh are we making a deal about that. What about the other 99%? 
I pray I am wrong but I fear we will all suffer because we (you) elected a rock star…not a President. God Bless America and ALL who Defend Her

March 26, 2009 Posted by | BHO (Obama...) | , , , | 2 Comments

30,000 Gun Deaths per year!

by bigblock57, blogalwarning blog.

This number touted by gun-controllers seems to be about right. However, a deeper look reveals the following:

1).Suicides account for about 48% of deaths by guns. They need to be taken off the figures, as suicide will take place with or without a gun. (Sweden has higher suicide rate than US, but guns hardly used there for that…) So now we are down to 16,300 deaths per year to deal with.

2.)Homicides account for about 16,000 gun deaths in the US annually. Half of the homicides are blacks on blacks while blacks are just 13% of the population. If we figured out the social issues among blacks in the US, homicide rate would have dropped by about 40% with no change in guns ownership.(Data for 1995-2005.) Most of these homicides are with guns, but how many of them would be avoided if guns weren’t around? (See suicides above…) So now we are down to about 9300 gun  homicides. (8000 among whites, and 1300 among blacks which will bring the rate to same as whites poroportional to population. 

3.)As far as accidental deaths in 2007 , 39% cars, 18% poisoning, 16% falls,….only 0.6% guns! Even deaths from medical mistakes are three times higher than from gun accidents.

4.) Gun homicides decreased during the mid 90’s and remained stable todate, in-spite of population growth, and dramatic increase in gun ownership. Accidental guns deaths have decreased over 90% during the last 100 years! (Again, in the face of population growth and increase in gun ownership).

5.)there are about 9300 gun homicides (not counting the unproportional high rate within the black community) and about 700 accidental gun deaths in the US every year. 10,000 too many deaths, but nothing like the 30,000 number that is used to call for a “gun ownership crisis” in the US. The only crisis at hand is that some people, while calling themselves “Americans” are trying to take away from me my constitutional gun rights.

(Sources; FBI, CDC, US Census Beureau, allcountries.org)

March 26, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Creationism vs. Evolution

Mr. Michael Stone, the “Portland Progressive Examiner” (Examiner.com) rants about the Texas Board of Education considering “new curriculum…designed to challenge evolution, and introduce creationism”.  This short article is my response.

They want to ADD stuff to the curriculum. They don’t remove evolution. They add creationism. This is good. If you want to promote knowledge and thinking that is. However, if you (Mr. Stone) want to indoctrinate, this is bad. I understand your frustration. As an engineer and scientist who is also a religious individual, I myself deal with these contradictions all the time. Let me explain this contradiction on a different level. Liberals are comfortable with thinking that we are all evolved from apes. This means that the past is low and unsophisticated. We should look forward to change, and away from traditions that belong to the “lower” past. Along with that goes the constitution and all of what many of us used to call “America” just two or three decades ago. Conservatives believe that our origin is divine. Thus, the past is perfect and anything that takes us farther from the past can not be as good. Conservatives cherish traditions, the constitution and the good old USA. How is that for a summary of the clash we are in?

March 25, 2009 Posted by | Conservatives vs. Liberals. | , , , , , | 13 Comments

Great response to a Gun Control article

This is a short and sharp response, written by “Happy Indep” to a gun control article by one fool Michael Stone who is the “Portland Progressive Exminer” in http://www.progressive.com: 

——————————————————————————————–

“There should be strict and stringent requirements for those who own and possess fire arms.”

Have you ever read the US Constitution? There is a little pain in the butt set of rules called the bill of rights. 

It is the gun that allows and secures your sorry asses right to write the vile hate filled crap you write. That just goes completely over your head though don’t it?

Care to enlighten us all as to just WHICH gun law has stopped people from using guns?

March 24, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , | 3 Comments

It’s not mine. Found it on the internet with no credentials

https://i0.wp.com/stixblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/bailoutmascot.jpg

March 21, 2009 Posted by | Joke of the day | 2 Comments

Is It Justified to Fight?

Bigblock57, blogalwarning blog.

It is not un-American to fight to preserve our rights against tyrannical government. (See the quote at the bottom of this post.) The 2nd Amendment clearly intended to make sure citizens will have the means to do exactly that. However, I have a different issue here. As much as I hate it, more than 50% of Americans voted for that anti-American and corrupt president – Obama. So the question is, is the minority justified in fighting the will of the majority? Bear in mind that the constitution has been gradually eroded for decades. The only difference is that the new administration continues in the erosion set forth, in a much faster pace than before. Everybody was agreeable with constitutional erosion for decades (except for ranting), and several periods of republican majority were not used to un-erode the constitution or to strengthen it agains further erosion by adding amendments and improving existing amendments. Maybe it is just the nature of the beast – that a constitution focused on giving the power to the people, will be eroded by power-grabbing politicians. (Which politicians are by definition power grabbers.) And by definition there will always be enough people who prefer to rely on government that will let politicians grab power. Maybe this amazing experiment in liberty has come to its end?  Maybe the only solution (other than giving up) is a separation to two countries – a liberal and a constitutional? Given the results of the several previous elections that were so close to 50:50, could it be that we already are two separate countries?


“As civil rulers… may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces… might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe)

March 19, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Gas Price Roll

By Bigblock57, Blogalwarning blog

Best Price in My Area (Portland Metro, OR) for “regular”.

