Archive for October, 2011

A Halloween Fright Song….


A Halloween Fright Song….




T’was the night before elections


And all through the town


Tempers were flaring


Emotions all up and down






I, in my bathrobe


With a cat in my lap


Had cut off the TV


tired of political clap-trap




When all of a sudden


There arose such a noise


I peered out my window


Saw Obama and his boys






They had come for my wallet


They wanted my pay


To give to the others


Who had not worked a day!




He snatched up my money


And quick as a wink


Jumped back on his bandwagon


As I gagged from the stink




He then rallied his henchmen


Who were pulling his cart


I could tell they were out


To tear my country apart!




‘On Fannie, on Freddie,


On Biden and Ayers!


On Acorn, On Pelosi’


He screamed at the pairs!


They took off for his cause


And as they flew out of sight


I heard him laugh at the nation


Who wouldn’t stand up and fight!


So I leave you to think


On this one final note—




















The One Percent

How do your Congressional members stack up?

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) this month issued the latest edition of its annual Congressional Ratings, identifying those members of Congress whose stellar voting records earned them the moniker “Taxpayer Hero” or “Super Hero” and those who consistently voted against the fiscal interests of taxpayers.  CCAGW also launched a new, interactive website,, so constituents can not only see how their elected officials stack up, but also contact them regarding their ratings.  The latest edition of the Ratings covers 46 votes in the House of Representatives and 62 votes in the Senate during the second session of the 111th Congress in 2010.  The average rating for the entire House was 40 percent, up 9 percentage points from 2009, while the Senate averaged 42 percent, a 3 percentage point increase from the prior year.  Six representatives achieved “Taxpayer Super Hero” status with a rating of 100 percent, while 144 House members, 62 percent more than in 2009, were “Taxpayer Heroes” with a grade of 80 percent or above.  The number of representatives – all Democrats – posting a perfectly abysmal score of zero dropped from 105 to 30.  However, that list still includes Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.), and House Ways & Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-Mich.).  The Senate boasted four “Taxpayer Super Heroes” and 35 “Taxpayer Heroes,” up from 29 the prior year, but 19 Senators scored zero, compared to none in 2009.  Find out how your members of Congress stack up in CCAGW’s 2010 Ratings.

Chip Wood : Please Mr. Buffett, Shut Up!


From Personal Liberty Alerts:

October 28, 2011 by 

Please, Mr. Buffett, Shut Up!

A new group has launched a website to counter the Occupy Wall Street message: We Are The 53%.

I don’t know which I’m more tired of hearing: Barack Obama gloating that one of the richest men in America supports his tax-the-rich efforts, or Warren Buffett whining that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does.

Let me state for the record that both men are playing fast and loose with the truth, and they both know it.

It is true that Buffett pays a relatively low rate in taxes on most of his income. That’s because it’s not his salary that matters, but what he receives in dividends from his investments. Such dividends are currently taxed at 15 percent a year. If he pays his secretary a decent wage, which I’m sure he does, her tax rate is surely much higher.

But what Warren doesn’t include in his calculations are the taxes that have already been paid on those dividends before he receives them. You see, corporations must pay Uncle Sam 35 percent of all the profits they make before they can send any of those profits to the owners of the company — that is, the shareholders.

This tax rate, by the way, is one of the highest in the Western world. It explains why our most profitable companies that do business around the world — such multinational giants as Coca-Cola Co. and McDonald’s Corp., where Uncle Warren just happens to be a major shareholder — keep most of their profits offshore. Why should they bring those dollars back to the United States, where they would immediately get cut by 35 percent?

This explains why U.S. companies have decided to leave most of their offshore profits overseas. A recent estimate indicated more than $1.5 trillion in unrepatriated profits are held in foreign bank accounts, rather than being put to work building new factories and new products back home.

How many new jobs could that money create if it were put to work back here? Well, if a $400 billion jobs program could create 2.5 million new jobs (something I seriously doubt), then all those repatriated profits would go a long way to ending unemployment in the United States.

That won’t happen under the present Democrat rule.

But let’s get back to the taxes Buffett pays. If you add his 15 percent capital gains tax to the 35 percent tax on corporate profits, it shows the Federal government gets almost 45 percent of every dollar in taxed profits that Warren’s companies earn.

The bite from government doesn’t stop there. Nebraska also charges a 6.84 percent State income tax. There is also a 5.5 percent State sales tax assessed on most of the purchases residents there make. Oh, and let’s not forget an additional 1.5 percent sales tax Omaha, Neb., collects.

Of course, more than half of that amount is removed before Warren sees it, so it’s easy to see why he could overlook it in his calculations. But believe me, he knows it is happening. There are very few business owners in America who are as good at analyzing a balance sheet as the Sage of Omaha.

Think of it: Almost two-thirds of every dollar his companies earn and would like to pay him goes to government. And he doesn’t think it’s enough? C’mon, Warren, play straight with us here.

By the way, let me make one more point about America’s second-richest man before continuing.

Buffet has reduced his already low tax bill quite a bit more by making charitable contributions. I don’t know the full total, but he’s given away at least $50 billion to the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation. Just think, if he hadn’t taken the deduction, that’s several billion dollars he would have paid in Federal taxes.

But why stop there? If he really believes the Federal government deserves the money, why didn’t he send it all to Uncle Sam? Why, the extra $50 billion would have been enough to cover the deficit for almost 1.25 days.

Hmmm, when you put it that way, it doesn’t sound like very much, does it?

It’s too bad that Warren didn’t listen to his father more. Howard Buffet was a very conservative Republican Congressman who criticized growing government power back in the 1940s and ’50s. Think what he’d say today!

