Sunday, October 31, 2010

Principles? How Do You Spell That

In the last few articles we have talked about our worry that the GOPs 'always to be reelected good old boys' simply want to maintain their position of power and they are saying and doing whatever they feel it takes to placate us to retain their power…They are hoping we will help them win the majority in the House and Senate in this election so they can get back to doing their 'business' as they see it. Their agenda, more often than not, is not what our individual agenda are or the Tea Party goals and agenda are….. This doesn't seem to be a radical idea given the history of so many of the 'still-left-standing' Repub congressmen and senators. We know them. It was this same bunch of seasoned politicians who lost control of the House and Senate because of their outrageous spending behavior during our last president's tenure as well as the president before him. They were the ones who more or less were in charge and set into motion programs and promoted liberal ideas about what all the federal government should be doing and the role it "should play" in the lives of citizens….I won't recap the errors made and the disasters caused simply because we are all living with them. However, I want to note we are in our tenth year of war, a housing market that can't easily be repaired, and national debts well beyond the scope of human comprehension.

The 'good old boys' can point fingers at the other side of the isle, the liberal press, the current president till the seas sink but they all played a role by casting their votes on short sighted schemes. Finally we have told them to stop…Did they hear us? Do they believe us? Do they understand that we are now going to watch each of them? Do they realize we were (are) speaking to each of them directly? Given their history what do you think?

Jim DeMint ( Senator, N.C.) is one of the most out spoken senators for the conservative voters. He has helped the new conservative candidates by raising money for their campaign---- Clearly he is seen as a threat to the 'core GOP Senators……(?)

(Quote from our retired Senator Trent Lott: "We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott said in an interview. “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”) This comes from a man we trusted and was majority leader of the Senate when so many of our problems today were created.

Many of the political polls over the summer were showing that some seventy percent of the voters (Dems and Gop) hold most of the same values, beliefs, goals, as the Tea Party movement… That is a lot of citizens…Given that kind of massive numbers I have to wonder does (or if) "co-opting", as Trent Lott puts it , and the old guard GOPers are using it, mean something like conspiring... if so, then against whom?…Or does it simply imply, "Come on in, join the club, do as we do and do as we say?

We post the article below without comment….However, this article along with a number of recent similar articles are what gives us worry about how the 'always to be reelected good old boy' intend to run congress once they have control again….Same song second verse….

Republicans Take ‘No Comment’ Approach to DeMint

While Sen. Jim DeMint’s internecine warfare may rub his fellow Republicans the wrong way, it appears there is little, if anything, they can do to rein him in.

No Senate Republicans would discuss the issue on the record, and the few that would talk explained that most in the party think the best course of action is to ignore the irascible South Carolinian, at least for now.

“Jim DeMint isn’t the most effective legislator, so he has to gain power by driving headlines. His Achilles’ heel is everyone saying, ‘no comment,’” a Republican said.

Part of the problem, Republicans said, is the simple fact that in the Senate there is little leadership can do institutionally to curb troublesome Members, and the culture of the chamber discourages using even those options that are available. “It’s the same thing with every Senator. There’s nothing you can do to any of them,” a GOP aide said.

Republicans’ relationship with DeMint is further muddied by the fact that, while they may not like his constant attacks on them, he is a driving force in an election cycle that will likely see their numbers swell. “It’s sort of annoying ... but if he helps get Members elected, more power to him,” the aide said.

Nevertheless, some elements of the party would like to see DeMint punished in some form. For instance, Republicans on and off Capitol Hill recently ­— and quietly — discussed the possibility of taking away his chairmanship of the Senate Republican Steering Committee, a quasi-leadership role that provides DeMint a platform from which to push his conservative crusade.

According to numerous Republicans familiar with the issue, the hope had been to recruit Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to challenge DeMint for the post. Coburn is as conservative as DeMint, which would shield him against attacks from conservative activists and limiting accusations that the GOP was stifling conservative demands.

Coburn was also an attractive possibility because unlike DeMint, he has retained good relations with the Conference’s traditional and moderate Republicans. And since Coburn is increasingly seen as the staunchest supporter of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in the party’s conservative wing, he would likely win broad support from his colleagues.But Coburn spokesman John Hart said the Oklahoman would not challenge DeMint’s control of the committee.

“Dr. Coburn strongly supports Sen. DeMint for Steering chairman and hopes to serve with other new Members who will help change Congress’ borrow-and-spend culture,” Hart said.

