Which side of the fence? If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

Got this from bob one of my fb friends

Which side of the fence? If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!


I KNOW without doubt, which side of the fence I sit. Do you?

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn’t buy one.


If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.



If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.

If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for... everyone.



If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.



If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.



If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.

Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.



If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.

A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.



If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.



If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.

A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".

Psalm 2010

Obama is the shepherd I did not want.


He leadeth me beside the still factories.

He restoreth my faith in the Republican party.

He guideth me in the path of unemployment for his party's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,

I shall fear no hunger, for his bailouts are with me.

He has anointed my income with taxes,

My expenses runneth over.

Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life,

And I will live in a mortgaged home forever.

I'm glad I'm American,

I'm glad that I'm free.

But I wish I were a dog .....

And Obama was a tree.

I got this in an email from my uncle, thanks Jerry

Tax Surprises in 2011 in Health Care Bill

Thanks a lot to Obama supporters!!

Be sure to read the third paragraph from the bottom.

Tax Surprise in 2011
This is going to happen, get ready for it.


Here's something to think about when your 2011 taxes are due!!!

One of the surprises we'll find come next year,
is what follows - - a little "surprise" that
99% of us had no idea was included in the "new
and improved" healthcare legislation . . .the
dupes, er, dopes, who backed this
administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your
W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be
increased to show the value of whatever
health insurance you are given by the
company It does not matter if that's a
private concern or governmental body of
some sort. If you're retired? So what;
your gross will go up by the amount of
insurance you get.

You will be required to pay taxes on a large
sum of money that you have never seen. Take
your tax form you just finished and see what
$15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to
your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next
year. For many, it also puts you into a new
higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy
insurance for the15% that don't have insurance
and it's only part of the tax increases.

Not believing this??? Here is a research of
the summaries.....

On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS-
SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec.
9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002
"requires employers to include in the W-2 form
of each employee the aggregate cost of
applicable employer sponsored group health
coverage that is excludable from the employees
gross income."

Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the
Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplingers and read
about 13 tax changes that could affect you.
Number 3 is what is above.

Read the 13 tax changes in the health bill
http://tinyurl.com/yk5xeqp

Wonder if we will be taxed for the value of
medicare and tricare insurance?

People have the right to know the truth because
an election is coming in November.

Un Gun Ban Threatens First and Second Amendments

  Don't Believe Anything They Tell You

 We all know that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution which seeks to get our guns.  They are going forward with this agenda to attack on American sovereignty by stripping our rights to bear arms.  I'm sure everybody knows that all UN Treaties are supposed to be ratified by the Senate but we saw health care crammed down our throats.  They used back alley deals and all the tricks so don't be fooled by anything they say.  The President has stated publicly that he doesn't want to get rid of our gun rights, Then ask yourself why sign the Treaty?  The president along with the progressive left know they have no chance of getting 67 Senators to agree with this.  They will use an end run around the Constitution to attack the rights of American citizens by other means.

 They are working on the language of this bill right now, working towards the 2012 UN conference  when this will be pushed forward.  Establishing the dates for the Arms Trade Treaty Conference is the first step in the attempt to ban small arms and total gun confiscation.  We have a enemy of gun ownership in Hillary Clinton who will push Senators to ratify this treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU. The UN is filled with many countries who hate our FREEDOMS and Ambassador Bolton knows what to expect from them.  He has personally given his warning to gun owners to oppose this and fight against the treaty.

     Just let me give you some highlights of what the treaty would do

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;


*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION. So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators before it’s too late!

You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

We must stop this at all costs, are best defense is making sure all of Senators are informed of our displeasure with this treaty.

You can sign a petition through the National Association for Gun Rights. Click Here

We must never give up are rights, NOT ONE MORE

IN GOD WE TRUST

Naturalization Act of 1798

  The Third Immigration Policy in our History

 This very short lived immigration policy is barely a footnote in our history.  Adams enacted this in 1798 and Thomas Jefferson repealed it in 1802.  Adams claimed the law was for national security but most historians believe it was to block new immigrants from voting.  Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans where the opposition to Adams Federalist Party.  You can see the divided politics has been going on since the founding about the direction of the United States.  This Immigration policy basically only made it take longer to become a citizen once arriving here but they had to declare they wished to do so.

 The first immigration policies 1790 said you didn't have to declare and must be a resident for two years before be eligible for citizenship.  The 1795 act changed you had wait at least three years after declaring to become a citizen and you must have lived in the United States for five years.  Adams law pushed the declare to five years and residence to 14 years trying to control the upcoming elections. (maybe sound a little familiar) Of all of these where for free White and European citizens as slavery was still prominent.  This act is the first to record immigration, maintain records of residence, and make certificates of residence.  Adams party was losing ground and this act was his attempt to help him keep the Presidency.

