About the Organization

You've heard so many people say "Power to the people". It's become a very clich'e saying to get people to follow your ideas. When it comes down to it, our political leaders rarely do anything to actually fight for the people. You'll hear ideas about universal health care, medicaid, food stamps, abortion rights, gay rights, environmentalism, and think these are the ways to give power to the people. The trick is to look at these issues from all angles. The people who believe that these ideas are for the people are looking at this from a very first dimensional perspective. The purpose of this website is to help Americans to discern between the ideas that really give power to the people and those who pretend to do so, but infact attempt to take that power. We will touch on each of these issues and many more to help give a different perspective on these things.

Sleaze Bag of the Year Award

My Dream

Wouldn't it be a dream come true to wake up in the morning, step outside your front
door and find a newspaper that looked something like this:

Uncle Sam's Monopolys

One of the most unfair, yet necessary laws regarding the economy is the law that won't allow a company to become too successful. If a company is so good that the other companies cannot compete, this company is penalized for becoming a monopoly. The only reason why it is necessary is so we keep competition out there, so as to help keep consumer prices down. Why does Uncle Sam get to keep us in check, when he has several monopolys? There are only a handful of schools that dare to take on the public education monopoly, and lots of them are funded by churches and actually lose money. In my town, I have to pay utilities to the city because the privatized power, water, trash, and gas companies aren't allowed here. Thanks to this lack of competition, our city charges each person $15 for trash removal even though apartments share 1 trash bin. Apartments also share 1 sewer hole per building, but we each pay $15 per month for this too. The other services are approx. 15% higher than the private company's cost in the next town over. Before I lived in this town I payed about 70% as much as I do now for utilities. At times these government monopolys even take away freedom of speech and press. Government officials greatly fear what may happen if people start teaching that immunizations do more harm than good, and they prohibit certain publications by doctors or scientists who claim otherwise. If a private company has a monopoly it can be good or it can be awful, as we see from Japan who has many efficient monopolys, yet we also have seen it be a very bad thing for consumers. When a government has a monopoly you know it's bad, because they usually have unions that raise the prices, too many fixed incomes, and lack of business skills in the management. What's worse is that judges often take the side of the little guy in cases with major corporations, but if the government takes advantage of you it's no use trying to fight any injustice done. Anyone who loves democracy and giving power to the people should be very disturbed that the government can prevent us from becoming too successful, yet does nothing to prevent their own monopolys. Who do you think supports these government monopolys? You guessed it, the democrats do because they owe it to the teachers with their unions and lack of competition. They owe it to the city workers where 1 man works and 4 men watch. Why do they owe it to them? The reason is because these people vote democrat because they're the ones who protect their little monopoly.

Politically Correct?

What an oxymoronic term this is. The dumbest people people in our nation are all in our current congress. We have a gangster, a racist white-hater, and a democrat running as a republican for president. Anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary is a sexist pig because they don't want to vote for her. Anyone who doesn't want a terrorist as president is somehow racist against blacks. Is there any way TO be politically correct? The answer is no, because politicians aren't correct, and they make the rules. If they said that 2 + 2 = 5 then you're politically incorrect by saying that it's really 4. I have been told so many times that I'm politically incorrect because I will not vote for obama or hillary. Apperently it's profiling to not vote for a man who happens to be black, and it's just as unacceptable to not vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Thanks to the term "Politically Correct I have to vote for people who are dangerously unqualified or I'm a racist and sexist pig. I guess the point is that if you're politically correct, you are in fact wrong. I am called politically incorrect because I categorize environmentalists as people who wear tie dyed shirts, smoke pot, listen to grand funk railroad, not only contribute nothing to society but hurt society, and care far more about every other thing on earth than they care about people. Give me a break, all I have to go by is results, and the tree huggers have only made life very difficult for americans. They want cleaner energy, so we build windmills. Oh, well sometimes birds fly into windmills and die, so they have limited that production. A similar thing happened with hydroelectric plants. Sometimes fish swim into them, so they keep those to a minimum. So now we have expensive utilities thanks to them. We need oil for our cars but they won't let us drill, we have to buy it from the people we are at war against. They currently want us to all pay expensive prices for hydrogen cars, but it's only a matter of time before they find some way that these cars are environmentally unfriendly. Excuse me for stereotyping but I can't see any other way that people could think this way unless they are baked on some kind of drug, and just tripping way bad. No normal person in his or her right mind could ever see it from their perspective. Politically correct=incorrect

Stop the Mormons!

Oh yeah, it sure is a good thing that Huckabee ruined Mitt Romney's chances of being President. The last thing we need in the white house is a mormon. He would probably run the finances the way the mormon church runs it. The Mormons started out in a lot of debt, just like any other organization and now has assets in upwards of 300 billion dollars. They teach their members to be frugal and careful with money. They teach the importance of having food storage and savings accounts, so if you have a rough turn of events you don't have to live off the government and contribute to higher taxes. They are so unpatriotic that their hymn books contain the national anthemn and several other national songs. Yeah, no mormon who has taken Massachussetts out of debt trouble and fixed their healthcare problems, or pulled the olympic problems into a successful event could ever fix our healthcare or financial problems. Not to mention the media has made us all aware of what a racist organization the mormon church was until 1978. They were possibly the first church to have a black person teach in front of a congregation with white people present. The mormons were hated and nearly killed off in their early days because they fought so hard to free slaves and fight for their freedom. Huckabee says that mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers, but they actually believe we were all brothers and sisters but Satan tried to take our freedom to institute equality, and by so doing was kicked out with 1/3 following him. Those crazy mormons, I wonder where they got that idea from (It's in the bible). Well, Romney is a flip flopper because he did what the people of his state asked him to stand up for, and now that he wants to be president he would stand up for what his party and the majority of the voters want. What a slap in the face of democracy huh? Decomcracy=Government listening to what the majority of the people want, regardless of personal views. Mormons are so selfish too, they're about the most humanitarian organization in the world with by far the most successful program out there for helping the poor to get back on their feet. Oh, I we are so blessed that people understand how it's important to be politically correct by voting an unqualified man like Obama in, but that we don't let those crazy mormons help us out with our ever growing problems. In case you can't tell I am being sarcastic here. Romney has an impressive record of taking messes and turning them into gold. I must say that it is not his church that makes him great and noone should vote for him just because he's mormon (for example Orin Hatch ran a few years ago and would not have been a very good choice), but to not vote for him because he's a mormon is foolish. We really messed up, and I hope Romney gives us another chance in 4 years. Hopefully we will evolve in the mean time.

