I Am One Angry Person Today

Let's just say I've had an ANGRY morning. I was watching videos and reading news articles on the internet and a video of a group singing the "Star Spangled Banner". Since I've been studying the founding our our nation and writing a book which is not yet half finished, I became inflamed at things I was hearing from our liberal friends (idiots) who do not respect the Constitution nor the Pledge of Allegiance.

When Obama was elected president he didn't wear a flag emblem on his lapel He said he didn't want to show favoritism for any country in the world. Now that his polling numbers have fallen to 37% I noticed a flag on his lapel during one of his recent speeches. I don't know what motivates this man — I have my opinion — but when he ran in 2004 he said his government would be transparent, he said there would be no back room deals, he said he would save us tax payers money. It appears to me that he's done everything except keep any of his promises.

I remember someone — I can't remember if it was a news comentator or not — who said that when a politicians is running for office he can lie about anything...including his opponent. Well, it seems we've been lied to.

Our First Amendment is under attack — the liberals want freedom "from" religion. Christians are told what they can preach and if they violate that they are subject to fines or arrests for promoting hate. It seems that the only religion that has any freedom in this country now is Islam. They can practice their Shiara law without interference in France, England and now the United States. Have you heard of any one going to jail for honor killings?

And "free speech only applies to the liberal media". If our speech offends someone then we are subject to being arrested or some other punishment.

Why in the name of our Creator are our elected officials not defending our Constitution. It is the law of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

The Oath Taken By the President:? "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The oath taken by Senators and Representatives: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, federal judges and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President.

This is the oath I took when I entered the military: I, ''[name]'', do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Where in the name of our Creator are our politicians heads...do they not take oaths seriously, or do they hold one and behind their back with their fingers crossed?

Columbus Day

In a few weeks, the U.S. will celebrate Columbus Day, but it’s likely many Americans don’t know that this holiday commemorates Christopher Columbus arriving in North America in 1492. That’s because a series of recent studies have found that when it comes to our own history, Americans don’t always make the grade. A 2010 survey found that more than 25% of Americans did not know that we had gained our independence from Britain. China, Japan and France were all given as incorrect answers. 

And the results were even worse in a study by the U.S. Mint, which found that only 7% percent of Americans could name the first four U.S. Presidents in order: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In 2011. Newsweek magazine gave the official U.S. Citizenship Test to 1,000 Americans and found even more gaps in our collective knowledge. Only 27% of Americans knew which country we fought in the Cold War – the Soviet Union — and even fewer, 25%, knew the name of the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which is John Roberts. Scholars agree that one reason for the poor results is that America has a complex political system, which can take years to fully understand. And our unique government may never have happened if Columbus had not sailed across the ocean on the Titanic. At least, I think that’s the ship he took. I’m a little rusty on my U.S. History…

In The Immortal Words of Walter the Ventriloquist Dummy

We pay our congressmen and senators $174,000 each per year. The majority and minority leaders $193,400 and the speaker of the house, $223,500. That is just their salaries. They also have an allowance. In 2008, the most recent year I could find, they received allowances ranging from $1,299,292 to $1,637,766 for office space, secretaries and aides, and mail. Consider that we have 100 senators and 435 congressmen plus their expense accounts, we’re looking at roughly another $500 million. Then there’s those travel allowances. The congressional travel budget is somehow combined into a larger budget involving State Department and Military travel and is never made public. When a representative travels, he can pocket as much as $3,000 per trip in per deim for food and lodging due to an accounting system that does not require itemization nor demand return of unused cash.

Some lawmakers can pocket up to $3,000 a trip in cash, thanks to a system that does not require itemization and rarely demands refunds of unused cash.

They will not defund their income or benefits. They are, in my words, greedy dumb asses and think we are not watching them.

Social Security: Part Two

I have long been angered by politicians and news media calling Social Security an entitlement as though it is a FREE GIFT from the government. Yes it is an entitlement because senior citizens who paid into the fund are ENTITLED to receive the promised income from it.

Since 1937, American citizens have been involuntarily paying a percentage of their income, now up to 7%, matched by their employer, into a fund set up to provide for people who live past 65 years, or in some cases younger. They are to the point of insolvency they are considering raising the age. Yet, politicians such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a democrat, will stand and tell lies to mislead taxpaying citizens. Following is some of Reid’s misspeaking I found recently in a news blog.

In my previous, Social Security: Part One, I presented some harsh evidence and truth on the matter. Read the following lies the democratic Majority Leader had to say about the matter. Do you think he is lying again?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on disputed warnings that Social Security is headed for bankruptcy, calling those assertions an “outright lie.” And he says the huge federal entitlement program has not added “one penny” to the federal deficit.

Both of Reid’s claims are misleading.

Reid made the comments at a “Back Off Social Security” rally at the Capitol on Monday. Reid was joined by other Senate Democrats and liberal activists, who accuse Republicans of plotting to privatize Social Security. Democrats have used similar tactics in the past to scare senior citizens, who vote in large numbers.

“Social Security has not contributed one penny to the debt or the deficit ever in its 75 years,” Reid said at Monday’s event.

The claim is false. According to the actuaries for Social Security and Medicare, the Social Security program ran a deficit of approximately $41 billion, excluding interest on the bonds in the Social Security trust funds. Those bonds, which are a special type of Treasury bond, are placed in the trust funds in place of the cash surpluses Social Security has taken in from payroll taxes.

