Viewing 19 - 27 out of 31 Blogs.

<< First  < Previous | Page:  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  Last >>

Cross-post from: http://www.conservablogs.com/conservativecommonman

As a resident of Illinois, I realize that contacting my U.S. Senators regarding legislation is a fruitless exercise. Being supposedly represented by the dishonorable Dick Durbin and Bill Ayers ‘ buddy Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama, I know that any plea for a common sense approach will fall on deaf ears. I still feel an obligation to make the effort, for even though the political climate of our state is clouded by Chicago corruption, we cannot submit!

I recently wrote to the Socialist Senators to ask them support S. 3361 “The Drug Free Families Act” which would:

require that welfare recipients undergo drug testing to determine their eligibility to receive, or continue to receive, benefits. Vitter’s bill would require that states forfeit Temporary Assistance to Needy Families funding unless they implement a drug testing and treatment program for TANF recipients. wrote: The candidate for Obammunism can’t be bothered with such petty things as his job, but his partner in crime responded. Here is the dishonorable Senator Durbin’s response: [quote="Thank you for contacting me about random drug testing of individuals receiving public benefits. I appreciate hearing from you. I share your underlying concern about the need to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in government assistance programs. Public assistance programs provide critical help for those who are often facing the “food, rent, or medicine” dilemma. Understandably, taxpayers want to see their tax dollars used effectively. Fraud and abuse are serious problems that not only waste money but divert funds from the truly needy. Random drug testing of welfare recipients is not an available option. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Chandler v. Miller that drug testing imposed by law and enforced by government officials constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment requires that all searches be reasonable - based either on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing or on “special needs.” These special needs must go beyond simple crime detection and involve important governmental interests such as jeopardy to public safety. Based on this language, lower federal courts have ruled that random drug testing may not be required as a condition of receiving government assistance when that program is not designed to achieve public safety. A Michigan law requiring welfare applicants to undergo random drug testing was struck down in 2000 as a violation of the applicants’ Constitutional rights. Congress must remain vigilant in ensuring that our civil liberties are preserved, even as we try to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in government benefit programs. I will keep your concerns in mind as Congress pursues these goals. Thank you again for your message. Please feel free to remain in touch. Sincerely, Richard J. Durbin United States Senator"]

I was not at all surprised to read that this miserable excuse for a senator is more concerned about protecting the civil rights of drug addicts that sponge off taxpayers than the rights of those productive people that actually pay his salary and support the drug using parasites. This is a symptom of the disease that is liberalism. Of course the Marxist politicians will not support drug testing for welfare recipients, they need the dependents to keep them in power!

It is assumed that Dick Durbin’s Senate seat is safe, but an alert Illinois electorate could turn the tables on this waste of tax dollars and make a statement against the leftward march in our government. We can elect Steve Sauerberg to The United States Senate if enough people will pay attention and vote against the Chicago syndicate!

Tags: Illinois Durbin Sauerberg Welfare Drugs

Cross-post from www.malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com

Question: Does every group of like-minded deranged individuals have an official organization? Or, is it just the psychopathic predators that target children, who feel the need to organize?

Pedophiles have NAMBLA and those that view children as inconvenient or punishments have NARAL. The disgusting membership of one seeks to use children for their sexual pleasure while the disgusting membership of the other seek to kill children that result from sexual pleasure. Both organizations advocate harming children, the main differentiating factor is the age of the victim... that is assuming of course, that NARAL members have some upper age limit for slaughter. This might not be the case, however, since the type of individual that views the decision to kill the baby in the womb (or allow a born baby to die unattended should be the sole discretion of the mother) could reasonably believe that any killing is acceptable as long as the victim's mother has given consent. This latter point of view could provide a permanent solution to behavior problems at liberal day care centers.

I don't know if NAMBLA is supporting Barack The Baby Killer for president (and I refuse to go to their web-site to find out) but NARAL proudly supports Obama and his proposed policy, "No Child Left Behind... Unless It Is In A Soiled Linen Closet At A Hospital/Abortion Mill Associated With Trinity United."

