Van Jones is out!!!My Journals (11)
Scott Brown Wins Big in Massachusetts: The Emergence of the Independent Voter
1/20/2010
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
The election in Massachusetts signals a major shift in the sentiment of US voters. It is not a sign of a new partisan movement, but a movement away from many of the big government approaches of the current administration.
Many of the pundits seemed almost flabbergasted at the substantive victory of a Republican candidate in what is always referred to as “liberal” Massachusetts. All throughout the coverage of the last few days, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was called “the bluest of blue States.” After all, it has not elected a Republican Senator in a very long time.
Senator-Elect Brown pledged to use his place as the 41st Republican in the 100 member US Senate to block the current version of health care reform. He campaigned against big government solutions, excessive taxation and Washington politics. His demeanor and his message drew support from Republicans and Democrats in Massachusetts. But the real story is how he captured the large base of Independent voters.
Democrats were counting on a victory by Martha Coakley to thwart any filibusters by the Republicans over the current Health Care Legislation. Clearly, the results of this election were not only disappointing to the White House but have set the National Democratic leadership into a tailspin. There is a frenzy of analysis and planning underway as to how to respond to this devastating defeat.
As someone born and raised in Massachusetts, I was not surprised. Many observers fail to understand that over 50% of Massachusetts voters are Independents. Growing up my parents prided themselves on being “independent”, though they usually voted for the Democratic candidate. That was back when “liberal” meant something entirely different than what it has now become. Back then the late Senator Ted Kennedy opposed the taking of the lives of children in the womb by abortion. Any compassionate liberal did…back then.
This devastating loss to the Democratic Party is a direct reflection on the growing, serious discontent and disillusionment among many former supporters of the President. It shows a growing rejection of several of the policies of the Obama administration. The President campaigned aggressively for Martha Coakley over the weekend in the Bay State. That now makes him “0 for 2” in his efforts to prevent what appears to be a growing backlash against his policies.
Just this past weekend I attended the inauguration of Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia. The President personally campaigned against the Governors opponent, Democrat Creigh Deeds, in the gubernatorial race. Governor McDonnell went on to win that election by one of the largest percentages in Virginia history.
Once again, it was the vote of Independents in Virginia who responded to Governor McDonnell’s message of economic opportunity and bottom up governance. Independents appear to be emerging as the most important group of voters in the electorate as the Nation moves toward the 2010 midterm elections. The election in Massachusetts clearly sends a signal that they have turned against the policies of the Obama Administration.
Catholics and other Christians were furious with Martha Coakley, a professing Catholic. She overtly opposed conscience rights for Pro-Life health care professionals. She espoused the kind of “anti-Catholic” rhetoric that has come to characterize the scandalous posture taken by too many Catholics in public life.
Scott Brown, a Protestant, was not a Pro-Life candidate. However, his positions on some pro-life issues were superior to his allegedly Catholic opponent. Important to many Pro-Life voters in Massachusetts, he pledged to oppose the current version of the so called “Health Care Reform.” The Plan before the Senate will fund abortions with federal dollars if passed and cause a serious expansion of the killing of children in the womb.
On the day before the anniversary of the swearing in of President Barack Obama, the people of blue collar Massachusetts have sent a strong message. They showed that there is a growing angst in the US electorate over the economy, unemployment, bailouts, deficits and the expansion of the power and role of the federal government.
This special election in Massachusetts will be the subject of continuing speculation among the pundits for months. Already, the finger- pointing has begun in efforts to assess blame. Whether it will spark a wave of retirements among Democrats whose seats are up this year and whether it signals a national trend against the Democratic Party are just two of the many topics which will serve as fodder for talking heads in the days ahead.
However, there is no doubt that Senator Elect Brown’s significant victory is a wake up call to the current national leadership of the Democratic Party. Several media personalities who not only disparaged Scott Brown but ruthlessly savaged him will be eating a lot of crow. Their commentary will most certainly be played over and over again as the pundit class smells blood in the waters.
What is also clear is that the election in Massachusetts signals a major shift in the sentiment of US voters. It is not a sign of a new partisan movement, but a movement away from many of the big government approaches of the current administration. The emergence of the Independent voter in the two Commonwealth States of Virginia and Massachusetts will become the story of the campaigns of 2010 and 2012.
Views: 36 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0
Your Social Security
What are the Facts about Our Social Security?
