Tom - On Life

Okay, so I’ll leave the politics to the other guys. I have more pressing matters to bring to your attention.


I’m at a position in life where I can fly first class. No, not because I have an airline credit card with mileage rewards and use it to pay for an order of McNuggets at McDonalds like so many of you losers do (and then pay 24% interest on it when you don’t pay it off at the end of the month). I can afford to fly first class. So there. As annoying as

waiting in a drive thru at McDonalds while you pay for a Happy Meal with a credit card can be, there is at least one other thing that is worse. Me traveling on an eight-hour flight in first class and having you bring your children into the first class section. I know you’re asking ‘if you ride first class, why are you at the McDonalds drive through?’ Simple, I always buy lunch for the landscapers. Getting back to the point at hand, kids don’t belong in first class. As a matter of fact, they don’t belong in the airplane. They should ride in the cargo hold in a little crate. Hey, it’s good enough for my dogs. And I have expensive dogs. After being run into during the pre-boarding process by the largest and most expensive stroller that Costco sells, there’s nothing like relaxing in the first class accommodations only to have your peaceful fight disturbed by a crying child. I will cut the rude, inconsiderate parents some slack for not being able to push the stroller any better that they can drive their over sized SUV, but they should make a ‘right’ when getting on the plane and not a ‘left’. Yep, if ya just gotta fly with the little bastard, head to the coach section. I mean the screams of some of those brats can penetrate even the upgraded headphones provided to us first class travelers. And no need to let the cute little walking, blabbering, drooling annoyance wander through first class looking to meet new friends. I’ve seen 13 month olds before. Yours isn’t unique. He’s as obnoxious as the rest of the little irritants and chances are he smells just as bad. I can’t enjoy a nice glass of Chablis as the odor of a wet diaper and baby power wafts through the cabin. So do us all a favor. Stay home. Maybe think about a driving vacation. As a last resort, go bother the people in coach. Or, if you must venture into first class, please stow and secure your child either under your seat or in the overhead storage bin. He can be used as a flotation device if we land in the ocean.


Another group who can stay home are the sick. Not the disabled. I’m cool with the wheel chairs getting on the plane first. At lot of those people are as productive as the next person and deserve a break. What I’m talking about are the truly sick. You know, the folks with the oxygen bottles and those who have to be pushed on the plane and then dumped in their seat by a relative. A relative who’s probably going to be back down the jet way before their sick kinfolk’s ‘Depends’ hits the coach class seat cushion. As if to say, ‘Adios, they’re your problem now.’ Just why do these people have to get on a plane? They’re obviously too far-gone to be going anywhere for medical treatment. Put them in the cargo area with the kids and ship them as air cargo. After all, that’s how they’ll probably be making their next and last trip in the not too distant future. Or, if they just have to say their farewells, have their able bodied relatives come and visit them. And, in the biggest injustice, like the little kids they actually get to board BEFORE the first class passengers. In addition, and also like the little kids, the sick take up a disproportionate amount of the flight attendant’s time. The flight attendant could be doing something productive (like pouring me another drink) rather than tending to the ‘needs’ of the sick and the children.



So, kids, let’s make a deal, You stay out of First Class and I’ll stay out of Chuck E Cheese. As for you sick folks, it’s a lot more convenient for me if you die on the ground than at 38,000 feet.

Sgt. Hulka on Palestine

We know Palestine wasn't blog of the week. But a friend of the Pen, Sgt Hulka has a stance, and we want to post his thoughts on the subject. Sgt Hulka keeps it short and sweet:

It's Biblical, all about a bowl of soup and a birth right! There will be no settlement until the final battle, and I know who wins that one! Nothing man can do will work this out. There will be wars and threats of wars.

We're going to re-attack the immigration bill for blog of the week again this week. If you have any thoughts, comment on the previous blogs, or email us your blog to post.

Christian on "Immigration"

We the People…

I can't remember a time in my life when those three words have had more meaning. Today, and over the last several days those three words reverberated through the hallowed halls of Washington like a ringing bell of atonement. Finally, the politicians that we hired to look after our affairs have heard our voice about the president's failed attempt at immigration reform.

