Enough To Warm Your Heart

Sunday morning was a bit unusual for two reasons; First, it was unseasonably warm. The second part needs a little explaining. What I saw from my front porch, on this warm Sunday morning, I have not seen since I was a child. I saw the effects of true "Family Values."

At first glance, I saw a young teenager riding his bike with his little sister. The teenager was wearing the quintessential "Rapper-Wanna-Be" clothing, so I figured it was the typical "got stuck with my sister" situation. As they got closer, I could hear the little girl complaining, but could not make out the words. I saw the boy grab the front of the bike and pull her forward and let her glide. I thought he was frustrated with the girl, and it made me a little nervous.

When the girl came to a stop, I could hear what she was saying. She was cried to her brother because she could not move the bike on her own. "Pull me," she begged. "NO!" he replied. The little girl told him she couldn't move without him pulling, but the teenage boy told her she could do it, she just needed to try. Now my curiosity was peaked.

I started to pay close attention to what was being said by the siblings. He told her to push the pedal, but she found it too hard. He pushed her forward one more time, and told her to push the pedal as she was moving. After she stopped coasting, she begged for another push. The boy declined and said he was going ahead without her.

The girl begged then she sat on the sidewalk. The boy did not give in. He simply told her that she could do it, she just needed to try harder. The girl had dug her heels in, and was not going to budge. The teenager came back and told her to get on the bike. Once on the bike, he told the girl HOW to push the pedal. The girl tried and tried. Then after about a 30 seconds, the bike started to move. Not only did she move it, but the boy was able to coach her to keep it moving. He became her cheerleader, chanting "You can do it!" and "Good job!" The two continued down the street with the girl giggling and the teenager cheering all the way. I am not sure who was more excited, the "Wanna-be Rapper" or the cute little girl, but they both rode down the road with the broadest smiles I have seen in quite a long time.

Sometimes we judge people before they have a chance to show their true colors. I was guilty of such sins on this morning. I assumed the boy was a typical punk. Turns out he was a sweet, caring, brother. After seeing this display of kindness, I realized how cynical I have become. It never crossed my mind that this teenager could be a good kid. This was a great reality check for me, and I thought it might be for you as well.

Next time you see or meet someone, stop and think of what YOU might be thinking that will get in the way. What walls have you put up without having any facts? Did you give this person a fair shake, or did you act as I did and prejudge them? Everyone deserves a fair shake; extend a friendly hand with an open mind.

Barack-O-Nomics 101

Barack Obama has again been kind enough to show me my place. While addressing his "age appropriate sex education" ideas, (for kindergarten children?!?) he took a pop shot at conservatives. Though he wanted us to know that Americans are "... generally decent people..." he felt the need to tell us conservatives that we "...listen to the wrong talk radio..." (video Last 60 seconds contain the comments) Considering I do not agree with on.. ah.. hmm... ANYTHING that he stands for, I guess he was referring to me. If you are reading this post and listen to my show (1590 WSMN Sunday's 6-7), then he must be referring to you as well. But then again, Barack does think we are "basically decent people," sort of like Hillary is "likable enough." Well, I am proud to be generally decent even if I listen (or host) the wrong kind of talk radio. Thank you Barack Obama.

Thank you for condescending to those of us who do not want to pay more of our hard earned dollars. No I do not agree with you, and yes I would LOVE to see you FAIL. Nothing would please me more during this presidential election than seeing you lose. That doesn't make me wrong, but it does make me an opinionated individual who believes, rightfully so according to your VP candidate, you are going to cost me more money. No I do not make 250K annually; my family does not even make 100K. But if you're taxing the corporations, their revenue will be reduced. When a company's profit are decreased, the cost for their products typically go up. In other words, this cost is typically passed onto the consumer (you and I).

One more economic point, Barack wants to give tax breaks to 95% of Americans. Not tax payers, but Americans. Sounds good, but let’s look at some examples.

1. About 50% of all tax revenue is paid by the top 5%. Maybe they can afford higher taxes, but what does their tax bracket look like? The people in the top 5% pay about 50% of their gross income. Could you afford to pay 50%? I can't, but then again, I am not making 300k. Most people, who actually pay taxes, pay 25-30% of their gross income in taxes. Quick math for you using arbitrary numbers (not actual figures):

Gross=250k 50%Taxes=125k Net=125k
Gross=150k 30%Taxes=45k Net=105k

So a person making 150k brings home 20k less than a person who makes 300k. So if I net 105k, and I want to net 20 k more per year, I need to make 100k more per year gross? That's 80% of my increase GONE in taxes.