Privatize Education 1 of 3

I think everyone can agree that there are many problems regarding our education system in America. This may be the most important topic, but never goes anywhere because we have 2 very opposing views on how to fix the problems. The democrats believe the reason why public education is so bad is because republicans limit spending. Yeah, once again they think that if we just raise taxes and throw more money at public education that it will somehow become better, even though as an average the U.S spends double the alloted amount for education. The other side seems to want to privatize education all across the boards so as to create competition and lower taxes. In Utah a plan called referendum 1 failed the voting because democrats want everyone to be forced into public education, and the republicans didn’t like how it would have raised taxes and actually gave more of an advantage to public schools by giving half the money per voucher to public schools. I propose an education plan that would be better than any other plan proposed, but it will never go anywhere because so many people are fooled by the unions that wouldn’t like it. Unlike some, I believe the government should fund the education until college, however it should be privatized. EVERY child of school age would receive a voucher for the amount of $6,500 (This is well under the average amount spent per child under the current system) which can be used at any school that is determined eligible. Eligibility would require that the core studies faculty be able to pass an academic test in the area he or she teaches. This only will apply to the fields of Math, Non-Contreversial Science, History and English, since other subjects would be up to the school whether or not and what to teach. These subjects are the only ones the government should really have a say in what is taught or if it’s taught. The school would have to teach a sufficient amount of these 4 subjects to qualify as a voucher funded school, and students would have to pass a national test for these 4 core areas. We would keep the restrictions to a minimum since many of the things taught as fact in public schools are widely rejected, and this would allow freedom to teach either side of the arguments. The only reason why we would have any mandates is so people don’t just open schools, not teach, and pocket the voucher money. The government would have an extremely small amount of control over what is taught. This plan would allow for some schools to apply to be federally regulated schools which would function in a similar way to current public schools, and receive federal grants to cover certain losses from being federally mandated. If parents should choose, their child may go to the federally mandated school and they would by law have to accept any student and the voucher would pay for their education in full. This keeps any child from going without education due to lack of money or any other reason. Schools could also apply to become a specialist school meaning they specialize in children with handicaps. This would create a much greater market for special education for children with disabilities. If parents should choose to home school their children they should ABSOLUTELY be allowed to and any state that makes home-schooling illegal (like Arizona) should be ashamed of their un-American decision. Under my plan home schooling parents could expense the costs of education up to the $6,500.00 for reimbursement and these costs would be reviewed by a bureau to ensure they don’t expense items unrelated to the education of their children. Even though the system is supposed to average $6,500.00 spent per student, the actual costs end up being well over $10,000.00 spent per student average annually. That’s what you get when the government runs something, it’s not well managed. The difference in expenses here will more than pay for a bureau to ensure that education needs are being met. This plan would accomplish the following: Create competition against the public school monopoly; give parents the ability to send their children to the school which they feel will teach their kids what they want them to learn; it will stimulate the economy by creating a market for teaching (the only teachers who would fear this are the bad ones, since the good teachers would now have all the schools fighting over them and receive higher wages); in the end this plan would lower taxes; Parents who choose privatize education will no longer have to fund both private and public systems; Some schools would find ways to cut costs and become free with a voucher which would allow even the poorest families to choose the education route for their children; teachers unions would be forced to limit how much they stand up for a teacher because of the competition (I use the phone company as example, where the union doesn't generally stand up for an employee who deserves to be fired, otherwise they would have to raise consumer prices to cover these losses and be unable to compete in the market); the people who believe God should be taken out of schools can have it in the federally mandated schools so they’re happy, and the parents who understand that we didn’t come from monkeys, and that it’s not the government’s job to teach about sex or whether homosexuality is ok, they don’t have to put up with this garbage anymore; most importantly it will put the power on this matter where it belongs, which is not in the government but in the hands of the parents.
Please continue reading here:
http://americans4people.blogspot.com/2008/05/privatize-education-2-of-2.html

Privatize education 2 of 3

By now you may be asking the question “If we completely drop the public education program, what do we do with all the school buildings that already exist”, or perhaps you’re asking “How will this plan lower taxes if it will create a new government agency to regulate the few rules that we would have”, or you may ask “How will my children learn social skills or diversity when they’re only around a select few people”? These 3 questions answer each other. If this plan ever takes off, there will become a real market for education, and these schools will need a place to teach. Sometimes the cost of building new buildings makes it difficult for young companies to get started. The Government could lease classrooms to private school organizations for a low cost like $500.00 per room per month. With the amount that the vouchers fund, this will be a small price to pay for room to teach that comes with chairs and desks and most of the things needed to teach. This would allow children to go to the same school as before if they choose, and they can interact with other kids on the playground and still get all the social skills. The difference is that in each classroom there could be different teaching institutions all privately owned and run separately. With the money the government makes from leasing these rooms out to private institutions, one average sized school building will generate over $100,000 per year. In a small town that only has 3 schools, this will generate $300,000 per year. This is how we will fund the “Better Education Bureau” whose job is to make sure institutions maintain eligibility, and keep with the laws. They will perform random inspections on schools. They will also be responsible for testing that the students must go through to receive government recognized diplomas. I know what you’re thinking, and I agree that $300,000 a year to fund this bureau in each town is a lot, well only part of this money goes to them. If a school applies and qualifies to be a federally mandated school, it will receive grants to cover losses which also comes from these funds. Special grants will also be given to any schools that meet the needs for handicapped individuals so their needs are still met. Really each town needs only 1 or 2 representatives to regulate things, so most of these funds could go to actual student needs.
To show how poorly the education system is currently managed, and how simple it could be to run one of these voucher schools I have an example. Let’s say we have a company that runs 3 schools with 1 class for each grade 1-12, each class averages 20 students, average teacher pay is $65,000/year, the Principal gets $20,000 per class/year, and the superintendent over all 3 schools makes $10,000 per class/year. Each 20 person class receives voucher funds in the amount of $130,000 ($6,500.00 X 20)
One of the biggest challenges facing the voucher idea is that handicapped students receive what they need in public schools and private schools simply do not accept disabled students so as to cut costs. There is some truth to this, however under my plan, as I stated earlier, additional grants will be given to federally mandated companies to cover the losses from accepting any student to take care of these individuals. It is impossible to say for sure, but I certainly think that with the voucher money plus federal grants for disabled students will make it much more possible for private institutions that are not federally mandated to finally afford taking in special students. A market for schools especially made for special students may arise too. In the end, the surplus money saved from privatizing and charging rent to schools that wish to use former public buildings would more than pay for all the little things like taking care of special needs students. I’d like to see a democrat come up with an education plan that lowers taxes, creates more competition and better education, raises teacher salaries, and increases the available funding for resources such as better books and computers for education. Even the union teachers could unite to create a school and run it the same way they do now. There are enough people out there who believe in the way our education system is currently run that they would have plenty of customers. There should be no complainers with this plan, but if I ever present this plan, some will fight it because of fear. Please continue reading here:
http://americans4people.blogspot.com/2008/07/privatize-education-3-of-3.html