Even if DeMint’s opponents could find another Senator willing to make a bid for Steering, it appears unlikely they would succeed in supplanting him.

Although DeMint has long been a supporter of open government and transparency, he is the beneficiary of one of the more secretive bodies in the Senate, executive steering committee.

Composed of eight Republican lawmakers ­— who sources said are all extremely conservative and loyal to DeMint — the executive committee keeps their identity secret, even from other members of the GOP Conference. A DeMint spokesman, who declined to comment on concerns within the Conference regarding his boss, would not identify the executive committee members, noting that as an informal organization it is not required to disclose its membership.

And because the executive committee decides who will be the Steering chairman, it is all but certain DeMint would likely survive a challenge.

Forcing him out of Steering could also pose other challenges. A former Senate Republican aide said DeMint could simply start a new caucus or other semiofficial Senate organization. “He could just start the Senate Tea Party Caucus, and you’d have the same problem,” the aide said. More Draconian measures are also not available to McConnell, even if he were to pursue them.

DeMint does not serve as ranking member on any official committees, and professes no interest in running for a formal leadership position, so Republicans cannot attempt to force him out of a top position. (Such moves are rarely attempted in the Senate, and even more rarely successful.)

Other, less drastic measures have thus far had little effect on DeMint.
Peer pressure has traditionally been the most commonly used tool of persuasion in the genteel Senate. Unfortunately for McConnell, that has not served Republicans well in dealing with DeMint.

Colleagues have repeatedly criticized DeMint’s attacks on Republicans ­— including his recent denunciation of the Conference’s decision not to strip Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) of her Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking membership — to little avail.

Even private pressure has had little effect. After the dustup over Murkowski, McConnell warned his colleagues during a closed-door luncheon that, with the election so close, they should avoid attacks on one another, according to several Republicans familiar with the discussions.

DeMint promised to hold his fire. But he was back at it a few days later, saying at a rally for Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul that he was excited to have “not just two but eight or 10 Senators” as conservative as DeMint to push the bulk of the GOP Conference to the right.

Leaders in both parties have also used the power of the purse as a subtle way to reign in wayward Members. But while the threat of reduced earmarks or other appropriations priorities can often be used to bring Members in line, DeMint position as an anti-earmark crusader makes it an ineffective threat.

Threatening to slow-walk DeMint’s legislative agenda is also a nonstarter. Even if McConnell were Majority Leader, his to-do list traditionally draws minimal support, even from fellow Republicans.

DeMint has spent most of his legislative career as an outsider, championing transparency and government reform issues. Because he consistently has to fight to bring his measures to the floor, threats to hold up his bills are largely hollow.

And so, Republicans said, they are essentially left with only one option: ignoring DeMint and hoping the lack of attention is punishment enough.

It is DeMint's' ideas and values they are rejecting along with his beliefs about Federal governments role which are the same beliefs the Tea Party holds. Lack of attention is exactly the same punishment they have meted out to us during this election cycle and what that punishment finally created to their surprise was stronger and more vocal TEA PARTY. How quickly they forget.

We didn't elect the these new congressmen to "adjust" to the House and the Senate. We want the House and Senate to "adjust" to them. This is what we have all worked for…..Could it be that this group of 'good old boys' didn't get what we have been saying and doing on the streets in this raging political campaign?

(The GOPers has lost their way… Lost their principles…Another glaring example would be the complete abandonment of a young woman who beat the national party's' chosen republican candidate in the primaries in Delaware. She came out of nowhere and the republicans in Delaware wanted her as 'their' senate candidate over the national party's pick. The national GOPers believed she could not beat the DEMS candidate for senator….. Now she may or may not win the senate seat, which in my mind is besides the point, because as a matter of principle the national party should have supported her as well as supporting the republicans voters in their choice and accomplishing their goals. The national party will never get any more financial support from guess who.)

When the dust settles and the body count is done we must turn our attention to the State. We need a recall law as well as less arduous requirements for ballot propositions. The major declared goal of the Tea Party is to get back to a government of and for the people. We created it. We had it… and then we gave away the most unique form of government in the history of the world…..Clearly the people we gave it over to are not willing to give it back and this makes sense.
Recall laws and ballot propositions are tools in a free society. (Note: It was the ballot proposition 13 in California that stopped and actually rolled back property taxes in California…Property taxes were raising so fast and so high that retired folks and the elderly were loosing their homes.) Important lesson learned from "Prop 13' for the people and the government of California was an awareness that people can set limits on what government can and cannot do. (Second note: It took a number of election cycles for this lesson to be forgotten. California is now broke.)