Another way to look at this is for a person to make one third more, they have to spend 80% of their increase on taxes. I am not kidding, this is reality. Even if my example is based on incomes that could be the same tax brackets, it is a fair assessment of the way tax brackets percentages work around the tax bracket break.

2. What did I mean “actually pay taxes?” Out of the 95% that Barack wants to give tax breaks to, many are not paying taxes. No joke, they pay nothing in taxes. Either they are not working (maybe a welfare recipient), they make so little that they get a refund of 100% (or more), or after all deductions are figured in, they receive a refund that equals the taxes they pay. Want a couple of examples?

Family A - Single mom with 3 kids. Makes 20K annually, Pays 6k in taxes. Tax time comes, and she is head of household, 3 children on her taxes, Earned Income Credit, deductions for child care, Transportation write-offs, etc. Refund check = Taxes paid out. 100% refund.

Family B - Married couple who owns a business and has no kids. Tax write-offs for toilet paper, office supplies, computer supplies, automotive expenses, advertising, tax preparation costs, etc. Gross income 60k., taxes on income 18k. They receive a rebate 100% because they can write off ANYTHING so long as they can prove it is used for business purposes. They can even write off part of their rent or mortgage, if they have a designated area that they use for “business.” Yes, if a corner of one room is used for the business (accounting, storage, etc.) and nothing else, you can write off a percentage of your housing cost. (Ask an accountant if you do not believe me)

So how exactly is Barack going to lower taxes for these people? THEY ARE NOT PAYING TAXES!!!!! What are you going to lower? Do you give them free money? Where does that free money come from? Who gives you the money to pay them? Oh wait, you need to take more money from the tax payer so you can pay the tax payer more money? HUH?!?

Of course not! Don’t be silly! He is going to end tax cuts for the oil companies and businesses. A great idea!! Let's make it more expensive for the oil companies and businesses! Companies would never try to raise their prices to recoup the cost of tax increases... WRONG! Yes, the government will get more tax revenue from the companies. But when the increased cost comes down the line, WE pay for the increased cost to the companies!! Thank you Barack for costing us MORE MONEY! Please do not buy into the half-truth Barack is spreading. The part he left out you learn in economics 101; increased cost has to be recouped in product prices, or by cutting staff. (Higher unemployment sound good to anyone? How about lay-offs?)

But Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden was kind enough to show me the flaw in my logic. (video) He told me that if I was concerned with higher taxes and didn't want taxes to go up, I was not being patriotic. I just need to be more patriotic and pay more money that I don't have, or I am just not patriotic enough.

Well, I guess I don’t want to be more patriotic, just ask my thinning wallet.

Gibson's Ass Kicked BY A GIRL!

Before anyone decides to jump on me for the post name, understand how I view Charles Gibson before you start you ranting. Mr. Gibson is one of those good liberals who (supposedly) believes that women are equal. So under this presumption, Chuck decided to viciously discredit Sarah Palin. Figuring that he is a good liberal who treated Sarah with proper respect by hitting her with tough questions, he did his best to nail Sarah to the wall. He made one big mistake; he assumed Sarah would not be able to handle the Great Media God, Charlie Gibson. Can you say, "oops?"

So why does this post point out that Sarah, a "girl," kicked Chuck's ass? Like I stated before, Chuck is supposedly a good liberal. Personally, I think he walks both sides of the line. I really believe Chuck didn't think a woman would be skilled enough to stand toe to toe with him. I knew Sarah could handle this joker, but what I did not know was how badly she would kick his teeth in. Forget John McCain, where was this woman back in the primaries?!?

Mr. Gibson (to be referred to as "Glib-son" and other variations on his name from here on) entered this interview with an agenda. This was supposed to be the one interview that shot the Palin effect to hell. Instead, Sarah shot Glib-son's credibility to hell. One of the best examples was when Glib-son decided to twist Sarah's words and stated,

"You said recently in your old church, our nation leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from god... are we fighting a holy war?"

Obviously, Chuck did not do his homework. That is not what Sarah said. Let me quote Sarah:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them our on a task that is from god."

Now sometimes the written words are not enough to explain, but if you listen to both Glib-son and Palin (Click here), you will hear clearly that Sarah is saying her church should pray that our leader is sending our troops on a task that is from God. In other words, pray that god is on our side, pray for God to protect our troops. As she said, "Let us pray that we are on God's side." Sarah's response was perfectly phrased to disarm Glib-son, but he didn't concede! He actually tried again to discredit her on this topic! Glib-son states:

"But you went on and said there is a plan, and it is God's plan."

