The Gun Control Debate: Why Obama's opinion shouldn't matter

The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary has pushed the gun control debate into the national spotlight. President Obama and his administration are taking this opportunity to politicize this tragedy and push their anti-gun agenda.

He said "Any means necessary"
Obama has made it no secret that he hates guns. He railed against gun owners during the 2008 campaign when he described rural people as bitter clingers, holding tight to their religion and guns. (It's only the first two of the Bill of Rights; no big deal.)

They've even gone so far as to manufacture a crisis called Fast and Furious in order to push for new policy to regulate gun store owners. It backfired when one of the 2,000 guns they provided to Mexican drug cartels was used to kill a U.S. border agent, and probably more than 300. The story has been pooh-poohed by the media.

Attorney General Eric Holder was subpoenaed to testify. President Obama claimed executive privilege on many documents that the Oversight Committee requested as evidence in order to save himself and his friend from testifying as to the level of their involvement.

Until he rescinds executive privilege and speaks about his involvement in Fast and Furious, for Obama to speak about gun control is hypocritical. His opinion does not matter until he accepts blame for the operation, and lets the AG go down for perjury.

The Picture of Tolerance



U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens's body is dragged through the streets.

 

 

Obama's weakness and the attacks on 9/11/2012 

On the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, the US was attacked again. In Libya, American Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed and his body dragged through the streets. All he was trying to do was help people not to get hurt. Stevens wasn't the only one killed during the attack.

 

In Egypt, the embassy in Cairo was stormed and the American flag taken down and ripped apart. It reminded me very much of when the Iranian students took over the American embassy in 1979.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back home, President Obama made public remarks at the Pentagon to memorialize the attacks of September 11. I won't call it a "speech" because he didn't blather on and on as he usually does. It was actually a refreshing change to see him make the point and get out of the spotlight.

 

That being said, Obama made a remark that I found offputting. He asked for tolerance. Again. This is not the first time he has done so when speaking about the events of that day.

 

Spare me the tolerance crap

"The U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. "Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation."

 

I am an agnostic who has searched for my own faith for practically all of my adult life. As a staunch defender of the First Amendment, I am all for religious freedom and acceptance, as well as freedom of speech.

 

The Egyptians stormed the embassy because they were offended by a movie they claim was critical of the Muslim Prophet Muhammed. If the US (predominantly Christian) got violent any time someone in a movie was critical of Christianity, not a single member of Monty Python or Saturday Night Live would still walk the Earth.

 

The President's world view

President Obama has done his level best to weaken the view of America in the eyes of the world by apologizing and bowing to foreign leaders. He's also stood against our only true ally in the Middle East by stating that Israel should recognize Palestinian rights to Israeli land and returning to pre-1967 borders. His policy of appeasement has allowed Iran to further develop its nuclear capabilities, North Korea to strengthen its position militarily and China threaten to surpass us as the world's superpower.

 

The timing of the two incidents on the anniversary of the worst attack on American soil is no accident. I think speeches made to comemmorate those lost should not include an admonishment for Americans to tolerate those who attacked us to make themselves martyrs in the name of their faith. Furthermore, I think it is reprehensible that he insults the memories of those who died on that day.

 

Those attacks were carried out against people people of all religions - Jews, Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Hindus, Buddists, Methodists and yes, even Muslims - died in those attacks. I'm sure that even some atheists and agnostics died on that day. But those people didn't die in the name of religion. They died because they were American. Or they were in America pursuing that dream we have held dear for so long. They did not die for tolerance.

 

President Obama would do well to understand that, stop apologizing and kick some ass when it needs kicking.

Update:
The Obama Administration continues to put forth the stance to the American public that the attacks were not coordinated and that is was spontaneous outcry over this film. The problem with their stance is that the attack in Benghazi came in two waves and involved weapons such as rocket propelled grenades and machine guns; not rocks and amateur-made molotov cocktails. Foreign media have called BS on the notion that the movie is responsible. And foreign leaders have stated publicly and formally that the protests and attacks have been coordinated.