We don't want the California story to be repeated in this state with our elected officials… BUT we don't have the laws (tools) to prevent this from happening. A potential whack on the head every two or six years is just not something politicians fear.

After next Tuesday don't tuck away you 'big stick' or your 'hammer'. There is much more to be done.

Speaking of done for now...we did a good job. We found a way to focus many people on the importance of beliefs, ideals, and founding principles. Even though we were under constant attack from the liberals, the national press, as well as the GOP disowning us. But we stayed the course…the first battle has been won…but this war is far from over…..we will be a little patient for a while but we will be paying more attention to the melody of their song, this time around, and not their newest lyrics.

• This Tuesday success is not the destination but a moment in a long learning curve that simply steals our resolve and directs us to the next stepping stone on the journey in the process of accomplishing the mission of the Tea Parties which is a government for and by the people.

We want to thank each and every one in the Tea Party for their time, effort, and tremendous courage. Please, the next Tea Partier you run into thank them and they'll thank you and we'll keep thanking each other till we all turn blue and be happy and go fishing in haven.

PS: It may seem a strange thing to say but we also need to thank President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid without their efforts and the openness of their behavior it may have taken us decades more to realize with what contempt politicians, at every level of government, have for the American citizens. In all likely hood the Tea Party owes its existence to the three of them.


Let me encourage you to click on the youtube link and spend a few minutes with a video with Dennis Parger answering a question of threats to America.

Wrong News Letter

A friend of mine who works on mutual blogs 'hit the wrong key' and sent his motorcycle news letter out to you. Now you can hit deleate or go but a motorcycle and go riding with them. Sorry, Ron

Friday, October 29, 2010

If its not me WHO? If its not now WHEN?

We, at the Oxford Tea Party, 'gittin' tired…Tired of reading the bad news out of congress…and even tireder of sending articles with bad news in them. On November 3 we intend to send out a article full of good news.

This current congress and this current President have been so effective in hiding what they are doing and co-opting the liberal media to support them that it has been nearly impossible to see their shenanigans. However, much of the blame falls on the GOPers. Why didn't they let the country know what was in the works? What was in these bills…What the details were in the bills...What the potential impact of the congressional bills are on the individual citizen as well as the long term affects…The only thing we can come up with is both sides of the House think we are just to dumb to understand. To dumb to be trusted with information…To dumb to think...NOW, here is the zonker, these are the same guys/gals we are relying of to start 'fixing' our problems in Washington after the elections.

We post the article below without comment. Simply read….Before you read the article you may want to listen to the interview link below. Guilarducci, a professor whose ideas Obama and liberal congressman are so taken with. It is her ideas that are being discussed in the article below.

(You can find the blistering interview with Guilarducci by radio talk show host Mark Levin in 2007 at the link).

Democrats in the senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more "fairly" distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee head from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous "Guaranteed Retirement Account" (GRA) authored by Theresa Guilarducci.(This the lady who is being interviewed in the link above.)

In a nutshell, under the GRA system government would seize private 401(k) accounts, setting up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax to dole out a "fair" pension to everyone using that confiscated money coupled with the mandated contributions.  This would, of course, be a sister government ponzi scheme working in tandem with Social Security, the primary purpose being to give big government politicians additional taxpayer funds to raid to pay for their out-of-control spending.

From written hearing testimony submitted by Economic Policy Institute (EPI) Vice President Ross Eisenbrey:

“We need a comprehensive solution that addresses interrelated problems. For example, a system that places most of the burden for retirement saving on individuals will always have to wrestle with the problem of pre-retirement loans and withdrawals (simply plugging these leaks will not work, because many workers would stop contributing to the system). A system that relies on tax incentives to promote individual retirement savings will necessarily tend to favor high-income workers who can afford to save more and who benefit the most from these tax breaks. Conversely, a truly universal system would need to shield low-income workers from out-of-pocket costs or wage cuts. EPI has published and advocated what we feel would be an excellent national supplemental retirement plan, the Guaranteed Retirement Account which was authored by Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci, Director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research. "
The EPI is housed on the third floor of the building occupied by the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, a hard-core leftist group whose flavor of socialist policy has brought you the current blend of elitist socialism and crony capitalism bankrupting the American economy.  Which speaks volumes about EPI and the Democrat leadership's choice of witness.
Brett McMahon, spokesman for the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), a trade association, warns this hearing exposed part of a process that may come as early as the November lame duck push to bailout union pensions by attaching the bailout to an across-the-board extension of the current tax rates.