What would these organizations be without vocal advocates? My answer is, thankfully silent, but that is not the case. The culture of perversion and innocent death represented by such organizations are indeed nurtured by their champions. One champion of innocent death is Slate.com editor Dahlia Lithwick, whose Thursday offering, "Abortion Contortion: John McCain bets the farm that women aren't listening," serves as a disappointing reminder of the evil and ignorance that influences politics. Dahlia Mistress Of Death writes:

Voters, and especially women voters who want to make their own reproductive decisions, need to wake up and smell the asparagus. In July, for example, a Pew poll showed that 56 percent of the electorate didn't know where McCain stood on abortion. Listen up, because he's telling us now. To the extent McCain was ever independent-minded at all on reproductive rights, he's not anymore. In 2000, McCain begged Bush to amend language in the GOP platform, which calls for a human-life amendment banning all abortions and provides no exceptions for rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. This week he indicated that he won't work to change that platform. That's a position espoused by fewer than 20 percent of the electorate. In the religion forum last weekend at Saddleback Church in California, McCain announced that life begins at the moment of conception and promised, I will be a pro-life president, and this presidency will have pro-life policies. In April he told Chris Matthews that the rights of the unborn is one of my most important values. He has bragged about his consistent zero rating from NARAL. He has explicitly said that his Supreme Court choices will be animated by his desire to overturn Roe. wrote:

Does Dahlia support the death penalty for the rapist in the event of rape, or does she believe the only involved party deserving the harshest of sentences is the baby?

Why is it that these people use such misleading language as "reproductive choices?" It is obvious to anyone that cares to view the situation honestly that anti-abortion does not equate to anti-choice. The choice to engage in sexual activity, just like the choice to take steps to avoid pregnancy are separate from the choice to kill a baby. This "lady" chooses to mislead then complains about information being given to abortion seekers as dishonest:

So much of the abortion debate involves treating women like children. It was bad enough when Justice Anthony Kennedy told women last year that we are too unstable to be trusted with decisions about what to do with our own bodies. It is an outrage that physicians in South Dakota are being instructed to lie to us for our own good. wrote:

Dahlia should be thankful that the abortion debate does not involve "treating women like children" as she so dishonestly claims. If it did and NARAL's position on children were respected, the abortion debate would involve killing women! I am sure neither NARAL nor NAMBLA would want to receive the treatment they promote for innocent children. Obviously any debate that involves a participant having her skull pierced and her brain vacuumed out would be hard to stomach and probably wouldn't be aired by most news channels no matter how much the program directors thought it might help the candidacy of Barack Obama.

Tags: Abortion NARAL Obama

Cross-posted from www.malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com:

As the cable news channels show gripping footage of Democrat vice presidential pick Joe Biden's Delaware home, the Obammunists know they have found the perfect running mate. Michelle's husband wants to be complimented as well as complemented by his future third in command. I think this pick was determined in February of 2007 when Joe Biden offered his evaluation of "The One." From cnn.com:

I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, Biden said. I mean, that's a storybook, man. wrote:

That is four compliments in one sentence, which is obviously a compliment to sentence ratio that "Big Brother" Barry appreciates.

The Obammunists must also appreciate Senator Joe "7-11" Biden's willingness to sacrifice and accept a position he doesn't want, disciple to Michelle's Messiah. On "Meet The Press" June 22, 2008 , Biden expressed his desire to NOT be asked to be the running mate:

SEN. BIDEN: Unlike most other people, I'm being straight with you. If asked, I will do it. I've made it clear I do not want to be asked. MR. WILLIAMS: Do not want to be asked. But if asked, the answer, of course, would be yes. SEN. BIDEN: Of course it would, because the--if the president--if the presidential nominee thought I could help him win, am I going to say to the first African-American candidate about to make history in the world that, No, I will not help you out like you want me to? Of course, I'm--I'll say yes.\ wrote:

The Obama campaign could not pass up someone that would so selflessly accept the position of third banana, even though he didn't want to be asked. The Delaware senator further sealed the deal on "Meet The Press" that day by again injecting race into the race, which The libiots fully intend to make about race.

There could be some rough patches ahead for "Team Articulate And Bright And Clean" as evidenced by the musings of some libiot pro-baby killing advocates at Democratic Underground, who see Biden's view that life begins at conception as potentially troublesome. These champions of infanticide, who had the perfect candidate in Barack "Born Alive, Let Them Die" Obama, are worried about a potential tie-breaking vote in The Senate falling to someone that doesn't like the idea of partially delivering a viable baby, puncturing the base of his or her skull, and vacuuming out his or her gray matter.

Is it possible that "Big Brother" Barry isn't aware of Senator Biden's view that a "bay-buh" might not be a punishment? Could it be that Barry doesn't know that Biden actually has grandchildren that weren't aborted?