Warren’s dad didn’t like the graduated income tax and blamed the 13th Amendment for many of our financial ills. His son thinks millionaires don’t pay enough in taxes and seems pleased that Barack Obama likes to call his tax-the-rich efforts “the Buffett tax.” My, how things have changed out there in Omaha!

One last point before I leave this topic for today. I’ve been amused to see how many critics have jumped on Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 proposal to change the tax system in this countrybecause it’s regressive.

By “regressive,” those opponents mean it slaps an unfair burden on the poor. This is a great example of how the left likes to turn the meaning of words upside down. In the old days, everyone admitted that the Federal income tax was progressive, meaning that the more you earned, the greater percentage you had to pay in taxes. To the advocates of Big Nanny government, this was eminently “fair.”

Of course, those of us who pointed out that a progressive income tax was a key plank in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto were mocked, scorned and shouted down — when we weren’t totally ignored. But now the argument has become so turned around, the advocates of big government claim that if we tax everyone equally, we’ve suddenly become regressive.

Let me point out that none of these people oppose the most regressive tax in America: the numerous lotteries various States run. Studies have proved over and over again that the poorest third of our population spends the biggest proportion of available cash on lottery tickets.

It’s no surprise that many of them are addicted to the something-for-almost-nothing promise of this form of State-sponsored gambling. But at least they’re not allowed to buy lottery tickets with those fancy government-issued credit cards that have replaced food stamps. At least, I don’t think they are.

Probably every adult in America will agree that the present tax system isn’t fair. Getting them to agree on what should replace it is another matter entirely. It doesn’t help when the President of the country and our second-richest citizen conspire to fudge the facts.

As I said at the beginning of this piece: Please, Mr. Buffett, shut up.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Jesus, Even The Mention of Your Name….

Jesus, Even The Mention of Your Name….

by L. J. Martin

Judge James Harvie Wilkinson III of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in a majority opinion has ruled:  legislative invocations offered in Jesus’ name are inherently “sectarian” and thus should be censored lest they make some attendees feel “uncomfortable, unwelcome and unwilling to participate in…public affairs.”

This a victory of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State in a lawsuit against a board of county commissioners in North Carolina, whose members don’t believe they should have to forbid volunteers from mentioning the name of Jesus in prayers offered before their meetings.

To be truthful, I’m surprised they’re allowed to have prayers before their meetings in today’s “anti-God” climate in America.

God, go to the back of the line.

I find it particularly interesting that the First Amendment to the Constitution begins: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:…

What makes our courts think they can override this simple statement: “prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

I also wonder, in this United States of America, does anyone attend a public meeting who is surprised to find Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc., etc. in the crowd?  Is anyone offended when the atheist or agnostic does not participate in a prayer, or when a Muslim ends his prayer, or his statement to a board of commissioners with “praise Allah?”

Sorry, but I think our courts are infringing upon our freedoms, upon the very nature of a free America, and upon our constitutional rights when they dictate anything regarding religion in or out of a public venue.

That said, should a board of commissioners dictate that only Jesus may be mentioned in a pre-meeting or post-meeting prayer, or that only the name of Jesus may be used in the context of any speaker’s arguments during a meeting, then they are in violation of the constitution, and common decency, and respect for their fellow Americans.  Or when a prayer drones on and becomes a “time constraint” imposition.  Imposition on your fellows is different than stating your beliefs, simply and briefly.  Common sense should rule, but that’s been far from the decisions of our courts for many years.  Common sense is not mentioned in the Constitution, so why should our courts concern themselves with such a mundane concept?

The first definition of “providence” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: 1) a: often capitalized: divine guidance or care. b) capitalized: God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny.

I point out that definition in regard to the following, two of whom were signers of the Constitution and the other who’s one of the most respected of our forefathers:

“(The adoption of the Constitution) will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible even in the course of human affairs can ever designate it.” George Washington

“I regard it (the Constitution) as the work of the purest patriots and wisest statesmen that ever exists, aided by the smiles of a benignant (gracious) Providence…it almost appears a Divine interposition in our behalf….”  Daniel Webster (Daniel Webster (1782-1852), of Massachusetts, has been called the “Expounder [to explain in detail] of the Constitution”.)

“I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance (as the framing of the Constitution)…should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that…beneficent Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being.”  Benjamin Franklin (Because of his poor health, Benjamin Franklin needed help to sign the Constitution. As he did so, tears streamed down his face.)

In our Declaration of Independence appear the words: God, Creator, Supreme Judge, and divine Providence.  All capitalized, all references to a Supreme Being…all references to God.

If prominent religions offer one consistency it’s morality, (other than Islam…you can’t dictate the death of non-believers and claim morality).  Still a Muslim should be able to invoke the name of Allah.  And a witch the name of whatever/whomever they believe.  Or an atheist no name at all.

Taking religion out of our schools and our public venues portends the downfall of America in my opinion.  It seems our courts want no vestige of religion anywhere it might have a positive effect on America’s youth.  And religion, ladies and gentlemen, is generally very positive.

What is it about our forefathers, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution…and, yes, religion… that engenders so much disdain from our courts?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you want a moral America, tell your administration, your legislators, and particularly your courts to get the hell out of the issue of religion in America and get with the Constitution, before we’re all bound for Hell.

L. J. Martin is the author of 28 books and dozens of articles in national publications.  He writes the conservative blog  He lives in Montana with his wife, an NYT bestselling internationally published author.  For more about Martin see


Obama at the tits….