"I am deeply concerned that they will try to attach something like the Casey bill or the Casey bill in and of itself to tax cut extensions bill that is inevitably going to have to be dealt with at some point during the lame duck session," McMahon told HUMAN EVENTS.

As reported in HUMAN EVENTS the Casey bill from Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) is a new entitlement program that would set up a permanent bailout of the union multi-employer pension plans that are desperately underwater through a new "fifth fund" at the government Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).  Casey’s bill would create a line item on the federal budget through the PBGC to fund these union pension bailouts annually -- union pensions that are underwater as a result of mismanagement that pre-dates the 2008 financial upheaval. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was the only other senator at the hearing with Harkin.  His particular brand of gutter class warfare was on full display as the self-described socialist made the absurd claim that wealthy job creators oppose the Social Security system because it "works."

"So, the reason that there is so much opposition to Social Security for some of these billionaire guys is because Social Security has worked. It has done exactly what it was supposed to do. It has worked for the elderly, for the disabled, for widows and orphans," Sanders said in his opening remarks.
In typical leftist drive-by fashion, Sanders never explained why he believes successful people don't like the elderly, disabled, widows or orphans.
And, of course, the theme of the day was "fairness" as it's somehow "fair" to take what one person has earned in the free market and give it to another in a government-run wealth redistribution retirement scheme.

(Let me interrupt your reading and tell you how this plan, if passed, will work according to Dr. Theresa Guilarducci….and has been explained to me in a simplistic way because I am one more of those "dumb" Tea Party folks. The 401 K and the IRA accounts will be nationalized. The pooled money will then be used to buy US Treasury Bonds…The government will then create a Annuity Account for each citizen. (i.e. a fixed monthly payment will be the same amount for each citizen each month regardless of how much money each individual have put into their retirement accounts.) The annuity will be backed by the full faith and credit of the American government. Now you know how this insidious scheme is suppose to work. The retirement money will shore up the national debt.)

Shareen Miller, a personal care assistant and a member of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local Number 5 in Falls Church, Virginia, offered testimony about the need for wealth redistribution to fund her pension.

"I make $12 an hour and receive no healthcare benefits, retirement benefits, sick time or vacation," the SEIU union member said. 

Which begs the question: why is she paying union dues?  Not exactly a sterling recommendation for SEIU membership.

Miller went on to say that the physical demands of her job giving care to a cerebral palsy patient are becoming more difficult.  But Miller has been aware of these conditions for at least two years. 

In 2008, Miller spent a day with then Virginia Senate candidate Mark Warner in an SEIU "Walk a day in the shoes" for Democrat candidates.  Common sense would dictate Miller's individual responsibility for moving out of this particular line of work, leaving the physically demanding jobs to younger folks entering the work force.  Perhaps Miller could demand fair payment for shilling for Democrats.

But the physical demands and hazardous jobs claims are not new from those demanding taxpayers fund a "fair" pension for everyone.  This scheme is at the heart of the collapse of European socialism.

From Michael Lewis in Vanity Fair magazine:

"The retirement age for Greek jobs classified as 'arduous' is as early as 55 for men and 50 for women. As this is also the moment when the state begins to shovel out generous pensions, more than 600 Greek professions somehow managed to get themselves classified as arduous: hairdressers, radio announcers, waiters, musicians, and on and on and on."

Overall McMahon said the pressing issue for the lame duck is the union pension bailout with new Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rules currently set to take effect December 15. These new rules would force companies to account for the cost of penalties to extract themselves from these union pension plans against their bottom line.  (Full report from HUMAN EVENTS here.)

"The pension bailouts are something they need desperately and they need quickly because as everyone involved with the forthcoming new FASB rule acknowledges, you cannot stop the accounting board from a new transparency requirement," McMahon said.  "It's going to hurt."