 While the problem has changed over the years immigration has evolved many times.  We now have a President who would like to use Amnesty to gain votes for his party. If you believe he has any other motives you would be fooling yourselves but the votes is what he and Democrats covet.  It's why the left and Democrats paint anybody not for comprehensive immigration reform (Amnesty) as hating people of color. We tried this once before (1986) immigration act which gave amnesty and nothing has changed for our Federal Government has failed us.  We want hard working people of all countries to come here, We want them to enjoy this Country, We want them to have the freedoms we have.  We ask only that you come legally, We don't believe this is too much to ask.

  

Defending "The Principles of 1776

   Jefferson about the Constitution and the Country

 The national elections in 1800 were to become the battleground for returning the government to these "principles of 1776." Jefferson characteristically kept himself out of the spotlight, preferring to wield his influence through Republican Congressional leaders and newspaper editors. But although his guiding hand was seldom visible, he played a very active role in the campaign. Throughout 1799 and 1800, he held numerous private meetings and wrote scores of letters to define the principles felt should govern national policy. One of these communications, written to Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, sounded almost like a party platform.

   "I do... with sincere zeal wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal Constitution according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the states, that in which it was advocated by its friends and not that which its enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies; and I am opposed to the monarchizing its features by the forms of its administration, with a view to conciliate a first transition to a President and Senate for life, and from that to a hereditary tenure of the offices, and thus to worm out the elective principle.
  I am for preserving to the states the powers not yielded by them to the Union, and to the legislature of the Union [i.e., Congress] its constitutional share in the division of powers; and I am not for transferring all the powers of the states to the general government, and all those of that government to the executive branch.
  I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing by every device the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing....
  I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance or joining in the confederacy of kings to war against the principles of liberty.
  I am for freedom of religon, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another; for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, or our citizens against the conduct of their agents." (Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry Jan. 26, 1799), Bergh 10:76-78

 This comes from The Real Thomas Jefferson pages 202-203, I have read this book serveral times for his wisdom about the Constitution holds sound today.  Those that wish to diminish the Founders call them Eliteist white men seeking more power and riches. I have heard more than one liberal say they wouldn't have anything to do with Tea Party movement of today and I disagree.  I heard one talk about that Jefferson gave lavish lunches to guests many times during his eight years in office.  They have this completely right. What they fail to mention is that Jefferson paid for them himself, accumilating a $10,000 debt after he left office.  Those who are so critical of us who seek the Founders wisdom are the ones trying to destroy what they built. We have allowed the perversion of our Constitution, We have allowed our Government to grow out of control, We have allowed our faiths to be questioned, We have allowed our Justice to become flawed and We have allowed corruption in Washington to go unchecked.

 Thomas Jefferson would be leading this Tea Party not ignoring it or calling it names, Where is are Thomas Jefferson of today? 

In God We Trust

Visit My Tshirt Store

An Historical Perspective on Today's Tea Parties

In recent months, Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Parties have come under unrelenting criticism from the national media and several national organizations. (Significantly, Liberals and Progressives are the most fixated on discrediting Tea Parties.)




Yet, I find that the Tea Parties represent a welcome addition to the national political scene and public policy debate. I especially appreciate the fact that they focus more on principles than policies – that so many of their meetings are dedicated to learning more about the Constitution, American Exceptionalism, and the principles of limited government.



But like any new movement, they have made mistakes; and they have said things they did not understand that the national media would misportray; but that's understandable. The members of the Tea Parties are largely citizens who have been previously uninvolved in the political process and are therefore largely inexperienced with its lurking snares.



Is there an historical perspective on this "new" movement? I was asked by a newspaper to do an op-ed piece on that question. In case you're interested, I've enclosed that article below (which can also be downloaded). Enjoy!

- - - * * * - - -



Tea Parties – Same Song, Second Verse





America's first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation. Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The "Indians" even swept the decks of the ships before they left.



Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales. And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent, but such was not the case.



Interestingly, in many ways, today's Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the "American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act"). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.



Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.



"To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones." "Avoid occasions of expense...and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions...to discharge the debts." George Washington

"Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to...extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt." Alexander Hamilton

"The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness." "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." Thomas Jefferson

These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; (2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget; (4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress. Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that while Americans differ on the way they view the Tea Parties, they support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one.



Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: "My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad." But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.



The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today's Tea Party rallies when he said: "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!"

God Bless!


David Barton

Check out David Bartons website here  WALLBUILDERS