About that birth certificate, I still have some questions I would like answered

You would probably consider me a birther but considering that the Hillary supporters are the ones who brought the birth certificate issue forward and I was never a Hillary supporter, I don’t consider myself a birther.  However, I have been following the birth certificate issue since it was brought up as an issue.  When I saw the one that Obama released I immediately felt like it was a fraudulent copy even though at the time I couldn’t put my finger on why.  A few things have come to mind over the time, besides what others have put forward, so until I find answers to those issues, I continue to not believe it is a copy of his original birth certificate.  I really have never believed that this was much of an issue to put forth because there are so many other things that can be discussed about his presidency as well as other issues, such as his admittance that his father was a British subject which gave him dual citizenship and his adoption by his stepfather who became his legal father that makes the whole birth certificate issue moot.

In regards to my issues with the birth certificate, I am sure my eyes picked up on things that I didn’t realize that made me suspect it was a fake.  For instance, I think the letters on the birth certificate are just a little too far apart, which is a big difference between typewriter type and computer type.  I also wonder why the twins birth certificate has a different registrar’s signature than Obama.  I would think that this is a position held by one person so the signature should be the same.  Besides the fact as many have noted U K Le Lee appears to be very similar to the word Ukelele. Finally, if he was adopted, why hasn’t his birth certificate been changed to show this?  As far as I know, once you are adopted or have your name changed then this is shown as changed on your birth certificate.

Then, today I read this post by Lame Cherry.  I found a copy of the birth certificate and blew up as large as I could the signature of  Dr. Onaka, and saw exactly what Lame Cherry points out is on the birth certificate.  (Sorry, Lame Cherry, I follow the advice of Reagan of trust but verify.)  So, I makes me wonder if it is like a point that was brought up earlier in that Obama intentionally brought out a fake copy of his birth certificate in order to create havoc with those who find issues with it because his supporters and the media will continue to believe him when he tells them whatever they want to hear.

I’m still wondering why Trump made such an issue of the birth certificate and then once it was released he shut up.  I remember hearing him say that experts would look at it.  I also remember him saying that he is used to seeing a lot of fraudulent documents in the real estate world.  I also remember that Trump was a Hillary supporter until she had the nomination stolen from her…and then he became a puma by supporting McCain.  Everything comes full circle.

Political thoughts of the day

This morning I woke up to hearing a comment being said about how great it is that Obama is willing to quote scripture and talk about Easter when it isn’t politically correct to do so.  I wanted to scream at them, what about last year when he refused to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer, and if I remember correctly cancelled it.  Don’t you find it interesting that he is more Christian than last year?  Hmm, I wonder what the difference can be?  Could it be that he has announce is once again in campaign mode since he just announced that he is running for a second term?

Enough about the pResident, because I actually have been thinking about Trump running for President lately.  But, before I talk about Trump, I will say that I really like Sarah Palin, but there is one little point about her that is making me feel like she won’t be a strong enough President. It is the fact that she picks venues to speak at and interviews to give that are safe.  Many times, she is preaching to the choir.  Maybe it is something that the choir needs to hear, but it is still a bit too safe for me.  I can see why she doesn’t want to deal with the LSM, but at the same time, if she can’t deal with them on her terms then how will she be seen as strong enough by other world leaders.  I just don’t feel like she can hold her own as the leader of the free world.  Until I see an interview that is not in a safe venue, I can’t support her as President.

I think she is in a great position to speak out and ensure that this country goes back to the roots of what the founding fathers wanted this country to be.  I once was told that while the Republic they founded was imperfect, it could be looked at as being imperfect for a reason.  I’m all about less government for the simple reason when we let the government do for us and for others, we lose a lot more than we realize.  When we expect the government to take care of the homeless, we lose a bit of the part of us that needs to care for others and want to help others.  I think that by letting the government do this, we have become too selfish to help others.  Speaking of this, and then I will return to my first comment, I think that the tax code should allow 100% deductions to charitable organizations no matter what income level you are at.  While people may give for the tax benefit at the same time they are thinking about doing for others, even if at a very small level.

I have been reading a lot of comments and blog posts that talk about Trump not even being a RINO but a Democrat in sheep’s clothing.  I can see how many can see this of him.  I am surprised that I find myself agreeing with him in what I am hearing from him. But, at the same time, I can see that he is probably more old school Democrat when there was a much thinner line separating the two parties when it comes to their platforms.  His donations to Democrats don’t bother me too much because it is due to two things.
The first is that he lives in very blue states, so it really is hard to support a Republican that can win.  The second is that at his level, he has to donate to those he thinks will win as a form of protection money.  I read that he had made a statement that there should be a 1 time tax on the extremely wealthy to help get us back on level ground economically.  I was disappointed to find out that he stated this in 1999.  (While I do find it interesting that he thought we needed to do that when Clinton was supposed to have been such a strong President when it came to the economy.  Actually, I realize that there was somewhat of a fake economy at the time due to dot coms and Y2K preparation that had increased salaries out of the normal range in some areas.)  But, without realizing the time frame of when he said it, I thought it made perfect sense for now.  I would want a protection to be made where it could only happen one time.  But, economically speaking, I do think in a way it would stimulate the economy if it put a lot of other long term tax deductions and spending cuts in the mix.  I say this because when the stock market crashed in 2008, most high end investors lost about 25% of the value of their investments.  I am sure that they would be willing to lose a portion of that in order to be put in the position to gain it back based on a better economy.  I know I usually say that taxes don’t stimulate the economy, but until we stop the spending and get rid of the debt, the economy is going to be standing still.