One of the largest of these multiemployer funds, Central States Funds, is in such bad shape that UPS paid a $6.1 billion penalty to extricate itself from employee participation in the fund.  It is that type of penalty that would now be on the books, and it could be more than the company's overall value.
McMahon notes non-union companies without the multiemployer union plans have been operating under these types of transparency rules all along.  And the participating companies have had decades to address the issue of the pension underfunding but have not done so. 

Now companies and unions alike are looking for a taxpayer bailout in the lame duck session that could garner enough support from both sides of the aisle blanketed in the tax cut extension.

The lame duck session would offer the last chance for unions and companies to be able to place liability for their underwater pensions on the taxpayers' backs before the new FASB rule goes into effect.

Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent.

How do you like them apples?

The only thing to say at this point is we have SIX more days left.

Next is a e-mail that was circulating. I don't know who wrote it but the ideas are pressing and to-the-point.

SIX More Days.

You Have Not Stopped Obama.

You Have Won Nothing.

You have not stopped Barack Obama. You have not, to paraphrase P. J. O'Rourke, served the restraining order.

You have not made this country safe.

You have not stopped the advance of socialism in this country.

You have not stopped the Democrats from destroying the economy.

You, all of you, have won nothing. NOTHING.

And it will stay that way - imaginary wins, fictitious actions against an elite hostile toward the idea of America - unless you vote on November 2nd.

You, me, all of us, we have won not one damn race. Many have decided it is in the bag. Many have decided they've done all they can, given all the can, and are now resting.

Don't rest.

The election is exactly six days from day.

You have won not one race. But you can.


And then the real fight begins November 3rd.

The GOP only needs thirty nine newbie's and thirty sever are already swinging their way.

Give money. Volunteer. Pray.

We are sorry about all the bad news….BUT

Come November….. Well, it here finally and 'we' and 'they' are still standing. So, this fight is a long way from being finished. Next Tuesday is the twelve round and the last best blow we can throw till the next election cycle. Lets make it a round house.


Monday, October 25, 2010

The Tolling of the Bells

This is a "to-the-point' article…. I know that the media as well as others think the Tea Party is about firing Dems and hiring Repubs….In a way that is true but not the whole picture. Tea Party wants to fire "LIBERAL" Dems and hire "CONSERVATIVE" Repubs and YES, a couple of adjectives make a world of difference. If we had the option of a conservative Dem or a liberal Repub, we would change on a dime. That is what neither the politicians nor the media can seem to get. This Tea Party movement is not about national parties… what has happened, over time, is the two parties have sold the American citizen on the idea that one party is liberal and progressive and the other just stodgy 'back-looking' old men. The one group will give you 'something' and the other group wants to 'take away' something you have….What is so incredible is we don't see ourselves as na├»ve. We see ourselves as astute each time we pull the lever and vote once again for the "always to be reelected good old boy" without ever really knowing at who they are, what they believe in, and what values do they hold along with how they have voted while on the job.

This time (come November 2) something will be different. Not different for all but for many voters. Certainly different for all who are running for office at any level of government. Many candidates know that we are going to take them behind the tool shed and have a little 'getting-right-with-Jesus' talk. They are running scared and they should be. We are coming after them.

Now to our featured article: Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years and is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

545 PEOPLE--By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.... . The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power..

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese

This article by Mr. Reese is helpful because the article looks at congress as a whole. He does not direct the article at political parties but to evolving concentration of power in Washington and the misuse and abuse by various federal departments our the congress has spawned regardless of who or which party is in control.

Hopefully by November 3 we will have enough conservative new leaders to spark a dialogue within the old Repubs' guard. Already the talk from the Repub's senior leaders is about 'how to co-op' the new members in by offering them certain House and Senate positions. The new members will want to be a part, to 'fit in' to the club and certainly will not want to make waives. Makes sense and is normal behavior. We will be their only support from this seduction and enormous pressure.

The congressional game is has begun. Know that whatever the outcome, it will affect us again.

Just to make everyone's day, here is one more example of how the federal bureaucrats are inventing rules that run our lives. One could only wish this example was the 'only' incredible and arrogant rule federal bureaucrats have come up with.

A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.

The ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan."It's a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement," Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. "There are no exemptions to that."

Haynes said the unnamed 31-year-old woman’s case was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of the case, she said, the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”

Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.

"It's really difficult to say at this point what could potentially happen," he told the newspaper, noting that there are exemptions in the law for gender when there is a shared living space.

But Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the woman free of charge, describes the case as "outrageous." "Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with," he said.
"Christians shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church -- an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity."

Haynes said the person who filed the initial complaint saw the ad on the church bulletin board and contacted the local fair housing organization.
The ad included the words, "Christian roommate wanted," along with the woman's contact information. Had the ad not included the word "Christian," Haynes said, it would not have been illegal."If you read it and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?" Haynes

Don't you wonder how Mr. Haynes has come up with this question and at the same time found a way to ignore the home owner's rights to chose who she wants to have in her home and who she wants live with? Had the lady put in her ad "no drugs, no alcohol, no smoking, no loud music," how would she then have been charged? Would her fine have gone up? Is it really possible that we have come to the point that we can't choose who we allow in our homes? Given the governments perception of political correctness what position would they have taken in this case IF the woman had been a Muslim?

Come November… By November 3 we will all know for whom the bells have tolled with the many packing their lap tops, wringing their hands, and going off to look for honest work. Hopefully something they are more qualified to do...


Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Government Taxes VS American Citizens

First question of the day: IF you tell a lie enough times does that make it 'truth'?

1) Top 25% of Americans don't pay their fair share in taxes….
2) Corporations pay taxes…..

The article below was posted today by the Centre for Individual Freedom and written by Timothy Lee. The information for the article was published by our very own IRS. We won't make any comments about the article but please read through.

To the second question concerning corporations. The federal government has made corporations their 'tax collectors'. Corporations make their money selling goods or services to citizens. What ever the corporation's tax burden is, this burden gets built into the pricing of their goods or services and passed through to us.(The consumer/citizen/voter.) The business then turns the money over to the government.

Government has said and the liberal press broadcast the idea for decades that our business are evil and greedy. This lie has been told enough times that it appears to be 'truth' and seemly most voters believe it.

Second question of the day?

How can we have a growing vibrant capitalist economy IF the consumer has no 'discretionary money' to spend? After mortgages, insurances, car payments, children's expenses, clothing's, power, gas, federal and state taxes, etc. where will the 'cash to spend' come from?

Latest IRS Data: Wealthier Americans Again Paid More than Their “Fair Share”
By Timothy H. Lee

Wealthier Americans don’t pay their fair share of the nation’s income tax burden – they actually pay more than their fair share. Says who? The Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

“The rich are not paying their fair share.” So said Hillary Clinton earlier this year, parroting one of the political left’s favorite canards.  In fairness, perhaps she only meant to reference her own gilded marital syndicate with Bill. 

Regardless, she’s absolutely right, but in a very different manner than she intended.  Wealthier Americans don’t pay their fair share of the nation’s income tax burden – they actually pay more than their fair share. 

Says who?  The Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 

This month, the IRS released its annual summary of federal income tax data, including its breakdown of earnings and tax rate categories.  Once again, the real-world numbers flatly contradict the myth perpetuated by class warriors attempting to justify government growth and even higher taxation. 

Here are the IRS numbers for 2008, the latest year available: 

The wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers (incomes of $380,354 and higher) earned 20.00% of the nation’s income in 2008, which was down from its 22.83% income share in 2007.  Their share of income taxes paid, however, was 38.02%.  Accordingly, the portion of income taxes paid by the top 1% was approximately twice as high as their portion of income earned. 

If that two-to-one ratio doesn’t constitute a “fair share,” it’s difficult to imagine what does in the mind of the modern liberal. 

That same dynamic applies across all income categories.  The top 5%, with incomes over $159,619, earned 34.73% of the nation’s income, but paid 58.72% of the nation’s income taxes.  Not quite the two-to-one income earned/taxes paid ratio of the top 1%, but pretty close and still highly disproportionate. 

Moreover, that means that the top 5% paid more income taxes than the remaining 95% combined. 

The top 10% bracket (incomes above $113,799) earned 45.77% of the nation’s overall income, but paid 69.94% of the nation’s income taxes.  When the top 10% doesn’t earn half the nation’s total income but pays approximately 70% of its total income taxes, under what delusional standard is that “not their fair share?” 

The top 25%, which encompasses incomes above $67,280, earned 67.38% of total income for 2008, but accounted for 86.34% of income taxes paid, and the top 50% segment (incomes above $33,048) earned 87.25% of America’s income but paid an astonishing 97.30% of income taxes. 

