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. "

'Fann'ing the Flames of the Democrat Party

Was Tom Fann having two previous losses really the best the democrat party had to put up against first time runner Terry Hollander or is there something more happening behind the scenes? Tommy Roberts and Kristy Manning both sit on the Democrat Central Committee and voted to put Tom Fann in the St. Charles County District 5 race. I have heard it quoted by "other sources" that it appears that Tommy Roberts and Kristy Manning threw Tom Fann under the bus. Could this have been a ploy to ease the pressure off of Kristy Manning? One has to wonder what the motivation was to put an extreme liberal against Mark Parkinson instead of a Democrat candidate that appears to be more moderate.

Letting someone else pick what race you run does not show the leadership that is expected in St. Charles County. No offense intended to Mr. Fann but running against Terry Hollander with his name recognition and apparently the dollars in contributions is not the best idea.

Tommy Roberts and Kristy Manning pulling Tom Fann from the State Rep District 16 race shows to the St. Charles County residence that even the Democrat Party has no confidence in Tom Fann's ability to win an election. The Democrat Party according to deafening silence apparently did not contribute to Tom Fann's campaign. One could only guess how the liberal minded Kristy Manning talked Tommy Roberts into throwing Tom Fann under the bus. The Democrat Party has demonstrated their typical self serving attitude that will burn them in the general elections.

Vote for Terry Hollander on August 5th!

____________________________________________________________

Two compete for vacant St. Charles County Council seat
Fann, Hollander square off in District 5

By Kalen Ponche
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:41 AM CDT

After Democrat Tom Fann lost his bid for the 16th District Missouri House seat to Republican Mark Parkinson in February, he was planning a rematch in November.

But in early April, the District 5 seat on the St. Charles County Council opened up with the resignation of Democrat Joe McCulloch. Fann decided to focus his political goals closer to home.

Fann will face Republican Terry Hollander, the varsity basketball coach for St. Charles West High School, in the Aug. 5 special election for the District 5 seat, which includes parts of St. Charles and St. Peters between Highway 94, Interstate 70 and Spencer Road. Fann and Hollander were chosen by their respective parties' central committees to run in the special election. The winner would serve the remaining 17 months of McCulloch's term.

Both candidates are counting on name recognition to help them in the race. Earlier this year, Fann spent many hours going door to door before the election won by Parkinson. Hollander is well-known in the community for his success with the St. Charles West basketball program.

Hollander, 55, was in his first year of retirement when the District 5 council seat opened up.

"There was no long-range plan," Hollander said. "It just happened to be that Joe McCulloch stepped down and there happened to be an opening, and the timing seemed right.".

Hollander taught American history for 31 years at St. Charles West before he retired as a teacher. He has continued to coach varsity basketball. Though he taught civics, the campaign is his first step into politics.

With the encouragement of a friend, County Executive Steve Ehlmann, Hollander decided to run for the seat.

After going door to door to talk with voters, Hollander said many voters are concerned about keeping their property values from falling.

"I'd like to see the quality of life out here continue," he said.

He also said that if elected, he would support funding the continuation of the Page Avenue extension, a plan that Fann said he agrees with.

Both Hollander and Fann say competitive pay for sheriff's deputies should be a priority as the county faces decreased sales tax revenues this year.

"I think that there certainly needs to be a hard look at how things need to be done and get our employees to the point that needs to be competitive," Hollander said.

Fann said he is opposed to the county's continued participation in a lawsuit against the use of tax increment financing for the Premier 370 development in St. Peters.

"We don't need to be suing each other," Fann said. "We don't need one city trying to annex another. Personal interest is being put above public interest."

Fann said he wants to generate more money from light-industrial plants to cover any losses that could come from rolling back taxes.

"We need to position ourselves as a region that's centrally located," he said.

Fann said the county could attract more businesses to the area by marketing the good reputation of the cities. St. Peters, O'Fallon and St. Charles were recently ranked nos. 60, 68 and 82, respectively, on Money Magazine's list of the 100 Best Places to Live in America.

"My thing is, if we are going to preach tax rollbacks we need to find a way to grow our communities' property tax base," he said.

As of the July 15 campaign finance reports, Fann had raised considerably less money than Hollander. About $1,000 of the $2,990 Fann had raised for his campaign came from firefighter and paramedics associations.

In contrast, Hollander has raised $20,415 in campaign contributions, with more than $5,000 coming from Republican committees or other candidates.

Name: Terry Hollander

Age: 56

Family: Wife, Brenda; children, Blake, Kirk and Leigh Ann

Political experience: first-time candidate

Job: retired teacher at St. Charles West High School

Education: bachelor's degree in social studies and master's degree in secondary school administration from Northeast Missouri State, now Truman State University

Name: Tom Fann

Age: 49

Family: Wife, Jennifer; children, Joshua, Paige and Leah

Political experience: ran unsuccessfully for St. Peters Board of Aldermen in 2004; ran unsuccessfully for Missouri House of Representatives in 2008

Job: insurance broker

Education: attended Ranken Technical College, University of Missouri-St. Louis and St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley

U.S. Circuit Court Finds in Favor of St. Peters' Appeal in Hodak Case

St. Peters is on a winning streak concerning lawsuits against it. See Article Below

U.S. Circuit Court Finds in Favor of St. Peters' Appeal in Hodak Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit this morning reversed outright an earlier District Court decision in a case filed by Brian Hodak, Karla Hodak, and H & N Planning and Control, Inc., against the City of St. Peters, former Mayor Tom Brown and three City police officers. The City of St. Peters had appealed the earlier decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Today's court decision threw out the entire judgment, entered against the City and Tom Brown, including the actual and punitive damage awards, attorney's fees, and court costs that had been awarded to plaintiffs by the District Court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals found that Brian Hodak "did not suffer an actionable constitutional violation," and declined to "extend third-party standing to H/N to assert Brian's non-existent legal claim."