Again, Sarah backs herself up by stating that she believes that there is a plan for this world and that it is a plan for good. In other words, she does believe God has a plan, and God's plan is good. She did not claim to know God's plan. Is this not obvious? What's the problem Chuck? You think God should have a plan for evil? This one was a T.K.O.! Chuck, stay down! NO! He is getting up.... He is punch drunk and swings wildly!!!

"But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?"

Oh my God! Are you serious Chuck? If you have not seen this interview, you need to go to ABC and see this pathetic interview... um rather attempted character assassination. I think this can be considered a body check, and Glib-son should stay down on the ice. But he doesn't. He gets up and comes back for more butt kicking....

This was not Glib-son's only screw up (are you surprised? I'm not), just my favorite. Where else did Glib-son throw the facts out the window? How about my second favorite self-inflicted wound, the Bush Doctrine? Chuck asked what Sarah thinks the Bush doctrine is. She knew she was being baited, and walked very carefully around the landmine that was laid for her. She quickly asked, "In what respect, Charlie?" Chuck said the Bush Doctrine "September 2002, before the Iraq war." She stated that she felt President Bush, "attempted to... rid the world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation..." and admitted mistakes were made, but new leadership allows us to try to do things better.

For some reason, Chuck acquired foot-in-mouth disease. He stated that he felt the Bush Doctrine is that, "We have the right of anticipatory self-defense and we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us." Though Sarah handled it perfectly and put Chuck in his place, I want to focus on the Glib-son factual inaccuracy.

Charles Gibson's futile attack on Sarah using his "NEW" take on the Bush Doctrine of 2001 was based on his ability to change facts that he stated! His exact words in 2001 were a perfect compliment to Sarah's! "...He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated." (Charles Gibson, 09-21-2001). So the moron was wrong about his own words in 2001. Let me bang my head against the wall as you continue reading....

You know I love Wikipedia. Not a perfect source, but a great place to find the sources to back up the facts. Wikipedia is not the place to find facts, but the cited excerpts are. "The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves..." (-Wikipedia). This is prior to the invasion of the Iraq war. The Iraq war started in March of 2003.

Now this is not Chuck's first rodeo. There really is not any excuse for his inability to ask questions that are pertinent while being accurate. His lack of accuracy is what I found most humorous, and therefore I have shown you how slanted this interview really is. The only other ploy Glib-son tried to use was asking the same question over and over to try to get a different answer. This is nothing new, and I do not begrudge him for trying. It was pointless and wasted a lot of time, but it did give Sarah the chance to reaffirm her standpoint.

The Iran and Israel questioning was a perfect example of this monotonous questioning. I have paraphrased the conversation below. You will have to listen to the interview (ABC edited interview) for the exact words.

Chuckle Head: What if Israel felt threatened and needed to take out Iranian nuclear facilities?

Sarah: We are friends of Israel and we should not second guess the measures Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

Chuckles: If we wouldn't second guess (Israel), and they decided they needed to [take out Iranian nuclear facilities] because Iran was an existential threat, would we be cooperative or agreeable?

Sarah: We cannot second guess what Israel has to to do to secure its nation.

Laughing boy: If Israel felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

Sarah: We cannot second guess the steps Israel takes to defend itself.

Strike three Chuck, you're OUT!

Jennifer Horn Runs Away With the Nomination

Just a quick update on the 2nd Congressional race...

Congratulations Jennifer Horn.

This was the first time I was actually at a campaign headquarters while the votes came in. There was no up and down, nor where there any out bursts of cheering and clapping like you typically see on television, but there was plenty of positivity and and happy faces. Why, you ask? Not once was Jennifer behind Bob Clegg. To make up for the lack of drama on the floor, we talked about the other races, November elections, and other political items on our minds.

Starting at 8:30 pm. Jennifer Horn was up 46-28 with 5% reporting, and she held the lead all evening. The closest Bob Clegg came to taking the lead was when he was trailing by 3%. This was a good thing for us who support Jennifer, but it made for a quiet evening waiting for her to arrive. Most of us knew it was over at about 9pm, but no news networks called it until 10:30.

Around 10, people were getting antsy. Many of us started pacing, shifting in our seats, and walking in and out of the building. We were not bored, nervous, or even concerned. Simply put, we were anxious. We all knew it was over and Jennifer had won, but the news networks would not call it, and Bob Clegg seemed to miss what we all knew.

When Jennifer walked into the room, the crowd exploded. She spoke about November and beyond. She outlined the direction she expected to take once she hit Washington, and spoke in detail about her major goals (I know I am going to miss some points here) such as energy independence, term limits, lowering taxes, and much more.

Granted, politicians say a lot, but with Jennifer...
Word is bond.