How to win an argument everytime with a liberal in a Debate

The next time you hear a liberal bash conservatives – just ask them 10 simple questions. In fact- print this out and give it to them. Have them write down their answers. The more “No” answers means the more they agree with the Republican Party. Add up the answers and then ask – are you sure you are a Democrat?

1. The Democratic Party is against drilling for oil in Alaska, because they are afraid of upsetting caribou and other wildlife. Are you against drilling for oil in Alaska?

2. The Democratic Party is for allowing illegal aliens drivers licenses, health care, access to public schools and some even want to give them the right to vote. Do you believe illegal aliens should be granted these rights?

3. The Democratic Party has been against implementing time limits for receiving welfare. Do you believe that able bodied people of sound mind should receive welfare indefinitely?

4. The Democratic Party is for redistribution of income. Do you believe that the money you earn should be distributed to able bodied people of sound mind that earn less than you personally?

5. The Democratic Party is for laws that punish discrimination, but also support affirmative action based on race. Republicans are for laws that punish discrimination in all forms, but are against affirmative action. Republicans believe that people should be judged on their merits and if you want to give an advantage to someone it should be based on their level of poverty and not race. Do you agree with affirmative action based on race?

6. The Democratic Party is for gay marriage, because they believe that people that love each other should be allowed to marry. Do you support gay marriage and if so, do you support polygamy and marriage between family members if they love each other?

7. The Democratic Party would like to remove the word God from the Pledge of Allegiance and the Cross from government county seals. Are you in favor of this?

8. The Democratic Party is overwhelmingly against punishing murders with the death penalty, but support the taking of life of innocent unborn children via abortion. Do you agree with these positions?

9. The Democrats Party believes that partial birth abortion(which is ending the life of a baby as it is being born) should be allowed when a mothers health and not their life is in danger. Can you name any other circumstance or a law that allows you take a life when your health and not your life is in danger?

10. The Democratic Party is against the war in Iraq because over 1,000 military personnel have died in an attempt to spread freedom. However, close to 40,000 people die in automobile accidents each year in America. Democrats are not against banning driving. Do you believe that driving your car to the grocery store is a greater cause than dying for the cause of freedom?

Written by Thomas George
Editor@boycottliberalism.com

© 2004 http://www.boycottliberalism.com

Advertisements

Republicans Need To Grow Up About Taxes

Mark W. Hendrickson

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Apr 02, 2013

Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared at Forbes.com.

Reblogged from Townhall.com

Republicans are flailing about these days, trying to rebrand themselves before the next election cycle. A certain amount of introspection and internecine debate is inevitable after suffering a stinging loss against an opponent with a dismal record. One thing the GOP needs to do to gain greater acceptance among voters is to improve their credibility by outgrowing a tiresome, unthinking opposition to any and all tax increases.

This is anything but a recommendation that Republicans “go moderate” and tack for the political center. Being to the right of 99.9 percent of Republicans on taxation, I agree that Americans are overtaxed and for decades have favored zero capital gains tax; advocated zero taxes on corporate profits; and called for a low, flat, income tax.

What bugs me now, and what should concern Republicans who worry about their image, are the recent objections raised by some Republican legislators in Michigan and Maryland to their respective governors’ proposals for higher gasoline taxes to pay for road and bridge repairs. In a fairly typical comment, Maryland state delegate Susan Krebs complained that motorists would bear the cost of the tax hike.

But why shouldn’t motorists—the users of roads—be the ones to pay for the repair and upkeep of those roads? For Republicans to take the position that someone other than motorists should subsidize road maintenance is to adopt the ethos of progressives—that people should consume the economic goods they want and then stick somebody else with the tab.

There is a different, honest, and straightforward approach that Republicans can take if they believe that motorists should not have to pay as much as their governors propose for road maintenance: They could privatize the roads and let the new owners worry about how to cover the considerable costs of providing such a valuable product to drivers.