Privatize education 3 of 3

I suppose I should clarify one thing regarding the fiscal nature of my proposal. When I say my plan would lower taxes, what I really mean is that the taxes will stay the same and not increase like the current system regularly does. This is one area where we do need to pull together as a community so no child is left without education, but my plan calls for reform that would eliminate a lot of wastes and thus save a lot of money. After everything is said and done the amount we currently tax should have a large surplus. The real question is what to do with the surplus money. Do we give it back to the tax payers, do we raise the amount given per voucher, do we hire more representatives for the newly formed better education bureau? I propose that we take the surplus, and use half of it to cut costs that require money now to save in the future. Examples of these would be buying more expensive light bulbs that save money in power later for the school buildings, or converting the school busses to natural gas which costs now, but saves in the long run. The other half of the money would be invested in low risk bonds. The purpose in doing this is so that when inflation hits, as it always does, the amount taxed increases for the same funding. With the interest gained from careful investments we can cover the losses from not raising taxes in the future. I guess you could say this would be a mix between neutral and contractionary fiscal policy for education taxing. This is why I say it will lower taxes, is because over the years it will not increase. Even without the regular tax increases I believe the surplus will continue to grow over time because of the 50% each year that goes to long term cost efficiency. On a different topic now, I would like to address one concern and that is the lack of regulation can open the doors for abuse. For example, when the government did a somewhat similar action in privatizing homes for the disabled elderly they later found cases where some of the old that had no family were euthanized by the workers. This is an understandable concern, will my plan open the door for abuse? I truly believe this plan does quite the opposite, because the abuse is already there. It’s called unions and tenure. Teachers can abuse kids, and even be caught red handed by other faculty members, but if they have union and tenure to back them up, the school administration can’t always do anything about it. You’re probably thinking that that last sentence is bologna, but I know it’s true because this happened to me. My principal saw the scrape marks on my arms, and the school nurse testified that she saw my teacher do it to me, but the principal told us she could do nothing. The unions and tenures losing their power is what will stop abuse, and my plan threatens their very survival.

T. Goon Pickens

T. Boone Pickens has been airing commercials on some new genius way to make it so we're off foreign oil dependancy. I had to know what this was all about, so i went to his website and read the plan. It's another Gore-like idea for us to just raise taxes to pay for tons more solar panels, and windmills (I will admit I do like windmills at least) and use them for power instead of using coal or gas. As for our cars, he would have every american get a natural gas car so we can become more environmentally friendly. He says he's been an oil man all his life, and I'm beginning to wonder if he swallowed some oil and damaged his brain cells. He admits that all of these solar panels and windmills could reasonably only power about 20% of the nation with his plan. The raise in taxes to do so would take a long time to equal out the losses from building them, and it would put us into more national debt that will slow down that process even more. As for making all americans convert to natural gas, I can't even believe that this is the answer. I have a natural gas car and I'm glad I invested in it, but not everyone can afford such a car because the up front cost is too much. We all know what will end up happening if this unlikely plan ever took off. The government would just raise taxes extremely high so poor people get it too, and we take yet another step towards socialism. The other plans are lacking too. Many people want to open the nation's reserves, others want to tax the gas companys more, and most of the nation wants to drill. I say we drill, and yeah, maybe it will take some time to get it out, so we open the reserves just in the meantime. After we can start getting oil out, then we work towards replacing our nation's reserves. There's a plan that would take us away from fopreign dependancy, but we'll never do it because Al Gore needs more money by scaring us out of oil use.

The Gorax

There are many people who attempt to destroy our way of life in America such as terrorists, but the greatest threat is within our own legislation. Our 2 party system consists of a party that went off the deep end years ago, and another which is heading in the same direction(starting with the nomination of john Mccain). Each party generally tries to appeal to groups of people they are seeking votes from. This is where the hippie pot-smoking environmentalists come in. Using only first dimensional thinking, the tree huggers fight desparately for the physical beautification of our lands, regardless of the effect it has on the American way of life's existence. Many political leaders (like Al Gore) court these hippie voters by doing whatever they ask so as to fulfill their own political agendas. In attempts to fool us all into taking them seriously, they create scare tactics (like global warming). It would be unfair to just blame the hippies, after all they are too high to realize how they hurt us all, but the people in political power who bow to their ridiculous demands are just plain cowards. You've heard from our politicians that global warming is the greatest threat to our national security. It's interesting to note that 50 years ago they said the same thing about global cooling. Yeah, they used to say that we were putting the world into another ice age. The Earth's climate has gone through hot and cold cycles since before history. Based on what evidence our scientists have, we're able to estimate climate changes in past times. Some of the below data could be a bit off, but most of it is quite accurate.


