May 3, 2012
The United States’ war on terror moved into Iraq on March 20th2003. One must be extremely careful when indicating who America was at war with, because they did not attack the nation of Iraq. U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair organized a joint effort to infiltrate and overthrow the Saddam Hussein. The two leaders articulated three reasons for the invasion.
Former President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, makes a point during his initial interview by a special tribunal, where he is informed of his alleged crimes and his legal rights. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
First, Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons. Second, that he had ties to Al-Qaeda. Third, Saddam’s regime had been oppressing the Shia Islam population for decades. The first two have been, for the most part, proven untrue, causing Bush to be deemed a liar by a mass delirium throughout the nation. As a result of his reputation as a liar, many Americans overlook the incredible joy felt by every Shia Muslim upon hearing the news that Saddam Hussein had been captured by the U.S. on December 13th2003. They would finally be allowed the religious freedom taken for granted in America, and would no longer fear the oppressive Sunni regime, something that would have been impossible without U.S. intervention. This did not mark the end of America’s occupation of Iraq, however, and America decided to stay in control of Iraq until a stable democracy was established. It ended up taking until the December of 2011 for the U.S. to withdraw its troops from Iraq under President Barack Obama, thus putting an end to the Iraq war.
When evaluating the decision to invade Iraq it is possible to assert that President Bush lied to the American people about Saddam’s ties to terrorism and still deem his decision to invade admirable. Saddam was executed in 2006 after being found guilty of 148 murders of Shia Muslims in 1982. Since then it is impossible to accurately calculate the number of Shia he was responsible for slaughtering, but had America decided to stand idly by it is fair to say that Saddam would still be murdering the Shia today.
May 1, 2012
There it was. The paper handout that I had brought home from the gun show over three years ago was still hanging on my bedroom door.
I remember the sorrow I felt when I found out about Barack’s “plan” to take away my rights to go hunting, a tradition that was very important to me and my hunting state of Wisconsin. I was only thirteen at the time, just old enough to claim my first ten-point buck! I knew that Kenyan Muslim Barack Obama would make it illegal for me to join in the tradition that had been in my family for generations.
I looked over the Plan over an over again. I just couldn’t understand. Here is what the handout claimed to be Obama’s Ten Point Plan:
Ban use of firearms for home defense.
Pass Federal laws eliminating your Right-to-Carry.
Ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of hand-guns.
Close down 90% of gun shops in America.
Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
Increase Federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent.
Restore voting rights for five million criminals including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.
Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms.
Mandate a government issued license to purchase a firearm.
Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary who share his views on the second amendment.
Since then I have become an Obama supporter, and I decided to remind all of us of the 2008 accusations brought against our president. On another note, I never did go hunting (and no, Obama did not prohibit me from doing so) and I am a strong believer in Government gun regulation. It has been shown to work in the UK, which enforces some of the toughest gun regulation laws in the World.
Total Firearm related death rate (Per 100,000)
- United States: 10.27 (CDC 2004-2006)
- Great Britain: 0.46 (KRUG 1998)
Intentional Homicide Rate (Per 100,000)
- United States: 4.8 (2011)
- Great Britain: 1.23 (2011)
Please feel free to comment on this, sure to come up in 2012 election, issue! I want to hear your personal opinions and comments regardless of whether we see eye-to-eye on this issue or not.
April 12, 2012
President Barack Obama signs the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 at the White House. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Here is a list of the socialist regime’s actions against the people thus far. I have included a “Socialist-o-meter” rating in parenthesis after each of the bullet points.
The first bill signed by President Obama regarding taxes was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which effectively:
- CUT taxes for 95% of working class families (0/10)
- Gave 70% of the tax cuts to the middle 60% of American workers (4/10)
Then we saw The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Re-authorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 which:
- Extends middle class tax cuts to prevent a typical working family from facing a tax increase of over $2,000 on January 1 (0/10)
- Provides a 2% payroll tax cut to 159 million workers – providing the typical working family with an additional $1,000 tax cut (0/10)
The most recent action being Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 which:
- Extends unemployment insurance so that millions of Americans who are looking for work will still be able to depend on the vital lifeline of unemployment insurance (6/10)
- Includes important reforms that the President proposed in the American Jobs Act to help discourage businesses from laying off workers and to connect workers with jobs. (4/10)
Its a shame, my calculator added that up to be 14/60 in socialist points. I spend over $100 on the damned thing and it doesn’t even know that Obama is a socialist! Now, I do understand that Obama intends to raise the taxes on the 2% of Americans who make over $250,000 a year. If one wants to call this socialism, he must also call Eisenhower a socialist also.
Let us compare the two presidents’ income tax policies for the wealthy:
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
- Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% – 91%
Barack Hussein Obama (Socialist)
- Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $372,950 – over 388,350: 35%
If you feel that any information is inaccurate, feel free to report it. Please prove me wrong, but do not say that I am biased towards Obama without disproving any of the facts I have provided.
April 10, 2012
With an approximate 925 million people suffering from hunger and malnutrition in the World one would assume that their health should take precedent over stopping global warming. That is the basis for Sherwood Idso‘s argument that global warming is, in fact, a good thing.
He does not adhere to the usual debate over whether or not Global Warming is occurring. He argues that increased CO2 is key to
crop fertilization that sustains biodiversity and averts worldwide famine, and since Global Warming increases CO2 it helps reduce starvation.
If Global Warming was reversed by environmentalists and Barack Obama’s alternative energy plans one would expect to see a proportional decrease in available resources. Thus leading to resource wars between struggling leaders in attempt to save their nations.
Such an assertion requires extraordinary research and credible sources. After further research (AKA reading the first line on Idso’s Wikipedia, link here) it came to my attention that Idso’s “research” organization, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, had received donations from Exxon Mobil.
So, just how powerful are corporations? Powerful enough to fund research projects as credible as a creationist argument.