Republicans did similar damage to their reputation with their reflexively anti-tax ideology in 2010 by assenting to Obama’s 2 percent FICA (Social Security) payroll tax reduction. The GOP may talk a lot about “saving Social Security” for future generations, but they made hypocrites of themselves by voting to reduce Social Security revenues at the very time when current revenues no longer matched payouts, and they themselves were warning about the dangers of Social Security’s long-term underfunding.

As with road repair, if Republicans believe that government should be involved in its citizens’ retirement, they should authorize the collection of sufficient revenue to pay for the commitments they legislate. Alternatively, if they rebel at covering the expenses of a particular program, they should privatize it. In the case of Social Security, privatization would not be the sham privatization proposed by George W. Bush—i.e., diverting part of Social Security withholdings into government-approved private investments. A genuine privatization would deposit payroll deductions directly into an account in the employee’s name where the federal government can’t control or spend it.

In both the recent opposition to raising taxes to pay for upcoming road repairs and in the two years of Social Security tax cuts, Republicans have made a mockery of their professed concern about fiscal responsibility and government deficits. Reducing the revenues for specific spending projects and programs without reducing the corresponding spending is a formula for increasing deficits. Too often, Republicans pick the low-hanging political fruit of tax reductions without doing the hard—and more important—work of reducing government spending. The result is that Republicans end up weakening their brand.

Democrats have an advantage. They know who they are. They are single-minded in their relentless, unapologetic desire to maximize government spending. They don’t give a hoot about deficits. They know that the more they spend, the more power and control they have. As repugnant as this mindset is to those of us who value liberty, this unwavering commitment to the ever-increasing bestowal of federal largess motivates a large number of voters to go to the polls and vote Democratic.

Republicans, by contrast, project ambivalence and insincerity. They claim to be more fiscally responsible, but show a willingness to support underfunded expenditures. They claim to believe in limited government, and then do their best to make the Democrats’ welfare/transfer state work, rather than proposing to dismantle it. The result is cognitive dissonance. How can voters be sure about what Republicans really believe, other than the importance of winning elections?

My recommendation to Republicans: Work harder to differentiate yourself from progressives and Democrats by forging a clear, unambiguous brand as the party of smaller government. If you remain the party of Big Government Lite, work less at reducing too-high government spending than at reducing too-high taxes, and are unwilling to devolve government programs to the private sector—in other words, if you persist in business as usual—you will deserve the electoral defeats you will bring upon yourselves

Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Fred Elbel.

Website by Fred Elbel, Elbel Consulting Services, LLC

Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment currently is being interpreted to grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents (called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency). This clearly is contrary to the original intent of Congress and the States in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment.

While it has been the practice to bestow citizenship to children of illegal aliens, this has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith have noted1 that:

“The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens can operate…as one more incentive to illegal migration and violation by nonimmigrant aliens already here [.] When this attraction is combined with the powerful lure of the expanded entitlements conferred upon citizen children and their families by the modern welfare state, the total incentive effect of birthright citizenship may well become significant.”

References

1.   Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith, “Consensual Citizenship” (Chronicles, July 1992)

Any tax without prior voter approval is a bad tax

For those Missourians contemplating buying or selling a motor vehicle to another person, the purchase of that vehicle just became more expensive.  On February 18, 2013 the Missouri Senate passed Senate Bill 182, a bill regarding levying a local sales tax on all motor vehicles sales.

SB 182 stops counties and municipalities from collecting a local use tax on the sale of motor vehicles, trailers, boats, or outboard motors. Instead of a use tax, local government entities will impose a local sales tax on the sale of all of the aforementioned items, regardless of whether they were purchased in Missouri. The home address of the buyer is used in determining what local tax rates apply.

The total sales tax for motor vehicles, trailers, boats, or outboard motors sold at retail is the sum of the state sales tax (4.225%) plus the local sales tax (varies according to locality). The sales tax for all non-retail sales of the preceding items is the sum of the state highway use tax (4.00%) plus the local sales tax (varies according to locality).