At the very least, Michelle's husband and Joe "7-11" Biden can agree that our economy must be further damaged for the sake of The Prophet Gore's anthropogenic global warming scam. This point is important because the more jobs the libiots can eliminate through tax and regulation means, the more victims there will be to depend on a benevolent government. Obammunism needs these dependents in order to prosper and grow.

Team Articulate And Bright And Clean must not lose sight of the ultimate goal, which is base in the work of Marx and illustrated in the work of Orwell. "Big Brother" Barry will be watching.

Tags: Election Racism Obama Biden

In a time when the liberal media should be rejoicing in their impending presidential victory (regardless of which sub-par candidate wins) or focusing on their primary task of campaigning for "Big Brother" Barry Obama, they still get distracted by the perceived unjust treatment of lawbreakers. Both presidential candidates are open-borders, no sovereignty type guys, but apparently the lib media doesn't think that is good enough. You see, illegal aliens are being caught currently and their sad tales must be told. Imagine the horror that the most recently detained illegals faced, they could not attend the wedding reception for Ellen and "Ally McBeal's" Nell (the other newsworthy garbage in The San Francisco Chronicle.) Actually, most of the illegals in Iowa probably wouldn't have made the trip out of "the shadows" to attend the gay (that means happy, right?) couple's nuptials.

The AP article in the San Francisco Chronicle is heart-wrenchingly headlined, "Small town Iowa struggles after immigration raid." A gut response might be, "so what?" There is no valid reason for a town to struggle because of an immigration raid. Those that claim otherwise conveniently ignore the most basic fact, illegal is illegal. If there are jobs to be done, they can be done by people that are here "legally", which means those without the "il" as a prefix to their status. Perhaps the business owners should pay higher wages and subsequently charge more, or perform the tasks themselves... oh shoot, I used common sense there. Forgive me, it is a bad habit of mine.

There is no such thing as a "job (that must be done) that Americans won't do," but that doesn't matter to the liberal AP writer. Here is an excerpt from the tear-jerking assault on enforcement of the law:

For years, even decades, these Mexican and Guatemalan families had called Postville home. Here, in a place first settled by German and Norwegian Lutherans and Irish Catholics more than 150 years ago, Hispanic immigrants were raising children, buying houses, building businesses. Like the Hasidic Jews who came to the town in 1987 to open the meatpacking plant, and the Eastern Europeans who made up the first band of workers there, the influx of Guatemalans and Mexicans had both buffeted and bolstered this quiet community — until it reached a new cultural equilibrium. In time, the newcomers became part of the fabric of Postville, which proudly bills itself as Hometown to the World. Now, they were clustered in hiding or being herded away in handcuffs by immigration agents. wrote:

How do you say "illegal" in Spanish? Apparently the liberals in the media (and the liberal presidential nominees of both major parties) don't understand the meaning of the English word. Of course, sob stories like this shy away from using the word "illegal" in order to avoid risking reality intruding upon their tales.

What does it say about the liberal media that they wage such a war on behalf of illegal and immoral activities? One thing it says is that Barack Obama is the perfect recipient of their support and free campaign advertising (they call them articles and columns.) I can't imagine the umbrage these "news" outlets would display if it was discovered that some illegal alien was denied taxpayer funded transportation to an abortion mill (they call them health care facilities) for a taxpayer funded abortion. We would surely and ironically be decried as a racist society for not advancing Margaret Sanger's goal of eugenics.

I hope the citizens of this great nation that expect our sovereignty to be respected are paying attention. The next president's term will be difficult for those of us in this category. Both candidates are opposed to the right side of the ilegal immigration and sovereignty issue, so we will have to be vigilant and vocal. We must not allow the open border chief executive and his accomplices in the media to further facilitate the invasion!

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email brianbonner90- at-gmail- dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Tags: Illegal Immigration Media Bias Election

Cross-posted at www.malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com

Billy Crystal, the libiot Hillary supporter would be so proud that one of his characters seems to have inspired the "conservative" faction of the Demoncratic Party to accept the new platform on abortion. Like Miracle Max and his assessment of Wesley (The Princess Bride,) "only mostly dead" appears to be good enough for the most moral of the Demoncrats when it comes to the fate of the most innocent.

The Trail, a Washington Post campaign blog has the distasteful details in the entry, "Conservative Dems Hail Party Platform's New Abortion Plank."

New plank: The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs. wrote:

That was so life-respecting and generous to add the little afterthought at the end to appease the pro-life portion of their party, or at least the members of their party that claim to be pro-life. Leave it "Big Brother" Barry and his ilk to be appeasers, I just never thought the most pro-baby death Senator in The Senate would agree to such a plank. The last sentence in the plank must be for Democrats whose daughters get "punished with a baby (pronounced baybuh in Barry's come and go accent.)"

