I just added Varifrank to my blogroll, and will add him to my links list at the first opportunity.
Because I didn’t start the blog so I could dig up the obvious on John Kerry. Frankly, its just too easy.
I feel the same. It amazes me that anyone still feels he is Presidential material.
Frank, welcome to my blog world. You have good things to say, and you say them well.
A 527 organization, such as MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are called such due to the section of the IRS tax code they comply with.
According to the IRS, a Section 527 (
H.R.4851 is something you probably haven’t heard about. The bill’s title is “Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2004”. The FreedomWorks web site calls it “A Kennedy-esque Revision.” No, not Ted. One of the smart Kennedys.
On July 20th, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) introduced legislation to reform Social Security the right way — with large personal retirement accounts and without tax increases or benefit cuts. These reform measures would allow all workers the option to invest up to half of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts and harness the impact of compounded interest — what Einstein called the most powerful force in the universe.
Two others co-sponsor the bill–Rep John T. Doolittle of California and Rep Trent Franks of Arizona.
I’ll write to my Congress-Critter and ask him to support it. He won’t.
And neither will folks who get their news from television. They won’t know about it.
I try to maintain balance in my news sources. I may be a right-wing fanatic, but I come by it honestly after paying attention to what all have to say. In the mornings I listen to NPR on the way to work. In the afternoon on the ride home I bounce between Sean Hannity and the local wannabe.
This morning NPR carried a story on gun control and the assault weapons ban about to expire. They were wringing their hands. What got my attention, though, were two lines in the story which made little sense if looked at together.
Assault weapons have always been the weapon of choice for criminals.
Well, I guess that’s true on television and in film. But the next line contradicts that.
Since the ban was instituted, the percentage of gun crimes in which assault weapons have been used has dropped from 5% to 1%.
I guess I could do like Neal Boortz and explain the contradiction for people who were educated in government schools.
I’ve never owned an assault weapon, except when I carried one in the military. I don’t care for them. I have no use for them. When I hunted, I used something far more practical. I doubt many people use them for hunting. What most people who have them use them for is what we used to call “plinking”, or just shooting at some target. Personally, I’d prefer a nice .22, but taste is everything.
The gun control advocates are about to have a conniption fit. But their reason is far deeper than banning assault weapons. This sets back their timetable for the banning of all guns in this country.
Just so you know if you didn’t already.
Once before I wrote about Kipling’s classic poem, and asked readers to consider it when selecting a candidate this year for any office.
Here is my own version of what I would love the RNC to produce for the convention. It is a large PowerPoint file (6MB) so don’t bother if you have dial-up…you’ll be waiting a long time!
***UPDATE*** I’ve added Shockwave and Windows Media Player versions which will be more amenable to most visitors.
Those of you interested in actuals relative to forcast numbers might want to take a look at the Congressional Budget Office’s Monthly Budget Review.
The budget deficit, larger than I want to see, is looking smaller and smaller. I don’t know that a balanced budget is better than a deficit. I’ve heard arguments both ways and really can draw no conclusion. I do want to see them separate Social Security from the general revenues. There was never a true balanced budget since these were merged back in the 1960s as a way to hide deficits.
I want to see spending reduced. And I don’t want increased spending to be called “reduced” simply because it is less than someone desires. Neither party has any interest in doing so because that’s how incumbents keep their jobs.
Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law, or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty? –Teddy Kennedy
I think he should ask Sandy Berger.
Powered by WordPress