All counties and municipalities that did not previously approve a local use tax must put to a vote of the people whether to discontinue collecting sales tax on non-retail sales of motor vehicles. If a local government does not hold such a vote before November 2016, the taxing jurisdiction must stop collecting the sales tax. Counties or cities may at any time hold a vote to repeal the tax. Language repealing the tax must also be put to a vote of the people any time 15% of the registered voters in a taxing jurisdiction sign a petition requesting such.

Why did the Missouri Senate pass this bill?

Quotes from several state and local elected government officials, business advocacy organizations, and local car dealers in a Southeast Missourian article titled “Sales tax fallout hits dealers, others” dated February 21, 2013,  stated a “level playing field” is needed between the car dealers in Illinois and Missouri. Whenever officials allude to fairness, bad things happen. One can conclude these officials support a statist approach to concentrating economic controls in the hands of the government. Being “fair” to all car dealers in Missouri can encourage an overall centralization of economic control at the state level.

The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things. This bill violates the rights of local governments by intruding upon the taxing authority a local government has with its citizenry. The state senators want to dictate to locally elected officials of Missouri how to run their communities. This is a huge usurpation of power of the state from the counties and cities.

Each local government in Missouri has made a social contract with its citizens. The contract provides for public order, protection of property, and access to public services such as highways, roads, and sewer. The citizens and their local governments determine the limiting of rights and the duties of each other.  The Missouri Senate overstepped its authority by directing local governments to collect sales tax on the purchase of vehicles without a vote of the people at the local level. Although there is a requirement to put the measure on the ballot of counties and municipalities that did not have a use tax prior to the passage of SB 182, it is a deep-rooted “Principle of Liberty” to get voter approval before imposition of a new tax. The Senate’s action in regards to the SB 182 smacks of governing at their whim rather than by law.

Even though SB 182 has passed in the Senate, the bill must go to the House. The Senate and House need to agree to the final language of the bill before sending it to the governor for his signature. The governor can veto the bill or sign it into law. But that is not the end of it. At any time, with 15% of the registered voter in a taxing authority’s jurisdiction signing a petition to put it on a ballot, the voters can nullify the tax.

It is time we send a strong message to the Missouri Senate by directing our local elected officials and our state representatives to kill this power- grabbing bill before rather than after it becomes law.

Election Fraud

Below, I received the partial list of voter fraud examples from the November 2012 Presidential Election that most of us have seen over the past few months.  This time I received the list in an e-mail from an elected official with an earnest question of what to do about it.  I’m certainly no expert, but here are the thoughts I sent in reply:

There are many reasons that we lost the election, and voter fraud was part of it — but not all of it.I saw an article go by this week that said there are groups pursuing the examples you sent.So, hopefully, some of that will be flushed out soon

I don’t see it happening, but I’m praying that top-level Republicans (working with other conservative parties like the Constitution Party / Libertarian Party / etc) will see the need for an organized project to watch every vote at every voting precinct in the nation and ensure that voter fraud is wiped out as a potential for swaying the election.It needs to be a proactive effort — not a post-election litigation effort.

We need to:

  • Organize and train poll watchers in every state / township / precinct.
  • Organize and train Republican election judges in every state / township / precinct.
  • Video cameras in each voting location to record the entire day or events of concern by the poll-watchers (even if it’s just smart phone cameras).
  • Know how many ballots are taken to each voting location
  • Know how many ballots are completed / voided / spoiled / returned from every voting location
  • Know the vote counts recorded on each electronic voter machine at each voting location (where used)
  • Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law any effort to commit voter fraud
  • Get rid of all electronic voting machines

The only thing that will wipe out voter fraud is having well-trained eyes on every voting booth the day of the election.

Plus, Brian Bollmann, a lowly chair of a county Tea Party, 3 days before an election, shouldn’t be running around begging for Republican Election Judges for the city of St. Louis.

But that all takes money, and who sees it as important enough to foot the bill?!?  It wasn’t in 2012; will it be in 2014 or 2016? I hope it will.

