Gun Control, Who Does it Help?

Barack Obama supports taking your guns away from you. Not only is this a bad idea since only the criminals will have the guns but look what history has to say when citizens do not have the ability to defend themselves. I for one will support what Thomas Jefferson has said.

• In 1911, Turkey established gun control.From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1935, China established gun control.From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1938, Germany established gun control.From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1956, Cambodia established gun control.From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1964, Guatemala established gun control.From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1970, Uganda established gun control.From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: approximately 56 million.The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?" With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects. Thomas Jefferson stated: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Our founding fathers got it right. They thought this issue was important enough to protect the right to bear arms by putting it in our constitution. We need to protect our Constitutional rights.

Arguments against Idiots: Taxes

Glenn Beck is posting the Arguments against idiots. I thought I would pass these on.
_________________________

August 1, 2008 - 12:33 ET

The issue:

Taxes

What the liberal whiners say:

1.'The rich don't pay their fair share'

2.'The working class carries the full load in this country, while the rich just keep getting richer, and paying LESS'

3.'How about those 50 hedge fund managers Barack Obama talks about all the time who made $29 billion, but actually paid less in taxes than their $60,000 a year SECRETARIES!'

4.'I'm sick and tired of all the corporate welfare in this country'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1.Really? According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of wage-earners in this country pays nearly 40% of the burden (an 11% INCREASE over 1999, when WHO was President? Oh that's right...Bill Clinton). Not fair? Well, you may be saying, 'that's because they have ALL the wealth!' Wrong again. The top 1% of earners account for just 21% of the total adjusted gross income. Hmm. Come to think of it...you're RIGHT! That really isn't fair. They're paying DOUBLE what they should be. By the way, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the load. When you get all the way down to the top 50% of earners, they account for 96.4% of the entire tax burden. The next 10% pays 3.6%. And the bottom 40% of wage earners...pay NOTHING. That's right, nothing. In fact, they pay nothing, and then often get a "refund" (handout) at years end.

2. Now this argument, to me, is null and void, since it comes straight from the "Communist Manifesto" by our friend, Karl Marx (no, not Richard Marx, the singer with the hair...this is the OTHER Marx brother) Simply substitute the words "working class" for proletariat and "rich" for bourgeousie, and voila! Class warfare, Marxist style. Besides, do you know ANY rich people who don't work hard? Only 2% of this country's rich inherited their money, like the Kennedy's...the rest, earned it.

3. The "50 Hedge Fund mangers' who made a combined $29 billion is one of my favorite Barack Obama campaign stories. It's true of course. At least the part about how much money they made. Legally, by the way. But for a billionaire to pay less in taxes than his secretary, is preposterous at best. It's impossible. I need to see their 1040 form for proof. If they pay a smaller percentage than their secretary did, their accountant needs to be made President of the United States of America, immediately. No campaign, no election. The first ever APPOINTMENT to President in American history...just based on amazing skills.

It's also interesting to note that one of those Hedge Fund managers, of whom Obam speaks, but never names, is....George Soros. $2.9 Billion last year. Keep those Moveon.org ads coming Georgie! being the big-hearted, big government guy he is, it's surprising he hasn't voluntarily written out huge extra checks to the Federal Government to make up the discrepancy.

4. For this, I refer you to yesterday's article on the evil oil companies...who, from 1977-2004 made over $643 billion in profits! But, during that time span, their disgusting "corporate welfare" situation allowed them to pay a paltry $1.343 TRILLION in state and federal taxes. What a free ride.

The Argument Against Idiots: Global Warming Part I

Glenn Beck is posting the Arguments against idiots. I thought I would pass these on.
_________________________

August 6, 2008 - 14:09 ET

The issue:

Global Warming Part I: The altruistic planet savers

What the liberal whiners say:

1. 'What do you have against Al Gore? That man is simply trying to save this planet!'
2. 'And that wonderful, handsome, Richard Branson has promised to unselfishly give almost $4 billion in proceeds from his aviation business to fight global warming!'
3. 'It really shows just how bad this problem is when a lifelong oil man like T. Boone Pickens says it's time to change to wind!!!!!!'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1. What I have against Al Gore is simply this: he's a fat, stinking hypocrite. We'll cover his energy gorging next time. For now, let's focus on his motives. There's a famous quote by Al that I've always loved; "I live a carbon-neutral life, and both of my businesses are carbon neutral." The fact is, he's not even on the same planet as carbon-neutral, but here's the real story. He tells us his conscience is clear because he buys "carbon offsets". What Gore doesn't say is that the "offsets" he buys are from his own company, GIM (Generation Investment Management). He's saving the planet by investing in his own company?