Now that we have their attention, maybe they'll take notice when we speak out against the lack of enforcement at our borders. One case in particular which should bare an equal amount of outrage is the incomprehensible prosecution of border agents Ignacio Ramos, and Jose Compean. These two agents are serving extensive jail terms for protecting the sovereignty of the United States, and for doing their job. They used force in an attempt to arrest an illegal immigrant carrying a van load of marijuana across the border into our country. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the ridiculous drug laws in this country, but that's a debate for another day. The fact of the matter is they are paid to protect our borders, and that's what landed them in jail. The illegal immigrant they shot trying to flee back to Mexico was given full immunity in exchange for his testimony to the shooting. I don't know about the rest of you, but what playbook is the DA and homeland security looking at. The wrongful imprisonment of these two agents is wrong on so many different levels, that I cannot begin to wrap my head around it.

Now that we got the full attention of our elected leaders, it is time we voiced our outrage on this issue. There is no doubt that the president should use is power to pardon these agents, and frankly I can't understand what is taking so long. Believe me when I say this, I not one of those Bush haters. I support the president, and I voted for him both times, but his lack of involvement in this issue, and his misguided judgment on securing our borders is a mistake that may come back to bite us in the ass. We have to take a stand on securing our borders, or else we are inviting another 9/11.

We the people…

Reg-E on Palestine

Last week I made the comment "who cares if they are killing each other." The terrorist organization, Hamas, has now high jacked the People of Palestine. A review of history would seem to indicate that the people of Palestine were given a raw deal when the Israeli state was created, but I still believe that situation can be resolved between the parties.

The new fly in the ointment is the introduction of Hamas. This is a terrorist group determined to destroy the State of Israel and the cost of this war will be the blood of the people of Palestine not the Iranians, not the Syrians, or the Islamic terrorist groups in the middle east. Maybe it is time that the people of Israel and Palestine sat down and looked at the real enemy from outside their borders. The one common trait these two groups of people share is survival and maybe it is time they rise up together and wipe out the threat to their land.

I would like to see this situation resolved but Hamas does not care about the people of Palestine and it's their actions that are the obstacle to any peace in this region. Maybe the United Nations should send combat troops into this area and solve the problem they created.

Gooch on Palestine

Is there a Palestine?

It was not created by the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

Israel, with the help of the UN did not invade Palestine and create a Jewish homeland. It was already there. Jewish people were living in what is now Israel for thousands of years and up to that point.

The U.N Partition Plan was an attempt to quell the violence between Arabs and Jews, but it did just the opposite.

British intervention had kept the fire of hate smoldering for decades before the UN mandate.

The point that I am making that constant interventionalism leads to hate, distrust and terrorism . "Palestinians" were not the original terrorists, they just saw how well it worked for the Irgun and Lehi, (Jewish equivalent of the Al Aqua's Martyrs brigade), and expanded its use to civilian targets.

This problem was created by British Colonials, perpetuated by the League of Nations and now the U.N.

I know that this is the Jewish holy land. I have utmost respect for that position.

Why couldn't the U.N. have mandated that a section of Germany be used to form a Jewish State? We won the war, and as far as we were concerned it was international territory (they divided it up and everything).

Can't go back now. We need to work with Abbas, and we should have worked more closely with him for some time now. He is the chance at peace Arafat never was. We worked for decades to get someone like Abbas into power, and when we did, we turned our back on him. Israel has too.

Give Palestine a state. Israel should draw it out, fence it up, and let them have it. We've got to stop giving them an excuse to be terrorists. Without excuses, the terrorists movement dies.

We need to stop our interventionalist foreign policy, and limit the UN to food drops, and a place for countries to negotiate with each other, not a supreme body.

Reg-E has a point when he says we should let them kill each other. I just think we need to stop giving them excuses to blame us for the problem that Great Britain and the UN created.

To start with...no...I didn't read the book. So if Boortz is listening, I don't wanna hear about it.
On paper and listening to people on the radio, this seems like a great idea. You can read blogs about it and it is even linked to our web page, but there are some fundamental issues I have found through my limited research. I am sure that if anyone reads this, they will send me hate mail and death threats because I don't agree with Boortz, but oh well. Here are the reasons I have found that make me think it won't work. (This is long...bare with me)

#1 - The only way prices will drop on products is if companies lower the wages of their workers. It is like this. If a guy makes $100,000 a year, the company has to pay taxes on that individual. He is only taking home say $80,000 (to use round numbers). Now the company doesn't have to pay those taxes to the govt, but he is still paying the $100,000 straight to the employee. The company saves no money unless wages are reduced.