Finally, please put two and two together if you don’t realize this.  Corporations do not pay taxes.  Granted, they file long tax returns just like you do showing how much money they made, their deductions, and then the amount they have due and just like you this income is based on money that they have received for products and services rendered.  Here is the thing that I don’t think liberals realize.  The money they receive for products and services comes from consumers.  It may take a step or two before it gets to a individual consumer if they are a business to business service provider.  But, they figure in what they expect to pay for taxes into the cost of doing business and then put this in the cost that they charge the consumer.  So, you are basically paying a portion of their tax when you purchase any service or product from a corporation.  So, if you want to pay higher prices on your purchases than lets make sure that corporations pay more than their share of tax.  Or you can just send pay more when you buy items and tell the cashier to tell the corporation to apply this to their tax general ledger line items or you can pay the IRS more when you pay your taxes with a note that since you want to make sure corporations pay a higher tax, you have figured out this is the amount you would have paid the corporations for items if they had been charged at the higher rate.  Sounds kind of stupid doesn’t it.  Personally, I am wondering if the economy would thrive if corporations tax rates were greatly reduced.  I suspect it would because why state and local governments give tax breaks to corporations that move into their areas.

Obama and the missing birth certificate and other documents

I haven’t really discussed the Obama birth certificate issue not because I think it is a birther issue but because there are a lot of things he has done that I think needs to be spotlighted.  However, I will just ask you a few questions so you can make a decision on how important you think it is.  Where is your birth certificate?  When was the last time you had to produce it for some reason, such as to get a job, get a passport or get a driver’s license?  Would you hire someone that refused to show you their birth certificate or other documentation that was requested?

I have read most of the theories that are out there about why Obama refuses to show WE THE PEOPLE his birth certificate.  I have my favorite theories.  But, what it comes down to is that HE has not shown us the respect that the President should by not filling in the blanks to his life.

Such as:

How did a C student transfer to Columbia University?

Student loans were not that available while he was in college, how did he afford to live and attend school in NYC?

How did he manage to go through a program where no one remembers him?

Why is he not in any of the yearbooks at Columbia?

What clubs or organizations did he join while he was at Columbia?

What name did he use while he was at Columbia?

Who paid for him to attend Harvard Law School?

Why did he not publish any articles in the Harvard Law Review?

Why did he relinquish his law license in Illinois?

Why does he use his birth father’s name, when he was adopted by his stepfather, did he legally change his name back?

These are just the ones that come to my mind, I’m sure that you have some you would like to add in the comments

 

 

 

Obama partying more important than questions on our taxes

The big news today is that Obamacorn left President Clinton to lead a presidential press conference because dear wifey had been left waiting for 30 minutes so that they could go to the White House Party. First thought, once again he is putting partying before work. But, then other pictures came to mind and it would make a nice post to put them all in one place.

Is he wondering if we won’t notice what he is missing if he holds his hands right there?

 

Looks like he is thinking that we won’t know he is the President if the seal isn’t on the podium when he speaks.

 

Let the man who can do while he decides to party

So is this what he really thought being president was all about – keeping wifey happy and partying while real men do the work?

After two years, he looks and acts less presidential than he did when he first became president. So, much for on the job training. God help this country. How weak is he appearing to leaders of other countries when he walks away from a key issue of his presidency to go to a party by leaving a civilian to answer questions from the press. (As far as I know a former president is to be called by the president title but I don’t believe he is anything but a civilian after leaving office.)

What was so funny about your Christmas tree comment, Joy Behar?

I really didn’t get the joke, and it didn’t sound like anyone else did or they like me realized it was a way to insult the blind to make you feel better about yourself.

I’m a bit confused because I thought that liberals always were compassionate and tolerate of others, especially people with disabilities. But, today on the view, Joy Behar was describing how terrible of a job she had done on her tree. How did she describe it? She said that it looked like Stevie Wonder decorated the tree. What is even worse, is that her comment was so horrible that she had to explain her “joke.” It was such a horrible comment I can’t even call it a joke, although she was laughing the loudest at her “joke.” Gee, what a nice joke to make using a person’s disability as a way to describe how horrible a job she did on her tree. Oh, yeah, I get it now. It is okay for liberals to make fun of people’s disabilities if it makes them look like they are better than someone else. Remember, that Obama set the bar that low when he compared his bowling abilities to the Special Olympics.

All I got to say if being a liberal means that you are mean to others and make sarcastic jokes about others that make you feel better about yourself, I’ll take being a compassionate and tolerant conservative because I am a person who would help someone with a disability rather than find them as “comedy” material to use.