If Gore's going to continue putting ice caps ahead of human existence, the biggest threat to our security is Al Gore. It is also interesting to note that Gore owns a substantial amount of Generation Investment Management which makes it's big bucks off legislations that penalize those who supposedly contribute to Global Warming. The more laws that force us to go green the richer Al Gore becomes. The media has also loved his dramatic way of predicting the end of the world, which has made him rich enough. You can't blame the media, this kind of hype is what sells, otherwise Michael Moore would be a stupid fat white POOR liar. Possibly the biggest problem facing our nation at this time is gas prices. When it's too expensive for the shipping companies to pay for gas, the food and other merchandise prices go way high. Soon Americans will probably be paying $9.00/gallon for gas and will be forced to ride bikes. This sends us back a hundred years. This could be fixed quite simply by allowing the FREEDOM for companies to drill for oil in America and in the deep seas, but the environmentalists won't let us. This is unamerican and wrong to place a glacier's beauty above the lives of Americans who can't afford food or gas. The visual effects of the Alaskan glaciers resulting from drilling for oil are nothing in comparison to the economical effects of high gas prices. Then, our political leaders come out with a brilliant idea to fix the economy: borrow even more money from other countries to hand out so we can pay it back next year plus interest, when gas prices will be even higher. No person with a brain would go blow this money by investing in a failing economy, which was the idea behind the rebates, so we hold onto the money, and get further into debt. The answer is simple and that is for the government to stop limiting our businesses, and allow America to survive. As Americans we need stop listening to the falsehoods created by those who will say anything to get into power. Freedom is a thing of the past when stoners have the right to stop us from living the American dream. Power to the people is what Gore claims to believe, but he cares more about the oceans and glacier.

Would you rather see this............................................... or this

The Clinton Family Mafia

Let's talk about the worst person to everrun for any election ever. Hillary Clinton has probably been involved in more scandals than Al Capone. Everyone always talks about watergate when they think of scandals among presidents, but I like to talk about Whitewater, and all the people who conveniently died in horrible ways whenever they were set for a court date to testify against the Clintons in any way, and those suspected of testifying. Watergate was espionage, and in the beginning was more of a victimless crime. Pres. Nixon should never have tried to cover it up, but that's the worst it got. The Clinton scandals have had real victims and refused to admit to them unless completely caught red handed. They never had the respect for the office of president to step down after bringing shame to the nation. Somehow people view Bill as a great president. We had to dig a little for this answer. Apperently the economy was great while Bill was in office. Many good things were done. Don't worry there is a perfectly good explanation for this: Bill's top adviser Dick Morris ran the country while Bill was skirt chasing. Dick may have had his dirty side too, but at least he knew how to run the country. He did the leg work while Bill went in the history books. After a while, he stepped down and said he could no longer help Bill. Bill assaulted him in the living room of the white house, which lost any chances of him ever helping them again. If we allow her to be president again there will be no Dick Morris to fall back on for support, and she will really make things worse. Half the things people hate Bush for can be attributed to the Clintons. Noone likes war. Well, a USA command team had Bin Laden in view of their sniper guns, and when they asked for the presidential order Clinton said he had way too much on his plate with the whole Monica thing and had no time for a war. Do not ever vote a clinton in again. On a more fun note, let's play a game. Try to guess which of these 2 is Hillary and which one is the kid from Home Improvement:

Mccain, the Democrat Republican

Photo by Morrie Graves

Thanks to Huckabee ruining the only real candidate the republicans had (Mitt Romney), we now somehow voted a whacko democrat as the republican nomination for 2008 which is killing the party. Mccain never ceases to amaze us with how liberal and ridiculous his ideas are. Mccain is so senile that he has begun believing in global warming and has stated that he believes global warming to be one of our nations greatest security threats. He stands for civil unions, and hasn't stood up against gun control as often as he should. He sees nothing wrong with embryonic research, which kills a baby to provide research on possible cures. He supports a ban on flag burning, which is something the government should have no right to tell us we can't do. He does believe in allowing more competition against public schools and tax cuts for private schools to acheive this, but doesn't believe that the funds to do so should take away from public school funds, thus raising taxes and not really creating any competition against public schools. He believes the Government has the right to regulate and punish poeple for emmissions. He has completely forgot what party he represents. Good honest moral people who care about family generally vote republican because that is the party that stands for them. Mccain used to stand for good things before he went too far over the hill. As we tried to investigate into what happened to this man we found nothing that could explain it until one day when Star Wars was on tv and it all became clear. This is the future story of John Mccain. A good Senator becomes Chancellor (Republican Nominee) and goes to the dark side to become the evil emperor. All those nerds were right, star wars is real, and it's the story of john Mccain. He has already started to look like the emperor. To help illustrate our point we put together a small timeline to show his change from being a good man who deceived us to become the evil emperor:

Mccain 4 years ago....................now........................after elected

I must say, however, that Mccain has finally started to take some actions that actually do court conservatives. He has finally decided that since over 70% of Americans want to drill for oil in America it's time we listened. He has been called a flip-flopper on this, but for once I will stick up for him. In a democracy the leaders should listen to the people, and this makes me think that maybe he's not so bad. He buys into the whole global warming thing, but at least he will listen to the poeple on this matter. Maybe he's coming around.

EPA

If you still think that the Democratic party is the group that believes in giving power to the people, let's reflect on a moment from the Simpsons, and I ask you to put yourself in marge's shoes. She goes out her back door to find a screamapillar.



It's an annoying caterpillar that screams all day and night. When she goes to step on it, the EPA arrives and informes marge that because this endangered species has chosen her yard to live she is required by law to care for and protect this animal. Kind of a funny clip unless you realize the reality of it all. This kind of thing happens all the time. You and I pay taxes to the Environmental Protection Agency so that they can limit you rights. Yeah, we pay for an agency to put trees, oceans, glaciers, bugs, rodents, rocks, and every other living thing ahead of humans. If the Democrats are for the people like they claim to be, then why are they the ones who force us to pay for this agency? Republicans would love to shut this down. The Democrats say that it's "wrong" to abuse the environment and leave the mess to future generations. Well I say it's wrong to leave a mess to future generations, but what about leaving a financial mess for those future generations? When our gas, food, electricity, and tax payments are going up and up, we get further and further into debt, leaving our descendants to take those bills when we die. I would much rather breathe air that's a little less clean than spend my whole life in debt because the government controls everything and won't give me the freedom to decide whether I want to pay into the EPA or not. The oil, gas and electric companies have no freedom to provide cost efficient energy due to environmental policies, so I'm forced to pay over $4 per gallon of gas if I need it, and thus higher food prices.

Obama's Super Friends

Just When it seemed that all hope had failed.... At a time when even endorsements by the highly respectable Michael Moore and the inventor of the internet, Al Gore weren't enough to put Obama in the White House.... Barrack Hussein Obama summoned the help of 7 SUPER FRIENDS.

Mccain, knowing that Obama's only chance was to run against a moron, cast his name in for president.....

Huckabee, knowing that Obama could never beat Romney, stole delegates from the last real threat.......