How about the bottom 50%, with incomes of $33,048 and below?  According to the IRS data, they earned 12.75% of national income in 2008, but paid 2.70% of income taxes.  And even that amount is down from the 2.89% share from 2007. 

Just as importantly, the IRS tables provide some very eye-opening historical data.  It isn’t pretty for Oliver Stone and other Reagan or Bush antagonists. 

The political left persistently characterizes Ronald Reagan’s presidency as the point at which “the rich” really began to prosper at the expense of middle- and lower-class Americans, but the facts again show the opposite.  In 1980, the top 1% paid 19.05% of the nation’s income taxes, but in 2008 paid 38.02% - twice as much.  The top 5% of Americans paid 36.84% of the income tax burden in 1980, but 58.72% in 2008.  In 1980, before the supposed “Decade of Greed,” the top 10% bracket paid 49.28% of America’s income taxes, but that increased to 69.94% for 2008.  The same is true of the top 25%, which accounted for 73.02% of the income tax burden in 1980, but 86.34% in 2008.  For its part, the bottom 50% of American income earners saw its national tax share decline from 7.05% in 1980 to 2.70% in 2008. 

Contrary to lazy popular myth, wealthier Americans also saw their income tax portions increase during the Bush years. 

Since 2001, the top 1% saw its share of income taxes rise from 33.89% to 38.02%.  During that 2001 to 2008 period, the top 5% saw its income tax burden increase from 53.25% to 58.72%, and the top 10% paid 64.89% of the nation’s income taxes in 2001 but 69.94% in 2008.  The top quartile’s share rose from 82.90% to 86.34% from 2001 to 2008, and the top half’s share rose from 96.03% to 97.30% during that span. 

As we approach the largest tax increase in history when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire on January 1, this straightforward IRS data provides extremely important perspective. 

Ignorance serves the purposes of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as they seek to “spread the wealth around” and impose even more burdens on American families and small businesses.  Ironically, the IRS itself provides a welcome roadblock to their destructive scheme. 

Third question of the day? Are the Federal and State governments too large and too costly?

The answer to this question is all too obvious to most citizens BUT not all. There are demands from many voters for more and more social programs. This is a growing group of voters. There are 'needs' within sections of our population and the question is what responsibilities, if any, does the working family have to non-working families? Can a balance be found? The answer can't simply be more taxes and bigger government. This is a failed idea that is destroying our economy.

Fourth question of the day? Will we be paying less taxes with the programs this President and congress passed?

Come November…. I still don't think the Prez and congress has 'got it' yet. On November 2, we will just have a good face to face 'sit down conversation' with them.


Sunday, October 17, 2010

ClockTicking: Let's Stay Focused

Social issues are important. Certain issues are more important and other less important depending on a myriad of different things such as different people, groups, and time, etc., but at this point time for the 'Teaers' we need to stay focused on limited government, the economy, and candidates and how each sees government's role in our lives and at the national levels. If we get caught up in social 'hot buttons' they will divide and weaken our resolve as well as our resources.

It has been some time since 'The Oxford Tea Party' has forwarded a newsletter from the Dick Morris web site. The article
below is timely and to the point.


This election season, fiscal conservatives own the GOP grassroots.


The coalition Ronald Reagan assembled of fiscal and economic conservatives, evangelicals, and national-security advocates has always been dominated by the social issues at the grassroots level. While free-market economic conservatives lived in New York and dutifully attended their Club for Growth meetings and national-security types inhabited Washington, the Republican social conservatives dominated the grassroots of the party. They alone could turn out the numbers to rallies and to the polls on primary or Election Day.

Now, all that has changed. It is the fiscal conservatives and free-market supporters who own the Republican streets. Through the Tea Party, they have come to dominate the grassroots of the GOP. It is as if an invisible primary were held for supremacy at the grassroots and the Tea Party won.

And social issues are nowhere on the Tea Party agenda. I recently participated in a conference call with tea-party affiliates throughout the country. During the question period that followed my speech, one leader of a local tea-party group asked a question about abortion. The conference-call leader jumped in before I could answer and ruled the query out of order. "Our priorities are to oppose taxes, support fiscal conservatism, and advance free-market principles," she scolded the questioner. "We do not take a position on social issues like abortion," she added.