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary, No longer Voluntary 2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program, Now 7.6 on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year, No longer tax deductible That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
Views: 67 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0
Never in the history of the White House has a First Lady spent so
much on so many personal assistants, all paid from taxpayer dollars.
Hilary had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to
Mamie Eisenhower, social help came from the President's own pocket.
Michelle Obama has 26, from makeup artist Ingrid Miles and
hairstylist Johnny Wright to her "chief of staff " Susan
Sher, whose salary is $172,200.00. The First Lady does not get paid
to serve as First Lady, and she doesn't perform any official duties.
But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of
staffers to cater to every whim and satisfy every request in the
midst of a great Recession. Sort of makes one think the White House
has been mistaken for the Versailles Court of Marie (let 'em eat
cake)Antoinette, doesn't it? This adds up to a whopping
$1,600,700.00 and the amount doesn't include the elite benefit
packages granted to the White House staff and their significant
others (include same-sex partners). Nor does the figure take into
account the salaries for the two additional full-time staff members
mentioned by Mrs. Obama's Press Secretary nor the full time
hair-dresser and makeup artist assigned to her. A guesstimate of the
total salaries for Mrs. Obama's attendants is $1,750,00.00 plus the
additional benefits.
Good thing that someone is watching every tax dollar to make
sure
it’s not wasted. Thanks Obamas!!!
Views: 135 | Comments: 1 | Bookmarks: 0
Views: 120 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0
Views: 110 | Comments: 1 | Bookmarks: 0
Views: 165 | Comments: 2 | Bookmarks: 0
Yes, if you have been listening to Obama these last few months; you also would want to yell like South Carolina's Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted, "You lie!" The incident came directly after Obama said, "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." Can this man Obama be trusted? The reason for Wilson's response has to do with Obama spewing out falsehood that illegal aliens aren't to be covered under Obamacare. Rep Wilson was just correcting a falsehood. More people should have been screaming "liar" through his entire speech. This man, Obama can not be trusted!
Views: 80 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0
Sorry Charlie, you need to step down! The powerful House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel's (D-NY) recent tax scandal shows how corruption in government works! Yes, the Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee "amended" his 2007 financial disclosure form—to the tune of more than a half-million dollars in previously unreported assets and income. That number may be as high as $780,000, because Congress's ethics rules only require the Members to report their finances within broad ranges. This voyage of personal financial discovery brings Mr. Rangel's net worth for 2007 to somewhere between $1.028 million and $2.495 million, while his previous statement came in at $516,015 and $1.316 million. When he finally reported this, the IRS waived all his penalties and fees. But , listen to this, when he was working diligently to increase tax rates to pay for President Obama's health-care plan, he asked that if you make a mistake on your taxes there should be no waiving of any fees or penalties. Would you have lost track of one of your checking accounts? Rangel did for an amount of somewhere between $250,001 and maybe as high as $500,000. I support the “Rangel Rule” proposed by Congressman John Carter from Texas. This bill would allow taxpayers to write "Rangel Rule" on their return when paying back taxes in order to avoid paying IRS penalties and fees. Rangel Rule Act of 2009 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to exempt any U.S. citizen who writes "Rangel Rule" on the top of the first page of his or her income tax return from interest on unpaid taxes, penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest. Are you not fed up with the double standard of this OBAMA ADMINISTRATION and the Democratic party?
Views: 43 | Comments: 0 | Bookmarks: 0
Views: 148 | Comments: 2 | Bookmarks: 0
What Senator Joseph McCarthy did to people in the 1950’s is beginning to raise its ugly head again. As some may remember, he was responsible for a lot of the accusations against supposed communists and left-leaning people inside and outside government during the 1950s. This is the reason we have the term "McCarthyism". He used scare tactics and false testimony to go after groups of people that disagreed with him. Now we see the far-left and others that are communists in the Obama administration using these same tactics! When people ask questions and oppose the Health Care Plan of Obama’s, they are seen as evil and are being accused of spreading “rumors and misinformation”. The problem is that many of our citizens that oppose HR 3200; have read the bill. Not to be confused with, the Democratic house and senate members; who say it is too difficult for them to even understand the bill; so have not read it! Yes, the Obama administration and many of the Democratic leaders are demonizing those that oppose their plan. It appears they want to destroy American capitalistic values and principles! Watch so you don’t get “Obamanized “!
Views: 123 | Comments: 2 | Bookmarks: 0