#2- Not anywhere in the meat and potatoes of H.R. 25 does it mention how to appeal the 16th Amendment. What it does is repeal Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with regards to Income Tax and Self-Employment Tax and Subtitle C that relates to Payroll Tax and withholding of Income Taxes. Then...to wrap things up...it says to repeal the 16th. That takes a Constitutional Amendment which has to be passed by Congress and then approved by 3/4 of the States. What incentive does the Govt. have to repeal this after the National Sales Tax is in place? What is to stop them from just adding the Income Tax back after the National Sales Tax? Guess what...it won't abolish the IRS either. They just change their name...that is all. It still calls for a Federal Agency to monitor this.

#3- This is a progressive tax. Says so in H.R. 25. That means that while it starts at 23%, the government can raise that at any time for any reason. And it would be easy to do. This tax will also be placed on top of current taxes. There is no mention anywhere in H.R. 25 of the current Gas Tax. This 23% would be on top of the current taxes we already pay.

#4- This turns every small business man or even kid mowing grass in his/her neighborhood into a tax collector. Yes...that is going to work...

#5- The one everyone hears...black market. It will increase the black market. Would you want to pay a 23% (or more) tax on an item that you can buy on the black market for free? I don't think so.

I did more research and actually came up with more reasons as well, but I am using a lot of space here. I am sure many people, especially in the Atlanta Area, will disagree with me. That is fine. That is why we have freedom of speech.

Tom On The Fair Tax

The ‘Fair Tax’ is an interesting concept that would appear, at least on the surface, to eliminate some layers of government bureaucracy. It would also seem to get government out of the business of rewarding certain lifestyle choices with tax breaks or credits. Why, for instance, should I be able to have a larger pile of money simply because I elect to live in a house with a mortgage rather than an apartment (or, for you recently registered Democratic voters, under a freeway over pass in a refrigerator box). Earned income credits?

I guess if a person really earned income, he wouldn’t need a tax credit from the government. Credits for this and credits for that. Just a way for the politicians to use the police power of the state to confiscate money from one group and give it to another group.

The real issue here isn’t how the tax is collected, its why and how much is collected. Flat tax. Payroll tax. Income tax. They are all ways the government uses its police power to redistribute income. So, your proposal for a ‘Fair Tax” (close to being an oxymoron, boys) is just giving me a choice of how I want to be mugged by the government.

Sort of like walking down the street and being able to select your mugger’s weapon of choice. Gun or knife?

The bottom line (wow, is that phrase overworked) is not how they collect taxes, but why they collect taxes. Our government is using the police power of the state to redistribute income. This allows for politicians to buy political power with someone else’s money. ‘Police power’ is not an exaggeration.

If, for instance, I think subsidizing Amtrak is not a legitimate function of government, I can’t simply withhold that portion of my tax bill. Even if it were $3.00 out of $80,000, the government would try to collect it. The amount due would soon rise due to interest and penalties. Eventually, after all collection attempts failed, the government would send people with guns to my house to collect the money. Some would call it a home ‘foreclosure’. It might take years, and the method (judgments, liens, foreclosure by the state) would ultimately result in the police power of the state being used to take money from me.

And, let’s us not forget :

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."

(While we don’t have a pure democracy, its close enough so that the above quotation is applicable. )

The tax system, ‘Fair’ or otherwise, is the way of collecting on that vote.

Fair Tax? Hardly. Less painful way of getting mugged? Yes, I’ll give you that.

Reg-E on The Fair Tax: BOTW

I viewed several different web sites this week in my research on the Fair Tax and I found some of the benefits of the plan to be very attractive. The first benefit I see that it calls for the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service as it exist currently.....Amen. The IRS for years has terrorized the citizens of this country and they have their own federal court system, The U.S. Tax Court, to impose their will.

The plan calls for the destruction of the federal income and payroll taxes by replacing it with a federal retail sales tax. Basically it is a consumption tax, the more you spend the more taxes you pay into the federal coffer. This would allow our country to capture the taxes not currently being paid by illegal immigrants and it would be interesting to see a projection or calculation on how much money this one area of our "population" would have to contribute to our economy. This fact along with the outright elimination of the IRS is enough to garner my support for the plan.