We will certainly continue to work to prevent voter fraud in our little corner of the world as best we can!

FWIW, I kept saying that Romney’s downfall would be that…

“Romney wouldn’t be willing to go to the mat.Obama would go to the mat.Romney wouldn’t.”

Romney had Obama down on the mat and let him back up.Too bad.

Below is the partial list of voter fraud examples that instigated the e-mail exchange:

From Bill O’Reilly’s message board:Most everyone suspected fraud, but these numbers prove it and our government and media refuse to do anything about it.As each state reported their final election details, the evidence of voter fraud is astounding. Massive voter fraud has been reported in areas of OH and FL, with PA, WI and VA, all are deploying personnel to investigate election results.Here are just a few examples of what has surfaced with much more to come.

  • In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).
  • In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations – and not one single vote was recorded for Romney.  (Another statistical impossibility).
  • In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.
  • In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.
  • The National SEAL Museum , a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.
  • Palm Beach County , FL had a 141% voter turnout.
  • In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.

NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

Fiscal Cliff: Let’s Make A Deal

The solution to the problems in America’s economy, finances, debt, and obligations is certainly NOT for the Federal Government to have more money and control — as if, under Barack Obama’s claim, you just hive him another $100 Billion more per year, all our problems will be solved.

Under Clinton, yes, taxes were higher, but spending was 18% of GDP instead of the current 25% of GDP. THAT h/t http://www.yourcpapartners.com/is why the budget was (closed to being) balanced… …along with the whole of the Congress and President knowing that Newt Gingrich was willing to take the Nuclear Option and shut down the Federal Government.

So, to solve our problems, a true leader, a true conservative/libertarian would introduce legislation and vote to reduce the amount of money taken out of the economy by the Federal Government and reduce the amount of our labors the Federal Government spends.

It’s simple common sense… …that is so uncommon these days.

So, why would any Republican, the party of Fiscal Responsibility, bring legislation to the floor and vote to increase taxes and spending?

There is only one answer:

They care more about their future as a legislator than they do about what’s best for America.

So, when they vote to increase your taxes and increase the money going to the government and increase spending (while calling it deficit reduction), you know that that person is not working for you and the betterment of America.  They are callously voting to ensure their own future is bright at the expense of yours.

Maybe you ought to vote ‘no’ this time when they tell you they are the true conservative/libertarian but their votes show they are not.

Also On FBI’s Most Wanted List: Blueprint For Missouri

As scarce as details on the Missouri Caucus, we have a new entry into the cloudy world of Missouri Politics.

This tidbit and tease also came in the most recent Capitol Reports from Cape County’s Representatives: It is “The Blueprint For Missouri”.  I suspect that’s something akin to the “Contract With America of 1996”.

There are several issues the House will debate during the 2012 Legislative Session.  The principle agenda here in the Missouri House is called the Blueprint for Missouri. The Blueprint is our plan to move Missouri forward. The program rests on four important issues: protecting taxpayers, creating jobs, reforming schools and protecting our values.

And, I say ‘tease’ because they must be teasing the plan and preparing the grand press release for… …say… …2013.

I searched the webernets for ‘Blueprint For Missouri’.  Many, many pages of links were returned, so I reviewed the entries on the first 5 pages of Google links — 50 in all.  From that I opened 13 web pages that looked promising, and the actual blueprint was only mentioned here and here and here and here and here and here.

What I didn’t find was an official Missouri House, Senate, GOP or Republican web page or press release describing in detail the bullet points in the “Blueprint For Missouri”.  Many of the pages were articles with vague descriptions of the purported document, and only one web page had what may or may not be a comprehensive list… …assuming the MO GOP was kind enough to share it with them.

Hey Republicans; how about we get the details of this Blueprint out on, say, MOGOP.org?!?! …along with a detail list of the non-tentative locations of the caucuses.  I’m sure there are several issues on the Blueprint for which Missouri activists could lend their support!

h/t vanpeltsales.com