It's time for the Obama administration to do so as well. Anything else is merely covering for Obama's foreign policy failings and Hillary Clinton's responsibility for the policy of not allowing security personnel to carry live ammo.

 

 

Halloween with Obama

It's Halloween. Your kid goes to a door, carrying a flashlight and his loot for the night. He rings the doorbell and Obama opens the door and says "Trick or treat!"

He grabs the bag and flashlight. Citing his green energy policies, Obama declares moritorium on batteries and gives the kid a solar powered flashlight for which he bills him $1,000.

Obama takes 40% of the candy, gives the rest back along with a new smaller bag with no handles and a very small opening at the top. Your kid says "I've already got a bag." Obama says, "Everybody wants this bag and we're going to charge $250 a month for it."

The kid says "I don't really need new bag. I have a bag and it wasn't that expensive." Obams says "Some people don't have a bag and this will help them get a bag." The kid points out that if they want a bag, they should pay for it themselves. "I shouldn't have to pay for their bag if I already own one."

Obama says "This way, everyone will have the same bag." The kid says, "But my bag is better. It has a large opening and I can choose to put a lot in or take a lot out any time I want." Obama says "Yes, but the new bag regulates how much you put in." The kid thinks for a second and says, "No, what it really does is regulate what I can get out of it."

The kid says, "I have a bag, and it's paid for already." Obama says, "But this way, everyone can have access to the bag which you have." The kid, with logic on his side, points out that he should be able to choose which bag he wants. Obama closes the door.

He then takes "his" part of the candy and gives it to kids who don't even go trick or treating. Oh, and illegal aliens.

President Pants on Fire said there would be no new taxes for the middle class

Remember he said this during the campaign, and by "campaign" I mean February, 2007 until the present day, because the man never stops campaigning. It's what he's good at. And by that, I mean he's a good campaigner and that's about all.

But, I digress. To the matter at hand...

I'm going to tell you a hypothetically true story about a man named Paul. Paul is a good man. He has a wife and two kids. He's in his 50s and is a contractor. He's built his company from the ground up. He has a good income, but isn't RICH by any means.

Here's the sad part. Paul's got a bad ticker. He's a fighter, though. So there's hope.

After Christmas, Paul has a heart attack He's waiting for a transplant, but it doesn't look good. He lies on his deathbed, with those who love him surrounding him. They celebrate New Years Eve in the hospital. On New Years Day, slipping in and out of consciousness, he imparts his final words of love and wisdom to his family. He tells them that he has had a good life and that he has lived his dream to see his children grow and start families. He has no regrets. He tells them that in his will, he will leave the family business to his son and daughter, who have both worked to help the business grow.

Pual dies. He has planned well. He has made the arrangements and the family has the funeral and pays their respects. They tell their stories about their patriarch. Slowly, normalcy returns and they get back to their lives.

Until one day, the business receives a certified letter from the US government. It seems they have a tax matter to settle and they have to go downtown to see the IRS. Did the old man forget something, they wonder. He seemed to have everything else in order.

Yes, he forgot one thing. Well, not so much forgot. He just didn't know about it because it has been kept hush-hush.

Enter Obama. Stage left. (That's funny.)
In a footnote of the US budget, on page 127, the Estate Tax has been resurrected. Probably the most despised of all the taxes, commonly referred to as the "Death Tax," it was part of the Bush tax cuts of 2001, and it was hoped by many to be a memory of the old tax code.

Why is it despised? Because it is unfair.

"But why is it unfair?" you ask. Easy.

Taxes have already been paid on that income. He has built the business and lived comfortably, but is by no means rich. He makes a good living but, like many businesses started from the ground up, he has reinvested in it over many years. It is a small business, but has about $10 million in assets.

The government, by reinstituting the Death Tax, is now due 55% of what our hero has passed down. The company now owed $5.5 million on assets upon which Paul has already paid taxes. How do they handle this debt?

Selling the business is an option, but no one will buy the business with that kind of tax burden.They can take on the debt personally, but is that feasible or fair? The simple answer is "No," because, in all reality, they can't pay it. They don't pay themselves that much in salary.