2. It's true that big-hearted billionaire Richard Branson pledged all the profits from his Virgin Aviation business for the next 10 years to go toward combating the most critical problem the world has ever faced, global warming. But instead of Branson sending $4 billion to send polar bears life preservers, refrigerating Greenland or saving endangered Pygmy tribes in New Guinea, he's simply investing the money in his new business venture, Virgin Fuel. Like Gore, it seems he's just found another way to enhance his own bank account.

3. Yeah, good ole Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens has a plan for alternative energy too. He's spending a TON of money to let us know that the country needs to break it's addiction to oil and switch to wind. Surely that has NOTHING to do with the fact that he's invested $2 billion to build wind turbines, and is working on hooking up a power grid from the wind farms in West Texas all the way to Dallas. The great thing about wind as opposed to oil is, wind is subsidized by the taxpayer dollars to the tune of $25 per kilowatt hour. In other words, we pay his expenses, HE reaps the profit. There's more. At Pickens behest, the Texas Legislature changed a law allowing him, through his wife and ranch manager, eminent domain rights over 200,000 acres worth of groundwater rights in Roberts, Texas that could bolster his budget another $1 billion. But it's all about the planet, right?

The Argument Against Idiots: Creeping Communism-Demonizing Big Oil

Glenn Beck is posting the Arguments against idiots. I thought I would pass these on.

August 5, 2008 - 12:37 ET

How to win the argument de jour with logic and facts

The issue:

'Creeping Communism-Demonizing Big Oil'
(This differs from last weeks "drilling in ANWR" thesis...and is just a quickie to SHUT LIBERAL PIE HOLES about oil companies!)

What the liberal whiners say:

1. 'None of these greedy oil companies are spending nearly enough money on alternative energy sources'
2. 'It's great that Barack Obama has promised to take their profits and give them to the states and working families'
3. 'But $11 BILLION in ONE quarter, that's just evil'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1. Let's see. They're called OIL COMPANIES for a reason. They find, drill for, and deliver OIL. Some, like British Petroleum HAVE made the business decision to branch out and develop new sources of energy, but in the United States of America, should the government be dictating to private businesses what they spend their money on?

2. Is it, comrade? Glad you think so. If Obama is elected, and follows through with taking oil profits, do you think it will STOP with oil profits? Their profit margin is only 7-11%. Why take a chunk of Microsofts much larger profit margin? Or the cell phone industry or hoteliers? The markup on diamonds is up to 1000%...isn't that obscene? As for whether or not states and/or "working families" have the right to the profits oil companies have made, I guess that depends on whether you adhere to the U.S. Constitution or the Communist Manifesto.

3. If these money making oil companies are so bad because they make money, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must be positively angelic for running their businesses into the ground and having to be bailed out by the government? IndyMac and Bear Stearns, truly saintly. Miserable failures, who required bailouts with taxpayer dollars seem to completely escape the ire of the democrat/liberal whining machine. Those who succeed at what they're doing and prosper, are vilified. Well, СЧАСТЛИВЫЙ СЛУЧАЙ, comrade.

Hollander Receives Union Support

Isn't it interesting that Tom Fann did not secure the Carpenters Union considering all his other support seems to be from Unions and Union workers.

Hollander Receives Endorsement from Carpenters' District Council of Greater St. Louis & Vicinity

ST. CHARLES-- The Carpenters' District Council of Greater St. Louis & Vicinity has embraced Terry's vision for the St. Charles area and officially endorsed his candidacy for County Council.

"Carpenters have played a vital part in the rapid expansion of St. Charles County. They have literally built and shaped our community and will continue to do so in the years to come," said Hollander. "My campaign has embraced the carpenters' union and other labor organizations as vital to our area, and I am proud to have received their endorsement. "