Along with this change has come a shift in what it takes to turn the litmus paper red enough to win Republican primaries. It used to be that abortion, gun control, and gay marriage were the hot-button issues, and anyone straying from orthodoxy was targeted in the primary and handicapped in the general election by a lackluster turnout. Now, a candidate's social positions rarely even come up. It is fiscal and economic purity that rules the day. Anyone who voted for cap-and-trade is targeted in the primary. And there is no place for a candidate who ever backed a tax increase. Every candidate has to sign the no-tax pledge that Grover Norquist formulated for Americans for Tax Reform.

Where Republican politicians were once terrified to move to the left on social issues, they are now more frightened of retribution for departures from fiscal orthodoxy. The once-elitist demands of the Club for Growth are now echoed throughout America by the surging Tea Party movement.

A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that 71 percent of all Republicans regarded themselves as Tea Party supporters, far more than would identify themselves as pro-life or opposed to gay marriage.

This shift in Republican priorities is opening up the way for social moderates and libertarians to back Republican candidates in the 2010 elections. The libertarian strain in the American electorate has long been neglected by the mainstream media. But, through the Tea Party, it has gained ascendancy on the right. Those who want the government to stay out of both boardrooms and bedrooms have come to dominate the party and its nominating process.

Ironically, this change in the Republican grassroots has come at a time when abortion is falling into disrepute and larger numbers of Americans report themselves as being pro-life. This swing of voter sentiment might reflect the growth of the evangelical community of believers or simply the aging of the baby-boomer population. But even as the right to lifers move toward a national majority, their clout at the grassroots level of the Republican party is waning.

But despite this growing support for pro-life policies, no Republican candidate is basing his or her insurgency against an incumbent Democratic congressman, senator, or governor on social issues. There are no ads urging the ouster of a Democrat for his pro-choice policies or backing of gay marriage. All the ads and the rhetoric are devoted to fiscal transgressions like support of the stimulus package, the TARP bailout, or Obamacare.

The Tea Party has flourished in all regions, drawing libertarians in the North and evangelicals in the South, all committed to its agenda of reduced spending, limited taxation, balanced budgets, and free-market economics. It is the new mantra of the Republican grassroots and has a lot to do with the massive gains the party will win on November 2.

Dick Morris

Meg Whitman may or may not win the Governor's race in California….I am not using the example below in support of her candidacy but as an example on where the mind set of the Dems is in all races around the c ountry. I can't remember any time in our history that anyone in either party would have referred to a candidate they were running against as a whore…..

The head of the California NOW affiliate says Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is one.This is the oldest liberal women's organization in California.California NOW President Parry Bellasalma told the TPM blog on Thursday that the description of the Republican candidate for governor of California is accurate."Meg Whitman could be described as 'a political whore."

I mention this political ploy because it has distracted the voters in California (Jerry Brown's poll number have gone up) and with the support of the liberal media it has become a 'hot button' that other Dem candidates, in other states, will try to find and use in their contest….. What make this particularly unique is that this was something that the Brown campaign accidently did but the impact seems to have served to distract as if it had been planned. For the moment, hopefully only for the moment, the voters have stopped looking at Jerry and all the damage he did while he was governor. (We lived in the state when Jerry came into office and watched as he changed the state with the same zeal that Obama is trying to change the nation.)

("Two weeks ago, we had a company announce that it was relocating from Silicon Valley to Mississippi. Those people said they're happy to be part of Mississippi, and they encourage other companies to move from Silicon Valley to Mississippi." If nothing more were to be said about the politics in the California this movement of businesses out of California says it all and is happening daily.)

At this point all that is left for many of the Dem incumbents is to find ways to distract voters from their voting record and maybe find ways to 'bash' the conservative opponents. Such a distraction is bringing Bill Clinton into Mississippi to support Childers. After the distraction Childers will still be Childers. (You wouldn't think Clinton would be seen as a 'political vote getter' for any candidate.)

Come November… It upon us... Vote counting is just a breath away and lots of votes are still needed for this counting. Where are they going to come from?
Thousands of more votes are still needed. Where are they going to come from? This is a wide political river we are trying to forge and many more bridge builders are needed. We have to find them.

What to do with this little bit of time that is left? At the end of the voting day, only one vote at a time gets counted. That one vote makes a difference…Where is that vote going to come from? That one vote could be the one that makes it possible for the country to get back on some kind of a common sense track. That one vote could be the vote that finally teaches the entrenched elected folks who their bosses are.. Where can we find that one more vote? Where can we look? Who can we talk to that we've not talked to already?