I suspect that the Fair Tax Plan will meet stiff resistant from segments our federal government. The first group that will resist any efforts to eliminate the IRS will be the government unions as this will dip into their pocketbooks because the members will be out of job at the IRS and the other support organizations. In addition to the labor unions the politicians in Washington D.C. themselves will not want to give up the power of the tax hammer, because how else can they promote and fund their political agendas if they lose the power to tax. Finally, the group that will lead the fight against the Fair Tax will be the Democratic Party as a large part of the political dogma is to engage in class warfare with the battle cry "The rich must pay and the poor should not shoulder the burden of paying taxes."

In my humble opinion there will never be any meaningful attempts to reform the taxation process in this country until the voting public imposes their will at the voting booth. The two greatest threats to our ecomony is the current tax system and the illegal immigration problem, but in addition to the Fair Tax the President should be allowed the power of the line item veto. Implementing the Fair Tax Plan would be only a half-measure unless you stop the reckless spending by the politicians, so I would advocate a three pronged approach (1)Implement The Fair Tax; (2)Allow the President the Line Item Veto; and (3)Term Limits for both houses of Congress.

Bobrooney on The Environment

There is no doubting the fact the the environmental condition is
declining. There is no doubting the fact that humans have been a large
contributor to global warming. Anyone with a brain knows that. I think it
is one of the questions on "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?". So
why is the Bush administration and his personal scientists so quick to
disagree. Then they agree, but only to a small part of it. Then they
want to read and "edit" every global report that comes out prior to it's
release. I find that a little shady. I do see that the current
administration is doing some now...trying to make themselves look like good
guys, but it is not enough and they know it. One would almost question
why until we realize that both the Pres. and VP are both oil men. If
we really push alternate resources, they may lose out...not to mention
the real reason for the war would no longer be an issue (oil for the
slow ones at home). We also hear about the current administration
pointing fingers at other nations...3rd world countries and the like...saying
that they are causing all kinds of pollution. More than us. Maybe
they are per capita. Maybe they are all across the board. I haven't seen
the numbers (or doctored numbers for that matter). What I do know is
that has nothing to do with us. The more that is done now, the better
off later. If we are a world leader, lets lead by example and not argue
about everything. Now...I am going to go enjoy my 1st Amendment
Rights...Reg-E knows what I mean...

The Environment: BOTW #2: Reg-E

Reg-E's Ramblings:

The topic for this week is "global warming" and it appears to me that the environmental whacko's have cornered this market. This movement is being lead by none other than Al Gore and his recent propaganda film on the "global warming" issue has only fuled the fire.

When I was in high school I remember several "scientific" publications that declared civilization was headed for another ice age. Now our planet is overheating due to the effects of the greenhouse gases and all of the blame is being laid at the feet of the United States. Anyone who disagrees with the "global warming" cabal is branded as a loon that does not understand science. The Weather Channel's resident "global warming" guru, Heidi Cullen, has indicated that any meteorologist with the "American Metrological Society" designation who believes that the warming trend may be due to cyclical variations in weather patterns should be stripped of their designation. James Spann who is a television meteorologist who has been in the field since the late 70's has publicly feuded with Ms. Cullen and her call to censure opposing voices on the topic.

It is time to admit that we have scientist on both sides of the issue and that Mr. Gore's version of the issue is not etched in stone. Mr. Gore is pandering to the extreme left on this issue in hopes of reviving his presidential aspirations. This is the same person who in the late 80's along with his wife, Tipper, sought to regulate the content of the music industry. Mr. Gore is also the same person when serving as Congressman was decidedly Pro-Life, but his position on this issue has evolved to pander to the left.

The United States has taken steps over the years to reduce harmful emissions into the atmosphere and clean up the air, but still that is never enough for the Gore Goonies who simply want to perpetuate their position. While I am certainly no expert in this field a lot of people who are do in fact respectfully disagree with the Gore Myth's. Mr. Gore cannot and will not engage in an intellectually honest debate in this area with people who present him with scientific data that leads to alternate views. I challenge people to research this issue and form their own conclusions as opposed to swallowing Mr. Gore's babble on global warming. A good place to start is visiting Junkscience.com and expending your research from this starting point as opposed to jumping on the Gore Express to futility.

Just my thoughts.............