Bob Barr, foolishly thinking that he or any 3rd party candidate could ever win, stole even more delegates from conservatives......

Lieberman, by speaking at the GOP convention and even associating himself with Mccain, angered conservatives into not voting against Obama.....

Pelosi, by destroying America's economy while Bush was President, thus fooling Americans into thinking that a democratic president is the answer.....

Hillary, authoring many scandals including "Whitewater" ensured Obama the Democratic nomination....

Bush, by becoming a Lame Duck and hurting America's economy, he too fooled Americans into thinking a Democratic President is the answer.....

Obama is the least experienced congressman, with no executive experience, and would stand no chance in this race if it weren't for his SUPER FRIENDS

The only super power Obama has by himself is the ability to fly, and even this power comes from his best college buddy....... Marijuana.

Obama Bin Laden

With Mccain having gone to the dark side, and Romney out of the race I started looking at Obama as maybe being better than the alternatives. After learning about his plan for universal healthcare, and his other liberal ideas I knew I didn't want him in the white house. The media has jumped all over his so called pastor, and how the white people hating church he stayed with for over 20 years, but I have a word to say about it. He plays off the white hating church thing by saying he didn't go to church for his pastor but to worship God. He also says that the media has taken bits and pieces of sermons and twisted words. You can see the entire sermon which many of the statements were taken from and it's even worse. Some Romney supporters have said that a person's religion should never disqualify a presidential candidate, but this is one area where I disagree with them. A study of mormonism finds that this religion is christian, peaceful, and extremely humanitarian and family oriented. Obama's "church" as they call it hates on whites and the pastor has personally said in a sermon "God Damn America". Here's a small sample of one of these hate filled sermons by his minister who claims to be a man of God. Also I will premptively answer you question. Yes, this is a sermon in CHURCH. Yeah, this is a church sermon, wherer Obama has gone to church most of his life.

Now there have been several retaliations that have come out saying that the media only showed a clip of the sermon, and that the rest of it explains it all, and how if you watch the whole thing it's really good. Well, I guess we can show you what the defense has to say too. Here's a clip that shows an uncut version of a sermon.

After seeing this if you are confused as to how the rest of the sermon justifies his hatred for America and whites, there's nothing wrong with you, I am too. It's still way bad. The entire sermon was hate filled, but I wanted to show it so I'm not accused of only showing a small clip. Obama also has connections to the radical Muslims in Kenya. The prime minister there claims to be his cousin and that Obama has donated time and money to his cause. To be politically correct I have to distinguish between muslim and radical Muslim, but the truth about the Muslim faith is that the non-radicals are the minority, so I'll refer to the radicals as Muslims and the non-radicals as just that. To be fair there is nothing that I know of to be confirmed about the Kenya connection with Obama, but this is something to be concerned about when we vote for a new President. While researching Muslim I found leaders in it's past, and found one who makes me almost believe in reincarnation. Back in the sixties there was an errand boy for the Muslims that thought himself a great leader because he dared to call all white people devils. He sought to create an army against all white people, and preached this "doctrine" in the streets. While looking at photos of Malcolm X I realized that he is Obama. They don't just act and teach the same, but they even look the same. Obama may be the reincarnated Malcolm X. Look at these 2 photos and notice the similarities. He is using the Superman technique here by wearing glasses in one and not the other so we don't know that they're the same person, but I got wise.

Gay Rights

People have got it all wrong when they view those opposed to giving tax benefits to gays as a bunch of prejudice pigs. To clarify, let me give some insight as to why we are opposed to it. It has nothing to do with the fact that most christians are conservative. It has nothing to do with how gross it is. We all have to pay taxes, and one thing that the government has done to help families with children afford to keep their spouses as home if they should choose to do so is to give them a bit of a tax break. It's not a very fair move, however the government needs to do have some sort of a system to give back to the lower middle class or we will turn into an anarchal society. History shows that the people will revolt if the lower middle class are not taken care of in any way. Now a Gay couple should have the right to do what ever they want in the privacy of their rooms. Any law restricting such a thing would be very un-American. They do not, however, need tax cuts for their lifestyle. This would defeat the entire purpose. You cannot change what marriage is just to acheive equality, otherwise you have to do the same for every person who wants marriage to fit their desires. What happens when the crazy old lady with a 45 cats wants to marry the mother cat, and claim all the others as legal dependants? If we changed it for the Gays wouldn't we have to change the definition again for this lady out of equality? The other problem lies in the school system. In a society where there is very little competition against public schools, the government decides what is taught to our children unless you're rich enough to put your kids in a quality school. Once legislation takes action on something, the public schools teach it as fact. For example, it used to be illegal to teach anything that contradicted the bible, now that it's been changed, it's illegal to teach anything that supports the bible. If the government would adopt my plan for education and privatize schools, it wouldn't be such a problem. Since they'll never adopt my beautiful plan, our children will be taught in classrooms that it's ok to be gay, and that if they feel they might be gay that it's ok to act on those feelings. Whether or not this is true is not the issue, but it's taking that away from the parents of those children the rights to teach them. It is not the government's place to teach that to our children. Legalizing gay marriage or civil unions doesn't bring equality, but hurts everyone else.

Preemptive Gun Control

It's so funny how the majority of people believe that the Republicans want to keep the rich wealthy, and the poor down, but believe the Democrats to be the ones who fight for the people. For example Democrats will argue that we have no right to tell a woman that it's wrong to kill her baby, simply because it's now an amendment to the constitution. When the tables are turned, they will take one of the most important rights given in the constitution and shamefully try to take that right from the people and give it only to the police. The right to bear arms is what gives us the edge over the government. How can anyone preach "Power to the People", and believe in gun control? Now of course we can all agree that once somebody has been convicted of a violent crime, the circumstances are different. They have criticized Bush for years because of preemptive war. In the most hypocritical way, they now preach preemptive gun control. If you watch this video you may be shocked. For years they have said "We ust want to regulate guns, not take them. Noone will walk into your house and confiscate your gun". I must admit, I agreed with that one point. I could never imagine Government officials in this country busting into people's houses and taking their guns, but I too was foolish. It's already officially begun. How can someone say it's wrong to create preemptive war to protect the American people, but believe that it's ok to preemptively take guns away from random citizens in an extremely forceful manner. It's too bad that we just take high school drop outs and let them become police officers, because any person with a brain would have refused to carry out the orders of the police chief in this video. It's also too bad that we vote in police chiefs who have seniority instead of chiefs with qualifications, otherwise this order would never have been called for. Think about that next time you vote for your local police chief. Now as you watch this short video, be prepared to be shocked.

