George W. Bush
Taxes were very high, but no real revenue was coming in. That’s because the system of taxes at that time was an early form of income tax that centered on the government taking a large percentage of a farmer’s crops.
So Ching Ti did something bold and innovative: he cut taxes.
Overnight, taxes went from over 50% down to about 3%. Farmers, who had fled to the hills to escape draconian tax rates, now came home and began farming again. To make a long story short, Ching Ti’s greatest problem while governing was trying to keep all the grain in his barns from spoiling.
It seems that ancient Chinese history is good for more than just cutesy script on a fortune cookie.
It has been observed that the up-and-coming generation of young people are more socially conscious than their spoiled Baby Boomer parents and their SUV-driving, yuppified older siblings.
This new generation is keyed into world affairs and world suffering and is doing something about it. They march against the War in Darfur; they do fund drives for AIDS Orphans; and they largely vote for candidates who pledge to recruit the government (i.e. the taxpayer) to solve these problems.
Increasingly, these young people are voting more and more Democratic. Of course, liberal Democrats have always enjoyed the majority of the youth vote - what little there was. But today’s socially conscious youth are making up an increasing percentage of the electorate and are going to play a larger role in certain elections.
This past weekend, I took my wife to see the film Valkyrie. Featuring Tom Cruise, Valkyrie is already ranked among the top five films of the season. Valkyrie details the plot of July 20, 1944 devised by German officers to assassinate Adolph Hitler. Cruise played the mastermind of the plot Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg.
I make no claim to have a depth of understanding of Hitler’s National Socialism and the details of the War effort. However, I was raised by a father who was a World War II veteran who was present on D-Day and both uncles served in the European theater during that great War.
Though news of this sort cannot be considered unusual any longer, I still find it insufferable and mildly shocking. The likelihood of a British citizen having their personal home computer hacked by government authorities, secretly and without a warrant, has increased. Even more infuriating, this intrusion may be at the behest of a foreign nation, thanks to a recent plan adopted by the EU.
Since the hacking may proceed if an officer believes there is sufficient reason to believe it would help prevent or detect a serious crime, the obvious question is, who decides what is considered “sufficient reason” and what is to prevent abuse of these over-reaching powers? If there is truly sufficient evidence, why wouldn’t a judge simply grant a warrant? This would at least grant some oversight.
No matter how you philosophically interpret it, one thing almost all of us can agree on is that the highest law governing this nation is the Constitution. Then why are Harry Reid and other Democrats pushing for a decision that is as unconstitutional as almost anything the Bush administration had done over the last 8 years? It’s simply politics.
While most wanted Gov. Blagojevich to refrain from making an appointment for US Senate to replace Senator Obama, everyone agreed that he does have the right under the US Constitution and Illionis law to do so, as he has yet to be impeached. And, so he did. His choice? Roland Burris, who will become the only African American in the US Senate. But too bad for Burris — Reid and fellow Democrats do not want him seated.
In 1971, The Who released Who’s Next featuring one of the greatest songs of all time. It couldn’t be more fitting this week as we usher in our new boss here in the United States thirty-seven years later.
Pete Townshend tells us the story of a rebellious uprising against the ruling class. The opening verse states that there is “fighting in the streets” and that “the men who spurred us on sit in judgment of all wrong.” I can’t help but think of the parallels we have been seeing from the media-tainment industry for months driving home the displeasure that the American people have with the Bush administration and serving as pundits (or should I say puppets) by dishing out the propaganda of who is right and who is wrong.
As election day is now upon us, I will weigh in with my prediction as to who will win the presidential election, why that will be so and how it came about. Predicting the outcome of an election, particularly one that is so emotionally charged, is risky. In any case, here is what I predict:
As a gun-owner and someone who has escaped injury due to private gun ownership at least three times, I pay attention to the voting records of candidates regarding the 2nd Amendment.
I recently wrote about the NRA’s disappointing endorsement of Senator John McCain, in spite of his clear record of being an enemy of the right’s of gun-owners. A much more logical choice would have been 3rd party candidates Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin, as an endorsement of Barack Obama would have been equally unthinkable.
Obama has claimed to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but his voting record indicates otherwise.
Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director, Richard Pearson, has this to say about Senator Obama-
The Los Angeles Times ran a stunning piece in this Sunday’s paper detailing the resignation of Lt. Col. Darrel J. Vandeveld, the man who was prosecuting nearly 1/3rd of the pending trials for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. Vandeveld, a self described conformist, became disenchanted with “the system” set up in Cuba over issues relating to fairness and lack of due process for the very prisoners he was suppose to prosecute. He lays out accusations of intentional withholding of exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys by military officials, and even goes so far as to say he reached out to a defense attorney to ask “how do I get myself out of this office?”.