Because there is no cash in the Social Security trust funds, any deficits the program runs, including the 2010 deficit – and those projected into the future – must be repaid from current tax revenue.

Since the federal government was already running a deficit in 2010, and ran one in 2009, the money required to pay the Social Security deficit would have had to be borrowed, meaning it was added to the deficit and the national debt, contrary to Senator Reid’s claim.

Reid also rejected warnings that Social Security is going bankrupt, saying that the New Deal-era entitlement program was in sound fiscal shape. 

“We hear pundits and politicians take the bait that’s been thrown to them by these Republicans over the last few decades,” Reid said. “You throw it to them, and they grab it. They grab it, and they claim Social Security is headed for bankruptcy. It’s not just an exaggeration that Social Security is headed for bankruptcy — it is an outright lie.”

This statement is misleading. According to the Social Security actuaries, the program will no longer be able to pay out full benefits beginning in 2037, at which time it will have exhausted both its dedicated tax revenue and the value of the interest from the government bonds in its trust funds. 

“The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037,” the actuary reported in August 2010.

What this means is that Social Security will begin using income tax revenue to make up the difference as it runs continual deficits from now until 2037. In 2037, the program will have completely exhausted the Treasury bonds in its trust funds – meaning it will not be able to take any more extra tax revenue. At that point, the income from the program’s dedicated payroll taxes will only be able to pay approximately 75 percent of promised benefits.

The statement is misleading because if Social Security were a private-sector pension, the federal government itself would consider it insolvent or bankrupt. 

According to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation – the federal entity that manages and bails out bankrupt or defunct pension plans – a pension must be taken over if it is insolvent and does not have enough money to pay out current benefits, or if it will go bankrupt.

“PBGC must terminate a plan if assets are unavailable to pay benefits currently due,” the agency states on its website.

In other words, Social Security is heading towards a level of insolvency that the federal government itself considers to be of such danger to its beneficiaries that – were it a private pension – the government would step in, take it over, and bail it out.

MY NOTE: When FDR established SSI (Social Security Insurance) in 1937, It was understood by most that it would be a separate fund managed by the government and would not be dipped into to pay America’s overspending appetite. In other words, it would used only for the purpose it was intended. HAS IT? There has been more abuse and vote buying with this fund that can be understood or even completely discovered by the average American. People drawing disability who are not disabled, illegal imigrants drawing SSI who didn't pay into it nor even deserve it. If the SSI funds had been used as intended...as promised years ago...there would still be plenty of money go to around.

Social Security: Part One

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR (that’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt to you uninformed about who the presidents were), on August 14, 1935. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. 

History Lesson on Your Social Security Card Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts. Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed. 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 7.65% 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. 

(4.) 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. Actions speak louder than bumper stickers

Gun Control

I want to share this letter to the editor written by Walter “Digger” of New Shady Grove (Newspaper and state not mentioned)

To The Editor:

Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 870 right in the doorway. I gave it four sells and left it alone and went about my business

 .

While I was gone, the mail gal delivered my mail, the trash man pick up the trash, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few of my neighbors drove past.

Well, after about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there on there, right where I had left it. It hadn’t killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself.

Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is wrong, and it is the misuse of guns by criminals, or I have one of the laziest shotguns ever made. I must hurry off now and check on my spoons. I hear they are making people fat.

Walter “Digger” New Shady Grove.

The High Cost of Representation

Every time I hear politicians talk about reducing government spending, the next word I hear is “entitlements”, Social Security and Medicare. Social Security is the only retirement many of our nation’s lower income citizens have and since people are living longer and healthier lives, politicians think that changing the age of eligibility to 70 is the right way to solve the problem. Raising the retirement age to 70 will cause many to have less than cat food to eat. The fact that people are living longer and healthier doesn‘t mean they will be able to keep a job or find another job if replaced by a younger person. There may be a few who have jobs past age 65 but I doubt if many of them are in the lower income bracket. This sounds more like a “from the bottom up” effort in finding places to cut back government spending.

I have been thinking more about a “from the top down” spending cut. We pay our congressmen and senators $174,000 each per year. The majority and minority leaders $193,400 and the speaker of the house, $223,500. That is just their salaries. They also have an allowance. In 2008, the most recent year I could find, they received allowances ranging from $1,299,292 to $1,637,766 for office space, secretaries and aides, and mail. Consider that we have 100 senators and 435 congressmen plus their expense accounts, we’re looking at roughly another $500 million. Then there’s those travel allowances. The congressional travel budget is somehow combined into a larger budget involving State Department and Military travel and is never made public. When a representative travels, he can pocket as much as $3,000 per trip in per diem for food and lodging due to an accounting system that doesn’t require itemization nor demand return of unused cash. That would allow a lawmaker to pocket quite a hefty sum of left-over cash. Is it any wonder that most of our elected leaders are millionaires.

But all this generosity did not start with this year's crop. Benefits payments for some 400 retired members of Congress, who receive an average benefit of $45,000 a year, cost taxpayers about $20 million annually, says the National Tax Payers Foundation. Future costs depend on the turnover rate: The more who leave before they reach the five-year vesting threshold, the lower the annual payouts are required. Over time, congressional pensions are expected to accumulate more modestly as fewer members stay on beyond six to 12 years, according to the NTUF.