Soros investments pay off when it comes to the new scanners

I wanted to link this article about Soros and the money he is making on the new airport scanners. Gee, isn’t it interesting that whatever decision Obama or the White House makes that is bad for the citizens of this country seems to be a money maker for Soros. For instance, look at how much money Soros made when oil drilling was stopped in the gulf. People living in the gulf lost a lot but Soros invested in offshore drilling in Brazil with a little company named Petrobras.

From Gateway Pundit

Tax Breaks for all?

I read this post on Michelle Malkin All or nothing: Stop the Obama tax increases

This is what Obama has said about giving the tax breaks to all.

Obama said giving the tax break to people earning more than $250,000 a year will cost the country $700 billion over the next 10 years.

This is what Michelle Malkin replies to that part of what he said.

All or nothing: Stop the Obama tax increases
By Michelle Malkin • November 8, 2010 09:53 AM

I’m going to keep repeating it until they stop saying it.

Republicans, you are not fighting for the extension of the “Bush tax cuts.”

You are fighting to STOP THE OBAMA TAX INCREASES.

All of them.

As I noted on Friday, when voters got the chance to soak the rich in Washington state, they overwhelmingly rejected onerous, punitive taxes to redistribute wealth from private job creators and future private job creators to government schools and government health care programs.

Over the weekend, Obama said he is willing to have a “serious conversation” about temporary tax relief for all.

Yeah, we know how Obama’s Kabuki “conversations” end (reminder: smitten Smurfs).

The feint:

President Obama is not ready to cave in to Republican demands that Bush-era tax cuts must be extended to wealthy Americans.

Obama told “60 Minutes” that he is ready to work with Republicans on the hotly debated issue, but he stopped short of saying he is ready to compromise with the GOP.

“We’re gonna have to have a serious conversation about it,” he said in his first interview since Democrats were massacred at the polls on Election Day.

The dispute centers around whether to extend the tax cuts to families earning less than $250,000, which both parties want, or giving the cuts to all Americans, which the GOP wants.

Raising taxes for middle class Americans, the President said, “is the last thing we want right now.”

The cuts are set to expire by the end of this year.

Obama said giving the tax break to people earning more than $250,000 a year will cost the country $700 billion over the next 10 years.

Obama isn’t “giving” anything. He’s taking. And taking. And taking.

Obama and the Democrat ruling majority took trillions from wealth-creating Americans in the name of an “emergency situation”

He tripled the deficit.

Sold hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. debt to China.

And now he’s worried about fiscal responsibility?

Here is what I say about it. Umm, remember when Carter decided to raise taxes on luxury items. You know the items that the wealthy can afford and buy so as a way to tax the wealthy that can afford those items the democrats decided to put a special tax on those items. Sounds great doesn’t it? Let’s get some taxes on the wealthy by taxing items that only the can afford to pay. One word – Yachts. Yep, Carter and the Democratic controlled congress decided to tax Yachts. And guess what happened, people didn’t buy yachts so they wouldn’t have to pay the taxes. So, the country lost out on the tax revenue. But, what is even worse is that this luxury tax that was to hit that 1% that earns more money so they should pay more than their share to the country actually hit the middle class who made the yachts.

From hubpages

Even when taxes are carefully crafted to only include the real rich, there can be a nasty surprise for the middle class and the nation as happened with the Carter Administration’s tax on yachts. After whipping up the publics’ emotions with their usual class warfare rhetoric (remember Carter’s campaign against the so-called three martini lunch deduction?) President Carter and his Democrat controlled Congress enacted a stiff tax on the purchase of yachts. Given that only the super rich can afford a yacht, this should have been the ideal tax on the rich. But the Carter Administration overlooked two things. First, the rich, like everyone else, hates to waste money. Second, and more important, while only the rich buy yachts, it is middle class workers who build yachts. As a result of the tax, most rich people did one of two things in that they either made do with last year’s yacht or purchased a new one abroad where the tax did not apply. In doing so, the small American yacht industry was destroyed (one New Jersey town whose economy was totally dependent on yacht building faced economic disaster) and associated jobs and income tax revenues (unemployed people generally pay little or no income tax) were lost. This little episode only served to further weaken the nation’s economy which, as a result of the misguided Keynesian taxing and spending policies of the Nixon and Carter administrations, was struggling under the dual burden of double digit inflation AND double digit unemployment.

The yacht tax fiasco, which even if it had been successful, was never projected to generate significant revenue. It was instead, driven more by a desire to punish the rich for their success than to raise revenue. However, the yacht tax is a clear demonstration of the truth of former President Regan’s observation that Washington doesn’t solve our problems, it IS the problem.

This is what is going on right now. Companies are worried about what taxes they are going to have to pay so they are not trying to grow their businesses, instead they are just trying to exist. This is impacting their workforce, which is trickling down to the middle class workers who either have been laid off and are job searching or who are terrified they will be laid off. Everyone is in a holding pattern right now trying to figure out what to do as Congress keeps adding taxes without realizing that it isn’t about giving us our money it is about letting us keep our money, spend our money to help boost the economy! Besides, just remember that if they decide to only allow those who make under $250,000 to keep their tax breaks, when will rich become $200,000, and then $50,000.