More from supposed moral Demoncrats:

On a conference call Tuesday, a half-dozen anti-abortion pro-Democratic thinkers and religious leaders claimed victory for the party's new abortion plank, which they said took a big step in their direction by more explicitly stating the party's support for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term. By doing so, they said, the Democrats were moving closer to the middle ground where most Americans reside -- not wanting to criminalize abortions, but wanting to reduce the number performed. There's a common ground possible here, said Rev. Jim Wallis, the founder of Sojourners, the country's largest network of liberal Christians. It's never been as explicitly stated that the Democratic Party supports a woman's decision to have their child, and offers her practical support to have her child. It's an historic step forward. He added, This plank makes room for people with moral convictions about abortion.... A lot of people are going to find their convictions represented here.\ wrote:

Translation: We prefer that babies not be killed, but it isn't really all that important to us. As long as we are shown a little respect and credited with a softening of the traditional (modern) Democratic Party motto of "An Abortion In Every Pot," we'll be satisfied and will be able to support the man that killed the "Born Alive Protection Act" in The Illinois Senate with a clear collective conscience!

I guess a pro-life Demoncrat could be compared to:

- A PETA supporting vegetarian that wears leather shoes

- An eco-conscious celebrity that jets across the globe and complains about carbon emissions

- A politician that calls for taxing "windfall" profits of oil companies, but not those of Hollywood entities

- A candidate that campaigns on poverty while living in a 28,000 square foot house

- A person that cries "keep your laws off my body" then expects government to take over healthcare, which would presumably involve the person's body

To borrow Barack Obama's most commonly uttered two words, "Ya know," I think the candidate that has no core principles is a perfect fit for the type of "pro-life" person that can so easily find abortion acceptable.

Tags: Abortion Obama Election

I received the following letter from a May 2008 graduate of The University of Illinois and was asked to post it. I am posting it because I think the subject is interesting and deserves scrutiny:

You host/allow the Muslim Student Association. According to it's website, (msauiuc.org), it openly and proudly connects to national organizations which have, without doubt, been linked with support of terrorism against the US. What kind? Either financial, and/or ideological (supporting Islamic answers that conflict with simple civic values and the Constitution. Sadly, I doubt they conflict with what's allowed within the UIUC). These groups include, at the very least: CAIR, ISNA, MSA national, Al-Islam, SunniPath, IslamQA. Upon further request, I will provide examples to this effect ASAP. I will not only refuse donations to my alma mater, but I will likely encourage other alumni to do likewise unless you drastically change your relationship with the Islamic community. not radical islamic. not extremist. Islamic is all of the above no less than Nazi-esque or Racist, and to speak of either of those in terms of moderation is idiotic. Ditto. I'd like to express my dissatisfaction with your allowance of these groups on campus, and disgust with having been preached to by your University that you are some sort of Public Ivy or otherwise a paragon of all that is good and civilized. If you're going to get into the Islam is Peace argument, save it. Been there many times, and I have yet to lose with regards to my claim to the contrary. Incidentally, ask them how they feel about gay rights, the state of Israel (you know, that sole American ally and western-mentality country in the Middle East); and in relation to Israel, why they would advocate a 1967 border split between it and Palestine when during and prior to 1967, Muslims were not content with said borders and intended to exterminate Israeli inhabitants to the last. Ask them why Hitler's Mein Kampf remains a perrennial favorite among Turks. The Turks being the most moderate and Westernized of the Islamic world. This is where they drink, and shave, and produce the incredibly-liberal-and-risque soap Noor (translated: Light. Name of the heroine). Ask them why between terrorist attacks such as 9/11, 7/7, Beslan and countless others on one hand; and trivial cartoons and Rushdie honorings on the other, Muslims around the world took the latter to be against Islam on any large scale. Ask them why revulsion against the likes of Al-Queda took hold in Islamic countries only after they started killing other Muslims, but not when they were intent on killing only Americans or other infidels (non-muslims). Ask them what the following terms mean: jizya, dhimmi, taqqiyah, kuffar, and wherefrom they derive (hint: from their tolerant, honest, scientific religious teachings). Ask them: Hypothetically speaking, on what basis should a people whose religion is openly intolerant be tolerated in a democratic society. Ask them why other minorities who come to the West, such as Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, East Asians, Latinos, Africans, etc... all face similar racial discrimination, stereotype projections, language barriers, culture shocks, and so on, and yet none are investigated for large-scale covert terrorist support on a regular basis. Ask them what the following common arabic/Islamic phrase refers to: First on Saturday, then on Sunday. Ask them why Lebanon was considered to be a victim of aggression by Israel about 20-30 years ago when Israel was there to protect Christian Lebanese from Muslim marauders slaughtering non-believers without any cause other than their non-Islamic beliefs. Ask them why Muslims around the world insisted 9/11 was the work of Bush/Jews/Illuminati and had nothing to do with Muslims, and yet why those same Muslims insist it was a great victory for them and their religion. Referring back to claims of scientific and the like: Ask them whether Islam is in accordance with reason and science and such. When they invariably say yes, ask them whether or not it's standard Islamic doctrine and allegedly God's Immaculate Truth that the man they take to be their prophet literally flew into the sky to heaven. On a horse. LITERALLY. Not to be taken as a metaphor for reaching any kind of spiritual enlightenment, prayer-induced rapture, or deep meditative state of mind. Nothing like that. But whether he flew there physically and no less than to the extent he could be tracked by radar, had it existed at the time. What does all this lead to? I respectfully request that you reassess your relationship with any and all things Islamic. Got the impression that alumni have a voice of sorts (at least if only proportional to their contributions), and I'd like to put that into effect with regard to your treatment of this religion (and I use the term loosely). wrote:

Tags: Islam University Of Illinois

Cross-posted at www.malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com:

"Summer lovin', had me a blast...Summer lovin'', happened so fast..."

Roughly 30 years after the movie "Grease" hit the silver screen, the lyrics from one of its songs have renewed meaning. This Summer Americans are witness to a great romance between the parrot press and Barry Obama.

(I began this post last night and today I was listening to the podcast of yesterday's Laura Ingraham Show, during which they beat me to the punch and played a snippet of "Summer Lovin'." So I will include a portion of another appropriate song.)

"If lovin' you is wrong, I don't wanna be right."

There is little risk of the amore stricken media ever being "right." "Journalists" from all forms of traditional media seem to be experiencing something similar to the "tingle" that runs up Spitball's Chris Mathews' leg at the sound of Barry Obama's melodious (or is it malodorous?) voice. It must be love if so many reporters can view this man as an inspirational and eloquent speaker. They say love is blind, but it must also be deaf because unless he is reading a prepared speech, the media's Messiah can't seem to string three words together. Not to mention the fact that he is completely disassociated from the truth or reality and it doesn't seem to register with the fawning, eyelash batting reporters.

You won't hear about the eloquent one's many gaffes, self-contradictions, lies, and stammers unless you listen to talk radio or rely on the internet. In a sane society, the intentional misleading of the public regarding the quality, character, and words of a presidential candidate in order to enable the candidate to be elected, might be viewed as wrong. Of course, that would be judgmental and we all know that it is wrong to scrutinize or pass judgment... unless someone makes a suggestion such as babies should be allowed to live, then judgment is acceptable and necessary to stone the infidel that commits blasphemy at the altar of liberalism's most holy sacrament!

If you would like to read the rest, please copy and paste the following into your address line:

http://malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com/2008/07/24/msm-to-bho-shut-up-you-had-me-at-ya-know/

Tags: Obama Media Bias Election

Cross-posted at www.conservablogs.com/conservativecommonman:

Leave it to The Washington Post to give us an immigration sob story that really hits home. Today's edition of the official D.C. area Obama campaign newsletter has the heart-tugging headline, "AIDS Among Latinos on Rise." It seems a quarter of gay Hispanic men have HIV:

So far, the toll of AIDS in the nation's largest and fastest-growing minority population has mostly been overshadowed by the epidemic among African Americans and gay white men. Yet in major U.S. cities, as many as 1 in 4 gay Hispanic men has HIV, a rate on par with sub-Saharan Africa. wrote:

Of course the a rag such as WaPo cares about the affects of this terrible disease and seek awareness and help for those suffering from it. Naturally it would be rude to mention that the majority of HIV transmission is a result of behavior, which liberals do not want regulated, but of course they do want to transfer wealth from those that avoid those behaviors to those that engage in them. The bright side is that we have discovered something that the liberal morons don't want to regulate, it is just too bad that American manufacturing and industry doesn't involve anal sex and abortions because then the libs wouldn't be so eager to regulate them into extinction.