I'll be the first to admit that Mccain is the 3rd worst person who could possibly run for president, but at unlike his 2 opponents, he at least sees what's wrong with this, and fights for our rights to bear arms. Obama says that small town people cling to religion and guns. For once, he's absolutely right. We have to cling to them because they are the 2 most important rights that he and his party threaten to take from us, without caring that both are given in the constitution. Hilary probably wants us to not have guns and for her to have guns, so as to make things a little easier for her as her kill count increases. And yet they both pretend to stand for the people. They are actually wolves in sheeps clothing.

But my school teachers said....

Of course your school teachers said that global warming is real and threatens the future of earth. They told you that we came from monkeys and that gun control is good. You've been taught from the time you in kindergarten that capitalism is evil, that there is no time for war, and that we need high taxes so the government can "take care of us". How can this website go against everything that these educated teachers say. The reason is because we speak with truth and passion, but most of your school teachers speak with fear. In exchange for their votes, the democratic party fights against all reasoning to privatize education. Your teacher didn't want to have to work hard to keep his or her job, but wants to keep things safe for them with the tenure and the union. They figure if they can get you to believe everything that the democrats say then as soon as you're 18 you'll go vote that way. The democratic party also owes it to the hippie environmentalists who wear tie dyed shirts and listen to Grand Funk Railroad all day to fight for their cause. Your school teacher wants you to believe that all the wicked republicans hate the environment, and the democrats want to save the earth from global warming. Didn't you ever notice how it wasn't very difficult, nor was ther much oppression from teachers when they took God out of schools? It's about control. We suggest for everyone who reads this to join the PCE which stands for Parents for Choice in Education. This organization understands the problems facing public school, and could use your support in repairing the problems. The problem is simple: Teachers want your kids to vote Democrat when they grow up, and the Democrats are the cause of most of our nation's problems. The best way to handle the education system is to Privatize the education, but of course have federally mandated schools who must accept all students for no cost. All children have a voucher and can either use it at the federally mandated school for free, or pay a slight difference to go to a school of the parent's choice to get the education they want their kids having. This will hurt bad teachers because with the new competition they can't afford to keep bad teachers around. The amazing teachers out there will be paid higher, because all the schools want them for what they bring to their school's reputation. Most of all the government doesn't decide what your kids will learn, but the parents pick the school of their choice. Currently only the wealthy have this option. If you love your children fight against this, and for heaven's sake, don't just take the opinions of your chidhood teachers as fact, but research it for yourself.

Whose Welfare is it Anyway?

Well, I guess you've got me there. The Democrats really are the voice for the people, because they take from the rich and give to the poor like Robin Hood. Well let's look at the situation a little closer though. First off, the welfare program usually doesn't help the poor, just the unemployed who are not contributing to society. In many cases people are told that if they do start working they will be kicked off any kind of welfare they may be receiving. So we see that it's the lazy not the poor who usually get those benefits. At least the money for this comes mainly from the rich..........right? Well, let's examine the rich people a bit. First off, wealthy people usually can afford good tax preparer's who get them lots of deductions. Some of the richest people are the shareholders of giant companies. An S-Corp pays no medicaid, medicare, or any other welfare from it's actual profit. The company only pays into it when they pay an employee's wages. The company pays approx 7.5%, and that is matched by the employee. After paying the employees, the rest of the money is subect to federal and state taxes on the shareholder's personal income taxes, but not the welfare taxes. This untaxed portion is generally the large maority of that money. Looking even closer at that situation, that means that approx 15% of an employees checks are taxed for welfare, whether it be by the corporation or the employee. If you took that 15% and didn't tax it, you would immediately have less poverty. For example, a person who makes $10.00 per hour and works full time makes about $1800.00 a month. That's too much money made to qualify for welfare. After taxes and bills to pay, he usually has no extra money at the end of each month, but let's give him a 15% raise (If we took away the welfare taxes we could). Now he makes about $2100.00 a month. He can take that $300.00 per month raise and save for his future by wisely investing it, which also helps the economy, so we don't have to all pay for him to retire and live off our hard work. You may ask, what if he spends this money in other ways and doesn't save, are we just going to let him die? He doesn't have to die, but he should have saved his money, and it's his own fault. He would just have to keep working. By the democrat's views it is all of our people's fault that he didn't save up, and we all have to share the cost for his poor choices. Now hopefully you see that once again the democratic stance is not for the people, but this illusion they've created fools many into thinking otherwise.

El NAFTA

You may remember a few years ago when the whole El Nino thing had everybody talking about it. Anytime anything happened, people blamed it on El Nino. It became the running joke to blame everything on it to make fun of those who seriously thought it caused so many problems. Well, now we have NAFTA to replace it, because everybody seems to want to blame everything on the free trade agreement. The Government regulates way too much stuff, taxes way too much, and gives way too many advantages to unions. As a result, many companies can't afford to run business in America, so they take their factories to mexico, and then they can still offer competitive prices on the money they save. NAFTA has done so many good things for our economy, but every time someone loses their job, they get mad at all the republicans who agreed to NAFTA. It's really funny because Bill and Hilary said it was one of the most successful acts in their presidency. If you ask me, this is the most truthful statement that either of those 2 have ever made. Democrats as usual, are a bunch of whiners, so in order to try to get back in the white house she has chosen to abandon support for NAFTA. The problems with the economy are absolutely caused by free trade, but lack thereof. If you want to throw blames around try throwing it in the direction of those who oppose free trade. There really are 2 types of people out there. Bad things happen to us all, but how we react defines us. Some people tell themselves to suck it up and keep going. Too many of us write our congressmen and ask them to write up a new bill, making whatever it is that happened to them illegal. The result is way too many legislations that just don't need to be there. Some people will probably be offended by my statements and write their congressmen to ask that it be illegal for me to hate on tree huggers online, and what's worse is that our awful congress will probably try. Let's all quit crying and get on with our lives.