Economic reality for the middle class.
A man lives his whole life, working and saving to pass something down to his kids so that they may have a better life. (Quiet down, feminists. I know women also do, but for the sake of this story, our hero is a man.)

Putting children in a position where they have to close the business and turn over assets is an economic reality. People will lose jobs. Small businesses will close. Because of a footnote. Because Obama is going to extraordinary measures to raise taxes to pay for his political agenda.

What Obama will say, if anything.
He'll say this doesn't effect the middle class. That only the richest 2% will have to pay it. Unless you happen to own a business with $3.5 million in assets. That's going to account for a lot of businesses in this country.

He'll say that you won't have to worry about it. Unless you happen to work for one of those small businesses.

He'll say this is not a new tax. He is merely allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Which is just a horse shit lie.

George Steinbrenner died this year. His kids are SO lucky.
This is kind of an extreme example, but an excellent one. Steinbrenner a few weeks ago. He's passing on his New York Yankees empire, and his children will not have to pay any estate taxes on it, which is fair, in my opinion. Mr. Steinbrenner already paid taxes on that income. No sense to subject it to taxation once again. Because he died when he did, his sons and daughter saved half a billion dollars in estate taxes.

So in closing, I will apologize to my sons in advance for the tax burden they will inherit, because I don't plan on dying this year. Now if I can just make it to the $3.5 million exemption level, but that's really the fun part.

My Plan to Pay Down the National Debt

I'm getting a little fed up with the talk about the deficit.

Everyone knows that it increased under Bush. We're not here to argue that point. Republicans try to justify it as necessary because of 9-11 and the fact that we were and are continuing to fight wars on two fronts. Democrats campaigned that spending was out of control in the last election and their plan to combat the spending is to spend EVEN MORE.

It's as if not one elected representative in Washington would stand up for common sense. These individuals who we choose lose their damn minds when they arrive in the capital. Yes, some Republicans are just as guilty, but the last bill

The national debt grew by almost $5 trillion under Bush. In 18 months under Obama, it has grown $2.3 trillion thanks to the stimulus bill and other pork-ridden bills which show that the ruling party has no interest in getting spending under control.

The ones that vote to spend beyond the means, get them the hell out. Don't even let them on the ballot unless they know that we have to operate on a balanced budget.

Let's face it... it's OUR fault for putting these ass clowns in Washington in the first place. We should, and as Americans we always do, bear the brunt of our elected officials' mistakes.


Paying Down the National Debt
I'm a common sense guy. I'm a patriotic guy. Most people probably are, I think. So why can't we combine those two things to pay down this debt?

Every family has to file a tax return, right? Right. No matter what, it has to be filed. People either owe taxes, or they are owed a refund.

Here's where common sense comes in. For six years, each household pays $10 per person in that household. There's no getting around it, and there's no loophole. If you owe money, when you write the check to pay your income taxes, you just write another check. If you are owed a refund, you have them deduct that amount.

The first year, the government would take in $3 billion. I did my math in a vacuum. I assumed a static population, call it "one in, one out." I also didn't account for inflation, interest or population increases. Perhaps most importantly, and most improbably, I assumed Obama wouldn't spend any more than he already has. (It's estimated he'll add another $4 trillion to the National Debt by the end of his first term.)

By my calculations, it would take 4300 years to pay down the National Debt.

That's doable. Right?


The Reason for This Rant on How to Pay Down the National Debt
I wrote this with the goal of discovering just how much debt the U.S. is in, how much each person owes ($42,000 and change) and what an impossible situation our government perpetuates. Unless our country gets a grip on spending, we've got no chance of paying down this debt.

What I learned:

1. Spending our way out of debt is a stupid, stupid idea
2. Anyone who has voted to spend more money shouldn't be in office
3. We the people need to pay more attention to what our representatives do in Washington
4. The U.S. needs a balanced budget amendment
5. $13 trillion is a lot
6. We can't pay it