11/08 When Obama was elected       $1.75.

3/14/09                                                   $1.99

March 15, 2009 Posted by | Gas (and Energy) Price | , , , , , | Leave a comment

S.C. governor evokes Zimbabwe in arguments against stimulus

Interesting and not surprising take of a Republican gov. on the Stimulous Bill. What I noticed which I did not know before, is that there is a provision in the bill that allows state legislators to override governors that do not want to take the money allotted for their states, and take it anyway. Talk about power grab of the Federal Government and the Congress…

This articles is from CNN.com  3/11/09

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) — The United States faces a Zimbabwe-style economic collapse if it keeps “spending a bunch of money we don’t have,” South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Wednesday.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he does not want to spend money that his state doesn't have. 

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he does not want to spend money that his state doesn’t have.

Sanford, a Republican, has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s $800 billion stimulus plan. He said he’ll turn down about a quarter of his state’s $2.8 billion share unless Washington lets him use that money to pay down debt.

“What you’re doing is buying into the notion that if we just print some more money that we don’t have and send it to different states, we’ll create jobs,” he said. “If that’s the case, why isn’t Zimbabwe a rich place?”

Zimbabwe has been in the throes of an economic meltdown ever since the southern African nation embarked on a chaotic land reform program. Its official inflation rate topped 11 million percent in 2008, with its treasury printing banknotes in the trillion-dollar range to keep up with the plummeting value of its currency.

But with South Carolina’s unemployment rate now the second-highest in the country, state lawmakers will attempt to override Sanford and take the $700 million if he turns it down, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said.

“They will use the total economic stimulus to stimulate the economy, jump-start it, so we can get out of the ditch we are in as a state and as a nation,” Bauer, a fellow Republican, said in a written statement Wednesday.

Labor Department figures released Wednesday showed South Carolina’s January unemployment rate hit 10.4 percent, second only to Michigan’s 11.6 percent.

Sanford is one of several Republican governors who have criticized the nearly $800 billion stimulus package, which passed with minimal GOP support in the Senate and none in the House of Representatives. Other governors, such as California Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger or Michigan Democrat Jennifer Granholm, have said they would take any money Republican-led states reject.

But Sanford told reporters that taking the money now would leave the state in the lurch in two years, “when those funds dry up.”

“Fundamentally, if you boil down what the stimulus means for South Carolina, it means we would go through the process of spending a bunch of money we don’t have,” he said.

The stimulus measure allows state legislatures to override governors and take the money — a provision championed by South Carolina congressman James Clyburn, the No. 3 Democrat in the House. Clyburn said Sanford is unlikely to get any waiver from the administration, and he called the governor’s announcement “100 percent political posturing.”

“This recovery package is designed to stabilize communities, to save and create jobs, and help our economy get back in a growth mode,” he told reporters. “And you don’t do that by paying down debt that’s been incurred over a long period of time.”

And Bauer said that if South Carolina turns down the money, “South Carolina taxpayers will be taking on the debt for economic stimulus money sent elsewhere.”

March 15, 2009 Posted by | On Obama and Economy | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Card Ceck and Empolyee “Free” choice (EFCA)

Below are excerpts from James Sherk’s article in the Heritage Foundation website regarding the “Employee Free Choice Act”. The act does everything but giving employees any choice.  It sure gives unions the power to intimidate employees who vote against joining them s and gives government agencies the power to force contracts on employers that do not settle a contract with the union within a certain period of time.

In a nut shell, it gives Unions much better chance to organize work places in which employees will vote for joining the union just to avoid intimidation and harassment. Then it puts the negotiation power in the hands of the union. All the union needs to do is to come with extreme demands, and drag its feet through the negotiations to exhaust the time allowed by the law. Then contracts will be imposed by government bureaucrats. 

 Card Check Creates Government-Run Workplaces

by James Sherk

WebMemo #2334

The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) does more than effectively eliminate workers’ rights to a secret ballot vote on joining a union. Section 3 of EFCA gives government officials the power to impose contracts on workers and firms. Government bureaucrats would set compensation and make most major business decisions at newly unionized companies. The bureaucrats writing these proposals would have no expertise in the company’s operations or business model and would be unaccountable if their decisions drove the company into bankruptcy. Workers would lose all say over working conditions. EFCA would effectively create government-run workplaces.  

Mutual Consent and Good Faith Bargaining…The end result is a contract that both sides can live with, even if they would have preferred different terms…If negotiations break down, the workers can strike or management can lock them out, but neither side must work under an unsatisfactory contract.

EFCA Imposes Contracts…Under Section 3 of the act (misleadingly titled “Facilitating Initial Collective Bargaining Agreements”)…EFCA provides that—after unions organize a business—the company has 10 days to meet with union officials to begin collective bargaining. After 90 days of bargaining, either party may request mediation by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). Thirty days later, if the parties have not settled on a contract or agreed to extend negotiations, the FMC…shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of two years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.

Bureaucrats Dictate Workplace Conditions…Unions would have strong incentives to make extreme demands and hope the arbitrator splits the difference between these demands and management’s position…Granting such a radical amount of power to an arbitrator puts control of workplaces in the hands of unaccountable government bureaucrats

March 14, 2009 Posted by | On Obama and Economy | , , , , | Leave a comment