Mongoose Method

Let's reflect on a classic Simpsons episode where the people are so happy that a new lizard was introduced into their environment because it eats pigeons. After a while they are overrun with lizards, so they control that by introducing chineese needle snakes. To fix the snake problem they introduce gorillas. This is exactly the way the democratic party thinks. When ever there is anything in our system that has flaws in any way they try to control it. They create new legislations that create worse problems, but if they had fewer laws it would eliminate half of the problems. Some real life examples are the health care system, where health care is too expensive for the poor, so they create taxes for all so they can afford it but if there weren't so many federal regulations and laws, it would be more expensive. Obama calls for universal health care for this very reason, but he is personally, as well as other senators supporting these mandates responsible for the high cost in the first place. Hillary has the commercial where she tells the story of the man who's company laid off workers and now he is jobless, and she says that something needs to be done about this. Well, Hillary has been such a huge supporter of raising the minimum wages time and time again. Each time they acheive these raises, companies raise the pay but compensate by giving those employees more work, and laying some people off. Company officers do owe it to their stock holders to make a profit for them after all. Hillary is right that it's sad when people lose their jobs, but she created this problem, and it's not the government's place to try to fix it. The truth is that there is no perfect solution to our national problems. If you help one person it will hurt another. If the government would get out of our way and stop making unnecessary laws it would hurt some people who rely on the government for everything, but it would do far more good than trying to control everything by creating more problems. I wish the legislators would try the famous prayer that goes "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference."

Stop in the name of black liberation

It would be such a great thing for our nation if we ever has a black president. Nations would see us, and respect the fact that America is color blind. The good things this president would do would go into the history books, and prove everyone wrong that doubts a black person's ability to run this country. This is why I plead with americans to stop supporting Obama. If we elect this man he will humiliate the entire black race. He and his wife are liars who have extremely racist views. He will ruin the economy with his tax raises. All the ignorant fools out there will blame his failure on the color of his skin and refuse to vote blacks into office in the future. I encourage all people who agree that it would be great to have a black and/or a woman running things to write a letter to Condoleezza Rice, and urge her to run in 2012. Rice would take the knowledge, experience, and ethics she obviously is well equipped with and help fix many problems facing America. People would remember that it was a black woman that did these good deeds, and the door would be wide open for future blacks and women to do the same. With the exception of 1 person, all the people I know that are voting for Obama are only voting for him because he is black. In a way this is noble, but it is important to consider the harmful impact it will bring on the black community when he fails. You don't need to question what will happen when a man who wants preemptive gun control, jabs at religious people, lies about campaign funding, plans to raise taxes to 60%, hates free trade, and attends a white american hating church is elected as president. The outcome will hurt all americans, especially blacks.

First Lady Worst Lady

Normally I think it's wrong to judge a guy by his wife whether she's good or bad. The problem with being this fair with the presidential candidates is that the first lady often takes big roles in the country's affairs. There is a famous quote that states "Behind every good man is an even better woman". Quite often the woman keeps the man from making a fool of himself, and she usually keeps her head and doesn't complain much. Michelle Obama is such a complainer that she actually wrote her senior thesis on how she thought everyone at Princeton was so nice to her because she's black and that they should have been nice just to be nice. Michelle should have been happy to get to Princeton, being highly unqualified. I have read the paper, and I didn't just find it to be offensive and racist, but filled with spelling and grammar errors. I'll admit that my website probably has the same, but that's because I'm just messing around. This paper was her senior thesis, and determines the grade at an Ivy League school. I guess it wasn't enough that our taxes probably paid for her to go there, and that she took the slot of a more qualified student thanks to affirmative action. Michelle also attended church with her husband for 20 years at the most racist church I've ever seen. (Now that says a lot, because I've lived in Mississippi which is the racist world capital, and I visited literally hundreds of churches there). The choice to stay in that congregation for 20 years is a definite mark against both Obamas. Now there are rumors of a video that will supposedly surface soon in the media where Michelle Obama speaks harshly about white's and says "Whitey". This is of course speculation at this point, but I don't need that to see what kind of a first lady she will be. I certainly hope you see it too.

Let them eat cake

We all remember learning in school as kids about the famous words of the french queen who responded to her people's lack of bread by saying "Let them eat cake". Since this was in France hundreds of years ago, why was it so important that we learn about it in schools now. The real reason why we study history is so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. This lack of caring for her people led to a huge anarchy that got way out of hand. The thing I don't understand is how our congress could be so foolish as to do the same thing and risk anarchy against them. I definitely do not think it's too far fetched to say that if congress doesn't get more in touch with what the people want, there could be an uprising. We now have gas prices that are far too expensive which drives up the food and other goods to higher prices, and people can barely afford to live. Nancy Pelosi is the modern day Marie Antoinette, who is more concerned with her own political agenda than what the poeple need. She has a president that will not veto any bills that allow drilling in America, but she won't do a thing to get the house going on this. She says she would rather we just go green. I wouldn't have been surprised if she had said "Let them go green". It's the same thing as "Let them eat cake", just with a modern twist. Let's vote her out ASAP.

I didn't do it

It would be pretty pointless if this kid tried to say he didn't eat the chocolate cake. It's all over his face, and noone would believe him. Silly kid, all he has to do is run for president as a democrat and then everyone would believe him him when he says he didn't do it. It's working for Obama right? No, I didn't know my neighbor and best friend was a crook, and that we did illegal dealings together. No, my wife didn't write a racist article for her senior thesis at Princeton. No, my healthcare plan will be cheaper once you factor in the absence of overhead. No, I didn't ever promise to comply with the recruiting guidelines and now just decide not to. No, I renounce my religion and pastor now that he's exposed as a hater of whites and americans, infact I never liked him......Yeah that's the ticket. I can't understand why this guy just simply denies things and everyone drops it. I know this is a short blog, but all I have to say is that it's cute when the little kid denies eating the cake that's all over his face, but when Obama does it he should lose supporters. What's it going to take for people to realize that this guy is unqualified and unworthy to serve our country? Please tell me, I'd eally like to know.