The important point of this important piece of agenda driven drivel... I mean journalism, is that gay illegals can't get get the free help they deserve because they are stuck in "The shadows:"

Blacks still have the highest HIV rates in the country, but language difficulties, cultural barriers and, in many cases, issues of legal status make the threat in the Hispanic community unique. For those who arrived illegally, in particular, fear of arrest and deportation presents a daunting obstacle to seeking diagnosis and treatment. Officials need to stop downplaying or ignoring what's happening among Latinos, said Oscar De La O, president of Bienestar, a Latino service organization. We are at the center of the storm. Even with the United States embroiled in a fierce debate over immigration policy, the problem of AIDS in Latinos had received scant attention from political and public health officials. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where only two of 17 approved HIV programs target Hispanic Americans, officials have added Spanish-language hotlines, confidential testing sites and other initiatives aimed at filling the gap. wrote:

I know the solutions sought by WaPo would include amnesty for all illegals, free condoms for all gay illegals, and conversion of all public medical services to Spanish only, but I have some other suggestions to deal with this crisis.

- Don't enter the United States illegally.

- Don't insert your genitalia where another man evacuates his bowels. (The reciprocal should also be avoided.)

- Don't expect to have taxpayers pay for the consequences of the "rights" you wish to freely exercise.

- If you are in this country legally, attempt to learn English. (If you're not in this country legally, get out.)

I hope these tips prove useful since it would be a true tragedy to spend another dime of taxpayers' money to coddle illegal aliens and pay for the results of bad behavior.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email brianbonner90- at-gmail- dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Tags: AIDS Illegal Aliens Taxpayer Dollars

(This is a column I wrote for www.Riverbender.com/politics Right Turn - Left Turn feature a while back.)

The American taxpayer has an excellent opportunity to take control of his federal tax burden and take home his entire paycheck (minus any state or local deductions.) This opportunity also presents a means of funding Social Security and Medicare while allowing companies to invest more into growth and increased pay for their employees. This opportunity is known as The Fair Tax.

The Fair Tax Act of 2007 (HR 25) would abolish federal income taxes, payroll taxes, Social Security contributions, and Medicare contributions. The revenue to operate the federal government would be generated by a 23 percent tax on purchases of new items. This 23 percent national sales tax seems like a large number at first glance but upon closer examination it becomes an attractive alternative to the existing quagmire that is the federal tax code.

A major initial concern with the implementation of a national sales tax is how it might affect poor families and those on fixed incomes. The tax burden on the poor is addressed by The Fair Tax in a couple of ways. The first and most important relief is provided in the form of monthly prebates to every household that meets the criteria of having valid Social Security numbers for each member and that each member is a legal U.S. resident. The prebate schedule for 2007 shows, for example, that a two adult household with two children would receive a monthly check of $525 to offset the taxes on necessities.

Another important form of relief that applies to every taxpayer is the elimination of taxes on used items, including real estate and vehicles. Only purchases of new items by the end user are taxed. This not only enables all people to choose their own tax burden based on their purchasing decisions, it also eliminates taxes on business to business transactions. By having a flat tax on the sale of the final product, companies can pay less for raw materials and components and therefore charge less and invest in higher quality and development. American made products become more competitive internationally once the excess taxes are removed. Increased competitiveness of American products naturally leads to improved American job security.

The American economy stands to grow in a system that encourages higher wages, lower prices, and product innovation. The quality of life in our nation is bound to improve across the board as we have more of our own money to spend as we wish while fully funding the federal government’s obligations. It is important to realize that this plan eliminates the concern about the viability of Social Security. The elimination of federal taxes on the purchase of used homes will make home ownership more affordable. New construction can also be more affordable given the fact that the materials used by the builder are not subject to taxation. Additionally it may be easier to buy a home considering the fact that savings and the interest gained by savings are not taxed.

The Internal Revenue Service is abolished along with the income tax. A decrease in federal bureaucracy means more efficient use of tax dollars and an elimination of loopholes and tax shelters. People will have a difficult time cheating the system once the tax code becomes as open and simple is it would be under The Fair Tax. The playing field is truly leveled and those that wish to spend more on new items will pay more in taxes.

This plan eliminates the practice of punishing success while allowing every American man and woman to have more control of his or her own money. How many people in our society believe that the government can better distribute a large portion of their paychecks than they can themselves? How many citizens of our nation believe the government uses our money in wise and efficient ways? Freedom is enhanced when individual citizens have increased control of their own lives and fortunes. Control can be shifted to the people and The Fair Tax would be a great first step.

Tags: Fair Tax

<< First  < Previous | Page:  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  Last >>