Today's ruling is a decisive victory for the City. The judgment in favor of plaintiffs has been reversed and the United States Court of Appeals has ordered the trial court to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint.

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has made its decision after a thorough review of all the evidence in this case after years of litigation," said St. Peters Mayor Len Pagano. "We are obviously pleased with the outcome of the appeal. This has been a long, difficult process for the City, its police officers and former mayor. As with all issues, the City, its elected officials and employees try always to do what is appropriate and in the best interest of the residents of St. Peters. We are proud of the City's reputation in this regard, and we will continue to enforce the laws and work to serve and to protect our community as we are sworn to do."

Party Headquarters Can Determine Quality of Leaderhip

It is interesting that the Democrat party considers themselves as the a party for the working people. The Democrat party often does attract tradesmen and union workers to volunteer. This begs the question how much do the Democrats really care about "getting the job done?" Pictured to the above and to the right is the Democrat Headquarters in St. Charles County. Its grand opening held at the end of June with this picture taken almost 30 days after the grand opening event. As you can see it is a mess and incomplete. Quoting Democrat Ted House at the grand opening "this is going to become a home in more ways than one over the next several months and even years". REALLY? In 30 days I can clean my home to look better than what is displayed here? Who holds a "grand opening" when the facilities are far from being completed? Is this how the Democrats plan to run the state and local offices? Maybe they are hoping it will "change"?



By comparison the Republican Party held its grand opening for their headquarters. Can anyone tell the difference in the care and upkeep? Not to mention location, location, location? There was a lot of forethought to secure a building that is easy to maintain can fly the United States Flag and has a floor plan to be used for many purposes.


Ted House said that the Democrat Headquarters is to become a home. I think that sentiment is felt to the Republican Headquarters as well. You would think that if you consider it a home you would take care of it like one. If you cannot take care of your home how can you take care of legislation for others?

Liberal Democrat Strikes Against Free Speech !!!

I have seen some dirty tricks in my years in politics but it takes a Liberal Democrat to strike at free speech. Like a true socialist they only want you to hear one side of the story, theirs!!! Placing signs directly in front of your competitor is low even for a Democrat.

Could this be because they cannot compete in the realm of real life ideas? St. Charles County is known as its Conservative Family Values and Mark Parkinson is the only candidate that holds to these values.


A quick comparison of the candidates shows the Mark Parkinson is the area's candidate of choice.


Mark Parkinson is sponsored by Missouri's Right to Life verses Ms. Manning's kill the babies pro choice approach. Ms. Manning's time as a legislative assistant riding the coat tails of whoever or Mark Parkinson's time doing the job as a legislator and receiving Freshman Legislator of the year for 2008 for his co-sponsorship of tough illegal immigration legislation.


We obviously know where Ms. Manning stands on freedom of speech attempting to block out Mark Parkinson's sign to the public.


The choice is clear. Mark Parkinson for State Rep District 16. Elect a real conservative legislator not a six year liberal assistant who will ultimately attempt to work to socialize our society.

What Does Obama Want To Change? - Recieved In My E-Mail

Dear Friends: My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm
46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small
business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't considerable myself
to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not
Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas' - but
that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want
to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can
they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those
who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of
America first.

The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of
this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest,
hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for
too long.

Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in
politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising
their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote
and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at
the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear
is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how
elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork
barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the
government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government
programs.

We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders.
It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election
with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even
agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into
that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my
vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired
a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election
is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working
for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?

I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply
don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and
calling it 'change'.

Change what?, I ask.

Well, we're going to change America, they say.

In what way?, I query.

We want someone new and fresh in the White House, they exclaim.

So, someone who's not a politician?, I press.

Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for
Obama, they state.

So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has
enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education,
raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his
party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?

No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.' Quite frankly, I don't
believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In
recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how
they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting
for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's
going to change a lot of stuff. Change, change, change. I have yet to
find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why
this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most
powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going
to implement a lot of change.

We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his
Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a
moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to
be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?

CHANGE WHAT?

Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who
are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as
evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken
to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can
explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible.
Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who
wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from
Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next
First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping
about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.

For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading
applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.

?Here's a question - where were you five and a half years ago? Around
Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son
has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a
half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of
sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take.

John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North
Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.


When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to
be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held
longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was
offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and
torture began.

Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a
foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your
fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found,
and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.

Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military
service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to
denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of
Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze
Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now
serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq. Barack Obama is fond of saying 'We
honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is condescending and
offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice
for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more
about change.'

I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly
convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him
to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of
our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants
to lead America, and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is
simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable
background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle
to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation,
retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982.

Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new.
Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of
character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe
'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a
prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the
United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly
DOES.

Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking
Americans to say, 'Enough.' It is time for people of all parties to stop
following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep
America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a
dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting
for, and why.

There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to
all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a
man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want
a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.

I want a President who's qualified to lead.

I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.



AMEN ! ! !