Lame Duck

Who's the genius that decided that no person can serve more than two terms as president? There is no better way to create a lame duck president than to limit his terms. The best way to keep the people in control of a president is for the president to fear the loss of support for his reelection campaign. If a president had no limit to the amount of terms he can serve, he is far more likely to do what the people, more specifically his party, want him to do. Since everybody loves to talk about Bush, let's say a word concerning him. Say what you will about Bush, but at least he used to put our need for oil far above the ridiculous demands of environmentalists. Now that he can't be reelected he can take the easy way out, because he's not seeking another term. Environmentalists have tried to put the Polar Bear on the endangered list for a long time, and now that he's a lame duck, Bush gave in to their request to shut them up. Now it's even harder to drill for oil in Alaska, and the Governer of Alaska has sued the government for doing this because it really hurts the economy there. Even though Bush has finished his two terms, Jeb Bush still needs the support of Florida voters. Bush no longer has to listen to his party, so he's free to take actions that help Jeb's political career regardless of what his party or anyone thinks. The consequences are gas prices that keep climbing, because we can't drill off the florida coast like China and Cuba do. Once again, a law that does everything but protect americans continues to stay in effect. Bush used to do more to secure the borders like his party wants, but he's been pretty lazy lately. If there were no restrictions on how long a man can continue to run this would not happen. To Bush's credit though, so many of the things we see wrong in our system we immediately blame Bush for. Most of the things Bush has had to spend money on were a result of Clinton shutting down necessary programs to save a little money during his terms. For example, Clinton saved millions by shutting the military almost completely down. When Bush took office he had to spend way more than we ever saved to get the military going again. Let's not turn Bush into a Blame Duck too.

True Liberal

Did anyone else out there ever wonder if the words "Liberal" and "Liberty" shared a common root word? Well I have wondered that for a long time, and it's troubled me over the years. Our ancestors fought desparately for liberty, so if they share a common root word I thought maybe I'm on the wrong side because liberty is a good thing. As it turns out, they both come from the latin term "liber". This term means freedom from excessive government control. As you can guess I was now very confused and my head about turned in a complete circle. If you know anything about politics you know that the "Liberals" are the ones creating new government policies and agencies for everything, raising taxes, and trying to destroy free market. As I went out in search of the answer I found out why they get to have the name "Liberal" instead of the people who believe in liberty. Apperently it is the view of many that liberals have a more "open minded" way of viewing politics, whereas conservatives try to stick to what we have and want no changes. As you may have guessed, this did not clear up any of my confusion. I guess that having really bad ideas and wanting to take away freedom is a very open minded thing now. Last time I checked, the practice of government controlling people's lives was around long before capitalism. If you ask me, capitalism is more open-minded than government control. The idea of a country where people have the abilility to become wealthy without the government is the real liberal thought. Without the very liberal practice of capitalism, Ben Franklin would never have been able to invent electricity, and the car, plane, phone, internet, cell phone, and many other inventions would be government projects and would cost a lot in taxes but never become efficient. We are called conservatives because we cling onto the things that we know to have worked in the past. All we have to go by is past results, and capitalism is responsible for the greatest inventions. How many great inventions come from cuba? Are people really better off in socialist countries or is everyone just poor together? We're not lacking in liberal thought here, we just read our history books that show capitalist countries doing far better than socialist. Don't forget that Lucifer was the first socialist who wanted everyone to be equal but without freedom. I don't know about you, but I side with Jesus who is the author of freedom and agency.

Abortion

You may wonder why someone like me who wants freedom above all else is so against a woman's right to choose. If that's what you think, then you're not much of a thinker. Let's take a look at history for a moment and remember the most shameful legislative decision in our nation's past. At one time it was legal to basicly do whatever white people wanted to do to blacks because we "weren't sure whether blacks were actually people", thus we weren't sure they were individuals that deserved rights. The real issue regarding abortion used to be that we weren't sure if the baby is actually alive, or could survive outside the mother until a certain point, but babies have proven to sometimes survive less than 20 weeks in the womb. All the time we are being proved wrong on just how soon a baby can possibly live if born early.

Now they just say that the baby could possibly survive at any time, but the baby isn't yet a person that deserves the same rights as others. This is repeating the most shameful part of our past to take a living breathing HUMAN and say that it has no rights. I have never seen anything more hypocritical than the Democrat decision to take what they call a "pro-choice" stance. First off, they penalize our carbon emmissions because it's unfair to the future generations to leave them with an environmental problem. (This actually puts unborn people ahead of current people if you think about it, so why are they ok with people murdering unborn children? The funniest statements that they make are "It's my body", and "It's my choice". Nobody ever said anything about the lady's body, she can do whatever she wants with HER body, we just fight for the rights of the BABY body. Now the whole "It's my choice" argument is somewhat funny to me because I believe I recall in Biology class that humans do not reproduce A-Sexually. She made a CHOICE when she CHOSE to have sex. In cases of rape you'll rarely find a conservative who finds these abortions wrong because conservatives DO care about a woman's right to choose, however it should be illegal to murder a defenseless baby just because a poor choice was originally made. The other exeption is when the mother's life is endangered because, once again, we do care about a woman's right to choose. I can't believe I am writing this article, the very fact that I am greatly opposed in this matter makes me sick to my stomach. I admit that I have a bias opinion, because I have a beautiful baby boy, and I know that children bring greater happiness than anything, but I still can't believe there are people who disagree. The key thing to remember here is that we don't want to take anyone's freedom away, infact we fight for the childs' right to life, but there is a difference between freedom and not facing the consequences of your actions.

In Summary

To kind of summarize things up, let's take a plain and simple guy from a small town, and see who really wants to help him out. Let's call our guy Jeremy, and let's say he works full time and goes to college, while trying to care for his wife and child. Let's also be very conservative in showing how difficult his life is by assuming he can find such an affordable place and such a high paying job in the same town.

This leaves Jeremy with less than $50.00 per month to try to afford health insurance, date nights with his wife, car upkeep, clothes, tithing if he should choose to pay it, and anything else that may come up. The democratic party wants to basicly turn us into a socialist community which will raise taxes very high. It is estimated that Obama's plans will take taxes to over 50%. We'll all be equal alright. We'll be equally poor. Let's say now that The government stops listening to hippies, and gets out of our way. The gas bill drops in half, the utilities drop in half, the taxes drop in half, the phone and cell phones drop 30 bucks, and with gas prices dropping the food cost drops significantly. We've conservatively saved Jeremy approximately $450.00 per month. With that he can get his own health insurance, and invest money for his retirement. Not to mention without all the restrictions, wages would certainly go up, so Jeremy also gets to have a little fun here and there. I won't lie, now there will be some people getting screwed, but it's the lazy and foolish who don't work hard, and don't save up for their retirements. Both ways people get screwed, but the Democrats tend to punish the wrong people, at least if the government got out of our way, the accountability would be in the right place.